Personally, if there is no campiagn potential I'd rather play a board game, one with a conclusion at the end of the night.  

I'm really on the outliers here (although I don't go to rpgnet) the length of my campaigns is usually 2xnumber of months until I have to move.

Just a brief note to point to my above post, which I expanded on heavily before realizing I was editing and not posting a new one. So, heads up, and apologies for that.

Quote from: XantherNow that is excitement.  I bet you get four hours of fun in four hours.  Maybe these designers who opine about how "traditional" RPG play is not fun never got this going even 1 time in 10.

I'd have to say I've got a similar approach to clash but I'm a very well prepared situationalist, with multiple contigencies ready.  The rules allow it to just flow, if your using rules that constantly pull you out of play to look things up or compute changes or conditionals, then it's just going to stop the flow.   But that doesn't mean traditional RPGs can't work just the rule set you've chosen is problematic.

6 times in ten, it's 8 hours of fun in 8 hours. 4 times in 10 it's 4 hours of fun in 8 hours. WHen I first evolved this style, I was a well-prepared situational GM, like you, but I found it hard to avoid subconcoiusly steering the PCs towards what I had prepared, so I began evolving improvisational and low-prep techniques. Now most of my prep is focused on the initial situation, and I improvise the rest.

-clash

Elliot - That's basically how I run things. NPCs have personalities, motives, resources, and goals when I create them. I have no idea how the PCs will react, so I work from these established bases of the NPC to determine how the NPC reacts or acts. I try to make it feel real, not fictional.

-clash

Recently I've been thinking that Referee, Game Master, Story Teller, Keeper, and Narrator are all basically wrong.

Facilitator, User Interface, Oracle, and Guy Who Bought The Books are all closer to the mark.

Banker.

Quote from: David JohansenRecently I've been thinking that Referee, Game Master, Story Teller, Keeper, and Narrator are all basically wrong.

Facilitator, User Interface, Oracle, and Guy Who Bought The Books are all closer to the mark.

"Game Manager"

Less romantic.  More accurate.

Quote from: flyingmiceElliot - That's basically how I run things. NPCs have personalities, motives, resources, and goals when I create them. I have no idea how the PCs will react, so I work from these established bases of the NPC to determine how the NPC reacts or acts. I try to make it feel real, not fictional.

Absolutely.  It's simply a matter of having the game world and it's inhabitants behave as if they were real (world-oriented) as opposed to part of a story (story-oriented).  If the setting and NPCs are interesting enough, things will be pretty interesting no matter what the PCs do.

Quote from: John Morrow"Game Manager"

Less romantic.  More accurate.

This is good.

Unless it's a Western game and then it should be "Wrangler!"

Quote from: StuartThis is good.

As an added benefit, it shortens to "GM".

Quote from: John MorrowAbsolutely.  It's simply a matter of having the game world and it's inhabitants behave as if they were real (world-oriented) as opposed to part of a story (story-oriented).  

Ding, winner. That's the difference right there, succinctly put. See also Settembrini's sig, which is a logical consequence of the above.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDing, winner. That's the difference right there, succinctly put. See also Settembrini's sig, which is a logical consequence of the above.

Exactly.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenCould a game be fun where a player can spend a point to make NPC X the long-lost child of NPC Y? Yes. Is it where RPGs "need" to go? No. I'd play something like that occasionally, but if that were the primary mode of RPG play, I doubt I'd have been attracted to the hobby in the first place. (Unless maybe it had meant more girl players.)

The problem I have with this concept is that it breaks the contract.  It is an intrinsically different game.   Players are no longer exploring the GM's / World Weaver's Universe.  They are co-creating it.   What's the problem with that?  Well for one thing it makes it functionally impossible to be an effective Story-Creator in the traditional sense.   Why?  Because lets say you've created a BackStory that is involved and complex and has lots of wonderful moving parts and inter-relationships (you know where I'm going), and all of a sudden, on some totally incomprehensible whim, and without any knowledge of what's going on in the BackStory because they haven't gotten there yet, the Player decides that X should be the son of Y.   Bam!  World-RE-WRITE.   In the middle of a complex and wonderful story that can spell Death to the GM's efforts.   That is simply a bad setup.  

If people want to Co-Create the World that's fine, I guess, but it would have to be done in a much more integrating way with the original BackStory than simply a whimsical decision because Player A happens to have resource points or a lucky roll to spend.   And without intimate knowledge of the BackStory how the hell can Player A add anything *actually* coherent to the story?   That's what I'd like to know.   I suspect the answer is, Player A can't.   And therefore the concept of Player Empowerment at the BackStory level is, as far as I can tell, just plain BadWrongFun.   I really just don't see how it can be done without exposing the entire BackStory to the Players.  Which totally kills the premise of the Traditional GM-Player Contract as I see it.

Or did I miss something essential in how Dancey, or any of the Player Empowerment Advocates, envisions this working?  So far it doesn't add up for me.   How do these guys answer this show-stopper?  

- Mark

Well, there are two elements here, hidden backstory and complex backstory. Hidden backstory of course goes right out the window if players are improvising stuff into existence without any limit or veto by the GM. Complex backstory though can survive, in theory, if the GM is quick enough on his feet to incorporate whatever the player contributes. But even in a game where the GM preps very little, you will eventually get a complex backstory as players add stuff, and there's the rub: how do you ensure that all the players "step up" and produce satisfactory additions that fit with whatever's already established? Or from another direction, who enforces continuity? And how?

