Because the player is supposed to be attached to his character.  By default, he's supposed to want his character to be a protagonist.  Inevitably, if a player has sway over the GM or the rest of the party, he will end up trying to curry favour for his PC.

The GM, on the other hand, is supposed to be neutral and interested primarily in the wellbeing of the entire group as a whole.  Granted, "bad" GMs might end up favouring certain players or creating the dreaded "GMPC". Certainly, all kinds of problems can occur, but there isn't a fundamental conflict of interest with the GM being the Leader of the group, whereas with a player there is.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause the player is supposed to be attached to his character.  By default, he's supposed to want his character to be a protagonist.  Inevitably, if a player has sway over the GM or the rest of the party, he will end up trying to curry favour for his PC.

The player is supposed to stop giving a damn about how the game goes for everyone, just because he's a player rather than a GM?

Why?  What does it add to the game for people to shut down their social skills in this way?

In my group each player pays attention to what they can do for the fun of everyone at the table (including themself).  It seems to work out pretty well for us.  Does that mean we don't have the correct ingredients for the recipe for disaster?

Quote from: TonyLBThe player is supposed to stop giving a damn about how the game goes for everyone, just because he's a player rather than a GM?

You're zapping off on the fallacy of the excluded middle again. Just because a player puts their own fun first does not mean that they are indifferent to other people's fun. It's just that the player will put their efforts towards their own character, their own needs and desires as a player, and deal with that stuff first; whereas the GM will put the needs and desires of the group as a whole first.

This does not mean that a player won't enjoy seeing someone else have fun. Just ask for example Tyberious Funk here on our forums, who when asked what was his best rpg session ever, mentioned a scene in which his character was just a spectator - he got the most fun out of someone else's fun. But that doesn't mean that he is some kind of saintly unselfish person. Normally he puts himself and his character first, as he should.

It's just like in a work group, each member of the group focuses on their own task, but the project leader brings them all their work together into a coherent whole.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou're zapping off on the fallacy of the excluded middle again. Just because a player puts their own fun first does not mean that they are indifferent to other people's fun. It's just that the player will put their efforts towards their own character, their own needs and desires as a player, and deal with that stuff first; whereas the GM will put the needs and desires of the group as a whole first.

Well, actually ... I was calling into question this whole notion that a player should put their own fun first.

Why is that the only way it's supposed to be?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, actually ... I was calling into question this whole notion that a player should put their own fun first.

Why is that the only way it's supposed to be?

 Because RPGs are like good sex - if you're not trying to have fun - then why bother ?  
However you should also betrying to help ther person(s) have fun too.


- Ed C.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, actually ... I was calling into question this whole notion that a player should put their own fun first.

It's not a matter of "should". There should be universal employment, people should all be kind to one another, and players should always put the fun of the whole group first.

But it ain't so. I think RPGPundit has overstated his case, as usual. For example, he says, "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." I would say, rather, that in any group, one person will naturally come to dominate the group, one will have a stronger personality, be louder, more outspoken, more persuasive and so on. Should they dominate the group? I dunno. But someone will rise to domiante the group. That's just human nature. Someone is going to end up making most of the decisions, one way or another.

By formalising this natural process, you restrain its excesses. If it's laid out, "every group will have a leader, and this leader will have the following rights and responsibilities," then things will run better and with less nastiness than if they just go according to that person's whim.

Now, that's a more general principle, as with societies and so on. So in wider society, the rights and responsibilities of leader and led have to be really well written-out and detailed and actually followed, because the stakes are so high. In a game group, the stakes are just one session's fun, so things can be a lot looser. A GM isn't a President of a country, after all. So the rights and responsibilities can be more vaguely-defined, and in the practice of the group, things can be a lot looser, with the authority and so on spread out a lot more.

But still, the basic principle remains - whatever you do, some sort of leader is going to arise. You can fight against this, and try to have an exactly equal voice for each member of the group, but it's much easier to just accept it, and formalise it.

So I wouldn't say a game group must have a leader, but that a game group will have a leader. It's basically inevitable. Whether they "should" have a leader or not doesn't really matter. We're talking about what is, not what should be.

Likewise, it's basically inevitable that a player is going to put their own fun first, and view things through the narrow field of vision of their character. It's because they have that one character - they just naturally see things from a more narrow perspective. Whereas the GM will look to the needs of the group as a whole - since the GM is responsible for the game world (the setting), the very physical laws of the game world (the rules), and all the many NPCs of the game world, so the GM will have a broader view of things.

That's just human nature, and inevitable, and rather than worrying about what "should" be, it's easier to just plan for it. We take the natural tendency of players to see things from their character's perspective, and the natural tendency of a leader to arise in any group, and we combine them in the form of "this is the GM, and this is the player."

