So what is a sandbox game anyway?

[RazorChain]

Yes, and the first one is 5 people, the second one is...minimum a million. Not a good comparison.

Firthermore, tt doesn't need to be all players. If all but one player objects, that likely enough to. Depending on the group size, losing one player could be a big deal too. Even in a large group, say 6 players, that's still 17% of the group gone over one thing. A sensible DM is going to at least consider just how important this feature is to them, when a player doesn't want to be in a game with it. "Hmmm, do I really need to explore rascism in depth if its going to lose me a player? Would I rather have one less theme to explore in a game and keep the current party?"



As I mentioned above, one of those things involves a single digit number of people agreeing on something. The other involves way way more. Its not a good comparison.

I think it's a pretty good comparison of democracy in action, we rarely see a GM being a dictator that forces people to play the game against their will

But mostly my response was to that the GM has no power because the players can always chose to leave. If it was so then the only power that counts is force. I mean my boss has no authority over my because I can always chose to leave.....and lose my job. The same thing applies most everything unless force is being use then you can chose not to submit at the cost of your health.

Either the GM finds people to play what he intends to run or with an already established group, gets elected to run a game after a successful pitch.

Now the GM has the power to run the game, make up house rules, veto characters, decide upon content, adjucate, interpret dicerolls and rules. It even extends to deciding when to play as without the GM this particular game isn't taking place.

This hasn't anything to do with being anti sandbox, I think sandbox is a pretty valid term for a gamestyle. The GM has the same power in sandbox game, he has already chosen the content of his sandbox, his players now have the choice to interact with it or not.

[Quertus]

Yes, and the first one is 5 people, the second one is...minimum a million. Not a good comparison.

As I mentioned above, one of those things involves a single digit number of people agreeing on something. The other involves way way more. Its not a good comparison.

By which you mean, it's far easier to replace the GM, right?

[Florian]

By which you mean, it's far easier to replace the GM, right?

.... and we're back to square one....

[Corneel]

.... and we're back to square one....

So we all get $200?

[Scripten]

So we all get $200?

That depends on who's DMing.

[Florian]

So we all get $200?

Depends. Ask your gm.

[Corneel]

Depends. Ask your gm.

Nah, I'm not that old yet. Unless there's an XP penalty for going to the toilet.

[Boci]

By which you mean, it's far easier to replace the GM, right?

Yes. Its happens and we don't even know about it. A government being replaced is invariable significant enough to be recorded in the history books.

I think it's a pretty good comparison of democracy in action, we rarely see a GM being a dictator that forces people to play the game against their will

But mostly my response was to that the GM has no power because the players can always chose to leave. If it was so then the only power that counts is force. I mean my boss has no authority over my because I can always chose to leave.....and lose my job.

Which tends to have significant finiancial consequences, leaving a gaming group does not. Still not a good comparison.

A better example would be a party I am host of. Do I have power there? That comparison is far more accurate to the role of DM than government or jobs you earn your living from.

If it takes a signifanct portion of an entire nation rising up against you, you probably have power. If it takes 5 people at a table saying, "Dude, not cool," that probably not power.

[Darth Ultron]

DU, most of us play with people that aren't enormous tools. And if every single player you encounter is such... There may be another factor at play.

I live in a Tool Box?

And the government has options. A DM doesn't. If the players say no, that's the end, they can't call in the cavalry to maintain order.

Well...the Dm can not DM, for example.

[Boci]

Well...the Dm can not DM, for example.

Yes, that would be the the ''take their toys and go home'' power you mentioned earlier.

[Quertus]

Nothing to add, just wanted to collectively thank the various posters who have made page 8 of this thread such a hoot!

[RazorChain]

Yes. Its happens and we don't even know about it. A government being replaced is invariable significant enough to be recorded in the history books.



Which tends to have significant finiancial consequences, leaving a gaming group does not. Still not a good comparison.

A better example would be a party I am host of. Do I have power there? That comparison is far more accurate to the role of DM than government or jobs you earn your living from.

If it takes a signifanct portion of an entire nation rising up against you, you probably have power. If it takes 5 people at a table saying, "Dude, not cool," that probably not power.

Now you are just talking scale and severity of consequences. It takes a certain proportion of the populace to replace the goverment, usually majority, the same may be said for a gaming group. If only 2 out of 6 players want a new GM and the other 4 are super happy about him then probably not much is going to change. If 33% wants A as a president and 66% want B as a president then B is probably going to stay as the President. The same is in the gaming group, if 33% want A as a GM and 66% want B as a GM who do you think will the GM?

The same can be said for you job. If you don't like to be bossed around you can always walk away, but there will be consequences. The same is if you walk away from a game, the consequences are no gaming for you until you find yourself a new group. Here it's only the severity of the consequences that differ. You can always chose not to submit to power, just expect there will be consequences.

