TheRPGSite

...on which functional roleplaying is based.

I don't actually believe that as a universal principle governing all RPGs. But there's been so much talk on the internet against this kind of view of the DM (or GM for you folks who play those new games like Boot Hill, Traveller, or Top Secret) in the last few years that I'd like to look at it for the other side.

So my question for the thread is: what kind of games, what kinds of play are helped by having the DM serve as the ultimate social authority governing play?

I have one thought about this to start. It seems to me that giving the DM broad authority to make shit up and say how things are going to go makes RPGs more portable to different groups than is sometimes the case. That is, if you have a group of friends playing together reliably, it's easier to disperse authority throughout the group and spread out the traditional DM duties. But if you want to just go to the game club or the school lunchroom and bust out with the quick situation, it's in a way easier if the person who's setting all that up is also the central authority over what's going on.

...just out of curiosity, are you sure you didn't want this in the Theory section?

And in any case, the GM is the absolute authority in all RPGs, period.  The kind of play this "model" best serves is called good and effective play.


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit...just out of curiosity, are you sure you didn't want this in the Theory section?

And in any case, the GM is the absolute authority in all RPGs, period.  The kind of play this "model" best serves is called good and effective play.


RPGPundit

Oh really? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4543) ;)  Is that like good and effective government? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)

Anyway I'm guessing places where there is a lack of concensus building for whatever reason. Time. Willingness. Desire. For example, and just an example, if the players all want to be entertained by someone telling a story and not really want to actively engage or the GM wants to tell his story then it seems like the way to do.

I try to avoid theory discussions where possible.

Feel free to elaborate on your views, though, Pundit - you seem to believe the doctrine. I'd like to know what functions this serves for you. I mentioned one it has served for me; another that people often mention is some kind of 'content purity' authority, keeping a single creative vision of the shared fantasy world intact. I actually think that groups on the same page can do this just as well (I've had the experience of doing it successfully in small groups at least), but there is something to be said for not just letting any jackass contribute to the shared setting, and the authoritarian DM is the simplest solution to the problem.

I've found shared authorial control tends to lead to rather wacky anything goes settings, often rather lowest common denominator ones.

A single vision gets around that, rather effectively.

You see it on the rpg.net design a setting threads, sooner or later someone always introduces zombies.  Me, I think zombies are best used in zombie games and not so much as a general spice.

The authority of the DM is the foundation of some kinds of social contract on which functional roleplaying can be based.

A group needs some sort of social course-correcting mechanism to keep small wobbles from turning into big screaming train-wrecks.  It starts with (say) a thief stealing a ring from the treasure-box before anyone else sees it, and as long as the social issues of that get handled in that early stage, everybody's happy and everything's copacetic.  It's only when small things turn step by step into big problems that people get steamed.

If your social contract gives all the players but one the absolute right to ignore those wobbles (if that's what they choose) then you have, de facto, made that one player (a.k.a. "the GM") responsible for all the course-corrections.  If he doesn't do it, there's no guarantee that anybody else will.  In a functional group, with great responsibility comes great power:  he's got to have the authority to do that job, for the good of everyone.

If your social contract doesn't imply that any of the players have the right to ignore those wobbles then there are plenty of other ways to distribute the responsibility for keeping the group happy and functional.  Some of those ways work just fine without requiring absolute authority be vested in the GM.

I've started realising that even amongst "pure-strain" RPGs (eg. no Story Games / Forge games), there's still a lot of difference between earlier games (eg. OD&D) and more recent ones (eg. D&D 2e+).  How much "authority" the GM needs to tell their story is one of those differences.

I don't know, Tony. I don't mind the situations where characters turn on each other and players get bruised egos and hurt feelings, in all gaming contexts. I do agree with you that there are cases where putting the social and imaginative-content authority in one player works out and cases where it doesn't. But what I'm more interested in in this thread are cases where it actually helps the game to have a 'God' GM, and more particularly how it helps.

