The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Luminous CrayonIf you had stopped your post at this point, I would have puffed my pipe and declared: "Hmm, gentlemen, I do believe SCMP has the right of it!"

Quote from: SCMPIf all roleplaying is is reading from the script the GM has set up then yes, I'll find another hobby.

nobody is saying anything like that anywhere in the whole thread.[/i] Now you are Don Quixote, jousting with windmills. You often make very astute points when you are not undermining yourself with absurd hyperbole.

I'm sorry, but that's what it sounded like to me.  In fact I still read Vreeg's post like that.  It sounds very self-assured of it's position, and the position sounds very accusatory toward those players who may wish to have control over what happens to their characters.  I felt it necessary to respond to that tone.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI'm sorry, but that's what it sounded like to me.  In fact I still read Vreeg's post like that.  It sounds very self-assured of it's position, and the position sounds very accusatory toward those players who may wish to have control over what happens to their characters.  I felt it necessary to respond to that tone.

That's nice, but you're still imagining things. I'm not even sure I'm reading the same Vreeg post you're describing, because I don't see any in this thread that fit your description.

Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxGood.
Then you agree with me.  You conveniently left out this part.
[blockquote=Vreeg]As part of this, there is a social contract that goes on and becomes stronger. The GM will be fair and give the PLayer every break to create their character, but the Player has to be willing to immerse their goals for the sake of roleplaying.[/blockquote]  This contract, as I noted, goes both ways.

"Immerse their goals for the sake of" sounds very much, to me, like saying the goals of the player do not matter.

Quote from: Vreeg's Bordeaux[blockquote=Vreeg]Gaming is kind of a social contract, and becomes moreso as one gets older.Players get (as a rule) less interested in gaming the system and min/maxing, and GM's become more interested in the cooperative story and less interested in their own plans.[/blockquote]
Nobody talked about forcing.  Only you are setting up self-fulfilling conditions and situations where "all roleplaying is reading from the script the GM has set up." (italics yours). As noted above, good GM's become more interested in the cooperative story.

Other parts of your post make your point sound much more antagonistic to the idea that the player has a part in the process.

Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxAnd to use LC's example, if giving you a minor penalty like paranoia from poison is too invasive, I don't know what to tell you.  I understand that it is personal, but if that is cause for you absenting yourself from a game due to the GM making too many demands, as per this comment,
[blockquote=SCMP]  Well the way I look at it the first option means I don't really need to be there: the game or the DM has decided what my character's RP should be, so why need me?[/blockquote], I really think you are talking about penalizing the other players and the GM for what could be very good GMing, just because it very slightly creates a situation where the versimilatude of the setting infringes on the needs and wants of one player.  This is not even close to a railroad or a permanent situation, just a bit of seting reality intruding on the plans of a player.  Certainly less intrusive then a GM determining that the last major shot a character took scarred them for life or cut off a few fingers.

For the example given I object to the psychological condition being decided for me.  If the personality of the character that I've worked on up till that point is going to be changed without my say I really don't see how I am a player rather than an actor being told what to do.  If I was told I could choose what kind of psychological result the poison had that would be better because it would involve me in the process.  (Also what does the GM do if the player is uncomfortable with the change?  What if acting out the condition triggers real psychological issues?)

One last thing: I'm not interested in the type of game where setting reality is more important than my choice.  I get that enough in real life and it makes me feel worthless, in a game I like to be asked before it happens.

Call me a rollplayer then, but I absolutely love "invasive" RP rules like alignment and insanity. Back in 3E I had a long discussion with my players on how we were going to handle NPCs use of social skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. I had statted up the player's primary NPC contact as a half-elf bard who absolutely hated his mother for falling in love with a human, shorting him out of the lifespan he would have had if his father had been an elf. This fear of death was leading him down the path of lichdom (it was an evil campaign, btw). Crow, his name, was (on the surface) the nicest person you could ever meet. Even though he had an 18 charisma, his Intimidate score was in the negatives due to the traits he took (from Unearthed Arcana) which imposed negatives to his Intimidate skill. He simply couldn't be intimidating; if he tried to be, people would take it in the best possible way and just think he was joking. He made a living writing plays that were commentaries on the royalty while he was also a patron to many of the noblemen's wives and daughters (he'd have them over to his manor for "private poetry readings").

