Inspired by a clusterfuck of a Pro-GM-Castration thread on RPG.net, and crossposted to my blog (http://www.xanga.com/RPGPundit), 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.
(http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6325/gamemasterta3.gif)
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?
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. :D
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.
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.
This holds true in life in general.
As for Pundit's assertion that...
Quote from: RPGPunditGaming 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 can't say I particularly agree. What exactly is a leader? And what is leadership? From Wikipedia, leadership is
"the ability of an individual to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members".
In traditional RPGs, the GM is automatically a leader because he (or she) is empowered by the rules to influence the group, though some GMs don't not necessarily exercise this power. But that does not stop the players being influential as well and displaying leadership qualities. In any given group, there needn't necessarily be one single leader. In fact, IME, a group without at least one leader amonst the players will be a disaster.
My most enjoyable gaming experiences came from a group with three participants - a GM, who by virtue of his position was empowered to be a leader, and two players who by virtue of their personality were equally empowered. In any given situation, one leader would typically be dominant but this was not necessarily the same person each time.