What makes the traditional GM / Player structure in RPGs superior to other structures?  

By traditional structure, I mean the type rpgPundit espouses:

• GM interprets and narrates results of all character's actions (dice rolls)
• GM interprets dice, rules, maps, notes as they see fit and changes or disregards them when they feel it's necessary (without telling the players)
• etc... :pundit:

I'm hoping for more meaningful discussion than just good/bad and RPG/not-RPG.  What does this structure offer that others (GM-less, GM-lite) games can not?

Same reason sports team have a captain. Several different people will, left to themselves, take things in several different directions.

The person in charge takes their energy and channels it in one direction.

Good start -- and that would differentiate it from GM-less... but not GM-lite (meaning there's a GM, but not an rpgPundit/traditional GM).

Quote from: StuartWhat makes the traditional GM / Player structure in RPGs superior to other structures?

As a player, I don't have to worry about anything by my own character and what they are doing.  That frees me to think in character without having to firewall all that much information.  In writing terms, I can stay in a first person perspective without having to worry about the third person or omniscient perspective.  It also creates a sort of unity of feel that one doesn't always get from collaborations, which is what more distibuted forms of role-playing essentially are.

(And, no, just because the setting and situations are not collaborative with the players does not mean that the players are not making a contribution to the game.)

The way it play out, for me is thusly:

there is far more interest for me to explore someone elses world than to creat my own... as a player. As a GM I like to come up with my world, my setting and set the players loose in it and see what they do. If a player says to me 'I want these desert dwelling nomads to have plate armored knights...' he not only isn't contributing, he's actually taking away from the world.  If players want in on world building he can GM, I'll happily change hats in a heartbeat.  

The traditional model of clear delinations works for me, allowing me to more fully get into my role at the table.  Regardless of which side of the table I am on.  

Where I get fanatical about it is this: The game designer has to keep his peanut butter out of my chocolate.  This is more true as a GM than a player, mind. I want a tool box, not a campaign mapped out for me. I want the flexibility to run the game 'my style', not 'his style'. Unless Luke* or Vincent or Ron intend to come to my house and GM, I don't care how they run their games.



*just pullin' names from a hat here. I KNOW Luke put his GMing style into his rules, the others are more rumor for me.

If you think emulation of genre is important as a player, there is no better way to achieve it than with the regular RPG division of powers. You can focus on portraying your character and experiencing the sense of recreating the setting you are participating in.  There's nothing that breaks the feel of being "in" the Star Wars universe or the DC comics universe, or the Forgotten Realms or whatever, than having to stop every few minutes to take direct authorial control of the game.

Ditto for immersion.  You can't go deep into the experience of BEING your character if you break that suspension of immersion regularly to take "god-mode" control of what happens to you.

Finally, its the best way to get a consistent and unified sense of the setting and the experience; if you have too many "cooks", you spoil the broth.

Finally, gaming groups where you don't have a single clear and empowered adjudicator will end up being ripe terrain for the development of agendas, vendettas, primma donnas, power struggles, and all kinds of passive-aggressive inter-player conflict.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartWhat makes the traditional GM / Player structure in RPGs superior to other structures?  

This is a big one for me.

I want the GM's vision -- not his pre-determined, railroaded, I'll-squash-you-like-a-bug-if-you-deviate plot.

His vision.

Exactly *what* a vision is is tough to define -- but it's what makes other collaborative efforts (e.g. movies) distinctly the *vision* of the director.

To a certain, limited, extent, it's the vision of "what's going on" in the situation -- the GM's I like the best bring cool insights about reality, history, physics, etc. to the table with them -- the way the authors and directors I really like do.

Having multiple "team leaders" dilutes the vision, I think.

I also think that GM-fiat helps keep the game ... um... realistic... Okay, I know that's a horrible term, but what I'm trying to say here is that I don't think any set of rules, no matter how precise or abstract can simulate a war accurately -- much less simulate reality and human interaction to any reasonable degree.

That's what we have GM's for -- to use their discretion. Why would you want to limit that?

Cheers,
-E.

Theres plenty thats good and bad about traditional PC/DM dichotomy.

1)  One guy does most of the heavy lifting as far as the world and organization go.  This is a big one, as so much can flow from that, good and bad.  It allows players to focus on the characters, thats good, and has been mentioned, and argued and defined quite well, so far.  It also allows for a clear "vision" of the big  picture without it getting pulled in too many directions, or diluted by too many "cooks stirring the broth" you might get with GM-less or GM-lite.  This can be bad, as a railroady or bossy GM (or just a plain shite one) can make his huge array of powers a living hell for the players.

2)  From the bad aspects, you get players who want to be able to exert a bit more control over their characters fates - so, Drama Points or Fate Points, or Story Immunity mechanics, or the like.  In and of themselves, these aren't bad, and for story-heavy games, can be very well done.  I've certainly played in games where - wow, it made for some rollicking good times that inventive players used to good effect.  In the hands of bad, powergamey, and/or rules lawyer-y players, they can be a nightmare.

3)  I've never played in a GM-less game, other than boards games, and am adverse to try, much like dice-less systems.  I can see where there is something interesting, but it mostly smacks to me of "collaberative story telling" and "virtual game immunity" for whiny players who don't like to lose (overgeneralizing, sure - but hey, I'll join in the reindeer games).  

They are all, however, merely tools.  Like any tool, they can fit a given situation, or be "banging a square peg into a round hole".  

I prefer the PC/GM dichotomy, mostly becasue its what I'm most familiar with, and I think thats its big plus for many.  Its, to me, neither objectively better or worse.  Its just one option.  I, personally, prefer the positives I've mentioned with the traditional set up.  A bad GM or bad players can make it just as bad as any other.

Quote from: -E.Exactly *what* a vision is is tough to define -- but it's what makes other collaborative efforts (e.g. movies) distinctly the *vision* of the director.

To a certain, limited, extent, it's the vision of "what's going on" in the situation -- the GM's I like the best bring cool insights about reality, history, physics, etc. to the table with them -- the way the authors and directors I really like do.

Having multiple "team leaders" dilutes the vision, I think.
Cheers,
-E.

Theres loads of stories of over-zealous and controlling directors who use their power to lord over the crew and cast.

I want vision and direction.  The best GMs are those who work with players to create a great time for everyone.

I have my own insights into history, myth and reality, and while I don't expect them to get a spotlight pedastal place in the world, I'd like to get a chance to explore my insights and connections to the game world, rather than have a GM force feed me his and ignoring or ridiculing my attempts..

"power corrupts, etc etc".  

Its a fine line - the visionary, brilliant director or the stubborn, overriding and tyrannical dictator.  

Its a great debate to have, though "What makes a good GM and/or game, and how can the structure enhance or take away from that?"