Needless to say, the depth of this character absolutely required the players to play by the same rules that NPCs did. There were going to be duplicitous plot elements and I had to know that I could pull a fast one on the characters even though the players totally suspected it.

When I came to my players to ask them if they'd let me roll Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against them, they were at first confused. I explained to them that I was allowed to roll Bluff checks against their Sense Motive. I also asked them if they were okay when they failed a save against an NPC wizard's domination. Since they were fine playing out a wizard's domination, they decided they were fine playing out an NPC sweet talking them with Diplomacy or seeming like 10 levels stronger with Intimidate.

I was worried that they'd see it as me telling them how to play their characters, but after the discussion one player in particular told me that it wasn't so harsh. Instead of playing their characters for them, it's like a director giving an actor their motivation (less so, since actors are on a script). But an actor still gets to determine how they portray a character (that's why actor's get more awards and acclaim than the writers do).

Currently, I'm trying to figure out a set of meta-rules to encourage my players to play Good aligned characters and make Evil both tempting and damning. I want Good to be the hard but rewarding path, and I want Evil to be the easy but ultimately bad path. Players will still be perfectly able to play Neutral and Evil characters, but I'd like some small mechanic to inject the sort of "moral shield" that people get when they truly believe they're doing the right thing (you know, that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you do something truly altruistic). I'd like the world to reward such characters for going extensively out of their way to do the heroic thing, even though it not only puts them at risk but also costs them something.

I also love sanity/taint rules in settings which are made for them. Legend of the Five Rings wouldn't be the same without the threat of taint (Shadowlands creatures wouldn't be fearsome if they were just like fighting a warrior; sure, you could lose limb or life in both fights, but a fight with an Oni could cost you your soul). Likewise, Call of Cthulu wouldn't be the same without the ever present threat of sanity. One of my favorite video games of all times was "Eternal Darkness", which took advantage of being a video game with its sanity systems (there were times where the game would seem to turn off, or blue-screen-of-death you, or you'd see insects crawling on your TV screen, or you'd get game over screens).

I also loved the Traits of 3E, because they let players get some mechanical means to express the way they wanted to play their characters. One of the better written characters in games I've DMed was a halfling shuriken throwing rogue, who grew farsighted from constantly wearing his "goggles of minute seeing". The bonus and penalty he got from the trait (-2 search, +1 spot) wasn't overly beneficial or hindering for him, but the player found it nice to have his stat sheet reflect the way he intended to play his character (I actually never let a player see the effects of the traits we used, I'd have them either pick two traits from the list or just make up two of their own, and I'd add the changes to their character sheet after they were done. This way, no one picked traits to min/max their character, as I've seen done with advantages and disadvantages in many systems.)

LC, that sounds really interesting with Spirit of the Century. That reminds me of the Complications and Drawbacks of Mutants and Masterminds. Complications are little quirks of your character, like Spiderman's alterego and his relationship with Marry Jane. If Spiderman's GM decides to make his being Peter Parker get in the way of his super heroing (lets say Dr. Octopus is robbing an armored car shipping dangerous chemicals when Peter needs to finish an essay, and staying out all night to catch Doc Oc makes it so Peter can't finish the paper and he flunks a class ...), then Spiderman earns an Action Point. Likewise, if a bout of superheroing were to keep Peter from a date with MJ, an action point would be awarded.

Disadvantages are actual mechanical penalties. By taking a disadvantage, you gain bonus character points to buy things to make you stronger. The amount of points you gain are based on the Severity and Frequency of the drawback. The Severity is how badly the drawback will affect you: lets say your vampire character begins to die in the sunlight, losing a point of Constitution every turn he's in sunlight. This drawback is severe, because it can kill your character. Rather than letting a player pick a drawback and then go through every means in their disposal to keep it from happening, the system incorporates Frequency into the value of the drawback. The frequency determines how often the GM will bring up your drawback (either 1/4th of sessions, 1/2, or 3/4ths of sessions). To keep it random, a GM is advised to roll a d4 (actually a d20, looking at 5's, since the system uses only d20s) before each adventure to see if the drawback will come up. Superman's weakness to kryptonite is a drawback of this sort; it is meaningless if it's not around, but it comes up whenever the GM wants it to (since most Superman players buy it with pretty heavy frequency to pay for all the BS Superman can do), even though it's supposed to be a rare element.

