So, I’ve been working on an Apocalypse World hack. After stealing from it and many of it’s progeny; most blatantly, undead apocalypse survival horror title “On The Fraying Edge” for some time, I’ve come up against some of my biases concerning Gm authority. The game has come a long way, but I’m not ready to share just yet; but I plan to use these next months to work to make it so. In hopes that intention may turn to motivation, I’ll try to be more involved in publishing my reflections. Maybe they’ll be helpful to you, maybe they’ll cause incense; regardless, I wanna participate in a community.
I’m currently struggling to answer the question: can a GM effectively give player characters GM-tier authority? Having recently viewed Ep. 46 of fun-time GM advice show Office Hours, I have become unsure of my desire to hack a game wherein such authority as is given to the GM could be shared, if not a built-in scaffold for learning the game. Anxiety over powerviolence between GM’s and the looming Czege Principle cannot be ignored!
Both the role of the GM and the role of the PC are essential to the game. GM authority can be understood [briefly] as the responsibility for following the rules [the agenda, principles, and using the moves as in PbtA] as well as the provision of context, and irritation to the state of the PC’s lives. Discussion ensues (1). Games which focus the discussion on the characters’ lives as living statements of identity draw this context from the choices which the characters make, and the honest portrayal of circumstances within the setting. The things that stand between PC’s and the things they need and want are usually given by the GM, but can also come from other PC’s [in the case of PvP combat]. Why can’t the GM role be shared like the PC role?
That the authority to introduce these things, to control the framing of scenes, is something which is best done by one person seems the most apparent answer. Establishing such details as those required by the PC’s in making a Hard Holder or Hocus seem to require already hint at this kind of shift; but do not require that the player of that character behave as a GM would. Nor does this playbook choice allow the player to frame the scene: it instead marks them as the content within the occasion of the frame. I want to write a game which allows explicit access to the tools and responsibilities of the GM playbook to multiple players in an empowering and demystifying way; but without disturbing the continuity of “the narrative” in the process—without GM squabbles. The issue is that when GM’s fight amongst themselves, they return to the position of the PC, as an individual intention/interest. In order to unify the threats, it’s typically given to just one individual to make them up. But teaching people to run games—to do most anything—means involving more than one person: can a game be about that? About finding people that you trust? Maybe in the undead apocalypse.
1.) http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/conflict_resolution.pdf Czege principle concept-map.
2.) http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=21694.msg222607#msg222607 Czege principle discussion summary (for context)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhRz42j-rjI&index=47&list=PLAmPx8nWedFVGdrP2JmcYzdvZC8sWV5b4