We structure things according to how human beings actually tend to behave, rather than how we wish they'd behave. At least, we develop the basic structures like that - the fine structure lets us encourage the "shoulds" of the world.

JimBobster has got it mostly correct.

 A little over a year ago a guy tried to join my G:T group.  Or rather I invited him to try gaming with our group . (Dumb "me" )

 Here was the problem: this guy has been either a friend or "aquaintance" with everyone that plays in my RPG group for years.  This guy, lets call him "Mountain" has always seemed to have a stake in being the Alpha Male or starring personality in everything he does.

 Our group is mostly a cohesive bunch that gets along well with each other.
 We already have TWO players that are "alpha" types  - and they get along pretty well in the game and bounce ideas off of each other well. Its turned into a Capatain & first officer kind of relationship in the game.

 Well when "Mountain" tried to play with the group - he got uneasy , anxious and frustrated. WHY ?  Because he wasn't the "leader" or "star" in the situation.  Thats my opinion and observation.
 He also wasn't used to thinking of "ME"/Ed as an authority in a situation - the other players were and were used to it in the game situation.

He started having health and scheduling issues and couldn't make game sessions. Fine with me - I wrote his character out of the story in more ways than one.  It screwed a major bit of plot I thought about trying...but our group kept having fun without him - which is the key thing.

 Point is, my group is alright and okay to deferring to me as the "Leader/GM" and to certain players as "Leader-as-Player character"...but they didn't like the new guy (old aquaintance) trying to hog the spotlight.

Hope that was somewhat on topic.

- Ed C.





(If you've ever seen us for longer than 15 minutes at the Klingon Jail - you might figure out who "Mountain" is. Be nice - okay ? He can still be a nice guy the rest of the time)

Quote from: JimBobOzLikewise, it's basically inevitable that a player is going to put their own fun first, and view things through the narrow field of vision of their character. It's because they have that one character - they just naturally see things from a more narrow perspective.

>shrug<  Hasn't been my experience.  I can play in-character and still keep my focus on the fun of the group as a whole.  Frankly, I don't think I'm particularly special in that regard.  Lots of people do it.

Preach it.

To some extent, in any RPG known to Man, you have to rely on people not being dicks. That holds for all participants. That said, there is no GM, there are tasks that get performed in order to play the game. A lot of games have centralised the tasks in one person, but that's always been a bit fuzzy around the edges, with the allocation of tasks never being precisely the same (En Garde, I believe, was published in 1975).

GM's don't need a defence. What they need is for their responsibilities to be clear and unambiguous for the particular game they are playing.

When you talk about a GM's "responsibilities" but want to strip him of all his rights and authority, then you do need someone to make a Defence of GMs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBWell, actually ... I was calling into question this whole notion that a player should put their own fun first.

Why is that the only way it's supposed to be?

I think players should be able to take everyone's enjoyment of the game into account. I don't think it is always possible as a player to do so.

Let me put it this way: who has the most control over your fun? Who knows what you enjoy better than anyone else at the gaming table? You, and nobody else. Sure, you can also bear in mind other peoples' preferences, as they've been communicated to you, but you're going to have the most direct and detailed knowledge about your own preferences. Hence, even if you don't consciously put yourself first, you are the one person at the gaming table most qualified to make sure you have fun.

If everyone puts their own fun first, but is willing to listen to each others' suggestions and not tread on each others' feet, that's a healthy dynamic. It's not the only dynamic, but I think it is easier to achieve than others.

Quote from: WarthurLet me put it this way: who has the most control over your fun? Who knows what you enjoy better than anyone else at the gaming table?

That's actually harder to answer (at least for me) than it might seem.

As a question of consistency ... yes, I know what I want more reliably and constantly than anyone else at the table.

But as a question of peak quality ... all of my stand-out "Oh-myGod-that-was-COoooool!" moments come from things that other players did, usually knowing (better than me in that moment!) what would be fun for me.

Does that distinction make sense?

I understand the importance of consistency ... but at the same time, I really don't want to throw away all the structures that can highlight and encourage those moments of inspiration.  That's why I don't think that there's an obvious "This is the way it should always be done, for all groups and purposes" answer on the subject.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen you talk about a GM's "responsibilities" but want to strip him of all his rights and authority, then you do need someone to make a Defence of GMs.

This is nonsense. Obviously, in a game, with responsibility comes authority. If my responsibility is to provide a dungeon with monsters, I need to have the relevant authority over the monsters and dungeon. If my responsibility is to provide dramatic moments, I need to have the authority to go with it (eg the authority to introduce a new element to the situation).

Quote from: droogTo some extent, in any RPG known to Man, you have to rely on people not being dicks. That holds for all participants.

Really, it all comes down to this, but there is a little more to it: namely it is not enough for everybody to be cool; everybody has to be able to trust everyone else to be cool, too. Otherwise, it is all shit.