The role of the GM

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by trooper6

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.

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".