Quote from: BrantaiAwesome!  I just pictured a bunch of nerds grappling with each other until one shows his stomach, signaling his submission to the authority of the GM.

Okay on second thought that particular visual may not be so awesome, but you know what I mean.

Brantai - I was trying to forget the image of Pseudo wrestling with his teenage gamer buddy.

Quote from: BrantaiAnd once again, Koltar, you've managed to reduce a complex argument to the level of a playground chant while completely missing the point.  One wonders, how do you do it?

Did you even read the opening post ? From ME who started the thread?

I didn't miss the point that droog and others somehow don't like GMs or the idea of there being a GM in a game.
Well for MANY of us  - we like GMs just fine and quite okay gaming that way.Some of us have actually been told that we are GOOD GMs.


As to the "playground chant" swipe. These are GAMES we're talking about that involve FUN! and not psychological experiments.  


Did some of you guys just have a bad date with a GM in the past and this is your way of taking it out on them?


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarDid some of you guys just have a bad date with a GM in the past and this is your way of taking it out on them?

FWIW, I quite like GMing, and I quite like playing in GMed games.

I don't like being told that RPGs MUST have a GM, or being told how the GM MUST act.

I like pie.  I also like cake.  I will object to someone who says "The only baked confection worth eating is pie!" not because I dislike pie, but because he's dissing cake.

And I certainly don't like the assumption that if I enjoy cake it must be because I've had really bad pie in the past.  The fact that I enjoy something other than pie does not mean that I am damaged goods, unable to appreciate pie.  Sheesh :rolleyes:

I reiterate my question:  Is there any room in this discussion for someone who enjoys many different things?

Quote from: KoltarDid you even read the opening post ? From ME who started the thread?

I didn't miss the point that droog and others somehow don't like GMs or the idea of there being a GM in a game.
Well for MANY of us  - we like GMs just fine and quite okay gaming that way.Some of us have actually been told that we are GOOD GMs.


As to the "playground chant" swipe. These are GAMES we're talking about that involve FUN! and not psychological experiments.  


Did some of you guys just have a bad date with a GM in the past and this is your way of taking it out on them?


- Ed C.

Yeah, well I assumed your opening post was in response to the argument in the other thread, yes?
As for your last question there, I'm sincerely hoping that RPGs don't necessarily need GMs - not because I have anything against them, but because with one exception no one in my group enjoys GMing more than playing, and the exception gets burned out fast.  The possibility of a GM-less game excites and intrigues me because it would mean more frequent sessions for my group, and thus more fun.

Quote from: TonyLBI reiterate my question:  Is there any room in this discussion for someone who enjoys many different things?

I want to know if there's room in this site for someone who enjoys different things.

Koltar I don't think anyone - droog & Co - have said that they don't  like GMs. I only GM , so I know I love the job. My point was that I don't think even in so-called trad play, that the role of the GM is ever the same for all groups.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BrantaiAwesome!  I just pictured a bunch of nerds grappling with each other until one shows his stomach, signaling his submission to the authority of the GM.

Or until the GM pisses around the gaming table to mark his territory.

Pete

I would need to disable large portions of my brain in order to even think of uttering the phrase "I don't like GMs!"

"GMs are bad, m'kay?"

Quote from: TonyLBI like pie.  I also like cake.  I will object to someone who says "The only baked confection worth eating is pie!" not because I dislike pie, but because he's dissing cake.

You are, of course, referring to luke saying that GM Fiat is destroying the hobby and is objectively weak design, right? I mean, I get that people who say an RPG must have a GM are just as wrong, but you're not saying they are the only ones making this claim, right?

Quote from: TonyLBAnd I certainly don't like the assumption that if I enjoy cake it must be because I've had really bad pie in the past.  The fact that I enjoy something other than pie does not mean that I am damaged goods, unable to appreciate pie.

I agree it doesn't make you damaged goods.  It's horrible for people to insinuate such. I think this arises from the reaction to being told the way they enjoy a game is inherently weak and destroying the very hobby that structure created. This is not to say that strucure is required (just because it was there at the beginning) or can't be experimented on, just that it's so odd to say that it's now destroying the hobby it spawned that people grasp at ways to reconcile that conundrum - often in non-constructive ways...

Quote from: TonyLBI reiterate my question:  Is there any room in this discussion for someone who enjoys many different things?

Sure - as long as you are willing to call bullshit on all comers.  Go for it!

I've been the GM for more games than I can count, and probably actually played in less than a dozen.  This saddens me on the latter part, but hey, I do like GMing, so what the hey.

I walk a line down the middle of the "Gm is necessary" argument.  I see the value of the role, having been on both sides of the screen, and I've enjoyed dmany games of that traditional paradigm.  On the flip side, I greatly enjoy games in which players have additional narrative empowerment, again speaking from both sides of the screen.