Stuart, what you're pointing to I think is the 'sandbox' GM (the impartial referee) vs. the 'auteur' GM (the dude who dictates the story), the former the default model of most seventies RPGs, the latter the default model of D&D2 and White Wolf stuff. FWIW many of the games at the Forge which have a GM are more like the traditional 'sandbox' model, except that instead of a focus on giving players control of tactical and strategic elements for achieving some kind of goal (exploration, treasure, overcoming foes, whatever), they focus on how you react to morally and emotionally fraught situations, without necessarily dictating an outcome. This style of 'story GMing', which has little to do with White Wolf/2e style play, didn't come into being with the Forge - some of my groups were running 'narrativist' games in this style by the early eighties - but I have found the discussions of this style of play there very useful in honing my own craft at various points.

But for the love of Orcus let's not talk about that too much - let's focus on the good things that an Almighty Dungeon Master can contribute to a gaming table!

Oh, you're talking exclusively about narrative authority?  Not social authority within the gaming group (like "No ... Teddy, you gotta calm down here.  Let's all take a break, get some drinks, and then we'll talk this out")?  Gotcha.

God-GMs are great in games with a sense of story-inevitability.  When people describe the classic argument for fudging the die rolls ... "Look, it just had to happen that way, and everyone knew it!" ... they're describing a game in which a God-GM is a terrific asset.  She makes the consensus of the table clear, and turns the uncertainty of group opinion into the rock-solid foundation of What Has Happened.  That helps everyone to move forward into the next scene with more certainty and more agreement.

Quote from: TonyLBOh, you're talking exclusively about narrative authority?  Not social authority within the gaming group (like "No ... Teddy, you gotta calm down here.  Let's all take a break, get some drinks, and then we'll talk this out")?  Gotcha.

God-GMs are great in games with a sense of story-inevitability.  When people describe the classic argument for fudging the die rolls ... "Look, it just had to happen that way, and everyone knew it!" ... they're describing a game in which a God-GM is a terrific asset.  She makes the consensus of the table clear, and turns the uncertainty of group opinion into the rock-solid foundation of What Has Happened.  That helps everyone to move forward into the next scene with more certainty and more agreement.

They're also good for games aiming at allowing the players to experience a game world or to explore a game world, as they create an external source of fact to experience or explore.

I'm talking about both.

Also, narrative authority is a subset of authority over the imaginative content, and doesn't correspond with it. Let's say I'm running a game with an assassination attempt. Does the assassination happen? Are some characters friends with the assassins, others with the target, others with both? What will they do about their relationships? I can leave all this open as a matter of play, just as I leave it open whether they talk to the troll or fight him or sneak around him, and still preserve essential authority over the imaginative content of my game in other respects. (You're in this kind of setting, magic works the way I say it does, here are my house rules, etc.)

Now, the kind of game you're talking about, with the auteur GM, I guess some people like that and it's on topic for this thread. I personally hate it, but if you like it, it is one thing that a central DM authority can help provide.

Social authority in RPGs, it occurs to me, is a weird thing.

"This interpretation of the rules stands" - if the DM gets to say this, that's one kind of social authority.

"You're in the game, you're out" - that's a bigger kind of authority, but still connected to the game.

"Everyone pays for my pizza or I don't run" - that's stepping into real-world privileges, though frankly I think in traditional games, giving the DM some gravy for entertaining people isn't necessarily a bad thing. However,

"If you let me fuck your wife and drink up your liquour cabinet, I'll level you up and give you a sword +2" seems like it's an abuse no matter how "Godlike" you like your GMs, and in more than one way.

Quote from: BalbinusYou see it on the rpg.net design a setting threads, sooner or later someone always introduces zombies.  Me, I think zombies are best used in zombie games and not so much as a general spice.

Cue Balbinus First Law of Setting Design : Any setting into which a gonzo element is introduced will inevitably grow to include more and more gonzo elements of a more and more extreme nature.

Social contract stems primarily from the group's standing relationship and unspoken agreements surrounding play. The role of the GM and his place in the social contract stems from the rules of the particular game at play. Some games give the GM free range (Ye Olde Grandfather Clause), and some don't. The agreement that you'll obey those rules stems from the first part of the social contract. The agreement on power dynamics within the game stems from the game mechanics themselves.

