I am also going to challeneg the idea that it is the GM's responsibility to create the world for the players to inhabit in most trad games. Its been a while since I have read any trad game but they actually never really seemed to have much, if any, real advice on how the game was supposed to be run or who had responsibility for what
This is often heard and utterly wrong.
I will grab a small selection of books from the corner of my office an transcribe the relevant part here:
D&D 4th edition, Page 60:
"The success of an adventure depends on the DM and his or her creation, the Dungeon. The DM should have the dungeon carefully mapped out before play begins."
"Minor details may be made up as needed to keep the game moving."
"Quite often a DM can decide on a solution to a players actions not covered by these rules."
"The players should realise, however, that the final decision is the DM's: not theirs, and not this booklet's!"
Deadlands, 2nd Edition, Marshal's Guide, Page 13
"You’re the Marshal. Remember that. You’re the fellow who makes all the decisions and keeps things moving."
"Characters need all that detail because they can’t cheat. But you’re the Marshal. You can do whatever the Hell you want to, and that’s official partner."
Shadowrun, 4th edition, page 17
"The gamemaster controls the story. He or she keeps track of what is supposed to happen when, describes events as they occur so that the players (as characters) can react to them, keeps track of other characters in the game (referred to as non-player characters),"
"The gamemaster describes the world as the characters see it, functioning as their eyes, ears, and other senses."
"Experienced gamemasters always adapt the game universe to suit their own styles."
Serenity RPG, Page 5
"The GM creates the basic outline of the story that the crew will follow and plays the part of all the NPCs—all those people the crew meets during their adventures. The GM is the players’ window into the ‘Verse.The GM tells the players what they see and hear (and smell and taste and feel)."
"Another role the GM plays is that of arbiter. The GM will be the only person who knows all the facts in the game. As there will probably be some disagreements, the GM settles any arguments over the game rules or questions about character creation or how the story develops. Final decisions rest with the GM"
Mutants and Masterminds, 2nd Edition, Page 8
"The Gamemaster is responsible for running the game, a combination of writer, director, and referee. The Gamemaster creates the adventures for the heroes, portrays the villains and supporting characters, describes the world to the players, and decides the outcome of the heroes’ actions based on the guidelines given in the rules. It’s a big job, but also a rewarding one, since the Gamemaster gets to create the whole world and all the characters in it, as well as inventing fun and exciting stories."
I didn't choose these on purpose, I just grabbed the top 5 books on the pile in the corner of my office and looked up "GM" in the index* and turned to that page.
Game books have been telling the GM he's in charge of everything pretty much the whole time since 1974. There are exceptions (like Everway and whatever) but pretty much every trad game has a "How to run this game" section which tells the GM that this is his world and he should create and manage it however he pleases.
Don't get me wrong, I think that's perfectly fine way to play. It suits a lot of people perfectly and I like playing that way too.
*except Serenity, which has no fucking index because MWP decided that putting in a full page ad for their bloody Dragonlance stuff was a better use of a page than a fucking index!
Nope
Submitted by Rich Stokes on Thu, 20/12/2007 - 12:50.
I hope you don't have 4th Edn D&D, Rich.
Nope, D&D 4th edition.
It came out in 1980.
You might be thinking of AD&D, I hear there's a 4th edition of that in the works.
:^P
FFS!
Submitted by Rich Stokes on Fri, 21/12/2007 - 09:09.
The style of GM'ing adopted is far more a product of the relationships between the members of the group rather than anything written in any rulebook at any time
WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT! Andrew, it's not that I think you aren't contributing to this discussion or anyhting, but please actually take the time to read the first post of this thread before you add any more posts. Pay extra attention to the bit where I say "I'm trying to identify the gap between "how you play" as written and "how you play" as actually played."
I'm looking, as I've said several times, for way in which the behaviour which actually happens at the table is not stuff printed in books. Because all you just said is "It doesn't matter what the book says, people will play the game their own way anyway." Which is simply re-stating what I said in my first post.
Bah
Submitted by Andrew Watson on Fri, 21/12/2007 - 10:25.
WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT! Andrew, it's not that I think you aren't contributing to this discussion or anyhting, but please actually take the time to read the first post of this thread before you add any more posts.
Whilst not wanting to come off as antogonistic I read your first post and it is rather insulting to assume I didnt.
You however did not appear to read mine.
If you had you would note that what I was saying is that the details you quote do not say what you seem to think they say. You take the view that the guides given in trad games lead to some sort of iron fisted dictator ruling over his group like a megamoniacal egomaniac.
While most trad games dont deal expressly with ideas of player input neither do they necessarily exclude it or tell GM's to act in the way you describe.
Currently Playing: Cold City, Pendragon
Currently Testing: Duty and Honour
3rd Edn?
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Thu, 20/12/2007 - 12:36.
