Inspired by a clusterfuck of a Pro-GM-Castration thread on RPG.net, and crossposted to my blog, here is my Defence of GMs:

A Statement of Truths In Defence of DMs

The following are absolute values, which are beyond questioning if you want to have a healthy functioning normal RPG:

1. The GM can do ANYTHING he wants, limited only by the social contract players have with him.  That Social Contract amounts to this: "If you suck, I'll stop playing in your games".

2. The GM is primarily RESPONSIBLE for everyone having fun, but not the only one responsible.  The players are responsible for letting themselves have fun, and for trying not to spoil the fun for others.  But the ultimate responsibility falls on the GM's shoulders, including the responsibility to take action if one player's actions are ruining the fun of others.

3. GMs are people who have some talent for creating an emulated world, and running it. But this talent also requires skills and hard work to master.  Thus, most gamers will make poor GMs. A few from lack of talent, but most through lack of practice or an unwillingness to work at that level of commitment. A truly excellent GM isn't just "born", he's made through endless amounts of hard work and forged in the fire of dozens of campaigns.

These are all absolute truths in normal healthy RPG campaigns.  To these I will add:

4. Gaming groups MUST have a leader, with the strength to be leader when it comes down to it, and that leader ABSOLUTELY MUST be the GM.  Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

RPGPundit

Howdy,

Quote from: RPGPunditThe following are absolute values, which are beyond questioning if you want to have a healthy functioning normal RPG:

Nothing is beyond question or reproach, most especially if you want to maintain a healthy and functioning role-playing group.  Anything less will lead to player (and GM) disenfranchisement.

Quote from: RPGPundit1. The GM can do ANYTHING he wants, limited only by the social contract players have with him.  That Social Contract amounts to this: "If you suck, I'll stop playing in your games".

The GM is wholly restrained and limited by the rules and most certainly CAN NOT do whatever they want.  Those who do break the illusion of the game world by shattering the shared disbelief of the gaming group.  A good GM must work within the framework of the rules, first and foremost, that's the core of the so-called 'social contract' of the gaming group.

Quote from: RPGPundit2. The GM is primarily RESPONSIBLE for everyone having fun, but not the only one responsible.  The players are responsible for letting themselves have fun, and for trying not to spoil the fun for others.  But the ultimate responsibility falls on the GM's shoulders, including the responsibility to take action if one player's actions are ruining the fun of others.

The GM is responsible for THE GAME, whether the group has fun within the game is up to them* as, indeed, part of that 'social contract' must stipulate the group will work within the framework of the game the GM is running.  The GM is primarily a rules arbiter anything more depends on the how's  and what fore's of where the game is actually taking place.  If the GM running a game is in a hobby shop or at friend's house certain factors may be beyond their control and thus, ultimate responsibility for unruly players falls to the landlord and/or proprietor; especially if they refuse to exit the premises after being asked to leave the gaming table.

(*) GMs are NOT responsible for the baggage players bring to the game table, for players who devalue the time of the others by being late, or anything other than THE GAME itself.  This is the whole of the law.

Quote from: RPGPundit3. GMs are people who have some talent for creating an emulated world, and running it. But this talent also requires skills and hard work to master.  Thus, most gamers will make poor GMs. A few from lack of talent, but most through lack of practice or an unwillingness to work at that level of commitment. A truly excellent GM isn't just "born", he's made through endless amounts of hard work and forged in the fire of dozens of campaigns.

Anyone can be a GM, there's no real prerequisite talent to be one, aside from PATIENCE!  Well that and people skills.  And oratory. . . Okay, fine, I'll cede you this one with the caveat that most players can be a GM; they just don't want to.

Quote from: RPGPunditThese are all absolute truths in normal healthy RPG campaigns.  To these I will add:

4. Gaming groups MUST have a leader, with the strength to be leader when it comes down to it, and that leader ABSOLUTELY MUST be the GM.  Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

Gaming groups MUST have a place to game, secondary to this is a GM with sound knowledge of the rules who is flexible enough to know how to guide the players through a game while maintaining 'alpha dog' control without letting their 'power' go to their head.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Y'know what?  These absolute truths say that my gaming group must be neither healthy nor normal.

That's okay though.  We have loads of fun, every single session.  I guess "healthy" and "normal" aren't all they're cracked up to be.

We also change games and GMs when a story-arc comes to a satisfying conclusion ... so I think we must be violating #4 as well.  It's a recipe for disaster, but apparently we didn't turn on the oven or something, as we haven't yet received any piping hot disaster.

Quote from: TonyLBY'know what?  These absolute truths say that my gaming group must be neither healthy nor normal.

That's okay though.  We have loads of fun, every single session.  I guess "healthy" and "normal" aren't all they're cracked up to be.

We also change games and GMs when a story-arc comes to a satisfying conclusion ... so I think we must be violating #4 as well.  It's a recipe for disaster, but apparently we didn't turn on the oven or something, as we haven't yet received any piping hot disaster.

In the same boat as well.  Especially in the areas of Rule #4.

We have multiple GMs, each who has their own little specialty type of game to run.  When we get tired of one game for a while, one of the other GMs step up and run their game.  There is no 'alpha' either.