Again the standard response is to just punt and say that the group is assumed to be compatible on that level as a prerequisite to satisfactory gaming. This is asking for a lot but perhaps it can work, with a bit of a mental adjustment and (frankly) kicking out the spazzes and weirdos. I think a bit more clever answer is to go straight to the mechanics to resolve all disputes; you can do this in Polaris, and I think you could do it Primetime Adventures, too--at the risk of going gonzo in both cases. But if there's some sort of feedback mechanic to give more narrative power to players who satisfy the other players, you might end up "naturally" ostracising the spazzes and/or training them how to fit into the group. Just a thought; after all the proof of the pudding isn't whether Group X's "story" is satisfactory to some outside observer, but whether it's enjoyable for the participants. So it's no skin off my nose if (hypothetically) most PTA games are awful, cliched drek with enormous continuity glitches, as long as the game works well for me and my group.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, there are two elements here, hidden backstory and complex backstory. Hidden backstory of course goes right out the window if players are improvising stuff into existence without any limit or veto by the GM. Complex backstory though can survive, in theory, if the GM is quick enough on his feet to incorporate whatever the player contributes. But even in a game where the GM preps very little, you will eventually get a complex backstory as players add stuff, and there's the rub: how do you ensure that all the players "step up" and produce satisfactory additions that fit with whatever's already established? Or from another direction, who enforces continuity? And how?

Again the standard response is to just punt and say that the group is assumed to be compatible on that level as a prerequisite to satisfactory gaming. This is asking for a lot but perhaps it can work, with a bit of a mental adjustment and (frankly) kicking out the spazzes and weirdos. I think a bit more clever answer is to go straight to the mechanics to resolve all disputes; you can do this in Polaris, and I think you could do it Primetime Adventures, too--at the risk of going gonzo in both cases. But if there's some sort of feedback mechanic to give more narrative power to players who satisfy the other players, you might end up "naturally" ostracising the spazzes and/or training them how to fit into the group. Just a thought; after all the proof of the pudding isn't whether Group X's "story" is satisfactory to some outside observer, but whether it's enjoyable for the participants. So it's no skin off my nose if (hypothetically) most PTA games are awful, cliched drek with enormous continuity glitches, as long as the game works well for me and my group.

Ok, I can see a way out of the bog, I *think*, but it would require specific Player-Empowerment Rules that allow Players to add content to the BackStory without risking destroying the pre-existing BackStory as created by the World Weaver*.  

If I were to pick up on the Player Empowerment aspect I would need to ensure that there's some rules in place for them not to wreck the BackStory.  How would I do that?  Hmmm...

1.  GM has Veto over BackStory additions and can and should use it when:

  a) the new element interferes with existing BackStory and
  a1) does not enhance the story
  a2) causes major revisions to other elements of the existing BackStory that would create Story Incoherence (ie - would require changing existing Played History in the Campaign)

  b) the new element is unacceptable deviation from the genre (such as throwing some clownish element into the climactic Cthulhu Moment)

  c) The GM really really just can't stand it because it is too horrid, stupid, or added with the intent to undermine existing BackStory.

  d) The new element is too Grand (such as the existence of an entire new race, new civilization, etc) where the inclusion of such an element would create too many incalculable implications on the rest of the BackStory.   For example, a Player postulates the existence of a Race of Orc-Devourers that would, if they existed, have eliminated the entire Race of Orcs long ago.

... n) Potential Additional Rules as may become clearly needed during the course of play-testing.

However, that said, this does in fact undermine the whole concept of Player Empowerment in one crucial aspect, of course.  It leaves GM Fiat in place in the form of ultimate Veto Power.  Worse, no one in the case of a Veto could prove that the GM was 'cheating' in Vetoing something that did not abide by the rules without requiring an explanation that would in turn require an explanation of BackStory, defeating the purpose of the Veto Rules, which is to keep the BackStory coherent without having to reveal the BackStory to the Players.   Dicey, indeed.  In so far as that is the case, I'd venture to say that Player Empowerment is to this degree incompatible with the Original GM-Player Contract, and it's intent as I see it.   That intent being to create a game structure in which Players explore the World of the World Weaver, not knowing what is ahead of them necessarily.   It is, again, this aspect of Play that as a Player I enjoyed the most.   I extrapolate that others do as well.

On the other hand, if the Players can live with those limitations, then I see no further reason not to adopt the technique, in principal.   And in this case, I'd say that it could prove to be an enhancement to the game.   The aspect that I do like about Player Empowerment are those that I've heard as it's benefits before, namely, that it is fun for Players, and that it takes some of the BackStory creation burden off the GM.   So, I'd be willing to try it.  

- Mark

* "World Weaver" is a generic term I'm using to describe the function of creating BackStory.   Most often this is an activity that the GM does, however it is not required.  For example, GM's might pick up BackStory from pre-written modules, books, films, etc.   World Weaving is to be distinguished from the other GM responsibilities, such as Rules Adjudication, and Improvisational NPC play.