Re: The role of the GM
 

Which is sort of my point, it is pointless arguing whether GM's or players are the more disruptive element because at the end of the day the problem is usually caused by the same people whichever side of the screen they are sitting on.

A more interesting question is why they do it? And how do you spot them?

Re: The role of the GM
 

I think that there is a lot to be said for this. Having moved through quite a few groups over the years I think that the atmosphere is often better in mixed groups. Like a lot of people I still think that you are very lucky with your players, but mixed groups do seem to have less distasteful behaviour and (usually) lower tolerance for dyed in the wool misfits.

Re: The role of the GM
 

I've only had problems once. I had one player who twice made all the other players in campaigns he was in unhappy enough to talk about dropping out. Both times I explained the situation to him, asked him to sit down and talk with the other players about what they saw as problematic and modify his characters, and offered to mediate. Both times he resigned rather than do so. After the second time, so few of my players were willing to play with him in the campaign that I couldn't fit him into any new campaigns.

What struck me about this was that both times, he was playing in a mission-oriented team led by a strong female character whose player was also a strong woman. That's not enough evidence to be conclusive, but it made me wonder.

Re: The role of the GM
 

I've run two campaigns, now, which had significant numbers of women. In my current campaign, there are actually more women than men, in the party. While they're all different (see the funny comments in the Facets campaign write-ups, over in the GURPS forum), their willingness to assert themselves mean the men are pretty well-behaved, usually.

It's much less of a sausage-fest, that's for sure.

(In my experience, a "significant number" of women is, "more than one." I've played in campaigns with only one woman, before, and unless the GM wants her, or one of the other players is acting creepy, she doesn't change the group dynamics all that much. Two women, on the other hand, tend to support and reinforce one another, especially if they're already friends, and that changes the dynamics, significantly. My friend, Christopher Denney once observed that, if the party has two women, the men always seem outnumbered. I'm not sure that's entirely true, but it had enough validity to qualify as pretty darn funny.)

Re: The role of the GM
 

I don't think I've even seen a group that was less than 40% women since early high school. And I can only think of one group, that lasted for only a couple of months, before that that was all male. I'm used to the ratio of male to female being almost always 50/50 averaged out over time.

It also helps that for most of the last 35 years, a "normal" sized group was 8-12 players. I'm still getting used to the concept of a 4 player group being normal.

Re: The role of the GM
 

I've run campaigns with only one female player. But the men in those have almost always previously played in campaigns with two or more female players. I expect the experience has left impressions that continue when there's only one woman. . . .

Re: The role of the GM
 

Just like sailors swore less when the captain brought his wife along.

Re: The role of the GM
 

When I was growing up my siblings always called D&D and related hobbies "girl games" and I'm still not sure if they were just trying to be extra-insulting to people who preferred fantasy make-believe adventures to getting sweaty and grabbing balls out in the grass or if they though the general demographics skewed female.

Seeing the stereotype skewed in reverse later initially baffled me to no end.

Re: The role of the GM
 

I tend to see some of that. Especially if there's beer involved.
If the requested bring along is beer, I bow out.

Re: The role of the GM
 

This explains the behavior of members of Goon Fleet, in EVE. The guys from Something Awful forthrightly acknowledge that one of the reasons they play lots of different MMOs is because they want to indulge in anti-social behavior as a form of personal freedom (and as a break from tedious jobs or difficult lives, or whatever), in a medium that causes no actual harm to anyone.

I flew with Goons, briefly, before I took a break from EVE, about four years ago. I can't say they were the best bunch to fly with (stupid, profane commentary in local, etc.), and frequently acted like jerks, and they're one of the reasons I took such a long break. That said, they were honest about why they played as they did.

Moreover, something fun came out of it. They attacked and defeated the largest, and most annoying (to that date) alliance in EVE (Band of Brothers, or BOB), and in so doing threw 0.0 space into chaos -- which opened up lots of opportunities, for other players.

I started to play EVE again, this past spring, and just re-activated my old character. I joined a 0.0 Alliance in what used to be Goonfleet space. They're a great bunch, really, and they took their region by ganging up and destroying Goons (an effort which Goons didn't particularly like, but did respect).

Now, the key difference between a computer MMO and a table top game is that, if someone acts like an ass-hat in a PvP MMO, the other players can impose consequences pretty freely. As the Something Awful guys note, that doesn't cause any actual harm to anybody, except (possibly) some hurt feelings in someone you don't really know and will likely never meet.

That's totally different in a table-top game, of course. The group needs to establish a set of behavioral norms all agree to follow, I think. If everybody wants to act like an ass-hat, and they all enjoy it, that's fine. It could even be a bit therapeutic.

But if not everyone agrees, then people need to make some hard decisions -- which basically come down to, "Alter behavior, or leave the group."

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.

Re: The role of the GM
 

I wanted to expand upon the idea of neutrality this is important to the way I see the GM role.

I think it is important for the GM not to be invested in anything that happens internally in the game. I think the GMs investments should all be meta.

What I mean by this is: the GM should not be invested in the success or failure of any NPCs. They should not be invested in the plot going this way or that. They should not be invested in the survival of this NPC or that town. A GM can be invested abstractly, in that they created this world, but they shouldn't be invested in particular outcomes. If I have a big bad and the PCs kill that big bad on turn 1...that is fine...because that is what happened. The PCs decide to avoid this town? Okay...that is what happened.

For me, the GMs investment should be in meta concerns: are the players being challenged, are they all getting spotlight time, are they all having fun. Is the game working for everyone?

The one place where I am more heavy handed is in campaign creation. I propose a couple of campaign frames and get player buy-in. Then I am pretty active in making sure the character concept the player comes up with fits the frame. I will reject or ask for reworkings of characters that conflict with the frame. I was running a cyberpunk campaign and a players wanted to run a character who was really a prince of the fey realms. I said no to that. I was going to run a Banestorm where the players were on a three hour boat tour and one player wanted to play a serial killer so he could go on a murder spree once through the banestorm. I also vetoed that one. But once the PCs are approved and the campaign buy-in is settled, players can do whatever they want and I won't tip the scales one way or the other.

Re: The role of the GM
 

I was hoping that the example I quoted was one not of sidestepping the dilemma, but more of pointing out that "Nothing ever ends" and of allowing more narration to be added to the plot after the initial outcome narration, one with a different perspective.

And okay, now I understand about explaining.

Hmm. I guess this is to a large extent a matter of a railroad vs. sandbox spectrum. I tend to see myself as taking a position somewhere in the middle of it ('the campaign is a broad flowing river' or whatever). I know my current MtA and former Exalted GM is closer to the rail end of the spectrum, and you seem to be closer to the sand end of the spectrum.

However, since the discussed sharing of narration can be a two-way street (i.e. players gaining the ability to affect the narrative, GMs getting the ability to influence player choices), it's possible to increase the amount of sharing while not appreciably shifting the position on the sand/rail spectrum in either direction, just changing in what ways the sandiness and/or the railiness of the campaign expresses itself.

As for "Take a disad, fail the resistance roll": at one point I've been shown an interesting perspective on that matter. We (especially GURPSologists) seem to be used to the dice dictating whether or not our PCs resist a disad. But it's quite possible, for example, for a character to use expenditure of Willpower points to resist a disad in addition to or in place of the SC roll. And by extension, for characters to regain some of their willpower by giving in to their vice. This is somewhat similar to the Ham Clause in GURPS, which doesn't have such points, but still allows giving in to a disad in order to suppress it later.
I'm saying this because a GM saying 'roll the dice and either succeed to resist the disad or fail to give in to it' is not entirely unlike the GM saying 'get a point if you resist the disad or gain it if you give in'. They have their differences, but fundamentally they're both cases of rules/mechanics being triggered by the GM and then used to determine how a PC acts.

Re: The role of the GM
 

What Ham Clause in GURPS are you talking about? What page and what book is it in?

Anyhow, I think there is a fundamental difference between the GM saying 'roll the dice and either succeed or fail to resist the disad' and 'I'll give you a point if you fail this disad roll.'

The first is not (at least I how do it) "rules/mechanics being triggered by the GM" --it is an example of GM as neutral adjudicator with noting that a disad was triggered by the circumstances of the game who has no investment in either outcome. The second is the GM wanting something to happen to the PC and bribing him to make it happen.

I like GMs to be neutral.

Re: The role of the GM
 

GURPS Action 1 p. 20; or After the End 1 p. 21; or Pyramid #3/70 p.15.

Re: The role of the GM
 

Thanks for the page ref! *reads* Hm...I don't like the option. But then, I don't tend to run over the top action. Going with grittier sorts of games.