Who plays what, when, and under whose direction?

Probably less annoyed than the person who has spent months/years creating a character only to have it killed by a player who just happens to like whacking things and has no character motivation to be doing so.

My point is that players have different values. They enjoy and are annoyed by different things:
[ul]*For some, they’ll be annoyed by players not accepting their character should be dead.
*For others, it’ll be the use of polyester fabrics
*For some blow acknowledgement is their biggest bugbear
*Or personal hygiene.[/ul]

Rule systems will tend to focus on those things that the GM who created the game values (i.e “balanced character generation”, “rewarding good RP with XP”, “use of a site with toilets and showers” etc).

Someone mentioned earlier that the LARP culture in the USA was that often characters really couldn’t “die”. Death is a mere inconvenience that probably involved walking back to a set “resurrection point”.

The Nightmare Circle game I just played in was a good example of players being very responsible for the effects of the world. People got mauled by ghouls, shot by guns, scared shitless by undead creatures and the rules really didn’t cover all the effects. (Actually, they may have, but I wasn’t aware of the rules - so in effect they didn’t).

It worked. The players were fair and the game flowed very well. The rules didn’t cover much of what people did, but when we did it, the crew/other players just figured out what they thought was reasonable and reacted accordingly.

I’m not sure if I’m making a point here :confused:

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]Steph, I’d prefer to call it player-created LARP. Forget about GMs, it’s about empowering players to make the game they want.[/quote]Everybody is a GM ≡ nobody is a GM.

It’s just semantics. Myself, if you’re getting interested in the effect that naming things has on people’s attitudes, I would suggest that giving everybody in the game the title of an authority figure (as many people are used to treating GMs) is more ‘empowering’ then giving everybody in the game the title of a subordinate figure (as in many roleplaying games people are used to being subordinate to the GMs vision for the game).

But still, it’s just semantics. To me, what you’ve been describing sounds like a game with lots and lots of GMs with conflicting ideals of what they want to happen. Whatever you want to call it, that’s what it is.

Stephanie

I agree, Derek, that the Nightmare Circle system picked up by players is a good example of people figuring out for themselves how a character should respond to something, and how they do just that when they’ve figured it out.

I’ll admit that the rules wouldn’t have helped you that much; they’re generally a lengthy description of the real world translated into something that can be tracked. I thought “these are so much like real life I’ll just do that” - and probably if it came to it, we could always crack the rules out and find the bit about how fast a foot can heal!

Alas, this simply can’t work for our other example ‘Mordavia’ where people are unaware or have differing perceptions of exactly what happens when you are hit by stone hands or speak-with-dead.

Er… I think I’m off topic, though.

Maybe slightly OT - but good conversations wander :wink:

If during a Mordavia game, someone was hit by a “stone hands” and decided they could get away by taking their boots off, would that make the game any less fun?

We managed to speak-with-dead at the last Nightmare Circle without a written down spell. It was probably one of the best bits of role playing at the game (even if we all felt like twits doing the spell).

I will agree though that where you have combat and combat magic it’s best to have rules for it. But I think a certain amount of “best special effect determined by the players” is also very desirable.

[quote=“Derek”]If during a Mordavia game, someone was hit by a “stone hands” and decided they could get away by taking their boots off, would that make the game any less fun?[/quote]Well that’s a good example of trust, innit. If the two people involved trusted each other not to take the piss, it would probably work out OK. On the other hand, it could quite easily devolve into a nasty argument and accusations of cheating. Which is decidedly Not fun. The more power and authority players have, the more trust everybody involved needs to have in each other. What Ryan is describing is, f’r’instance, the last game I’d want to have powergaming munchkins involved in.

Steph

The term “Game Master” reeks of geek. I’ve said as much before, but perhaps not publically. So here I am saying it. I prefer “organiser” or “referee” or damn near anything else.

I’ll dump “GM” long before “player”, which is a universally understood acting/gaming term rather than a piece of RPG jargon.

It’s not empowering to say that everyone is a GM, it’s just silly. It’s not accurate, either. How many games do you know where the GMs can play a single character full time and not do any organising or plot?

I’m talking about a game where the players cooperate to create a fictional world and play characters in it. That’s a description that can be understood by the general public, and therefore the best one. One involving jargon is inferior.

Another aspect of the GM driven vs Player Driven plot is when Big Stuff needs to happen.

If you have a GM*, you can have stuff in the game where you say “okay, ten demons are gating in” and brief some crew and it happens.

If you’re putting all the players as equal this kind of doesn’t work because you don’t have a pool of ten crew you can boss around.

*I’ll use GM because it’s easier than typing “organiser or referee” despite the fact I may be pigeon holed as a nerdy geek.

The term “Game Master” reeks of geek. I’ve said as much before, but perhaps not publically. So here I am saying it. I prefer “organiser” or “referee” or damn near anything else. [/quote]So, out of curiosity, why do you still use the term? Your game and the website devoted to it are entirely consistent in referring to the people who organise plot as GMs.

