Re: The role of the GM
 

I find that attitude about the internet disturbing. Because people _are_ harmed by things that happen on the internet: online hate campaigns, griefing, doxxing, and swatting, for example. I'm not saying the Something Awful guys are engaging in that behavior, but seeing the internet as a consequence-free zone and seeing no problem in harassing other humans just because you won't meet them in person leads to people thinking it is okay to call the police and claim there is an armed person holding hostages at someone's house in order to get the SWAT to burst in while someone is streaming. No one has been killed yet, but unarmed people do get killed during SWAT incursions. It is only a matter of time.

I have a hard job, but I don't feel the need to tear other people down and maybe put their lives at risk to "blow off steam."

Re: The role of the GM
 

The SA guys have all-but-admitted griefing. The line between PVP king-of-the-mountain and Griefing is only a matter of degree and persistence. I don't play the same MMO's they do (In fact, I've only played 4, and only bothered staying with 3... STO, Puzzle Pirates, and BSGO)... but I heard about their "antics" on EVE... Essentially, their goal is to take down anyone who gets big, in as quick a manner as possible. The point where that crosses to griefing is arguable.

It is, however, within the developer's intended pattern that people be able to topple even the largest guilds.

I don't care for PVP, so in PP, I stayed in the no PVP oceans. in STO, the non-PVP sectors.

Re: The role of the GM
 

This is a topic I'm interested in lately.

'How I see fit' seems to be an over-simplification of sharing narrative control. While as a player and GM I only participated in experiments of very small-scale narrative control sharing, I've had some more experience of shared worldbuilding, and I think there can be a point in transferring that experience to actual gaming. The benefits of consensus-based worldbuilding is that it helps get rid of biases and fill the missing bits as compared to a single-builder approach.

Similarly, shared, consensus-oriented narrative control can be used to help fill the gaps and avoid biases of the GM. A GM tends to already have so much on the plot that some possibilities are just never explored due to lack of think-hours.

Here's an example of a narrative twist that seems to be more likely to come out of a cooperative writing of the narrative than out of a single person doing it (IMO):
Say the PCs are in a situation where they can't fully thwart a terrorist attack, but only one half of it. Either they go for the party NPC who they know, or for a couple dozen NPCs they don't know. Typical trolley dilemma, but bear with me. The obvious narrative outcomes of this scenario are the survival of either one acquainted NPC or of many NPC strangers. An idealistic GM is likely to add a Third Option as the Right Choice Instead Of The Other Two, while the more cynical one (in the modern sense) would emphasize the lack of alternative and having to live with the knowledge of failing either the one or the many; a moderate one is likely to make the third option possible but difficult, or something like that.
But if we combine multiple approaches, we can get something less expected. For instance, it's possible to have the immediate outcome straightforward (either a celebration of personal attachment or of the Needs of the Many, depending on the choice taken) . . . only to throw in a contrary idea further down the line. For instance, the semi-thwarted terrorist attack could become an excuse to crack down on civil rights in the hopes of upping national security (as always); and if the PCs saved the Many, the One's name becomes a symbol of sacrificing the few to save the many, with national security laws named after her; conversely, if the PCs saved the One, then said One becomes an advocate against such crackdowns and becomes a symbol of maintaining humanity even in the face of fear and threats. (The example a vague retelling of possible narrative branches in a certain computer game.)

I think that such multidirectional, ideologically varied narration is much easier to achieve when there are multiple, different people at the wheel of narration than if a single person dictates the possible outcomes. Since outcomes such as those in the example are far beyond the box of systems such as GURPS, and so they fall fully onto the shoulders and imagination of the person(s) in charge of the narration. Such a person, like all others, has certain biases and blindspots. Adding more eyes helps alleviate that.

Re: The role of the GM
 

I have to say I'm finding this idea of "the biases of the GM" dubious. It rather seems to me that what I'm using to sell my campaigns to prospective players, and what has gotten my more interested players than I currently have time to run campaigns for, is precisely my personal tastes and perspectives.

I'm thinking about the narrative and dramatic arts over the course of history. And it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of successful works have had single authors. We read the Odyssey, or A Midsummer Night's Dream, or The Island of Dr. Moreau, or watch Metropolis or The Incredibles, precisely because we want to encounter the worlds that their creators show us. We're not looking for a statistically validated consensus truth but for a personal statement. There have been examples of successful collaborations of two creators; there haven't been nearly as many of multiple creators producing anything that works. And gaming is a narrative or dramatic art.

It's possible to have a primary creator who shapes the overall setting and situations, and secondary creators who build smaller domains within the world. But even then it's the primary's job to weave the secondaries' contributions into something coherent.

Re: The role of the GM
 

You came up with the alternate consequences for the trolley dilemma, I think any creative GM would be able to do so as well. I don't think you need shared narrative control to get that outcome. But what do I think is most likely to happen with shared narrative control in a situation where the players have individual ownership over their characters? They use their shared narrative control to be able to save both groups and side-step the dilemma.

If you are playing a game where the GM's sphere is the world/narrative reaction and the players' sphere is their characters/personal reaction, then I find narrative sharing in this set-up produces an imbalance and conflict of interest. The GM loses some of their sphere of influence (narrative control over the world) without any reciprocal gains in the players' sphere of influence (narrative control over the characters). And the players, who have a vested interest in the desired outcomes for their characters (while the GM should be remaining neutral) gain the ability to intrude on the GMs sphere to alter things in there favor. I don't particularly like how that plays out...especially since the GM is still expected to do the bulk of the work.

