Players as audience or storyteller

[cczernia]

Here are just some random thoughts as I'm currently obsessed with the idea of player control and the role of the player vs the GM.

A lot of complaints I've heard about giving players more power such as letting them play NPCs or making things up about the story instead of the GM telling them about the story is that is ruins aspects of surprise for the players like a big reveal or the feeling of suspense.

Or if the players know too much about the setting such as knowing all the monster that it ruins an aspect of the game.

This makes me wonder what the roll of the player is in the game. When we describe roleplaying games we always describe them as being interactive and player has a lot of impact on the game. But, from the above concerns it puts the players in the role of the audience, perhaps an interactive member without much control.

Another example of this is I as a player can tell the GM what I want out of a game but the GM doesn't have to do anything I suggest. I as a player have little control over the game. In same cases you'll have players rebel against the GM's control by going against the GM's story (ignoring clues, killing major NPCs).

At an extreme it is a lot like a computer rpg where you can walk where ever you want and sometimes get a few choices but in the end it always tells the same story (railroading).

At the other end it is the players creating the story and defining the world. The GM doesn't determine who did it or the big mystery but the players to the point where there is little to no need for the GM.

Perhaps in the middle you have a sandbox game where the GM reacts to players actions.

So, what do you think is the ideal role for players in your game?

[Skyman]

Players should play and the GM should be the gal that supervises the rules and corrals the play into some order IMO for now

[Dragonkin]

Wizards actually has quite a bit to say on this subject. Surprisingly, they advocate giving the players alot of creative control. I have to say that I agree. Your players have a huge amount to offer the game. Just reacting to what you (the GM) have set out before them doesn't seem all that exciting. I would have loved to inject some story into the campaigns I played in. While I've been unable to play since my last move (Gods I hate TEXAS!!!), I would love to try some of the suggestions WotC has put out.

[Dragonmaster Zoc]

I usually just present some plot hook by a small contrived coincidence, and then let them follow it if they want. If they choose to go do something else, then that's fine, but the plot isn't going to wait around for them; if the world ends while they're off on some personal journey, then maybe they'll know better in the next life.

If the world doesn't end, then you've just added some aspect of other things going on in the world that doesn't revolve around the PCs, increasing verisimilitude.

Of course, the downside is that you can never plan more than ten minutes in advance, but everything is a trade-off.

[cczernia]

[quote="Dragonkin"]Wizards actually has quite a bit to say on this subject. Surprisingly, they advocate giving the players [i][b]alot[/b][/i] of creative control. I have to say that I agree. Your players have a huge amount to offer the game. Just reacting to what you (the GM) have set out before them doesn't seem all that exciting. I would have loved to inject some story into the campaigns I played in. [/quote]

I really like some of the stuff that Wizards has been putting out especially the DMG2. The approach a lot of the ideas about the players role and extending it beyond what it has traditionally been.

[BlanchPrez]

[quote="cczernia"]I really like some of the stuff that Wizards has been putting out especially the DMG2. The approach a lot of the ideas about the players role and extending it beyond what it has traditionally been.[/quote]

Yeah, I've got to agree. The DMG 2 is awesome, and had me thinking about my DM style. For the most part, all my games have been run with the players as audience, as you put it. But, lately, I've been trying to extend the role of the players in the game. I ran a game of Danger Patrol recently, where the PC's drive the story as much, maybe more so, than the GM. And it turned out to be a BLAST! It had me thinking of trying out more games like that.



-Chris

[mordraine]

Me personally, I think it's a matter of what players and GM want. Some players WANT to to be surprised in games. And some GM's LIKE letting the world unfold as the PC's explore.

I think the term "audience" is extremely loaded and has a negative connotation when applied to RPG's. I think the complaint of a spoiled surprise is a legitimate complaint. It really depends on the type of game you want to play as a group. It's just another style of game-play. It's the traditional old-school way of doing things and can be perfectly fun as long as all the players have the same expectations.

That's not to say that I don't like the other style of play too. I've had great fun in games where the players have control in story-telling. It's an awesome way to role-play. I just don't want to see the traditional old-school way de-legitimized, because that's fun too. I think both methods can live in harmony.

[cczernia]

I wasn't trying to say one was better than the other but that they were different. I was trying to get to the advantages and disadvantage of each. I think with recognizing these elements in a game you can improve that type of game.



In a game with players as audience it is best that they understand that and not do anything to derail the storyline or mood.



In a game with players as storytellers they also need to understand that and not be passive waiting for the GM to tell them what to do.




[quote="mordraine"]Me personally, I think it's a matter of what players and GM want. Some players WANT to to be surprised in games. And some GM's LIKE letting the world unfold as the PC's explore.



I think the term "audience" is extremely loaded and has a negative connotation when applied to RPG's. I think the complaint of a spoiled surprise is a legitimate complaint. It really depends on the type of game you want to play as a group. It's just another style of game-play. It's the traditional old-school way of doing things and can be perfectly fun as long as all the players have the same expectations.



That's not to say that I don't like the other style of play too. I've had great fun in games where the players have control in story-telling. It's an awesome way to role-play. I just don't want to see the traditional old-school way de-legitimized, because that's fun too. I think both methods can live in harmony.[/quote]

[devlin1]

Different games have different assumptions. If there's no mechanical support for shared narrative control, then everyone's just on their honor to make it happen. If you want your arch-nemesis to show up in FATE, self-compel that aspect (and/or invoke it for effect, I guess). If you want that to happen in HERO, you can let the GM know by taking the Hunted disad. If you want that to happen in D&D, tell the DM and hope it happens. The less mechanical support there is for a thing in a game, the less important it was for the designers, IMO. But it does let you know going in where you stand.

So I guess what I'm saying is... expectations are important!

[cczernia]

[quote="devlin1"]


So I guess what I'm saying is... [i]expectations are important![/i][/quote]

Or maybe system matters. And I'm not necessarily talking about narrative control. One I use is an index card with what type of scenes the players want and we then play through those scenes.

[Dragonmaster Zoc]

One thing to take into consideration is that players, as identified by the people who have distinct player characters, are often going to be biased toward their own characters. The game-master, who does not have ownership of any single character, is free to be neutral.

[Dragonkin]

No argument there. For the sake of balance, the GM should retain a degree of "veto" power. The PC's should have a say, however, in the history of their characters. Also, having the ability to add flavor to "descriptive text" keeps the game interesting, and the GM on his/her toes!