GM vs PLAYER

[Dhurrin]

What do you ladies and gents think?

Does the GM make the story or do the Players? Does the GM create the story for the players and at times have to curtail what the players can and can't do to further the story for the greater good? Does he cut off choices at times and rail roads the characters for a better campaign? For example, if a player wants to do something the GM doesn't like, he would force the player back to his story by limiting any options except the ones that continues said story?

Or...

Do the players create the story through their characters and the interactions between PCs and the world? Does the GM take a step back and enable the characters, rather guiding them than rail roading? For example, if a player wants to do something the GM doesn't like, he would rather go with it than say NO, allowing the player to further his own story?

[The Gothic Me]

A mix of both, the players will usually have more fun if they feel that they're making a difference to the narrative. But on the other hand, no GM is able write a campaign that preempts all possible choices the players may make, nor are they going to be able to improvise on the spot with any degree of depth.

[adamwelton]

I like to have a basic story in mind with a plot, then throw the players some titbits of info and let them build the story themselves. It's much more fun for them and makes life easier for me. All I need do is keep track of characters, places and events, and I try to get the players to keep their own record as I don't like to remind them-this encourages them to think about what they're doing and gets everyone involved, rather than someone sat back getting bored when other players are acting their part. Improvisation of material is also a winner. Players expecting one thing get another and this sort of thing really gets them thinking and wanting to come back for the next chapter/session.

I like my RPGs to run like books or films-start with the basics and work towards the spectacular ending.

[Luthor's Shadow]

As a GM it is my role to have characters develop. The GM provides the plot and setting and the devices to enable a character to progress or change. In a text based enviroment this forum has a tendecy to run I strive to allow players to develop their character. Either resolving a past issue, a nemsis character we agree upon, and other things like that. In my very first RPG, Infection, I had a lot of characters that had their own personalities and it did disrupt the gameplay, but it added to the story.

A GM should be addicted to the storyline and the fact players bring forth something to the story. However when a player begins to act extreme, power game, or attempt to be the super-bad ****, then you need to punish them back. Reminding a player that their character is still just a character is the crucial aspect. A GM's role is very delicate and the slightiest nudge either way can bring a RPG to its knees. Have had this happen or seen this happen in games based in this forum especially. Egos can ruin a game or create a game. Depends on the mix.

May Insanity Grace your Day

Luthor's Shadow

[Dhurrin]

I agree, I think the GM should provide the setting and the background for the campaign (or regular gaming night or whatever) and allow the players to do what they wish. If the GM knows the setting and it's people and places and whatnot well enough then he will be able to adapt to what the players want to do to give a coherent story.

Provide a seed and allow the players to grow it. Don't deny them anything, but let them face the consequences of their actions

[Kahadras]

The GM provides the background, the characters that the party interact with and the basic direction the story is going in. It's the PC's job, IMHO, to find an equalibrium with the GM and the rest of the party as to how much their actions can influence the story and the world. A perfect example of this going wrong can be found in a Star Wars campaign I took part in.

Basicaly the party had gotten in trouble with a crime syndicate and we'd captured one of their employee's. One of the party decided to try to intimidate the wounded pilot into telling them where the bad guy's base was. He flubbed his roll and the captive said words to the effect of 'If I tell you they'll kill me'. 'Fine' says the PC, pulls out his blaster and shoots the defenceless captive in the face. The GM and the rest of the players were just like 'What the heck?'. I always look at it as a perfect example of what not to do in a campaign.

It screwed the GM as his plan for us to somehow use this guy to find out where the syndicate base now had a smoking hole in it's face. It annoyed the player whose character was set up to deal with these situations and it made the rest of the party have to somehow justify still hanging around with the character.

Kahadras

[Steam_Giant]

GM vs Player

Fatality

GM Wins!

hehe, I think a line from DH that sticks with me runs like this. "Its a GMs job to (try to) say Yes"

[chromedog]

The GM makes the world and the other people in it, and provides the fabric for the story to be woven into it.
The Players' characters and their actions, alongside the GM's NPCs and locations provide the story.

It's not meant to be an adversarial partnership, but he doesn't (the GM) have to be your friend.

[simonr1978]

The GM's role is to provide the setting and story and to use NPCs and events to guide the players through it. If the GM needs the PCs to be of a certain alignment/class/type then it is down to the GM to say so at the outset.

There's a balance of course, the players have to have adequate freedom of choice and manouevre to explore the setting the GM's provided in a manner consistent with their characters personalities, loyalties and motivations. No-one's going to want to play an RPG that's so rigidly written that they feel they're just reading lines from the GM's script. The GM similarly has to be prepared to wing it on occasions, improvising and reacting to the player's actions as much as they're reacting to the situations he's providing. The players may well throw you a complete curve ball, providing they're not doing so just to be a-holes, it's down to the GM to deal with it and to a greater or lesser degree to be prepared for it. You can't thoroughly prepare for every possible eventuality admittedly, but you should have reasonable contingencies in mind in case the players react in an unexpected or unpredictable manner. Similarly though, to a degree the players should try to play along - within character - with the GM's basic plot and story.

As said, it shouldn't be an adversarial arrangement. True, as the GM you'll usually be the one controlling the actions of the NPCs that are trying to thwart and often kill the PCs, but that should be more about trying to provide the players with a challenge rather than just defeating them. Anyone can just wipe out the PC's party in the first couple of sessions, doesn't make you a good or clever GM even though in this situation you "won" the game. As the players, you're trying to achieve an objective, solve a mystery or thwart the NPCs whilst playing in character. You're not just trying to beat the GM and his/her game.