Now, on the other hand, games that have no GM, and/or where the players do not have ownership over a particular character...like Microscope or Downfall and to a lesser extent Fiasco...I think are fine. Because they have eradicated the GM completely and have made everyone share that responsibility.

Re: The role of the GM
 

In what way the idea is dubious? Biases are an inherent part of people. I'm pretty sure that I have some as does everybody. Sometimes the biases line up, and this becomes a cause for a positive experience (when the GM and the [other] players like the same things in campaigns, themes etc.). Other times stepping beyond them would improve a campaign. And in cases where it's an improvement that actually occurs, sometimes people grow into seeing and being able to make broader pictures on their own, sometimes with the aid of others.

Re: The role of the GM
 

It wasn't my idea. As I said, I approximately retold the story in one computer game.

I find it interesting that you bring up Microscope, the GMless game, but seem to be unwilling to accept a gradual spectrum of GM power/role/duties, preferring to either have an 'omnipotent' GM or to eliminate the role entirely (note: I'm not sure 'omnipotent' is the right word here, but it seems to be the closest short descriptor I could come up with; okay, maybe 'absolute' would be another one).

Regarding 'just save both groups': given the context, that would seem to be not a case of sharing the narrative control, but rather of taking it over completely. Sharing, to me, would be more exemplified by the phrase "Yes, this is what happens, but . . .", as it produces interesting additions to the narrative without demolishing those built by prior participants. I've seen some cases when GMs ask other people (whether players or not) about what they think are possible long-term follow-ups to some situation, and I don't think that such asking should necessarily be seen as a negative thing. In fact, people not seeing it as a negative thing seem to be the reason why shared-narrative campaign styles/game systems were invented.

Finally, about the GM gaining some narrative control of the PCs: actually, that does and can happen too. Probably the most common form I've witnessed so far can be described as approximately "Hey, player, you know, for the next plot, it would be really cool if your character made a such-and-such decision or deed". This form of request can be slightly changed, e.g. to a form of "You have such-and-such Disadvantage/Aspect/etc.; I'll bribe you [points or other goodies] if you autofail/don't resist/exaggerate said trait in the following scene".

Re: The role of the GM
 

Insofar as that is going to happen, it can perfectly well happen by encountering the different worldviews of players as players. If anything, that may well be more likely to influence a GM than an explicit debate over how to interpret a rule or model a world, which is likelier to produce resistance to the opposing point of view.

I'd also note that while dialogue can in principle alter one's views, it's best able to do so if only two people are involved. If you have five or six, it's going to be hard to remain focused.

But more basically than that, I am, if you'll excuse my saying so, a really excellent worldbuilder and storytelling GM. I won't say that all my campaigns have been first rate, but I do claim that since I began keeping a list of my campaigns, at least a dozen have been memorable. And what I'm offering my players when I create those campaigns is my artistic judgment as to what is appropriate. I may well invite the players to contribute ideas and background—one of my very best campaigns, Manse, was based on that—but I both define the initial framework and have final decision on whether to use a player's ideas. Why would I want to give that up, and offer my players something based on a group consensus, with less of my personal creative stamp?

And conversely, when I play, rather than GMing, what I'm looking for is a GM who will offer their personal creative stamp. I've played with GMs of varied ability, but my three most recent GMs have offered good cinematic action; edge-of-the-seat suspense and terror; and evocative, moving scenes and situations and relationship.

And if I were taking part in deciding what the outcomes would be, I think I would lose the sense of suspense that makes play exciting.

To me, gaming is art, and art, though it must be consensual, cannot be democratic or egalitarian.

Re: The role of the GM
 

One interesting and playable version of this comes up in Amber Diceless Roleplaying, where a player, rather than the GM is often describing the scenery and incidentals. This is because they're Amberites, with power over Shadow, and actually can chose/create any place they like. This is more a change of the GM's scope than a sharing of authority, because the GM remains in control of the plot. They just have to make it work with the player's choice of environment.

As a player, I had had quite a lot of fun with a world where my PC was essentially the Count of Monte Cristo.

Re: The role of the GM
 

For me, the GM is not omnipotent or absolute. There is a separation of powers, as it were, the GM has duties refereeing the reactions of the world to the players actions. The GM has no power over the players and their choices. I like to think of the GM as "neutral."

But the outcome of the dilemma hadn't yet been determined...and of course the players, if they have the ability to do whatever they want, will side-step that dilemma. Anyway, of course there are people who like shared narrative, that is indeed why these games exist. I was just explaining why I don't like it--and imbalance of the sharing and the conflict of interest in the player role.

Yeah...I'd never do that. It rubs me the wrong in two different ways:
1) A GM wanting the player to do various things breaks the way I embody the GM role: as neutral arbiter. As a GM I don't have ways I want the story to go. I am interested in seeing what the players do and then I adjudicate the consequences of those actions. Sure, I'm also adjudicating the actions of the NPCs and their plans, but I think it is important for me not to be invested in any particular outcome.
2) I think the player's control over their PC should not be infringed upon by the GM. If they chose a particular Disad and they fail a roll? Okay. If there is some Mind Control thing going on? Okay. But players own their PCs and barring rules explicit exceptions, I'm not getting involved in the player's sphere.

Other people play other ways and enjoy other things. But for me, it is a GM sin to say things like, "your character feels...", "your character thinks...", "your characters likes such and such an NPC..." That is out of the GMs purview.