From: drivingblind	Date: April 23rd, 2009 02:39 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The "triumphal tone" part -- that's "trad player got touched in the bad place by the hippie gamer" baggage, I suspect (which isn't a judgment -- I've lugged around the same bags myself on more than one occasion). So I'd like to set that part of the observation aside on the proposition that you and I are inclined to view Chad as less likely to gloat in the text about how clever he is than the average bear.

So what's left, with the tonal/presentation issues set aside? I *think* it's this: it's not that you don't like the possibility of occasionally handing the determination of how success and failure occurs to a player, it's that you don't like it being *mandated* as always-on. Is that right?

I'm asking in part because of the overlap with my own perspectives, here. At heart, I'm a strong-GM-authority traditionalist. I do lots of hippie stuff in my designs and play here and there, but I always enjoy an element of "... and the GM makes a judgment call/approves that/whatever". I don't want a GM who's a moderator for the table, at the end of the day. I want one who has a clear vision and a strong agenda for where the game can be taken, but is also clever enough to take input from the players and change and adapt his vision and agenda to entirely new directions.

Are we on the same page, man?

	From: bruceb	Date: April 23rd, 2009 02:49 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Pretty much.

What I really want - need, probably - is the advice on making failure interesting and rewarding to the player. That's the practical revolution that I'm really interested in, and probably the single biggest thing that's changed about my play style this decade, putting that as an active priority everywhere I can.

For me, narrative authority is a side effect of that. I don't especially care about it, to be honest. I don't lie awake at night worrying about. I have lain awake at night worrying that bad luck with the dice left my players stranded without much fun to have, and wishing I could think of more to make the failures at their intended efforts lead to something more rewarding.

As nearly as I can tell, my players feel about the same, or at least many of them do. They like narrating. Some like it a lot. Some end up explicitly GMing scenes while I just watch sometimes. :) But narrative authority doesn't seem to be the answer to their concerns about failure, either.

	From: drivingblind	Date: April 23rd, 2009 03:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Yep -- that's why Fate has the element of aspects that when they work against you, you get a reward.

Which actually exists, in some ways, in S7S/PDQ# as well. The "players narrate failure" bit is just one element of several, IIRC.

	From: bruceb	Date: April 23rd, 2009 03:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I have very much confidence in Chad. I'm just frothing partly because I'm tired of this sinus headache.

	From: chadu	Date: April 23rd, 2009 04:18 pm (UTC)		(Link)

"trad player got touched in the bad place by the hippie gamer"

I characterize that tone as "show me where the bad GM touched you" myself.

I don't want a GM who's a moderator for the table, at the end of the day. I want one who has a clear vision and a strong agenda for where the game can be taken, but is also clever enough to take input from the players and change and adapt his vision and agenda to entirely new directions.

I hope I did exactly that in the text (but I suspect I may lean a fraction more hippie than you).

From: mickbradley	Date: April 24th, 2009 03:33 pm (UTC)		(Link)

This is all very useful to me guys, thanks. I think if I could consistently trust that a GM could be the person that Fred is talking about, I'd prefer that vibe myself. And ideally, I still do, actually.

It has been said that the best and most efficient & effective form of government in an ideal world would be a benevolent dictatorship. But lacking an ideal world, democracy is actually a better idea.

And yes, I guess that is probably coming from my own "the GM touched me in a bad place" thing C'est la vie.

The great thing about the designs of Evil Hat and ASM, though, are that the rules allow for adjustment of the narrative authority dials without doing any harm to the system.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: April 23rd, 2009 09:21 pm (UTC)		(Link)

For my own reference of scaling GM authority, how would you characterize the GM authority of our Dreamation game sessions: The Do playtest compared to your Dreamation InSpectres game?

	From: chadu	Date: April 23rd, 2009 04:15 pm (UTC)		(Link)

while I've not checked the S7S presentation, in general the triumphal tone in which such things are presented just pisses me off.

Out of curiosity, is the tone above "triumphal" to you, Bruce?

And if/when you see the S7S presentation, I'd love to have your thoughts on it.

But I kinda dig what you're saying, if I'm thinking about the same presentations of such that you are. I really tried to avoid that sort of tone.

(I think the basic summary of my thoughts is "explaining why a sucky die roll doesn't HAVE TO mean your character is incompetent.")

	From: bruceb	Date: April 23rd, 2009 04:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'd call it only mildly triumphal, and I think I'm grumpy because (besides the sinus headache aforementioned) it's your obvious happiness at solving what isn't MY problem, dammit. :)

	From: chadu	Date: April 23rd, 2009 04:36 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I feel you, mang. My head's in a sinus pain vise today, too.

Sorry to step on your grump with my joy.

. . .

Okay, that sounded less-weird in my head before I wrote it.

	From: bruceb	Date: April 23rd, 2009 05:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I owe you an apology. You have an entirely justified happiness going there. I'm sorry for being unusually rude this morning.

	From: chadu	Date: April 23rd, 2009 05:52 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Apology unneccessary, but accepted.

No worries.

Bygones.