thread: 2010-06-14 : A Bit of Hardcore
On 2010-06-25, cc wrote:
these games try to find a way to mix the people playing, all of which have unique qualities as a director for the story, to create a play session they wouldn't be able to create if only one of them took the GM duties.
...
That's a significant advantage that I don't think had been mentioned yet.
Part of the question, though, must surely be whether it really is an advantage? I'm sure they would be different, but whether they would be better as a result of that difference is not at all clear to me.
Improv gets mentioned upthread, but it demonstrates precisely the sort of thing that bothers me; in improv I have often see stock phrases or developments because of the needs of the format and the limited time available in which to think. That's not something I find particularly appealing.
But on that note, I disagree that players interested in this sort of thing are "well served" by existing, conventional games, becuase virtually none of them are able to say anything about story design at all.
In the OP, Vincent says of co-GMed games, "Why not design them?", but I would ask the same of single GM games.