-L

I disagree.

I say that use of different aspects of the game system is dependent upon the nature of the social contract.  For example, if you're playing in a game where people play fast and loose with the rules, bitching about the GM failing to apply falling damage correctly would be a breach of the social contract regardless of what the game's rules say.

Gaming is first and foremost a social activity therefore the rules that govern it are the same as those that govern all social interactions.  Any theory that fails to begin with this as its starting position is fetishism.

As a DM I govern some social things.  Like forbidding smoking at the table and deciding who gets to play.  These things allow me to host the game at my house, which in turn allows me to play more often, as a game at home is less stress on my marriage than a game where I am away for several hours at a time.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalCue Balbinus First Law of Setting Design : Any setting into which a gonzo element is introduced will inevitably grow to include more and more gonzo elements of a more and more extreme nature.

Quite, the only protection is the GM Shield of Righteous Wrath TM.  As in "dude, the fact I put psionics in the setting does not mean you can play a fucking ninja."

The problem with this is it sets up the GM with absolute power and as we all know, that corrupts absolutely.

If the GM wields that authority poorly then they're going to end up playing alone.

In the dark.

In their pants.

Even if the harshest of old skool games the actual dynamic, no matter what was written in the book, was give and take between the GM and the players. The GM has to provide what the players like to play and the players have to respect the effort the GM puts in. Setting elements, background storylines et al have always been part of the games but the indie games just try to formalise it systemically. On the one hand that can be good, its expressly part of the system and people know where they stand without invisible negotiation. On the other its bad because having 'legislation' for things leaves less wiggle room.

[Edit]
I forgot, I was going to say... the two games I've found had the biggest problems with impositional and dictatorial GMing were old skool D&D and White Wolf games.

In D&D it was because the standard mode of play - as epitomised by modules - was pretty much railroading.
In White Wolf games it was because the GM often acted more like a novelist, you weren't there to tell your story, you were there to live in theirs. I think 'Storyteller' as a piece of terminoogy doesn't help there and the real role is more like 'Story facilitator' but that doesn't trip off the tongue quite so well.

Quote from: BalbinusQuite, the only protection is the GM Shield of Righteous Wrath TM.  As in "dude, the fact I put psionics in the setting does not mean you can play a fucking ninja."

Uh ... no.  It's one sort of protection, but it's not the only possible one.

At it's rock-bottom simplest, if you have a voting system, then a majority of the players can say "Uh ... dude ... no.  Psionics is cool, but ninja aren't," and that is another form of protection.  Yes?

Mind you, I dislike voting systems for other reasons, but they're a nice, simple example of what else can be done.

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... no.  It's one sort of protection, but it's not the only possible one.

At it's rock-bottom simplest, if you have a voting system, then a majority of the players can say "Uh ... dude ... no.  Psionics is cool, but ninja aren't," and that is another form of protection.  Yes?

Mind you, I dislike voting systems for other reasons, but they're a nice, simple example of what else can be done.

I wasn't entirely serious Tony.  I just like telling people they can't play ninjas.

That said, my actual play experience (admittedly in con games which may be very relevant) is that it tends to still veer over time into gonzo, now that may just be poor luck on my part but it makes me less keen on shared authorial powers.

The problem is, you just need one guy to introduce in his narration something a bit stupid or lame and you're game is starting to head south.  If he keeps doing it, you can only veto him so many times before it gets uncomfortable.  The whole group really needs to be on the same page for shared narration to work.

That's a problem of course with any high trust system, it's a risk reward thing, you can get great rewards if the whole group gets in the same groove to use the jazz analogy, but if that ain't happening it gets discordant or worse yet you get dinner jazz as people settle on whatever offends nobody.

Quote from: CalithenaI try to avoid theory discussions where possible.

Well for someone who tries to avoid them, you've certainly started a good theory discussion here.

You might not want to call it that, but that's what it is. You're not talking about a specific game, you're not talking about actual play, you're talking about a theoretical, and one of the classic "Theory" subjects.

