Some GMs like to run a tight game, focusing on a single storyline, and moving the players through what is, essentially, a predetermined storyline.

Other GMs like to let the players be the movers and shakers, so that there is NO planned, long-term story. Just NPCs reacting to the players' actions.

Most people find a sort of middle ground, where the GM will, say, develop an adventure, but have no problem with the players going about it in a way entirely different from what they planned. Or perhaps they'll run the "player-led" model but insert mini-adventures along the way that are, individually, quite carefully planned and plotted out so that there's only one real way to complete them.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Players.  It's five brains vs. one.  I set the scene, introduce the conflict, push their buttons, then giggle at what all happens.

Quote from: Name LipsWhere do you stand on this issue?

As far as the events directly related to the players, I'm rather powerless as the GM. I do have control of the NPCs, the World, and such. But I have no control over player decision or success.

As a player in the various campaigns that I play in, I have complete control over my character's decisions, which in turn certainly influences my chance of success. But none over the world or NPCs.

Outside those two spheres of control, the game system rules are in control.

Quote from: gleichmanAs far as the events directly related to the players, I'm rather powerless as the GM. I do have control of the NPCs, the World, and such. But I have no control over player decision or success.

As a player in the various campaigns that I play in, I have complete control over my character's decisions, which in turn certainly influences my chance of success. But none over the world or NPCs.

Outside those two spheres of control, the game system rules are in control.

Makes sense to me, with the caveat that the GM also has the final say anytime disagreement arises regarding the interpretation of rules.

Players. I just left a game due to this particular preference.

The situation: My character (a priest of an anarchist god) had purchased a bar to use as a church/breeding ground for revolutionary plots. The DM had a representative of the local crime gang try to extort protection money from me. I'm not sure what he expected as a reaction, but apparently following the bad guy back to the seedy bar the gang used as a hideout and busting heads wasn't it. :heh:

So my character (7th level) walks into the bar and throws some direct damage around. None of the hoods go down. I try again; nope, all still standing.:confused:  By this time my character and the two PCs that had accompanied him were surrounded and taking heavy damage.

One character death and 4 expended hero points later the truth was revealed; the DM had punished me for deviating from his plotline by making EVERYBODY in the bar a 9th level badass. :brood:

So much for that game.

Both.  In terms of plot, I basically give the players the world, some hooks, and see where they go.  I let them drive the story.

When it comes to the rules, my games are entirely in the GM's (mine) hands.

When i first begun gaming, i used to be the kind of GM that prepares everything in advance. I had the whole game planned out. All the variables considered - what i wanted, what the players could possibly do etc.

But somewhere in the middle of my gaming life, by accident ("hey man, it's not our regular gaming night" -most bars were closed for some reason-"have we got game") i got into the whole improv thing. And found that the pace of my games and the enjoyment for all increased - in a big way. Since then, this has been my style of play.

Before i used to have to perpare loads of notes before the game. Now, i have loads of notes after the game. The point, is that the players themselves were resposible for this. They determined what their interest in the setting was. So in this sense, they hold a kind of power.

For my part, the way how i run the game - the way how i pick up on what they put out there, the way how i present them with opportunities to role play, to engage in combat,to interact with the world for whatever reasons seems to hold their interest - they keep coming back- so in a way i hold a different kind of power.

With regards to the rules - I make the final calls. Now the problem is, that i am not really a rules guy. I know how to drive the vehicle(moderately well) but i don't know what's under the hood- so to speak(my main interest is where we are all going). The players know a hell of a lot more when it comes to the rules we are using, so after the game, if i have made any slip ups they weigh in. To give them credit they are more interested in making my life using the rules easier then correcting any detriment their characters suffered - (although if i had used the rules incorrectly, i would definately see that whatever mistakes are remedied) So distribution of power is a bit tangled up here.

This is my take on how power is distributed in the games i run. Sorry for the ramble.

Regards,
David R.

its got to be a little of each, i think.  Though ultimately its got to be the decisions the players make that drive the plot.  When i GM i typically have something in mind, a plot thread that the characters are going to explore, but i leave most of the details open to be improvised on the spot as they come up.  I typically have a number of important NPCs thought up, certain pivotal plot points ready for use when the players get there, but i dont get mad when my players ignore my plot for a session or two because they got sidetracked in a way i never anricipated, thats what makes GMing interesting, if everything goes exactly as you planned it out whats the point?

I prefer power in the hands of my players; it's difficult to coordinate that with DMing Dungeon modules, but thankfully my players try to stay within the broad vicinity of the scripted adventure, so I can simply change details according to their actions and don't risk having to rewrite all the following modules too severely.

Players.  I am the laziest GM imaginable.

yrs--
--Ben

I use to belive the Dm was all powerful and that was it. As I have gotten older I am the oppsite

Someone said "there are no emotional victims--only volunteers." When speaking in broad terms of "power" each individual has their own power and each can pull the plug on their personal experince of the game whenever they wish.

Everyone's equal.
(in less spiritual terms, IME, most games can survive the loss of a player more easily than the loss of the GM and in the imaginary game world, a traditional GM has more power than a PC--but neither of these address the actual power of Players vs. GMs--just something about the dynamic of players and GMs)

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoSomeone said "there are no emotional victims--only volunteers." When speaking in broad terms of "power" each individual has their own power and each can pull the plug on their personal experince of the game whenever they wish.

Okay, this is exactly what i wanted to say.

QuoteEveryone's equal.
(in less spiritual terms, IME, most games can survive the loss of a player more easily than the loss of the GM and in the imaginary game world, a traditional GM has more power than a PC--but neither of these address the actual power of Players vs. GMs--just something about the dynamic of players and GMs)

And again. Man, i think you say it best. And with much fewer words.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David ROkay, this is exactly what i wanted to say.



And again. Man, i think you say it best. And with much fewer words.

Regards,
David R.

Marco's like that.

-mice

Well, the players have the power in the sense that without the players there is no game - so if they don't like the way the game is going they are eventually going to lose interest and want to do something else.

That being said, I am not a GM to pander to the players - I usually announce what I plan to run and let players who are interested take part and those who don't like the idea find something else to play.  Perhaps I am unusual in that I have a decent pool of players to choose from and that I would rather not play then get stuck running a game that did not fit my vision (and thus not being as fun for me).

And yet, within the context of a campaign the players can have their characters do whatever they like and I am good at working on the fly if I have to with most of the time the players not knowing what is coming out of my butt that very moment and what has reams of notes on it.  However, whatever villainous plots and NPC actions I had planned go on as normal - only changing if the PCs interact with them - so if they ignore hooks all the time or do something totally outrageous the reasonable consequences of that will come into play at some point.