But again, I'm Kaptain Krunch. I ran a game involving a bleed from Far Realm where the group of characters were slowly losing their mind (one had snapped because she was forced to kill an old lady, a possessed child, and one of her adventuring companions all in the span of 5 minutes), and I was making extensive uses of the sanity and taint rules.

I like when the rules support the fluff. If a race's description says they're frail, I'd like to see a Con penalty. If a race description says that a race is athletic, I'd like to see a bonus to athletic-type skills. In 4E, I totally do not understand why Half-Elves have as much Constitution as Dwarves (the description of the Half-Elf says they're hardier than Elves, but since Elves don't have a Con penalty we ended up with Dwarf-tough Half-Elves).

Now, I think such meta rules typically work best if players have some say in it. If you're using Sanity rules, for instance, you should probably either only use one effect for everyone or just let each player choose the effect of their Sanity (from a mechanically balanced list, preferably). It might not have been in the player's picture of their character for their character to become irredeemably obsessive-compulsive, stopping to count the eyes on ever group of monsters they fight (mechanics, dazed for the first round of every encounter, combative or social), but it's also not on most player's agendas to have their character die a horrible death or be converted to a ghoul; these things happen.

I find it really odd that most players will accept their character dying at some amount of negative HP, or having their character's weapons be non-functional against a certain monster, a wizard dominating their character, or their character contracting Lycanthropy, yet I've seen posts of players saying that it's unfair for a DM to roll an Intimidate check, beat their Will defense and tell the player to play their character as if they're absolutely terrified of the NPC and should do what the NPC says or suffer the consequences. In fact, I saw a thread just today talking about the issue of an NPC grabbing a character, holding a knife to their throat and telling the other players to "freeze or he dies"; out of character the player of the held character says "let him, he can't deal 1/4th my life in damage in a single blow from a dagger, so even a coup de grace won't kill me". Mechanics don't match up with the fluff in that circumstance and many others. As an amateur designer, these are the things I hope to be able to address in any system I tweek or possibly create in the future.

Wow that ended up being longer than I thought. Thanks for the awesome thread.

This is interesting.  SilvercatMoonpaw, you like a game in which not only do you affect the game through your character but in dimensions outside of your character, right?  Whereas Vreeg, you're all for cooperation, but at the level of characters' actions within your world rather than players' input on your plot - correct?

Both positions are valid, I think, and all depend on personal comfort levels/preference.  It seems to me that SCMP's way gives a ton more control to the player but at the expense of surprise or danger.  For example, SCMP, would you have a problem with your character dying in a fight?  What if they're at low hp, exploring an area, come acorss a lock, attempt to pick it, fail a reflex save (or equivalent), are pricked by a poison needle, and die?

Vreeg, your way is the way I've usually played - where players have little control over the specifics of a plot or campaign, but characters can create plots and stories, reacting to the world.  Players might have broad input into the sort of campaign they'd like to play ("lots of politics," or "something creepy," or "more quests in Igbar") and they might even have specific directions they plan to take their characters, which they might tell you about ("I have a new, secret goal").  But they can only control the world itself through their characters' decisions, for the most part, right?

Like let's say you run a plot where the players fight against werewolves.  The players should realize that they need to take precautions when fighting werewolves (for example, researching how to cure lycanthropy in case they're bitten).  If I'm interpreting correctly, under Vreeg's method, if the characters are bitten, the player just has to deal with it, and it'll probably be unforseen (i.e. Vreeg wouldn't plan specifically to have a player become a werewolf, even if he planned a confrontation with some werewolves).

Silvercat, under your method, you'd want complete control over whether your character got bitten or not, right?  Being afflicted with lycanthropy would alter your character in a both physical and psychological way, and you wouldn't be OK with a GM violating your character, even in a combat situation?  So thus, as a GM, you would always ask a player beforehand (before the session or before the specific combat) whether they want to become a werewolf or not - rolls be damned, its the player's creativity that counts, the integrity of a character.  That's cool, but what it does mean is that it gives up an element of risk - if players act foolishly, their characters won't suffer any consequences, and thus won't learn to adapt to situations, which can be part of the fun of roleplaying ("crap, werewolves again - remember that time I got lycanthropy?  That's not happening again.  Memorize some Remove Disease spells and let's sharpen those silver weapons!").