You see, in theory, its entertaining for some people to try to come up with all kinds of formulas to replace the authority of the GM.

In practice, all of these are utter bullshit. They either produce a non-RPG or a really bad RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsAs a DM I govern some social things.  Like forbidding smoking at the table

Not pipe smoking, obviously?

RPGPundit

I'm not interested in how other dispersals of GM/player authority produce bad play in this thread, though...I'm interested in (a) what it means for the GM to have authority over (i) the social contract (ii) the rules (iii) the imaginative content) and (b) concrete examples of how this contributes to positive experiences in play.

If you want to call that sort of question theory, OK. I'd just as soon think about it as talking about gaming though.

Of course, I'm not the DM of this thread, so you all can talk about whatever you want, but that's what I'm looking for here.

Quote from: RPGPunditNot pipe smoking, obviously?

Actually, I don't smoke at home either.

Oh!  I forgot secrets!  Central GM authority rocks for playing out secrets and puzzles and stuff.  The players know the secret's just within their grasp (because of the way the GM is smiling) and that adds a lot of tension and engagement.

It can also suck for secrets (when the GM gives wrong hints, or not enough hints, or the players are just stupid), but that's cool.  Those are the risks you take.

*cough* move to Game Design & Theory  *cough*

Quote from: TonyLBOh! I forgot secrets! Central GM authority rocks for playing out secrets and puzzles and stuff. The players know the secret's just within their grasp (because of the way the GM is smiling) and that adds a lot of tension and engagement.
 
It can also suck for secrets (when the GM gives wrong hints, or not enough hints, or the players are just stupid), but that's cool. Those are the risks you take.

That's a very good point.  One of my roles as a GM that I love is that of Information Broker.  Give this piece of the puzzle to the Bard, this one to the Scholar, this one to the Cleric...dealing out bits of information over time to the players as the story elements begin to weave themselves together.  There's also Red Herrings, sideplots, background noise, and all those other wonderful things that go on.  As a GM, I generally play off my players (and vice-versa) for that, but I love being able to witness that tension and engagement Tony speaks of by being Ground Zero for a lot of the intrigue.

I think that gets into sort of a gray area.  Because secrets need not be limited to GMs.  Now secret rules perhaps, because it is hard to control and know the scope of those without everyone effectively knowing the secret. Or at least the GM. But secret rules IME are more prone to really big, feeling bruising screwups. The hickup in RPGPundit's Immortals campaign is just the latest in a long line of the one's I've seen.

Of course the problem with player secrets is as you increase the number at the table, even of the limited scope variety, is just like the GM secrets. You increase the complexity of the game and the risk of overlap and a screwup.  But I've seen these is play before. They can work just as effectively as the GM secrets.

P.S. I believe that David R has one is his game still. The secret about how that one PC on this 24-hour reprive before death died.

Blakkie:  Yes, but games (and game-groups) where the emphasis is on exploring each other's characters are not as common as games where the emphasis is on exploring the world.

Me?  I like exploring other people's characters.  But I recognize as a fringe-within-the-fringe sort of group.

Having the GM as the central authority helps by...having a central and final authority. I can only explain this by comparing my experiences with games that use more dispersed authority. (I agree with Grim that even in, say, D&D, you don't get completely centralized authority.)

In the games I've played with more dispersed authority, I find a lot of extra-game "checking" going on as people try to coordinate their use of the distributed authority. As if to say, "I'm going to do this, is that okay?" Or if not, you do run the risk of slipping off into gonzo.

Whereas with a centralized GM, I find it easier to play in a no-holds-barred sandbox fashion, yet still have a unified game vision. Where a traditional board game has well-defined rules, which allows you to exploit them fully without having to worry about "playing in the proper spirit", the rulings of a GM who has a strong, consistent vision also provide the predictability that's necessary for meaningful manipulation of the game-world as an external object. (I think it's a little easier to be consistent with oneself than with a group of others.) One might compare, in real life, the effect of an impartial judiciary which respects case law, as opposed to a more political process, on the ability of people to carry out their business independently without worrying about the sands shifting under their feet.