Plus many of our players are in multiple groups while some are only in one.  I belong to two groups for the most part.

Quote from: TonyLBY'know what?  These absolute truths say that my gaming group must be neither healthy nor normal.

That's okay though.  We have loads of fun, every single session.  I guess "healthy" and "normal" aren't all they're cracked up to be.

We also change games and GMs when a story-arc comes to a satisfying conclusion ... so I think we must be violating #4 as well.  It's a recipe for disaster, but apparently we didn't turn on the oven or something, as we haven't yet received any piping hot disaster.

You can change games and GM, as long as in each game group (as in, not the group of people you play with but the particular group formed for each campaign) has whoever is GM at the time acting as the Leader.

RPGPundit

[edited]I'm blind. Move along.[/edit]
[and now a bit of content]

I believe all of this can be simplified to one simple rule:

A Statement of Truth in Defense of People Who Play Roleplaying Games
As long as the people sharing their time together are socially functional and able to interact that way, their games will remain enjoyable. If this prerequisite is not met, no theoretical or practical advice will be of any benefit.

***

"Mortar cannot hold when the stone is not strong and clean. Before beginning thy endeavors, look to thy material, both physical and spiritual." -- Hammerite Compendium of Precepts, Regimens and Rules of Conduct, Vol. 108

Quote from: RPGPunditYou can change games and GM, as long as in each game group (as in, not the group of people you play with but the particular group formed for each campaign) has whoever is GM at the time acting as the Leader.

So ... does that mean "Leader" is another word for "GM"?  Seems to me like the in-game guidance role is pretty well codified into the role of the GM.

Or are you concerned about the idea that, for instance, someone other than the GM could say "Hey guys, Mike wants to GM some Dying Earth for us.  Let's get together at my house ... I'll make quesadillas, and Mike'll bring the game, and Cindy will make a playlist of good tunes.  It'll be cool!"?  The out-of-game role of organizer not being invested in the same person as the in-game GM role.

My group does that too ... but I'm still waiting on my piping-hot disaster, straight from the oven.

Quote from: peteramthorWe have multiple GMs, each who has their own little specialty type of game to run.  When we get tired of one game for a while, one of the other GMs step up and run their game.  There is no 'alpha' either.

I think what RPGPundit was saying, and please correct me I've misinterpreted, is that each individual game, as it is being played, needs to have a strong central "leader" figure that's in control.  This usually defaults to the GM, but the GM has to actually BE that leader.

IOW: The GM needs to be in control of the game and, to an extent, the game group.  (If you've ever played in a hobby shop it's the GM who is held responsible for their group.  If they get rowdy it's the GM, who is the authority figure, that tends to get banned from the store.)  You can have multipled GMs but, when your Gamma World GM is running a game then THEY have to be the central leader/authority, meaning in control, not, say, your Forgotten Realms DM.

IME there's only one truth :

Players want the GM to give them what they want AND they want it delivered in unexpected ways.

Regards,
David R

I can agree with most of that except #4. It's useful to have GM as Leader, but not necessary. The GM can spend his entire time reacting and still have an excellent session.

Quote from: Kester PelagiusIf you've ever played in a hobby shop it's the GM who is held responsible for their group.  If they get rowdy it's the GM, who is the authority figure, that tends to get banned from the store.

Can you tell me the names of these stores so I can make sure that I never game in them? I've played in lots of stores and conventions over the years and never seen someone banned because of another person's behavior.

I mostly agree with Pundit.

I would add that the GM must work within the framework of the rules, but if the rules do not cover a given sublect the GM has the right to do as he sees best.

Also, the GM IS a player and the other players need to try as hard GM to make the game fun for everyone. So, if the GM has something he thinks is really cool and wants to work into the game they should buy into it as long as it doesn't lessen the fun factor.

I agree with Pundit in so far as he describes what happens at my table.  The general application of these precepts to the entire hobby may be more dubious, but the farther one strays from the model he outlines the harder it is for me to see an RPG being played.

Quote from: TonyLBOr are you concerned about the idea that, for instance, someone other than the GM could say "Hey guys, Mike wants to GM some Dying Earth for us.  Let's get together at my house ... I'll make quesadillas, and Mike'll bring the game, and Cindy will make a playlist of good tunes.  It'll be cool!"?  The out-of-game role of organizer not being invested in the same person as the in-game GM role.

No, I'm concerned with the idea of someone other than the GM having the power to sway the GM or other players so that the whole campaign turns into the "Player X Show", he gets to be the primma donna of the game and everyone else is there for his fun.

If the DM isn't the one in charge of what happens in the game, because some other player is socially more powerful than he is, you end up inevitably getting a situation where abuses occur.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf the DM isn't the one in charge of what happens in the game, because some other player is socially more powerful than he is, you end up inevitably getting a situation where abuses occur.

Why is it inevitable?

I mean, the same could be said of a situation where the GM has sway over the group ... that abuses inevitably will occur.  But it wouldn't be true.  Sometimes abuses occur, and sometimes they don't.  Agreed?

How does that change when the leader is a player rather than the GM?