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