Power is granular, it's not just an on and off switch where you either have power or not.

Let's have some checkboxes.

Can the GM create, add to and modify the Game World?
Can the GM make create, add and modify the rules?
Can the GM veto or put limits on what kind of character the players are allowed to use in the game?
Does the GM adjucate and interpret the rules and decide upon the results of die rolls?
Within the game does the GM control everything except the Player Characters?

Are the other players allowed to do any of the above without the GM's permission?


So who has the most power within the game?

If this isn't power what should we call it? Control over the game? Authority within the game? Or just responsibilty for the game? Privilege or influence maybe?

I am not talking about outside the game, but within the game.

[RazorChain]

By which you mean, it's far easier to replace the GM, right?

That is questionable, I've seen more goverments toppled than GM's replaced. The only time I've tried to replace my GM was during a solo game and that didn't work out so well.

[Pleh]

Can the GM create, add to and modify the Game World?
Can the GM make create, add and modify the rules?
Can the GM veto or put limits on what kind of character the players are allowed to use in the game?
Does the GM adjucate and interpret the rules and decide upon the results of die rolls?
Within the game does the GM control everything except the Player Characters?

Are the other players allowed to do any of the above without the GM's permission?


So who has the most power within the game?

Flaw: the GM is not allowed to change any of these things in the game without permission from the players. Therefore, the GM has at most equal power as the players and certainly not any more.

And it is still predicated by permission.

[Boci]

That is questionable, I've seen more goverments toppled than GM's replaced. The only time I've tried to replace my GM was during a solo game and that didn't work out so well.

Could that maybe be because governments toppling makes the news and GMs replaced doesn't?

I've heard about more people winning the lottery than getting the wrong order at a restaurant, but I still assume the later happens more often.

[Max_Killjoy]

As a side note, keep in mind that the concept of "changing governments" can mean something very different depending on who's using the terms.

In parliamentary countries, "the current government" often refers to whoever last won elections and either took a majority or formed a coalition, thus gaining control of parliament and the executive.

In American parlance, we've had one government since the late 1700s when the Constitution was ratified and came into effect. The idea of the elections as "toppling the government" sounds very strange to most Americans.

Not sure if that gap in parlance is involved here, but thought I'd mention it just in case.


(Not to create any political discussion, please, just hoping to shed some light.)

[Corneel]

As a side note, keep in mind that the concept of "changing governments" can mean something very different depending on who's using the terms.

In parliamentary countries, "the current government" often refers to whoever last won elections and either took a majority or formed a coalition, thus gaining control of parliament and the executive.

In American parlance, we've had one government since the late 1700s when the Constitution was ratified and came into effect. The idea of the elections as "toppling the government" sounds very strange to most Americans.

Not sure if that gap in parlance is involved here, but thought I'd mention it just in case.


(Not to create any political discussion, please, just hoping to shed some light.)

Basically you keep your government but change your administration, while we (parliamentarians) change our government and keep our administration, and all the while neither of us change regimes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Basically you keep your government but change your administration, while we (parliamentarians) change our government and keep our administration, and all the while neither of us change regimes.

That's not a bad way of putting it.

Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a disconnect in the ongoing conversation based on that usage. Even knowing what is meant, it's always a bit strange as an American to hear or read European news sources talking about the "fall of the _______ government" because of an election...

(Again, not trying to start a debate or make real-world politics a point of discussion.)

[Segev]

The parliamentary way of looking at it seems more analogous to the GM/player power dynamic, however. It is extremely rare for players to say, "We want a new GM," and get their wish, and it remain the same game. It can happen, but usually it instead results in a totally different game.

When I was in college, nearly all of my friends formed one large group of gamers, and we had a number of RPGs running at any point in time. Some had the exact same circle of people around the table, just changing GM and game (usually different systems, though occasionally there were two of the same system running) depending on which game was running that evening. (We even had schedules to make sure we could fit in the games we all wanted with the players who wanted into them.)

If a game wasn't any fun, we'd discuss it, and it would usually die, and another would take its place, often with the same group. Sometimes the same GM (not every game was a winning idea), sometimes with a different one (the GM didn't have other ideas or needed a break).

But the change of one GM for another almost invariably resulted in a different game. Even when one GM actively took over for another with the intent of continuing it, it felt different. It had to, since if it remained the same, it probably would still have broken up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But the change of one GM for another almost invariably resulted in a different game. Even when one GM actively took over for another with the intent of continuing it, it felt different. It had to, since if it remained the same, it probably would still have broken up.

The thought of taking over for someone and keeping the same game is...ugh. No. I can't even imagine how that would work.

I took over one once, but immediately ret-conned everything except the characters as a bad dream due to starvation.

[RazorChain]

Flaw: the GM is not allowed to change any of these things in the game without permission from the players. Therefore, the GM has at most equal power as the players and certainly not any more.

