More struggles with GM authority: It’s complex.
More struggles with GM authority: It’s complex.
The good news is that I was able to run a test/structured discussion about the On The Fraying Edge with a couple of kind souls last night. During the talk, I learned a bit more about how to start a play-test, and also figured out where to go in terms of teaching the game–particularly the character creation. The bad news, I learned a lot more than I thought I had to about GM fluidity.
The main question which came of the discussion is why would you want multiple GM’s in a game; what does that add to the experience, if anything?
I’m not comfortable with removing the GM role, of that much I am certain. So we start from a point where we have just one, as is in traditional TTRPG authority structures. Foremost to my consideration was that a game which helps its new GM’s in a structured and explicit manner, and which also gives a living example of this teaching would not only help new GM’s to break into the daunting solo experience of trying to run a game and not knowing the rules; but would also help experienced GM’s become better through occasional reapplication, and the process of co-gm teaching. Slowly, a GM team would emerge as a possibility, but not as mandatory for gameplay. Of further benefit, I think, is that it diversifies the vision/perspective during the process of prep.
My fears are that the second GM could get in the way; that the divided authority could cause conflict more than construction; and that in the worst case, the GM’s would be more inclined to filibuster or plan an adventure, rather than prep for the session.
When a GM tells you something about the game world, and it agrees with the rules, you believe it because they’re the GM. Whenever a PC says something about their character, and it agrees with the rules, you believe it because they’re a PC. Can two GM’s tell you about the world in a similar way that two or more PC’s can tell about their characters? The power to say things, even about the setting, can be donated to the PC’s momentarily (asking “How did you learn this?” after Spout Lore in Dungeon World, for example). The result of maintaining this divided authority in the co-gm role as a distinct role from the PC is that either GM could jump in when the players look to you, give you a golden opportunity, or ignore a soft move. Who’s to say what happens? If it’s true that the GM’s are equal, neither would have precedent; meaning it’s potentially an arduous decision to make without mechanical guidance. If it’s not true, and one GM or the other just knows and says more; why have the second GM? More acutely, what does the second GM do when the first is “in charge” if we must have the GM’s take turns?
If we split the threats, or at least split threat-jurisdiction, and both GM’s are active during a scene–making moves, responding in kind to PC’s, and barfing–it seems almost inevitable that conflict may arise. You can account for some such situations from a rules perspective, or mechanically (I’m looking at you, Duel of Wits); however, I feel there still remain situations where the collision of threats could be difficult to manage. I’m thinking of a situation where the PC’s are either ignored or made insignificant by conflicting threats. I want to avoid the GM becoming some kind of overpowered PC’s fighting against each other. I also don’t want to double the potency of the GM role. The more players in the party, the more moves they can make upon occasion to make one. So if the GM can be two perspectives reacting to the same trigger, where does that leave the players? Alternatively, the GM’s work together; but in order to keep the decisions objective, they decide that they need to plan-out the adventure for the players. This isn’t awful, I mean, I enjoy DnD–but I think this is avoidable as a consequence of multiple GMs.
Anyway, that’s my rant of learning. I’ll be back after more thinking.