Thema: Herrschaftsformen am Spieltisch

[Lord Verminaard]

Als ich das erste Mal AD&D geleitet habe, kannte ich weder die Regeln richtig, noch besaß ich ein Monsterhandbuch... das lief so ähnlich ab...

[Wolf Sturmklinge]

"Wer bestimmt am Spieltisch"

z.B.
- darüber welche Abenteuer gespielt werden
Ich informiere mich zuerst über die Wünsche meiner Mitspieler und bringe das dann mit meinen eigenen Vorstellungen in Einklang. In der Star Wars Runde, in der ich selbst Spieler bin, wurden die Spieler nicht gefragt.

- was ausspielenswürdig ist und was nicht
Von exzessiven Gewaltszenen mal abgesehen, bestimmt das jeder für sich.

- welche Zusatzbücher benutzt werden dürfen
Der Spielleiter. Wobei in meinem Fall nie ganze Bücher, sondern nur der Munchkin-Kram untersagt wird.

- in welche Richtung sich die Kampagne entwickeln soll
Das wird vor Beginn der Kampagne von der Gruppe grob umrissen und ggfs. während der Kampagne umgestaltet. Besonders in langen Kampagnen (12 Monate+) können sich die Wünsche/Vorstellungen der Mitspieler auch mehrfach ändern.

[Bad Horse]

Hi Wolf,

orange ist im "Sun"-Skin fast gar nicht zu lesen. Es wäre nett, wenn du für deine Hervorhebungen eine andere Farbe wählen würdest... 

"Wer bestimmt am Spieltisch"

z.B.
- darüber welche Abenteuer gespielt werden

Meistens der SL, es sei denn, jemand schreit nach einem bestimmten Abenteuer und der Rest hat nix dagegen. Ansonsten ist das ein "Ja, mach du mal, wir sind gespannt."

- was ausspielenswürdig ist und was nicht

Jeder, der sich langweilt und laut genug artikuliert, dass er das tut. Bzw. jeder, der jetzt unbedingt noch eine Frage hat, die gestellt werden muß. Ja, das rauscht manchmal aneinander - das ist der Moment, wo ich - wenn ich SL bin - versuche, zu moderieren.

- welche Zusatzbücher benutzt werden dürfen

Der SL, es sei denn, der Spieler nölt lange und ausdauernd. Aber zur Planung von Szenarien braucht der SL nun mal Zugriff auf die Fähigkeiten der Chars, und wenn er das Buch nicht hat (oder keine Lust hat, 27.865 Zusatzregeln im Kopf zu behalten), dann geht das eben nicht.

- in welche Richtung sich die Kampagne entwickeln soll

Das sollten eigentlich die Spieler entscheiden... indem sie interessiert in die eine oder andere Richtung tunkeln.

[Lord Verminaard]

Ich habe einen sehr schönen (und wie ich finde rührenden) Erfahrungsbericht zum Thema SL-Rolle gefunden. Er stammt von einer recht privaten Seite, daher zitiere ich anonym (mit Zustimmung des Autors, versteht sich). Leider ist er auf Englisch.

Back in high school one of our friends--John P--was an avid gamer. He and his brother (far less so--his brother gamed for a time--but was not part of our crowd) were tough, muscular, and athletic. John was a more experienced fighter than anyone in the group. He grew up in a tough neighborhood.

We never came to blows.

But he didn't take any shit either. He was arrogant--probably overly so--but never physically threatening. He wasn't a bully.

But if you (me) as the Game Master messed with his powers, the game rules, or ran 'bullshit' he wouldn't take it. Neither would anyone else. D (who went into a rehab and later into the Marines) wouldn't. M the rules lawyer (who became a real lawyer) wouldn't. T once shut down one of my games still-born: he didn't like the set up and declared "The Land" (the major overarching force in the game) to be "A Dick" ... and we never played. E (now a high-priced IP lawyer in his own right) was scary-good at math. He could add up a character sheet by looking at it. He could add up NPCs in his head just from a quick combat. If you sent guys against him based on a whole lot of points, he'd calmly tell the table what they were up against ... and let the riot start!

K was (at the time) maybe the worst: a supreme rules-lawyer (better than even M) he'd delight in destroying games he didn't like. If you didn't keep him happy, he was a torpedo.

But John was the top of the heap: when he said "You're messing with a power,"--one of his powers--he was always scrupulously legal--as the GM, you had to defend yourself (verbally--not physically). But if you just refused? He'd declare it was bullshit and ... the other players might agree or disagree (based on the argument) but ignoring him wasn't an option.

He wasn't a guy you'd be plain out-and-out rude to. That wouldn't be cool.

'Growing up' this way, has showed me that GMing is an elected position. It's putting yourself in the firing line. That GM's screen is just flimsy cardboard: it won't stop a person with self-confidence. It won't stop a fist either. Rule Zero? It's not license to abuse your friends or run bullshit railroading: try that and you'll find out that it won't work for the same reason red lights don't stop cars--the driver has to decide to stop.

I still GM. I love to GM. I love to play too--and really? I'm far more forgiving than my high school friends (and do I still play with them? I do--many of them--those that are still alive and out of jail) of GMs who want to get part of a story out and don't do it in a purely player-empowering fashion. I know that being a GM is a lot like being an author ... where the main characters don't damn do anything you'd like them to. Sound hard? Hells yeah. Impossible? Only if you decide you need it to be.

So that colors my perception of gaming and game theory. It colors my perception of the tyranical viking-hat GM meme (if you're oppressed by the hat, it's your decision--your responsibility--viking hats don't make you a viking). It colors my perception of GM empowerment: for me, as a GM, it would never have been empowering to have game rules that let me cut-loose in a "balanced" fashion: I already had that. There were already more stringent constrains on cutting loose than, say DitV would provide: The player's opinions.

One guy decided to GM. He did all that stuff. He got walk-outs. He was mocked (for years). The players, towards the end, played his game (which he was serious about) for commedy purposes (they declared the real treasure was a table--and carried the table with them everywhere). Eventually he gave up. It was a tough crowd and when his uber-bouncer beat up one of the heroes in a small, grungy bar? They were having none of it.

Viking hat indeed. You'd need the Viking battle-axe with these guys. Once, in gym, this guy decided to mess with me. I remember him coming off me like nothing and being slammed, hard, into a wall of lockers. "Don't touch him," John said. "He's my friend."

John didn't quite get a fair shake at school. And, in my opinion, with life. He's not with us any more. The first of us to die. But I learned stuff from him. Not just about gaming either.

*sniff*