The role of the GM

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.)

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.