Quote from: TonyLBBlakkie:  Yes, but games (and game-groups) where the emphasis is on exploring each other's characters are not as common as games where the emphasis is on exploring the world.

These are not necessarily secrets about a character at all. They can be external secrets.

Which reminds me, I forgot another danger with them. It tends towards generating PCvPC conflict, because suspisions can arise.  Even when it is about very external things. How much of that a given player can handle is quite variable. Turning the entire game on it for extended periods can easily create too much tension.

Investigative games. That's the big one right there. If you are playing in an investigative adventure, scenario or even system like CoC, the GM/DM has to have sole authority in the game IMO. How does it go otherwise? It's no fun playing this type of game if everyone around the table knows how it's going to play out and 'who did it' because they are all involved in the conception of the idea. What are you supposed to do? Pretend that you are surprised when you find clues? That seems to be passive participation to me.

Arbitration is another one. Having a sole arbiter whilst playing tends to cut down on meta-discussions and arguments. If the scope of the game and rules are explained beforehand, all the better, but things normally crop up that need to be addressed during the game and having a sole authority speeds these things up. Otherwise you're in 'true democracy' country and judging by the democratic systems of every democratic nation in the world, which are not 'true democracies', having such a thing ultimately results in chaos.

Quote from: BalbinusI've found shared authorial control tends to lead to rather wacky anything goes settings, often rather lowest common denominator ones.

I think the end result depends on several factors, including participant buy in for the overall premise, scope of control and frequency of input. Certainly, it can lead to kitchen sink games, but I think that's more a function of the participants rather than the process.

Personally, I very much dislike the GM as God paradigm. Over the years, I've strayed farther and farther from it, and am happier because of it.

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse TownInvestigative games. That's the big one right there. If you are playing in an investigative adventure, scenario or even system like CoC, the GM/DM has to have sole authority in the game IMO. How does it go otherwise? It's no fun playing this type of game if everyone around the table knows how it's going to play out and 'who did it' because they are all involved in the conception of the idea. What are you supposed to do? Pretend that you are surprised when you find clues? That seems to be passive participation to me.

Those boxed Murder Mysteries show that this can indeed be done. Absolutely nobody there knows who did it except the guilty person (sometimes not even them to till the end). And fun to boot!  Come to think of it, that's another place rife with 'player' secrets.

Quote from: blakkieThose boxed Murder Mysteries show that this can indeed be done. Absolutely nobody there knows who did it except the guilty person (sometimes not even them to till the end). And fun to boot!  Come to think of it, that's another place rife with 'player' secrets.

Absolutely, for a one off game or two. But for a longer term roleplaying campaign? I can't see CoC being run that way satisfactorily over 15 sessions or so.

Quote from: jrientsActually, I don't smoke at home either.

Bloody hell!

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse TownInvestigative games. That's the big one right there. If you are playing in an investigative adventure, scenario or even system like CoC, the GM/DM has to have sole authority in the game IMO. How does it go otherwise? It's no fun playing this type of game if everyone around the table knows how it's going to play out and 'who did it' because they are all involved in the conception of the idea. What are you supposed to do? Pretend that you are surprised when you find clues? That seems to be passive participation to me.

For these type of games I prefer the GM to act as a referee, rather than being able to change the mystery mid-game to suit their desired outcome / story.

Ok, yeah, this thread is getting moved to the Theory section. I hope it continues there and all who are interested follow it there, but frankly this subject is way closer to theory than anything else, and belongs there.

RPGPundit

Thanks for the discussion, all.

Quote from: One Horse TownAbsolutely, for a one off game or two. But for a longer term roleplaying campaign? I can't see CoC being run that way satisfactorily over 15 sessions or so.

In which way, that nobody knows whodunit till the end?  Why?

Quote from: RPGPunditBloody hell!

RPGPundit

How long have you been out of the country? You might be rudely shocked when you come back for you visit. Calgary was, as of this New Years, the last major city in the country to outright ban building smoking. Vancouver has been this way for quite some time, all of BC actually due to provincial WCB regulations.

