Quote from: JongWKThe other side of the coin is that if players find that everything they can touch burns them, they eventually lose interest in doing anything ("Why bother?").

Well come now, not everything. But if you throw them an obvious set-up, like an obviously evil clan of Serpent Assassins, say, who offer free services, and the player dives in with nary a second thought, he'll kind of deserve what he gets.

RPGPundit

Being a GM is a lot like being a schoolteacher. You must demand attention and simultaneously encourage imaginative, engaged participation. In order to do that, you have to own the room. When I go to the table to GM, the table is mine. The world is mine and I am the center of the universe. It comes naturally to me, not because I'm a raging egomaniac, but because I'm a grown-up, and a teacher, and a respectful human being.

Quote from: stu2000Being a GM is a lot like being a schoolteacher. You must demand attention and simultaneously encourage imaginative, engaged participation. In order to do that, you have to own the room. When I go to the table to GM, the table is mine. The world is mine and I am the center of the universe. It comes naturally to me, not because I'm a raging egomaniac, but because I'm a grown-up, and a teacher, and a respectful human being.

Current directions in teaching practice are certainly not as you describe. They are student-centred and collaborative.

Those are buzzwords for making sure your students are learning something. I'm a special ed teacher, so I'm legally obligated to teach to exactly what they need and keep careful track of what they can do. So I'm all about student-centered and collaborative. You can't smply stand in front of kids and expound. It's not teaching if there's no learning. That's crappy gm-ing, too. No matter how you own that game table, the game is still about the pcs.

In order to teach, the room has to be orderly, focused, and safe. So I own it. If the adult in the room isn't in charge, the students aren't learning--they're trying to survive in an anarchic, frightening environment. It's the Lord of the Flies.

The parallel at the game table is that in order to enjoy the game, the group has to know that the gm knows the rules, understands the story, fairly represents the world, is keeping track of experience and whatnot, will maintain a safe environment for players to play, and will enforce the group's limits on table talk, rules lawyering, all that kind of thing. So the gm has to own that table.

I don't think being a powerful figure at the table necessarily conflicts with players' collaboration. In fact, I think the effort you put into being a powerful (organized, knowledgeable, creative, expressive) figure honors the payers and shows them you respect the game and the time they spend with you to play it.

Quotepowerful (organized, knowledgeable, creative, expressive)

Those things are not synonyms.

True. But those qulities are a big part of powerful gm-ing.

droog, have you taught?  Because if not, I have to say you don't know what you are talking about.  Yes, student-centered and collaborative are two significant trends in education and they are excellent things.  But in order to run a student-centered and collaborative classroom, the teacher still very much needs the attributes exactly as Stu2000 described them.

Doesn't matter how student-centered and collaborative the structure of the lesson or the nature of the school is, if the teacher doesn't own the room, he or she is fucked.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell come now, not everything. But if you throw them an obvious set-up, like an obviously evil clan of Serpent Assassins, say, who offer free services, and the player dives in with nary a second thought, he'll kind of deserve what he gets.

RPGPundit

That's something of a retcon, wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: walkerpdroog, have you taught?

Yes, I have taught primary, secondary, tertiary, ESL and special ed. Any more questions?

Well, yes, perhaps a response to my post.  I mean you must have had some docile students if you think any milquetoast can go up in front of the chalk board with collaborative ideas and student sharing and not get their ass handed to them.

One of my colleagues was a much better teacher than I was on paper, way more organized, consistent and clear in expectations and her actual lesson plans were models of student-driven collaboration but the kids just hated her.  It took me about 3 years to figure out what the problem was.  She had a charisma of like 6.  It really wasn't her fault but she just couldn't own the room.  It was very discouraging.  Taught me a painful lesson about human beings, that did.

Quote from: walkerpWell, yes, perhaps a response to my post.

Maybe if you don't start off with 'you don't know what you're talking about', you might get more of a response. I await your apology.

Holy crap, sensitive today, aren't we?  I said "if not, you don't know what you're talking about" in the sense that if you had no such experience, you wouldn't know what you are talking about.  Ergo, since you do have such experience, you do know what you are talking about.  I'm sorry if my words offended you.  I did not mean them to do so.  I was just pointing out that a lot of people talk about teaching theory never having been in front of a class room of kids (a lot of those same people often are the bosses of real teachers as well).

Quote from: walkerpHoly crap, sensitive today, aren't we?

No, not sensitive. However, I require courtesy from my students. If you don't like it I may have to get you to go see the principal.

Now, to the meat! You said:

Quotein order to run a student-centered and collaborative classroom, the teacher still very much needs the attributes exactly as Stu2000 described them

Those attributes were:

Quoteorganized, knowledgeable, creative, expressive

None of those qualities implies 'power'. I am sure that most of us can think of a friend or acquaintance who possesses those qualities but happens to be a very weak person in their dealings with others. Conversely, it ought to be trivial to think of a teacher who possessed great personal power, but was hated by students and was, in fact, a very poor teacher.

You brought up the word 'charisma'. Again, this does not imply 'power' except in a special sense (of which, more below).

Punani's argument appears to be that in order to be a great GM, one needs to be given great authority by the rules. By definition, a teacher is given authority over a class. The law and the school administration will be on his side in this matter. Without the right personal qualities, however, this authority is worthless.

Therefore, in a certain sense, I agree that a teacher requires power (if he is to survive in the classroom). But that power is not given by external rules. It comes from within, and may be based on many different personal qualities, including eg anger. It may have no bearing whatsoever on how he performs as an educator.

Thus, back to the topic. The Poontang seems to think that any lessening of the authority granted by the rules irrevocably diminishes the standing of the GM and makes him unable to run a great game. I suggest that this attitude is one we associate with rather poor teachers (as well as other figures of authority).

Furthermore, on an even finer point, while authority is externally imposed, power requires the complicity of those upon whom the power is exercised. This becomes truer the further up the education ladder one moves. You can dominate small children by shouting at them. Adults cannot be so dominated. And I presume that most of us play with adults.

Well I agree with all that.  Very well put, indeed.  I sort of thought that was the same point Stu2000 was making initially.

Actually I think the "truth" this thread is proposing is bullshit. A great GM doesn't need any power, he needs a couple of player and that is about it. If shared narrative control or other kind of player input is making the game worse in your eyes, then you are a crappy GM.