And it is still predicated by permission.

Ok maybe in your case. But I as a GM run my own worlds, so I create the world, modify and add to it as I see fit.
Before the game I'll tell the players about what rules are in place and what house rules we are using.
I will inform the players what they can play, points limits etc. No dinosaur riding knights in my old western game or being of pure thoughts in a game of dungeon crawling.
I will adjucate, intrepret the rules and tell them the results of their die rolls.

I do not ask permission for these things. I do not know what kind of game you run but do you ask your players permission before you add content to your sandbox? Do you ask them if you may tell them if their die roll was enough to hit their enemy?

Is everything decided upon democratically? Let's vote if that dungeon gets added into the sandbox? Please raise your hands!
If so then you play your RPG different than I do and more power to you. I'm a autocrat, once I'm in power I decide upon everything and control everything except the PCs.

[RazorChain]

That's not a bad way of putting it.

Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a disconnect in the ongoing conversation based on that usage. Even knowing what is meant, it's always a bit strange as an American to hear or read European news sources talking about the "fall of the _______ government" because of an election...

(Again, not trying to start a debate or make real-world politics a point of discussion.)

When I was talking about toppling the government I was actually talking about people taking to the streets, protesting and the government not serving their term and new elections being held.

But yes governments fall when the parties involved fail to get the election results they need to continue governing.

[Nifft]

When I was talking about toppling the government I was actually talking about people taking to the streets, protesting and the government not serving their term and new elections being held.

But yes governments fall when the parties involved fail to get the election results they need to continue governing.

The thing is, if every single citizen decided to reject the government, the government would immediately cease to exist because the government is made of people.

(Note that this post has an expiration date, which is when the robots take over.)

[Quertus]

It is extremely rare for players to say, "We want a new GM," and get their wish, and it remain the same game. It can happen, but usually it instead results in a totally different game.

But the change of one GM for another almost invariably resulted in a different game. Even when one GM actively took over for another with the intent of continuing it, it felt different. It had to, since if it remained the same, it probably would still have broken up.

I am, unfortunately, too senile to successfully count the number of times I've seen it happen, that one GM was ousted, and another continued the campaign. Or that a "peaceful takeover" occurred, usually when one GM became too busy / moved away / whatever, and another player took up the mantle and continued the campaign.

But feel? Why would that be important to your definition of the continuity of a campaign?

The thought of taking over for someone and keeping the same game is...ugh. No. I can't even imagine how that would work.

Have you ever ran a module?

No dinosaur riding knights in my old western game or being of pure thoughts in a game of dungeon crawling.

How about a being of impure thoughts?

EDIT:

Before the game I'll tell the players about what rules are in place and what house rules we are using.

So, if you've agreed to a system, and presented your house rules, but it turns out that you misread a rule, and a player conclusively proves, to you and the group, that the actual RAW on the rule is different from how you thought it was, how would you respond?

For example, back when 3e first came out, I had to prove to a group that applying metamagic feats to spells raises their level, and, no, the 5th level Wizard can't cast Maximized Empowered Fireball out of their 3rd level spell slot.

[Pleh]

Ok maybe in your case. But I as a GM run my own worlds, so I create the world, modify and add to it as I see fit.
Before the game I'll tell the players about what rules are in place and what house rules we are using.
I will inform the players what they can play, points limits etc. No dinosaur riding knights in my old western game or being of pure thoughts in a game of dungeon crawling.
I will adjucate, intrepret the rules and tell them the results of their die rolls.

I do not ask permission for these things. I do not know what kind of game you run but do you ask your players permission before you add content to your sandbox? Do you ask them if you may tell them if their die roll was enough to hit their enemy?

Is everything decided upon democratically? Let's vote if that dungeon gets added into the sandbox? Please raise your hands!
If so then you play your RPG different than I do and more power to you. I'm a autocrat, once I'm in power I decide upon everything and control everything except the PCs.

Your players grant you permission to make the limitations to the game which you proposed to them. They could have countermanded one or all of these limitations by insisting different limits. If you didn't concede these changes, they refuse to play and your game is over. You still have only permission, not power.

Asking permission to add content: the proposal to run a game implictly requests permission to generate and add content without supervision. If your content goes beyond what was permitted (like promising a medeival fantasy and delivering futuristic sci fi) the players are within their right to strip your power by revoking your permissions.

You still have permission rather than power.

[Florian]

Flaw: the GM is not allowed to change any of these things in the game without permission from the players. Therefore, the GM has at most equal power as the players and certainly not any more.

And it is still predicated by permission.

Ah, how I love me some fresh rule zero in the morning.

Pleh, you can argue all that you want, it won't change anything until we stop talking about traditional RPGs. To use an analogy, same situation as with cars: car, driver, passengers. The driver is the necessary component and as such has power. You can talk about the destination or driving style before the drive and you can always call for a stop to get out, but the driver is still the one doing the driving.