P.S.  I for one am enjoying it. I can actually go to a bar now and have the option of not feeling like shit the next day.

Quote from: BalbinusI've found shared authorial control tends to lead to rather wacky anything goes settings, often rather lowest common denominator ones.

On the other hand, since it's come up elsewhere recently, consider Chancel creation in Nobilis (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=77529#post77529), which allows the players themselves to design what for their characters is usually the centre of the setting, a private realm where they effectively rule as gods, while the rest of the universe is set up by the GM. There are a few limitations to the process: anything that would give the PCs an advantage in or against the outside world must be purchased with points, and nothing there can violate the basic assumptions of the game (so no telepathic mind control over your rivals, or swords that can kill immortals). Apart from that, if the players wish to lord it over an apocalyptic landscape filled with an army of zombies, that's what they'll get.

Quote from: TonyLBThe authority of the DM is the foundation of some kinds of social contract on which functional roleplaying can be based.

That is the best summation of this simple truth that I've heard in a great while. The GM can be night unto a god, and that works well for some people (thus, it often forms the foundation of the social contract for such people). The thing that many folks tend forget is that there are potentially as many types of social contracts as there are individual game groups.

Quote from: jdrakehThe GM can be night unto a god, and that works well for some people (thus, it often forms the foundation of the social contract for such people). The thing that many folks tend forget is that there are potentially as many types of social contracts as there are individual game groups.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your assertion is true.  I have no reason not to, except to quibble with bits and pieces, but I like to leave the option open...

Anyway, if you link this up with Pundit's perspective, I think you start to home in on what he's saying (as much disagreement as I have with Pundy in other areas, on this I see his perpspective) in some of his "landmarks."

If you allow that there are likely as many types of social contract as gaming groups out there, and then you look at what people are playing, it seems obvious that the most desired (that is, the most played) model is the GM as final arbiter of control.  As I've said in other threads, this does not require the GM retain all control, just that the GM has final say in who gets control.

Since most people voluntarily play D&D moreso than any other game, that model must be the most sought after model (this does not even include adding up all of the other games with a similar model).  Saying this in no way changes the desire of some other few to design and play in other ways, just that GM as final authority is the most voluntarily used.

The thing that many folks tend forget is that while there are potentially as many types of social contracts as there are individual game groups, the most prevalent is, and always has been, voted on by the almighty dollar (or your country's equivalent), GM central.

Quote from: James J SkachSince most people voluntarily play D&D moreso than any other game, that model must be the most sought after model (this does not even include adding up all of the other games with a similar model).

This is a logical fallacy (specifically, it's confirmation bias). That D&D is the most played RPG does not mean (or even suggest) that the DM as final arbitrator is the most sought after social contract model unless you're willfully ignoring all of the other reasons that people play D&D (which you seem to be doing).

Y'know what else a central GM is good at?  Bringing new players up to speed.  They can act as the constant "designated translator," giving plain-english descriptions of the options that other people know about from having known the rules, and translating the player's plain-english roleplay into rules terminology.

The same thing can be done by any player, but whoever is refereeing the rules and describing the scenes has an easier time of doing the translation accurately.

Quote from: TonyLBY'know what else a central GM is good at?  Bringing new players up to speed.  They can act as the constant "designated translator," giving plain-english descriptions of the options that other people know about from having known the rules, and translating the player's plain-english roleplay into rules terminology.

Amen!

Quote from: jdrakehThis is a logical fallacy (specifically, it's confirmation bias). That D&D is the most played RPG does not mean (or even suggest) that the DM as final arbitrator is the most sought after social contract model unless you're willfully ignoring all of the other reasons that people play D&D (which you seem to be doing).

No, look at it a bit differently.  Perhaps I misdirected you by using the D&D monster as an example...I know how it can drive some folks to distraction.

Add up all the people playing RPG's with GM as central authority.  Then add up all the people playing RPG's without GM as central authorty (I know, Pundy thinks they're not even RPG's, but that's a different discussion). There are plenty more in the former than the latter.  Agreed?

