What level of control do you prefer a GM to have over their role play?

[Nilum]

Another poll! More data collection! Wheeeeeeeee--

"What is the point of this?"

I am actually going to compile all of the data from each poll, assign it a RoE, create some pretty looking graphs (maybe even some comparison & contrast graphs between two different sets of data) and then present it in a big numbers thread to show what the general demographics, tastes, and beliefs of this community are like. Both because it's fascinating to examine, and because it could be a useful tool for new members to gauge what the community likes in comparison/contrast to what they like.

So, with that out of the way...

What level of control do you prefer a GM to have over their role play? The GM in this case refers to the person or persons who created the role play itself.

 

[Script]

My vote lies somewhere between "partial" and "equal" (but I think my view is closer to equal, so that's where I voted). I think ultimately creative control of the setting remains in the GM's hands, but it's important for the GM to allow players input not solely over their character, but also a degree of potential input on the world. Like, if a player wants to create a character from a type of faction that doesn't exist in the GM's world so far? The GM should be willing to work with the player to create a faction of that nature to accommodate the concept. A player has a sweet idea for a legend, a piece of history, or a plotline? The GM should work with them to make that happen.

IMO RPs work best when the players and the GM are working together to create the story or stories, and aren't solely the players coming along for the GM's plot-ride.

 

[TheZanta]

I voted total, although I don't agree with absolute totalitarianism of a GM.

Obviously, the GM should own the universe that they create for the role play, and what happens to the characters that the players put up should be based upon the universe, not the player. With this, though, an RP is still a collaborative effort, in my opinion, between the GM and the players. A storyline that the GM puts up should not be totally static and fatalist. What the players contribute to the role play should have at least some effect on how the storyline is steered. Maybe the plot is intended to go one certain way, and that's fine, but what players contribute should have at least some effect to how they get there or what they get there with.

When it comes to character deaths, I really don't think players should be totally responsible for the fates of their characters. I know that some people write their characters with their entire life stories in mind, how they begin and how they end. However, I think that's a bit too idealistic. It's a universe that is dictated by a GM, and the universe should provide appropriate consequences for a player/character's actions.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

For the sake of simplicity I voted "Equal", but in truth it's a bit more complicated.

Ultimately there's no universal answer, it depends on the GM in question, but generally speaking I find that the best GMs are those who are trying to have a fun experience with their players, rather than a GM who see's it as a "Me VS Them" mentality. And typically the former will give more room and control to their players, to let them explore new directions, quest lines etc. While the latter will former keeping control for themselves, so that they can properly "correct" or "punish" players who "act out of line".

Now, a DM can have most of the control and have the RP turn out amazing, but typically speaking the amount of power a GM is granted over the players tends to be representative of how likely they are to kill their RP because of some power fantasy.

And then in regards to Forum RPs VS Tabletop RPs I prefer forum RPs to give more power to the players than tabletop would, for a few reasons.

1. By their nature a Tabletop is real time. So Players do got time to sit back and plan what their "post" is going to be. So for the sake of speed and efficiency you need some sort of general plan, and quick improvisation. Which tends to lend itself to letting the GM have some power over the world, the NPCs, encounters etc.

2. Also by their nature, Tabletops focus on players focusing on one character, being reliant on the GM to handle the rest. While in a forum RP a player can much more easily manage multiple characters from different sides of a conflict.

 

[Ragenaut]

I voted for "Partial", but I believe "None" would also be a great alternative. It depends upon the type of RP, really, but I believe RPs should fall under these two categories.

Story-based RPs should be open at all times, but the GM should be able to do what is needed to forward his story. He should be able to kill you, BUT, you should be able to find a way to outplay him, in a sense. If there is any situation where something will happen no matter the circumstances, it should only be under the circumstances that the party member/s agree with.

For open world/nation building RPs, no GM would be best. The nations create the story, there's no need for a GM to steer things around. Freedom for all, if you ask me.

 

[Ouverture]

I believe a GM should have absolute power, but also the wisdom how, when and if to use it. They should use their power to facilitate a story, not to force it. Which is the implication the poll option gives off. Players should maintain the illusion of power and influence, at the very least. If they do not feel their decisions and writing matters, they will not be motivated to make decisions or write. To this end, I believe a GM should either allow players to interfere with their plans or plan for multiple outcomes. They have the right to veto or force consequences if necessary, but ideally wouldn't make the player posts feel less impactful because they did something that wasn't pre-scripted by the GM.