The role of the GM

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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).

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."

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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".

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.