So what are they getting?  I mean, it can't be just what they get from the D&D package, as the set includes games other than D&D.  Is it just the GM model?  Obviously not.  But it's not a stretch to conclude that..hmm..what's a good, diplomatic way of saying this....

The model with which most people are comfortable is the GM as central authority.  Does this mean some people don't feel more comfortable with other models? Of course not.  Yikes that's horribly constructed.

The model with which most people are comfortable is the GM as central authority.  Some people are more comfortable with other models; thus other models sometimes form the social contract for such people.

17th century political theory recast as 21st century roleplaying game theory.

Personally, I play Dungeons and Dragons with my pals. If one of them wanted to be boss of the lot of us, we'd kick him in his conny. The DM runs the NPCs, and he gets to be the director of the movie, but I'm the A-list star. He doesn't have a ton of "authority" except insofar as he manages to engage the rest of us and convince us that his actions are interesting and fun and fair.

Yes, I'm not a fan at all of the "Social Contract" jargon. As with much Forgist language nobody really knows exactly what it means, but it's often used in attempt to simultaneously deny the nonvoluntary nature of social relations, and sweep all the personal elements of a game into an unanalyzable black box.

Specifically, Hobbes. It's absolutely fascinating how that language naturally sprang up in the context of talking about the GM in the early days, actually, if you just view it as an anthropological phenomenon, and stop worrying about truth-value for a moment.

When I talk about social contract, I mean, who's in charge of stuff. I don't think this is that common, and that term at least certainly didn't originate with the Forgistas.

Quote from: CalithenaSpecifically, Hobbes. It's absolutely fascinating how that language naturally sprang up in the context of talking about the GM in the early days, actually, if you just view it as an anthropological phenomenon, and stop worrying about truth-value for a moment.

The Forge openly adopted the term from political philosophy, as some sort of poorly-understood analogy. I forget who specifically was responsible, but someone basically said "Hey, why don't we use the term 'social contract' from political philosophy to refer to this other phenomenon?"

Its more casual use is the result of it being one of the most widely known metaphors in politics in our civilisation. It's like wondering why games deal with giant robots and action heroes instead of 14th century Byzantine theology. Giant robots and action heroes are widely known, 14th century Byzantine theology isn't.

Personally, I'm quite familiar with the limitations of contractarian theory, but as I have to make my way through thickets of half-baked political notions every day I don't find it a problem. I've never been able to understand the objections from people who are clearly liberal in thought and practice.

This thread has become a total pain in the ass. Flamewars would be preferable.

Thanks Tony for a useful contribution in the last page or so.

Quote from: CalithenaThis thread has become a total pain in the ass. Flamewars would be preferable.

You suck.

Seanchai

Wow, Seanchai has found the Rpg site!

Now we really are complete.

Quote from: blakkieHow long have you been out of the country? You might be rudely shocked when you come back for you visit. Calgary was, as of this New Years, the last major city in the country to outright ban building smoking. Vancouver has been this way for quite some time, all of BC actually due to provincial WCB regulations.

Yes, I was aware of those bans.  Its another thing, however, for Jeff not to allow smoking inside his house.

Speaking of which, I think Levi is going to have to rethink his plan of taking me out to a bar when I'm in Edmonton, and start thinking "house party".  I won't go to drink somewhere that I can't smoke.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, I was aware of those bans.  Its another thing, however, for Jeff not to allow smoking inside his house.

Point of clarification:  If I allowed smoking, that would leading to stinky cigarette smells in my house.  I feel it would be rude of me to smoke my pipe while simultanously asking my in-laws or other guests to refrain from lighting up.  "My pipe is okay, but your cigarette is an abomination" makes perfect sense in my head, but I don't think I could say it out loud to someone in my home.

Quote from: jrientsPoint of clarification:  If I allowed smoking, that would leading to stinky cigarette smells in my house.  I feel it would be rude of me to smoke my pipe while simultanously asking my in-laws or other guests to refrain from lighting up.  "My pipe is okay, but your cigarette is an abomination" makes perfect sense in my head, but I don't think I could say it out loud to someone in my home.

I have.

RPGPundit