For example, in a recent very successful Savage Worlds meets Iron Kingdoms game I GMed, I gave the players narrative empowerment through the use of their Bennies (in other systems, they're called Fate Points, Character Points, Action Points, etc; same difference), allowing them to add meta-elements to the current focus of the game.  They frequently used them to give the bad guys more mooks (hey, more fun for the players who get to kill them!), jam their own guns, and introduce all sorts of weird unexpected difficulties and hilarities to the game.  It worked out quite well.

I guess my preference, then, are GM-initiated games in which, once each session is started, the players become increasingly more responsible for pushing it along and making it exciting.

So in such games, who is the GM?  In my eyes, he's the guy who does the basic prep work, lays out the initial scene of the game, keeps the players working together, and keeps log of stuff that happens.

But I think if we're gonna define what the guy is supposed to do, what about the players?  What are their jobs?  Do they only have to show up and play?  Or are they additionally responsible for more?  I like to give out homework along the lines of "Before the next game, I want each of you to create a damn awesome moment you want to see in a current game.  Send them to me, and I'll put them in."  Players who just show up to play and don't contribute anything other than a few dice rolls don't really have much fun in my games.

Quote from: KoltarSo, truthfully in most groups a "GM" /REFEREE - is the player or person in the group who is discovered to be the most creative at gaming or the best "storyteller". (And I DON'T mean in a WhiteWolf-ey kind of way nesacarily)

A GM is also the one that the group is most comfortable with as the on who arbitrates the rules of a game.

Erm, no, I can't agree with this. The idea that "GMs are Special People with a maaaaagical gift" is completely, utterly, totally untrue. My experience is that the GM is the person who wants to GM, for better or worse.

Anyone, with a little practice, can be a decent GM if they try. A few GMs don't try, and their games suffer for it, even if they believe they are Special People.

I GM'd a great deal for most of my roleplaying career, and I generally prefer to play, because IMO its more fun, less demanding, less admin. It all boils down to taste and what the group is interested in doing.

Quote from: phasmaphobic"Before the next game, I want each of you to create a damn awesome moment you want to see in a current game.  Send them to me, and I'll put them in."

I see no problem with this.

The question is, if you play differently - if you play with a GM who runs the world and players who run their characters all in an attempt to simulate/emulate the world and keep that emulation/simulation consistent with the foundation upon which it is built using the GM to ensure that consistency so you don't know ahead of time the nature of the awesome moment - you trust awesome moments will occur because you trust the GM and the group of players due to your experience, but you have no meta-game knowledge of how it will happen - is there something inherently/objectivey wrong/weak/corrosive/damaging with that style of play?

If your answer is no - play on, dude.  Have fun.  You'll proabably find other people here who love the style of play you've described - in fact I know you will.

If your answer is yes - well - good luck with that.

Quote from: James J SkachThe question is, if you play differently - if you play with a GM who runs the world and players who run their characters all in an attempt to simulate/emulate the world and keep that emulation/simulation consistent with the foundation upon which it is built using the GM to ensure that consistency so you don't know ahead of time the nature of the awesome moment - you trust awesome moments will occur because you trust the GM and the group of players due to your experience, but you have no meta-game knowledge of how it will happen - is there something inherently/objectivey wrong/weak/corrosive/damaging with that style of play?

If your answer is no - play on, dude.  Have fun.  You'll proabably find other people here who love the style of play you've described - in fact I know you will.

Of course I feel nothing wrong with that style of play - I endorse it, after all.  If i were the kind of GM/player who endorsed playstyles I found wrong/weak/corrosive/damaging, well, I imagine I wouldn't get many games, and those I would get would be full or really unwholesome players.

Quote from: James J SkachYou are, of course, referring to luke saying that GM Fiat is destroying the hobby and is objectively weak design, right?

I'm posin' him some questions (since he's got a Q&A thread, and all) but yeah, I'm likely to say at the end that I don't think it's cool for him to slam GM Fiat that way.  I like pie.

EDIT:  (And then I went to look for my post to the Q&A thread, and realized I hadn't posted it because it seemed to overlap so much with what you posted.  I feel bad posting something redundant just so that I can say that I, personally, posted it ... but what the hey ... I phrased the questions differently ... maybe it'll help to have the same thing addressed from two different angles)

Quote from: James J SkachI mean, I get that people who say an RPG must have a GM are just as wrong, but you're not saying they are the only ones making this claim, right?

Not at all.  Plenty of winner-take-all, my-way-is-fun-so-yours-must-not-be mistakes to go around.

Quote from: KoltarBrantai - I was trying to forget the image of Pseudo wrestling with his teenage gamer buddy.

Too late! You've totally got the fag germs now!


As to DMs, I don't object to them, but I do think things are more interesting when they disperse many of the traditional responsibilities amongst the rest of the group.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs to DMs, I don't object to them, but I do think things are more interesting when they disperse many of the traditional responsibilities amongst the rest of the group.

I agree the better District Managers are like that.
District Managers are easier to work with when they give more responsibility to local store managers and trust them .


 Oh You want to talk GMs ? Game Masters like in the title?

 {{{ : )


- Ed C.