[quote]I’ll dump “GM” long before “player”, which is a universally understood acting/gaming term rather than a piece of RPG jargon. [/quote]‘GM’ is not universally understood amongst gamers? Which group of gamers do you hang out with that doesn’t know that acronym? (I refuse to believe that White Wolf and MET players are that unaware of the rest of the roleplaying world.) To me, the terms Storyteller and Referee and Organiser are less well known. And they mean different things - co-ordinator of plot, rules arbitrator and supervisor of logistics. All things that need to be done, and often conflated into one person, but they mean different things.

[quote]It’s not empowering to say that everyone is a GM, it’s just silly. It’s not accurate, either. How many games do you know where the GMs can play a single character full time and not do any organising or plot? [/quote]And how many games do you know where anyone can spontaneously do organising and plot? I don’t expect everyone who uses Open Licence Software to spend their leisure hours tinkering away at it. I do expect them to be able to if they wish.

[quote]I’m talking about a game where the players cooperate to create a fictional world and play characters in it. That’s a description that can be understood by the general public, and therefore the best one. One involving jargon is inferior.[/quote]Like an Open Software Licence involves programmers co-operating to create software.

Jargon serves a purpose when it functions as a shortcut label to an idea. Yes, I might need to explain what GM means to a person new to roleplaying. Once and once only, and then they’d know. It’s less words than having to say Supervisor of Plot everytime I need to refer to such a person. So you get a semantic choice here - do you want to invent the name for what you want out of existing jargon terms and get faster recognition and understanding, or do you want to make it up out of whole cloth and have to spend more time explaining what you mean to everyone who is interested?

Stephanie

Try running “roleplaying a game where everyone is a Game Master” past a person off the street and see how much recognition you get.

“Player” is a term that any English-speaking person knows the meaning of. Likewise “organiser”. And it’s players who get empowered in this model.

I’m pretty sure you know my answers to all your questions. We continue using GM for consistency. I wasn’t talking about recognition among roleplayers. If the pool of potential LARPers was limited to existing roleplayers alone, we’re in a sorry mess. But fortunately, it’s not.

I’ll stick to “player-created” over “everyone is a GM”, thanks.

You could call it Communist Larp. :wink:

Think about it:
You want to change from a feudalistic structure in which a small privileged group of people who I am going to refer to as GMs (1) have the primary control of what’s going on in the game. You want to devolve their rights and responsibilities onto a larger group of previously underprivileged people who I am going to refer to as Players (2). You want everybody to have the ability to take on as much or as little responsibility as they want to at any point in the game (3).

To be blunt, calling something ‘Player Created’ is stuffy and abstract and it’s vaguer than you might think. I know that you’ve read those endless debates on Pagga about Plot-Driven, Story-Driven, Player-Led, Plot-Led ad infinitum. The main thing that strikes me about those debates is not that any one approach is better than the other, but how nobody has ever yet managed to agree on what their terms mean.

(1) I could use Organisers of Plot, Logistics and Rules if you really really insist, but it would take longer to type.
(2) ‘Empowerment’ has got to be one of the sillier sounding politically correct terms out there. I can’t imagine, for instance, a random person at a party suddenly saying “I want to empower you”. It wouldn’t really work as a pickup line, I don’t think. :wink:
(3) I read a quote by Karl Marx many years ago which I can’t remember word for word, but the gist was that he wanted a world where everybody could do everything as much as they liked to - work in the fields in the morning, do their intellectual job in the afternoon, with maybe a little light critiquing after dinner.

Speaking of UK larp, the GMs at Maelstrom are called the “Plot Team” or just “Plot” for short. As in, “Plot sent in these NPCs to bulk out the host faction.”

But then, if you want a term that no-one can agree the meaning of, “plot” is a great place to start.

I want to directly address the issue of players knowing things they shouldn’t in LARP, and in player-created games in particular. Note that when I talk about “mooks” here, it’s shorthand for secondary characters that are played part-time by a player.

Information hiding

I’ve postulated before that the difference between LARP and improvisational drama is that in LARP you have information hiding (see What’s the difference between improv and roleplaying?). Information hiding is when players (NOT their characters) aren’t aware of all the information that is true in the fictional setting.

In impro, this doesn’t usually happen because each session takes place within earshot of all the players. No information is hidden from anyone. This approach could be used in LARP, but usually isn’t.

In LARP, information is frequently hidden. This allows the players to experience the immersive enjoyment of discovery during a game, as opposed to just their characters experiencing it. Apart from being enjoyable, this discovery process is one of the gamist challenges that players face. They must make decisions based on information that may not be complete, and use their decernment to figure out what the underlying truth of a situation is. The player’s ability to do this will usually affect their ability to achieve their character’s objectives. They are often doing this competitively against other players who are attempting to use misinformation against them, which adds to the challenge.

Information leakage

When players find out stuff their characters don’t know, you get a kind of information leakage. Is the player able to carry on playing their character as ignorant? I see three issues here:

  1. The players don’t get the enjoyment of in-character discovery (although they may enjoy the thrill of knowing something OOC that they shouldn’t). This is a loss only to that individual’s enjoyment of the game, although it may have flow-on effects on others, especially if they don’t keep the information to themselves.

