Controlled Anarchy: Power to the Players
If traditional games were a nation, The UN would be on them like butter on toast. The distribution of creative control is a tyrannical system: nearly all of the game world’s creative control rests in the hands of the greedy, clawed hands of the ruthless GM.
Okay, so
it’s not that dramatic. But
traditional games are certainly designed to give the most control to the GMs.
Players have control over their characters (through character creation,
backstory, and in-game decisions) as well as the immediate environment their
characters can affect (whether it be by moving it, killing it, or magical force
bolts at it). This system of power can be fun, but it gets really fun when we
allow some of that creative power to trickle down to the players. When players
create something, they are more likely to interact with it, and therefore be
more interested in the game. This in turn makes your job easier, which makes a
better game over all! In short:
empowered
players = happy players = interested players = happy GM = enjoyable game
Giving
players power doesn’t mean tearing the role of GM down. This can be done by
handing out little “power nuggets” to players, using many different techniques.
So turn on your Rage Against the Machine, ‘cause we’re about to tear down this
tyrannical establishment and stick it to the man. Let’s have some anarchy!
Disclaimer: These techniques require trust
in your players. One reason why many traditional games limit the control
the players have over the world at large is the desire to maintain a challenge.
The thought is, if players have world control, they’ll just poof in a treasure
chest full of vorpral swords or do some other game breaking action. This has
the same effect as “god modes” in video games: it’s a blast for the first
fight, sort of fun for the second, and then by the time the third fight comes
around, you’re missing the challenge.
Like all
problems, this can be solved with communication. Explain your expectations to
the players. Tell Grabak the Barbarian you’d prefer if he didn’t create an army
of Gundams to use. Then trust your players to respect your expectations. Don’t
say no unless it’s hurting the game experience. If they toe the line, explain
how and why their actions are hurting the game (they may not even be aware),
and ask them not to do so. The worst case scenario is you have to say “No,
sorry, you can’t do that.” You’ve got nothing to lose.
Apocalypse World Rules: Disclaim
Decision-Making
Nobody would
know how to empower players better than the story game community. If you
haven’t already MCed (the game’s term for Gamemasters) Vincent Baker’s story game Apocalypse
World, do yourself a favor and do so. That game’s structure for GMing has
been a great influence on my own style. One of the game’s MC guidelines is of
particular use to us here: occasionally
disclaim decision-making. In Apocalypse World, this means that sometimes
when a player asks, “Are there chandeliers in the Great Hall?” you should
respond with “Are there? You tell me.”
This gives
the player a creative input into the game beyond what they usually have. Of
course, a player could abuse this, but we’re going to trust them not to, because the results are awesome. If a player
asks if there are any chandeliers in the Great Hall, it's probably because
they're about to do some sweet shit with it. Let them have it. Let’s do a comparison:
Option 1:
Decision-making disclaimed
Player: “Are
there chandeliers in the Great Hall?”
GM: “Are
there? You tell me.”
Player: “Uh,
okay, yes, there are. Can I jump onto one from the balcony, swing across, and
then interrupt the king’s speech by skewering him with my rapier from above?”
GM: “Sure.”
Option 2:
Lame
Player: “Are
there chandeliers in the Great Hall?”
GM: “Nope.”
Player:
“Huh, okay. I guess I’ll just shot him with my bow.”
I hope I
don’t have to explain which of these the better option is. This technique can
be used for anything: environments (like above), social interactions (“Is he
lying? You tell me.”), historical clarifications (“He might have an
illegitimate heir, what do you think?”), and more. Disclaiming decision-making
works best when it’s used relatively sparingly and used in ways that give the PCs toys to play with.
Player-Drawn Maps
If you play
a game that using miniatures and maps for battle, allowing your players to draw
out battle-maps is one of the easiest ways to give players a taste of the
sweet, sweet nectar of creative control. Briefly explain the general contents
of the map (“It’s a town square,”) and any features that are needed (“so there'll need to be buildings, and there’s probably like a fountain or something
too”), then give the players the markers and sit back: prepare your notes, get
a drink, nod off, or whatever you like. Meanwhile, the players will create for
you an interesting map. In all the times I’ve done this, I’ve never been
disappointed with a blank map.
In fact, most often, players are going to
include something extra to give them an advantage. And that’s totally okay. If
a player creates a terrain feature, they are nearly certain to interact with
it. It’s far more interesting for Grabak to push down rotten trees on top of
the goblins than for him to walk up to the and whack them with repeatedly with
his greatsword.
Player Controlled Monsters
Dave tipped me
on to the awesomeness of this one in a custom critical hit charm for magic against zombies (Dave’s secretly a gaming anarchist too, he just doesn’t know it yet). One of
the results on the magic hit table allowed the caster to take control of a
zombie, and basically use it as a puppet. When I read that, I was instant
enamored. Fewer monsters for the GM to control, more fun for the players to
have. This can be done in-game, like Dave’s example above, or out-game, where
you just hand the players sheets for the monsters.
This doesn’t have to be an all or nothing, either. You could say that goblins
are indecisive and bad tacticians, so one turn the players will control them,
and another turn the GM will.
Let’s Start a Revolution
These are,
of course, just a few methods to break down the tyrannical distribution of
power in traditional games. As you use these, others will develop, and soon
you’ll have full blown anarchy on your hands! (Okay, hopefully not. But you
will have fun, enriched gaming.) Do you use any techniques like these to play
with the power distribution in your game? If so, let the world know! Leave a
comment below describing how you stick it to the man!
No comments:
Post a Comment