Or would you even want creatures like werewolves in a game at all - creatures/spells/whatever that can affect a player in a permanent fashion?

I think both approaches have their merit.  Tell me if I'm interpreting either of you incorrectly.

Mmm, I think I do something like this.  If you want to be a cleric in my setting, you will be:  Male, a cleric of Good, and will have two domains, one of which is war.

M.

As long as things stay either broad in scope, and the player has some freedom to interpret.

*or*

As long as the duration is relatively short.

For the first one, alignment or things like the aforementioned "paranoia" are open to interpretation when characters make specific decisions. Honestly, there's some fun to deciding what a character with a certain flaw or restriction would do in a given situation, whether this comes about at character creation or later.

For the latter, if charms, compulsions, illusions, fear effects, and so many other kinds of magic are available to players to manipulate NPCs, it stands to reason that the same magic might be used on the players too. It's bad enough social skill mechanics don't work on 'em.

When it comes to mechanical representation for this stuff, I prefer a system where either a character has some mechanical penalty and a descriptive phrase to RP, *or* a system where a character must make checks to accomplish otherwise mundane tasks, with the DC varying by the severity of the situation (again, with a sort of description for the why... and on the stipulation that only a very few tasks were made difficult in this manner). There's also the hero point / action point /whatever option, where players can buy out of a restriction at the expense of later still having it rougher in some other situation, but I don't like this as much.

For my second example, think will saves in general are a good example.

I honestly don't mind being dictated to in this way.  I've never been in a situation where I thought my character was being railroaded or compelled to do something I didn't want to do - I'm not so attached to my characters that I am chagrined when they don't follow exactly the route of character development I had in mind.

I mean, I could imagine a hypothetical situation wherein this could be a problem, but it's just not something I have any experience with.  Perhaps that's just my luck.

@Steerpike: Interesting analysis. But you're right in that it probably comes down to gaming styles. I think i have a foot in each camp; it's the job of the players to react to whatever the GM does, and he shouldn't get to dictate what that is since it ruins the surprise and excitement. On the other hand, the DM doesn't always know what a player wants for his character and the player should therefore be able to make suggestions perhaps ingame as well as offgame. All for the improvement of the game.
 
But back to the subject at hand. I think it might not be clear what i mean by meta-rules; these rules aren't per definition forced upon you by the DM and are often consequences of your own choices; and the choice itself seemed to be something some of you (SCMP amongst others) thought much of. So what are your thoughts if a previous choice limits your future choices? Is this bad?
Also, when i say frame, it doesn't mean that his choice is taken beforehand. Just like with a frame the player can roam free as long as he doesn't cross the preset borders.
Admitted, the previously mentioned traits ("greedy" or what have you) are not the best examples as they often force you to do a single thing when faced by a choice. LC's Spirit of the Century (still have to read that; why can't i find any fudge dice in my stores??) aspects as well as the aforementioned insanities might be a better example. One of my favorite example of this type of rule is the Affliction rules for the much acclaimed (by me) Unhallowed Metropolis. This game specifically focuses on the downfall of your character more than their success, and the rules are therefore made so each character has up to three afflictions which essentially make him more depraved in some way (e.g. evil, crazed or cursed) and you have a option to make a "deal with the devil" if you fail a roll by taking one of your afflictions to the next level. This fits perfectly with the setting and has the added benefit of making the character more dynamic and a bit more interesting. The spiritual attributes of the Riddle of Steel system also mesh roleplaying with gaming by making XP depend on actions and motivations rather than monsters or rolls.

So to the critics of meta-rules, what do you say when the rules are consequences of your own choices, don't limit your freedom and make your characters more dynamic?  

Quote from: SteerpikeIt seems to me that SCMP's way gives a ton more control to the player but at the expense of surprise or danger.  For example, SCMP, would you have a problem with your character dying in a fight?  What if they're at low hp, exploring an area, come acorss a lock, attempt to pick it, fail a reflex save (or equivalent), are pricked by a poison needle, and die?

First thing I want to say is I have to admit I'm not interested in "deadly" systems that try to discourage being impulsive and encourage thinking tactically.  In a tense situation impulsively jumping on it and trying to kill it is the only method I can use, anything else just doesn't compute.