I hope you don't have 4th Edn D&D, Rich.
:-)
Stupid subject heading requirements
Submitted by Andrew Watson on Thu, 20/12/2007 - 22:43.
and rules it with a metaphorical iron fist
deviates from ultra GM authority trad play
I think my main issue with your argument is your use of language. Nothing which you quoted necessarily requires or leads to some sort of dictatorial GM Nazi.
The style of GM'ing adopted is far more a product of the relationships between the members of the group rather than anything written in any rulebook at any time.
Currently Playing: Cold City, Pendragon
Currently Testing: Duty and Honour
Andrew, If you wish to give
Submitted by Rich Stokes on Fri, 21/12/2007 - 11:12.
Andrew,
If you wish to give counter examples, by all means feel free. Go grab the top 5 trad game core rulebooks off your shelf and show me the bits which contradict:
"The players should realise, however, that the final decision is the DM's: not theirs, and not this booklet's!"
and
"As there will probably be some disagreements, the GM settles any arguments over the game rules or questions about character creation or how the story develops."
and
"The Gamemaster decides the outcome of the heroes’ actions based on the guidelines given in the rules."
All of these (and the other quotes I posted) scream "The GM is final arbitrator and has ultimate authority over the SIS". If there are words in those books which explicitly say otherwise, please show them to me. I'd genuinely love that.
As I've said before, I'm not doubting that there are game which work differently to this, but this is the clear message from the text of all 5 of the games I randomly picked.
The point, once again, is that game texts say things like "You’re the Marshal. You can do whatever the Hell you want to, and that’s official partner." which explicitly give the GM absolute authority over the SIS. But in reality the players get more input than that would suggest.
Oh, David and I were talking...
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Fri, 21/12/2007 - 16:41.
Oh, David and I were talking about some stuff like this last night. David has a load of experience of running Campaigns of Trad games and I hope he'll weigh in here.
Essentially the GM is the world, since the players (and the GM) expect the GM to have prepared more than anyone else. As David put it, the players can wander in with their pizza knowing the GM has done preparation for the game and that he knows more about the world than anyone else. (And implicitly he will be able to answer any questions the players have about it when exploring that world.)
Now, most GMs pick up on things the players say and then turn those into things in the world of the trad game -- but it does have to go through the filter of the GM. Take any big setting, for me it's Cyberpunk. I added loads of detail that wasn't in the books myself and a lot of it in response to players doing and saying stuff. But if I didn't know about it or approve of it then it wasn't in. I'm pretty sure the Cyberpunk advice to GMs was hardcore (essentially to be the world and play hardball with the players.) A player and I would often talk about their character's background and then stuff would be added. So, in theory it was the GM's world, and I got most of it started, but it grew in conjunction with the players. I guess as GM I was the custodian of keeping track of all the things we (jointly) had added. If I added something they didn't buy into then I would lose credibility for that thing in the eyes of the players. So my additions and decisions were made in light of making them acceptable to the group as a whole. I think.
What Gregor was asking for, I think
Submitted by David Donachie on Fri, 21/12/2007 - 21:12.
When I first started running games (back in my school days) I approached world creation exactly like the books described. Everything was mapped out in exacting detail in advance. I drew up the dungeon floor plans, I described the rooms in my notes, I kept folders of monster lists, and terminology, and words from made up languages and all the rest.
In those games I *was* the window into the world. The players never told me that something was so about the world, they asked. To quote an example from another thread I would indeed have thrown a fit if a player had dared to add a beggar to my scene that I hadn't described before, because it was my scene, and I got to decide these things.
Over the years I have moved away from that to something with a lower level of preparation, but I probably still prepare things apart from the players a hell of a lot more than many people here. I still have maps and notes in advance, they are just more sketchy and subject to change in play than they were years ago. I still draw the ruined mill the bandits are hiding in, but I'll change that map around in my head during play if the players suggest something cooler than what I had thought of, and so on. On the other hand I will stick with my version if my idea seems to have been cooler than theirs :)
However I still approach an actual campaign (in my terms something lasting at least a year of weekly sessions), in the sole-creator way. As much as I expect my players to be able to add details in play (details of their gods, new customs, names of famous battles, social organizations, whatever takes their fancy)
I think they expect me, in my role as GM, to have given them a solid foundation of a world to start with, something that exists before play begins. I may give them choice, by pitching my ideas for a setting before I do too much work, but then the world design is all mine.
So I might say "I want to run a game in a sort of renaissance aztec world", and they could say "not interested". But if they *were* interested then I would go away and spend quite some time drawing a map, naming the major cities, writing a list of the deities, making a table of handy names to pick for NPC's on the fly, and generally deciding what the major cultures, factions and so forth were.
So I would let the players modify those things in play, or add more things, but I do the creative set up solo.
Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually