The role of the GM

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Classic Uncle Sam

I will admit that I am biased. I am not a fan of games that specifically give players the ability to arbitrarily alter the game in their favor. To me those games become less "this is my character in this world risking for reward/survival" and more "I have a responsibility over this point of view chapter and when I get enough points I will rewrite things to how I see fit, prior established elements be damned."

There are those who will say "but its expected that the players will change the narrative within reason." I say that's exactly what is expected of the DM/GM too, so you're really just changing who has the opportunity for abuse. "But the rules allow them to do that! They're just following the rules!" Which I think brings the matter full circle.

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.