That said I don't mind dying so long as I was involved in the process.  That means I prefer seeing whatever's going to kill me coming and then dying because I didn't recognize the danger.  Giant hulking monster?  Yes.  Save-or-die?  No.

Quote from: SteerpikeSilvercat, under your method, you'd want complete control over whether your character got bitten or not, right?  Being afflicted with lycanthropy would alter your character in a both physical and psychological way, and you wouldn't be OK with a GM violating your character, even in a combat situation?  So thus, as a GM, you would always ask a player beforehand (before the session or before the specific combat) whether they want to become a werewolf or not - rolls be damned, its the player's creativity that counts, the integrity of a character.  That's cool, but what it does mean is that it gives up an element of risk - if players act foolishly, their characters won't suffer any consequences, and thus won't learn to adapt to situations, which can be part of the fun of roleplaying ("crap, werewolves again - remember that time I got lycanthropy?  That's not happening again.  Memorize some Remove Disease spells and let's sharpen those silver weapons!").

Or would you even want creatures like werewolves in a game at all - creatures/spells/whatever that can affect a player in a permanent fashion?

I think you're asking about only one part of the situation and forgetting another.  In your example you assume that the change of lycanthropy must come with a psychological component.  But it's entirely possible I wouldn't even want to play in a world where that happened for reasons of keeping my character intact.

But let's think of doing it the way you propose and say that the GM asks beforehand if they can do something like this.  I actually had a situation of this type come up in a real game:
It was a superhero game, and my character was from another dimension.  The GM asked if he could have the setting's dimension-destroying BBEG destroy my home dimension so the team could go rescue some survivors.  I said no because I knew an event like that would fundamentally alter my character's personality in a way I just couldn't play.  The GM agreed not to go that route.
Let's then apply this to the lycanthrope example: The GM mentions that the adventure is going to feature lycanthropes who's affliction turns the character into an evil sadist.  I mention that this would probably psychologically scar my character (via versimilitude) so that I couldn't bare to play them even if they got cured of the lycanthropy.  So now I see several possible compromises: 1) the GM decides not to use the lycanthropes, 2) the GM decides to avoid biting my character, 3) the GM decides to alter the psychological component so my character wouldn't be scarred, 4) the GM decides to keep the adventure the way it is and allows me to have a new character ready in case my old one is afflicted.  Even the last solution is fine because it contains the one key ingredient: the GM informed me of the decision before it affected my character and I agreed to go along with it.

The keys to my argument are as follows:
1) There are some roleplaying events which I am just not capable of roleplaying without issues.  So long as I am not asked to be the one acting them out I will be fine.
2) I play Pen&Paper RPGs to have control over processes, excepting those I agree to hand over to someone else.  In real life there are a lot of things that happen which I cannot control.  If a similar amount of un-control then I see not reason to involve myself in something that isn't real at expense of something real.

Well, it sounds like you simply play in a different style. each to his own taste. And i can see that meta-rules wouldn't make much sense in that style.
I must admit that i would feel that that style would take out a lot of the suspense; wouldn't you more or less know half of every surprise your GM throws after you if he has to run it by you?

*sigh*

Logic has failed so far, so logic dictates I try something else...something other than logic.  Now that is a conundrum.

First off, anyone who has read my stuff understands that in terms of a frequency distribution of game style, with rollplay/railroad being at one end and roleplay/freeform being at the other, i am very far on the latter side of said statistical curve.  For Wat's sake, I accidentally a whole game system in favor of creating my own system of rules that pander to a holistic, freeform player character development.  I have PC's that have relationships, that get married, that have children, that create guilds, that invest in property and in business undertakings, and that work on their frikkin' 'mass cooking' and 'baking' skills in the turniper's communal kitchen.  And with 25 years of continuous GMing of this system, I feel pretty confident where my game style lies in this continuum.  So in one way, this kind of weird for me arguing this side of the rollplay/roleplay position.  I guess, statistically speaking, I'm way out on the curve, but I'm contrasted to an outlier.
But this is how I prefer to look at it, big picture.  No one is right or wrong in toto.  It is a matter of play style and where that play style falls on the curve.

