Player Empowerment

Player Empowerment

I was recently chatting with a college professor about the origins of the word and concept of "power" versus "authority." The general gist is that power is something that you take (with the implications of taking it by force) while authority is granted. Thus, a military coup takes power. A democratic election grants authority. So it's technically wrong to say that something can "empower" something else. You shouldn't actually say that your new workplace is empowering for the employees. Power is something you take. Authority is something you grant. 

There's your pedantic thought for the day.

Still, while I'll still likely use the word "empowerment" incorrectly, it's still an interesting way of looking at the concept of how a roleplaying game grants the authority over how the game is paced. Normally, we would think of the Game Master as being in control of the pacing of the game. Something that I've been thinking about for years (because I remember when I first started going down this game design road I happen to know that it's been twenty years, actually--weird how time flies) is empowering--or rather, authorizing--players to have a say in the pacing of the game.

Now, it's worthwhile to spend a second and discuss what pacing means in this context. For my purposes here, I mean the general flow of the game from encounter to encounter (whether those encounters are combat, roleplaying, general exploration, character development, or anything else). It's what keeps the beginning of the session, the adventure, and the campaign feeling different from the middle and the end. What keeps each encounter unique, and makes the story flow in an interesting and compelling way. In a traditional story--a book, a movie, a TV show--its both the foundation and the finishing touch that can turn a mediocre tale into a fantastic one. It's really, really important.

In an rpg, most people would say that the GM controls the pacing. But is this really true? In many game systems, players have the ability, at least occasionally, to decide, "okay, in this encounter I'm really going to use my big guns." In such systems, the player gets to have as much authority in how an encounter will play out as the GM. Consider the 1st edition D&D wizard at first level, with his one spell. It's probably sleep. Because now that player gets to go on the adventure and determine "okay, I'm going to take it easy in this encounter," or "okay, this is the encounter I'm just going to take out in one fell swoop."

Now, some people criticize that because it's swingy. (Or, that the wizard should have at least something interesting to do in those other encounters--but that's another issue.) And I understand that. But that swinginess is the player controlling the pacing. It doesn't have to be THAT swingy for the concept to work, however. That's an extreme example. A better one would be a 5th level wizard deciding, "is this a magic missile encounter or a fireball encounter?"

Traditionally, it's been spellcasters who get this kind of resource management system. But what if everyone in the game had that kind of authority? 4th edition D&D did that a little with giving everyone a daily combat power, but what if it wasn't just in combat? What if the very core mechanic of a game allowed for that kind of player authority?

Take for example, the locked door. Locked doors in rpgs are weird, because they would seem so straightforward, but really depend on  the kind of game you're playing. Are you playing a sandbox simulation game? Because then the difficulty of getting through that door simply is what it is. If you can't get through it, then you don't get to see what's on the other side. No matter how cool it is--no matter how much the GM wants you to see it. GMs in such a setting have to be careful of locked doors. You might accidentally cut off the whole adventure (of course, good sandbox GMs don't care--the stuff on the other side of some other door is just as interesting). On the other hand, in a narrative story-game, how difficult the lock is probably depends on how important it is to get through it. If you're on a quest to save the captive prince and the tower he's locked in has a tough door, there HAS to be a way through it. The GM wants--no, he NEEDS--you to get through it or the adventure grinds to a halt. That GM, too, has to be careful about designing his locked doors. More so than even the other GM. That's why so many heavily story-based games have lots of ways for the GM to hand wave and say "you unlock the door." Unlocking the door isn't even really an aspect of the game. It's just a minor detail of the story, placed for verisimilitude's sake.

But while I want the GM to be able to determine how tough the locked doors are in any game I play (or design), I think it would be cool if the players had the authority to say, "okay, I'm really focusing my attention on this door." This would mean that the character doesn't have a flat lockpicking ability, but would have some kind of resource to expend (or not) to accomplish the task. So he could determine, "I don't really care about what's on the other side of this door, but I'll just try it," or "I really want to see what on the other side of this door, and so by gods, I'm opening it if it's at all possible." Or anything in between. We all have been in this circumstance in real life. We all know that sometimes we give something a shot, and other times we give something everything we've got.

Now imagine the players had this kind of authority in every kind of action. Not the ability to dictate (success wouldn't be assured or it wouldn't be interesting), but the ability to influence. They could have a say in the pace of the game. The flow of the story. And the GM could count on that. It would help ensure that the game goes the way that the players want without giving away everything. Players would feel more like they could affect the world, and might be more likely to be proactive not only in the small things (like getting a door open) but in the larger plot points as well. GMs would be free to not worry about the kinds of challenges they put forth, because the players would have a bit of a safety net if things went horribly awry.

Ultimately, the GM would still have ultimate authority over the setting and the challenges the PCs faced. But the players would have more authority over how their characters interacte with the setting and the challenges. Various games have put mechanisms like this in place. And I think it's really fascinating. It's something that I'm tinkering with now.