  2. The gamist challenge of IC information processing has been removed. This can affect the player’s enjoyment if they have a honest approach to solving game challenges, as they may feel unable to play the information game honestly when they already know the truth. If they have a dishonest approach, it can affect other players enjoyment of the information challenge. For example, if one player has an IC secret and is spreading disinformation about it, and another player finds out the secret OOC and actively uses their knowledge to achieve their IC objectives, the player with the broken secret will feel cheated.

  3. A player who knows information that their character does not may be tempted to plan out their character’s reactions to finding out that information in advance. I think all pre-planning in LARP is bad (see my Linear is Shit rant for why), so to me this is a bad thing.

Information hiding in player-created larp

So… back on the topic of player-created games. Assuming we want to stop players from knowing things that their characters don’t as much as possible, how do we go about it?

  1. Players can only create fictional information (i.e. background and plot) that their character knows the truth about. That way they are not revealing to themselves anything that their character shouldn’t know, which would create an instant information paradox. Players can achieve this easily by self-regulation, although players of characters who are designed to be poorly-informed may find it to be a limitation. E.g. the player of an amnesiac character would hardly be able to create any fictional information at all. Likewise the player of an uneducated prole character might find this restrictive.

  2. Players cannot play mooks that know things their primary characters don’t. This is the trickier one. Let’s assume that all player-created fiction will have some “published facts” that all characters may know if they wish to. A player could play any mook that only needs to know these published facts, i.e. a mook with no secrets. This could amount to a large number of mooks. Secondly, the player could play mooks that know their same secrets as their primary character. This may be hard to determine.

  3. The mook briefing process has to be secretive and not overheard by other players.

  4. What about information that a player discovers while playing a mook, that their primary character does not know? This is unsolvable. Players could attempt to avoid it happening (avoid revealing secrets to mooks, avoid playing mooks that are over-inquisitive about secrets players don’t know) but inevitably there would be some leakage. Efforts to avoid it happening might distort gameplay, which is also not ideal.

  5. What about IC information being shared OC between players? Here I think it’s a matter of player culture. Maelstrom has a developed a culture of “find out in play,” and they suggest that players never discuss what their characters have been doing OOC. That’s rather restrictive, but probably the only way of actually containing information leakage in any larp, especially one where most of the secrets are invented and kept by players.

To conclude: I think there would inevitably be more information leakage in a player-created game, but that good design could minimise it. I believe that minimising it is a good idea so that players can enjoy both immersive exploration of the fiction and gamist challenges that revolve around secrets. I think it’s possible to limit leakage enough in a player-created game to keep these enjoyable aspects of the game working most of the time.

There’s a thread on Pagga called PCs, NPCs and DCPs… that discusses who plays what and under whose direction, from a UK perspective.

I’m not in favour of using the Directed Player Character term, it seems to have evolved specifically to meet problems with UK games that we don’t have here: player characters who become so powerful that they are game-breakers, and PCs who become conduits for top-down plot.

In my opinion “PC” and “NPC” are two ends of a spectrum, and “DPC” is a term for a position somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, a position that appears to be idiosyncratic to some UK larps.

So, I got into this discussion about character power balance over on rpg.net.

During the discussion I came up with a new idea of ensuring a sense of fairness by balancing starting power between players, rather than between characters. And I’ve just realised that this links in well with the discussion about different approaches to PCs and NPCs that we had here.

So, to get to the point, imagine this system. It’s intended for longer, weekend-style events where there is time for players to change character if they want to.

There are no NPCs - the players play the roles of all characters who come into play. All players start with a number of points to spend on characters. You can put all your points into one very powerful starting character, or spread them out over multiple characters. When characters die the points in them are lost. You don’t have to spend all (or any) of your points immediately, you can save them up and spend them whenever you like to improve characters or create new ones. You can play different characters at the same event (although obviously not at the same time). You can create and play zero-point characters, which are similar to “mooks” although not specifically followers of another character. You earn character points whenever you play (even when playing a zero-pointer), and you can spend those points on any character just like the character points you start with.

Having zero-point characters allows for the expendable characters which are essential to high-combat events (assuming there is no resurrection). It also allows players to try out new character concepts easily. They can always put points into a zero-pointer later if they want to grow the character’s capabilities. And it allows players whose characters wouldn’t be present at an event to still play, and still earn points.

The only downside I can see is that players could theoretically keep returning as a series of zero-pointer combat characters intent on killing specific PCs. But even that would suit some genres.

This leaves open the question of whether there would be any place for GMs during play. I think they could still be useful as integraters, helping players create characters that will fit into the setting and current events.

I can’t be bothered registering on the other forum, but it occurs to me that it you want to start at day one with people who have very disparite power levels then the best way to do it is based on contribution.

For example, you want a “level-30-wizard-with-a-stone-tower” so you open it up to the players and say "hey, if anybody can provide a tower as a prop, they can be a level 30 wizard.