Steerpike, you interpret me correctly, I think.  You've read a lot of my postings on specific game play, so it does not surprise me that you have a grasp on my style.  (Except i might and do have contingencies for when a PC is infected by Vernidale's curse (Lycanthropy).  
You also say this...
[blockquote=Steerpike]Vreeg, your way is the way I've usually played - where players have little control over the specifics of a plot or campaign, but characters can create plots and stories, reacting to the world. Players might have broad input into the sort of campaign they'd like to play ("lots of politics," or "something creepy," or "more quests in Igbar") and they might even have specific directions they plan to take their characters, which they might tell you about ("I have a new, secret goal"). But they can only control the world itself through their characters' decisions, for the most part, right?[/blockquote]
...which is dead spot on.  For a lot of levels.  There is, in most of our experiences here, a GM and players.  There is also a level of suspense necessary, so letting a Player know about any and all of the possible negative issues the player might include destroys the point of playing an FRP.  And at an absolute level, in terms of defining how the game is played, the players and the GM have different tasks, while there are millions of variations on how this is achieved.
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]

At a definition level, it is the GM's job to create the world, and the players job to react to it.  No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments) are that SCMP argues for a position that flies in the face of the  basic definition and reality of the game.  That does NOT make it wrong, or my posiition right, as this is still a flippin' game, and people should play it in the way that they have fun.  

And SCMP has written 1 thing I actually have to agree with.
 I am very self assured of my position.  I'm not upset I came off that way.  The accusatory part...I think that might have something to do with the individual reader.

Hu, no one replied to my mini essay. Guess I should make a "TLDR" version?

Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxFor Wat's sake, I accidentally a whole game system ...

Heh.

I have no measurable contribution to add to this thread, but that cracked me up.

Also, I prefer the meta-rules myself, because they give a way for the GM and player to both react in fair and cooperative ways to any situation.  But I think it's a good idea for players and GMs to discuss before the first session to what extent meta rules will be used.

Quote from: Crippled CrowI must admit that i would feel that that style would take out a lot of the suspense; wouldn't you more or less know half of every surprise your GM throws after you if he has to run it by you?

Did I say every surprise had to be run by me?  I just don't want surprises sprung on me that invalidate all the work I've done up till that point.

Essentially I don't see the point in bothering to give my character a personality, to work on creating one, if it's going to be changed on me for any length of time without my input.

Quote from: Vreeg's Bordeaux[blockquote=Steerpike]Vreeg, your way is the way I've usually played - where players have little control over the specifics of a plot or campaign, but characters can create plots and stories, reacting to the world. Players might have broad input into the sort of campaign they'd like to play ("lots of politics," or "something creepy," or "more quests in Igbar") and they might even have specific directions they plan to take their characters, which they might tell you about ("I have a new, secret goal"). But they can only control the world itself through their characters' decisions, for the most part, right?[/blockquote]
...which is dead spot on.  For a lot of levels.  There is, in most of our experiences here, a GM and players.  There is also a level of suspense necessary, so letting a Player know about any and all of the possible negative issues the player might include destroys the point of playing an FRP.

I don't understand your position: earlier you said,

Quote from: Vreeg's Bordeaux.....the Player has to work within the bounds of this reality.  If the player can't do this, and has to have everything happen the way they want it, they should stick to videogames where they can go back to the last point they saved.

But the thing about video-games is that you can only do what the game lets you do.  Whereas in a P&P-RPG you have the freedom to do what you feel like.  So why do you keep wanting to restrict what you can do, which is based on what you know?

Also this idea of "surprise": have you never read a book or watched a movie more than once, even though you know what's going to happen?

Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxAnd at an absolute level, in terms of defining how the game is played, the players and the GM have different tasks, while there are millions of variations on how this is achieved.
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]

At a definition level, it is the GM's job to create the world, and the players job to react to it.  No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments) are that SCMP argues for a position that flies in the face of the  basic definition and reality of the game.

And for me your position flies in the very face of what I know the reason for bothering to play cooperatively is.

Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxThat does NOT make it wrong, or my posiition right, as this is still a flippin' game, and people should play it in the way that they have fun.

Well then why are you arguing?

Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxThe accusatory part...I think that might have something to do with the individual reader.

Very possible.

I'm thinking our argument is ending up this way: you see RPGs as games, I see them as collaborative stories.  Playing them as games means you give up a lot of control.  Playing them as collaborative stories means that everyone holds on to some control.  And you can play somewhere in the middle, where some control is given up by the players but not all.