Have you ever ran a module?

Hundreds. Never by the book, never without modifications and tailoring to my and the groups style.

[Drakevarg]

Your players grant you permission to make the limitations to the game which you proposed to them. They could have countermanded one or all of these limitations by insisting different limits. If you didn't concede these changes, they refuse to play and your game is over. You still have only permission, not power.

Asking permission to add content: the proposal to run a game implictly requests permission to generate and add content without supervision. If your content goes beyond what was permitted (like promising a medeival fantasy and delivering futuristic sci fi) the players are within their right to strip your power by revoking your permissions.

You still have permission rather than power.

Can't speak to your games, but I don't ask my players for permission before I impose things. Now yes, of course players retain the power to simply walk out if they don't like the way I run things, but such matters are the exception rather than the rule. My "permission" is to do whatever the heck I want without question unless otherwise noted. The rules are treated as nothing but an underlying framework to build off of, not the root authority.

[RazorChain]

Your players grant you permission to make the limitations to the game which you proposed to them. They could have countermanded one or all of these limitations by insisting different limits. If you didn't concede these changes, they refuse to play and your game is over. You still have only permission, not power.

Asking permission to add content: the proposal to run a game implictly requests permission to generate and add content without supervision. If your content goes beyond what was permitted (like promising a medeival fantasy and delivering futuristic sci fi) the players are within their right to strip your power by revoking your permissions.

You still have permission rather than power.

No....I make demands. When the players have acquiesced to my demands then we can start to play. But usually I won't start games until a certain amount of groveling has taken place, I will accept begging as well.


Seriously though, the players ask me to be their GM, I do not ask them permission of running a game for them, like "Hey RazorChain cant you run a game?". And me being a selfish prick I'll run exactly the game I want to run. Sometimes I pitch a game and if somebody else in the group pitches a more interesting idea...see these are elections, not that this happens often but hey I'm happy if it does because then I'll get to play. We elect a game and a game master, after that the GM of that game is in control, he'll have all the authority he needs to get the game running. He'll lay down the rules, accept or veto characters. He is the director, the creator, the head honcho, the boss, the game MASTER!!!

The second thing is that Game Masters are precious commodity. I'm lucky in one of the groups I play in we have 4 people who can run games but even then I run the majority of the games. I usually get a break when I am tired of running games. Then somebody steps up and runs something so I wont suffer from a GM burnout.

In my second group (the new group) I can literally run anything I want, I could probably run Bunnies and Burrows and my players would get on board because they are afraid of losing their spot at the table. Just the lack of decent Game Master that run something else than AP hands power to the GM. If good GM's were in abundance an they were fighting for players then the players would have much more control over the game. "Oh I can't play a half-dragon vampire drow? Then I'll just keep playing with GM Joe, he really strokes my power fantasy!"

[Pleh]

No....I make demands. When the players have acquiesced to my demands then we can start to play. But usually I won't start games until a certain amount of groveling has taken place, I will accept begging as well.


Seriously though, the players ask me to be their GM, I do not ask them permission of running a game for them, like "Hey RazorChain cant you run a game?". And me being a selfish prick I'll run exactly the game I want to run. Sometimes I pitch a game and if somebody else in the group pitches a more interesting idea...see these are elections, not that this happens often but hey I'm happy if it does because then I'll get to play. We elect a game and a game master, after that the GM of that game is in control, he'll have all the authority he needs to get the game running. He'll lay down the rules, accept or veto characters. He is the director, the creator, the head honcho, the boss, the game MASTER!!!

The second thing is that Game Masters are precious commodity. I'm lucky in one of the groups I play in we have 4 people who can run games but even then I run the majority of the games. I usually get a break when I am tired of running games. Then somebody steps up and runs something so I wont suffer from a GM burnout.

In my second group (the new group) I can literally run anything I want, I could probably run Bunnies and Burrows and my players would get on board because they are afraid of losing their spot at the table. Just the lack of decent Game Master that run something else than AP hands power to the GM. If good GM's were in abundance an they were fighting for players then the players would have much more control over the game. "Oh I can't play a half-dragon vampire drow? Then I'll just keep playing with GM Joe, he really strokes my power fantasy!"

Just because there is a presence of supply and demand which incentivizes your players to grant you special permissions doesn't change the fact that all this power is predicated on having those permissions.

If you believe this grants you power over the players, that makes you a manipulative and borderline toxic playmate. It grants you power over their game characters, to be sure, but only so far as the players allow. They can always revoke that power.

To be sure, you have the same power to refuse to run the game, granting them permission to have power in your game through their characters, but this is a far cry from having all power.

[Nifft]

This sort of power-permission ambiguity is exactly why I only game with captives in my basement.

It rolls to attack or else it gets the hose.