Personally I don't really like the adversarial position of the "traditional" gamemaster. I'd much rather attempt to enable the players. This is probably connected to the idea that I want to discover the story written by the players, rather than the player's reaction to my story.
There are different schools of thought on the reward/disadvantage mechanism. When redesigning Bushido (in which eventually became Sengoku) I was roundly castigated for suggesting that I really liked the original games reward mechanism for committing seppuku in the appropriate circumstances. Everyone else believed that the players should not need any reward to role-play properly (however losing a character is a profoundly different experience from playing a disadvantage). Still reward mechanisms do serve to put the disadvantage front and centre before the player, which is good.
A bit problem with disadvantages is that they are usually part of a point-based system (ala Champions and GURPS). Since these games are designed to be zero-sum games they simply serve as a reservoir of extra points and are often ignored during play by most players (although once you get one player in a group that absolutely glories in revelling in their disadvantages things definitely change and the other players tend to join in I find). The solution I use (for GURPS at least – Champions is too breakable so I actually design the player's characters based on their description of who they want to play), is to allow the characters to design whatever characters they want to without a point limit. You can specify general skill ranges and skill requirements. You then add an Amber-style "good/bad stuff" to characters who are above or below the median point value.
And I've found that playing disadvantages is fun and there is usually no need to force a player to do so or hit them with it. At least among many of the people I play with. Although there is the other school that believes the disadvantages should be pushed as far as possible ("megalomania is free points because every player is at heart a megalomaniac").
But basically the purpose of the game is to have fun. Some groups play competitively and try and eke out every possible erg of advantage that they can (both against the universe and – at least in comparison if not outright conflict – the other players), and some play much more cooperatively. And some players, as mentioned above, cannot help but try to "win," even if doing so spoils the game for other players.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-02-24 01:54 am (UTC)Personally I don't really like the adversarial position of the "traditional" gamemaster. I'd much rather attempt to enable the players. This is probably connected to the idea that I want to discover the story written by the players, rather than the player's reaction to my story.
There are different schools of thought on the reward/disadvantage mechanism. When redesigning Bushido (in which eventually became Sengoku) I was roundly castigated for suggesting that I really liked the original games reward mechanism for committing seppuku in the appropriate circumstances. Everyone else believed that the players should not need any reward to role-play properly (however losing a character is a profoundly different experience from playing a disadvantage). Still reward mechanisms do serve to put the disadvantage front and centre before the player, which is good.
A bit problem with disadvantages is that they are usually part of a point-based system (ala Champions and GURPS). Since these games are designed to be zero-sum games they simply serve as a reservoir of extra points and are often ignored during play by most players (although once you get one player in a group that absolutely glories in revelling in their disadvantages things definitely change and the other players tend to join in I find). The solution I use (for GURPS at least – Champions is too breakable so I actually design the player's characters based on their description of who they want to play), is to allow the characters to design whatever characters they want to without a point limit. You can specify general skill ranges and skill requirements. You then add an Amber-style "good/bad stuff" to characters who are above or below the median point value.
And I've found that playing disadvantages is fun and there is usually no need to force a player to do so or hit them with it. At least among many of the people I play with. Although there is the other school that believes the disadvantages should be pushed as far as possible ("megalomania is free points because every player is at heart a megalomaniac").
But basically the purpose of the game is to have fun. Some groups play competitively and try and eke out every possible erg of advantage that they can (both against the universe and – at least in comparison if not outright conflict – the other players), and some play much more cooperatively. And some players, as mentioned above, cannot help but try to "win," even if doing so spoils the game for other players.
<shrug>