Quote from: RPGPunditThe other side of this understanding is that the players do not have the authority to overrule or make demands on the GM.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt's like if the Ref starts kicking the ball and trying to score goals.

But you think that's okay, right?  After all, the players don't have the authority to make demands on the DM.  If he feels like kicking the ball around and scoring goals, the players just have to like it or lump it.

Or am I misunderstanding your position?



Cheers,
Roger

Personally, I really dislike the analogy of GM as referee.  RPGs are not a sport.  Analogies to cars, board games, theatre plays, and other forums dont' really work either.  RPGs are not *like* anything.  They really are their own monster.  It's why explaining it to someone who has never gamed is so diffucult.

"Well, it's like a board game, with no board and no pieces.  Unless you want them."
"No, it's like a play, only there's no script and no one dresses up and there's no audience."
"No, it's really like improvisational theatre.  With double-entry accounting."

But let that person play for five minutes and they'll see exactly what you're talking about.

I don't think the GM should be an impartial referee.  He should be very engaged with what is going on, taking an active hand to keep the action moving.  At the same time, he shouldn't try to take over the players' agency.  His goal isn't a story teller, but a story facilitator.  He sets up an interesting area, introduces conflict, then sees what the players will do with it.  While I'm an advocate of the GM taking a strong hand in the pacing of the game, I'm an equally strong advocate of trusting your players and leaving the end of the story up to them.

And before anyone accuses me of 'one true wayism', this is just how I'm doing it these days.  Other ways may work for other people, this works for me.

I don't know his position Roger, but I can reconcile those two into one coherent view.

To put it into a US law analogy: the Supreme Court can overrule Congress and the Senate. But only if it does so by following the rules.  They can't just make up stuff, they have to follow the US Constitution.

Quote from: blakkieI don't know his position, but I can reconcile those two into one coherent view.

To put it into a US law analogy: the Supreme Court can overrule Congress and the Senate. But only if it does so by following the rules.  They can't just make up stuff, they have to follow the US Constitution.

Comedy Gold

Quote from: MaddmanI don't think the GM should be an impartial referee.  He should be very engaged with what is going on, taking an active hand to keep the action moving.  At the same time, he shouldn't try to take over the players' agency.  His goal isn't a story teller, but a story facilitator.  He sets up an interesting area, introduces conflict, then sees what the players will do with it.  While I'm an advocate of the GM taking a strong hand in the pacing of the game, I'm an equally strong advocate of trusting your players and leaving the end of the story up to them.

Methinks the problem is you don't understand what a refree actually does.  Pro sports on TV? That refree is managing and helping set the tone of that game. He is very engaged. He is doing those very things.

EDIT: ...and if he's really good he'll pull off the Greatest Trick and you'll believe he doesn't exist.

Quote from: MaddmanComedy Gold

In what way?  Sometimes their judgements are more in spirit and not literal letter. Such allows a centuries old document to remain relavent. But the Constitution (and Bill of Rights and precedent) is the basis of their authority and they are confined by it.

The problem, for me, with the referee analogy is that you need some kind of competition, too. The DM provides the challenge, i.e. the antagonists, as well as overseeing the game. The only way a DM could only be a referee is if some players take over antagonistic roles, and you'd end an adventure (or campaign) by declaring who won, or if there was a tie.

And that's not very similar to RPGs, nor would that be extremely succesful if the group didn't manage to get a halfway balanced scoring history (i.e. not alway the same group losing/winning), which would probably necessitate for the DM to give up an impartial position anyway.

"referee" to me is mostly a crutch to explain that the DM has control over the rules of the game and their implementation, as well as final say over task resolution, success and failure.

Quote from: blakkieIn what way?  Sometimes their judgements are more in spirit and not literal letter. Such allows a centuries old document to remain relavent. But the Constitution (and Bill of Rights and precedent) is the basis of their authority and they are confined by it.

Just a joke, in that many people feel the court has interpreted broadly enough to be considered just making shit up.  Not trying for a political derail or anything.

Quote from: blakkieMethinks the problem is you don't understand what a refree actually does.  Pro sports on TV? That refree is managing and helping set the tone of that game. He is very engaged. He is doing those very things.

He's right about this.  If you are into baseball think about how different umps handle things differently, and how the strike zone seems to widen when one team is up 10 run, or he is less lenient in a ruling if there are lots of hits batsmen, etc. . .

The ref not only reinforces the rules, but helps set the tone of the game and keep it moving - or can slow it down if it is getting too wild.

Quote from: el-remmenHe's right about this.  If you are into baseball think about how different umps handle things differently, and how the strike zone seems to widen when one team is up 10 run, or he is less lenient in a ruling if there are lots of hits batsmen, etc. . .

The ref not only reinforces the rules, but helps set the tone of the game and keep it moving - or can slow it down if it is getting too wild.

The only sport I watch is football, and not much of that.  There the refs primarily serve as someone for the fans to blame when their team starts sucking ass.  

I'll confess to not being much of a sports guy.

I think the "referee" moniker comes from the Chainmail days, where you really did have players opposing each other.  The guy monitoring the rules was the referee.
 
When you define the referee as the "arbiter of rules", I think GM == referee.
 
The subtlety is in how those ever-evolving rules are regarded by and presented to the players.  The GM, ultimately, is (and should be, IMO) the last stop on how a rule is handled at "his" table.  However, that is only part of his job.  His real job is to help everyone involved have fun.  And, really, the rules impact that, so they are in his court.
 
I may be having corporate Turette's, but I think "facilitator" is a better term for the GM.  "Referee" isn't inaccurate, though.  It's merely incomplete.

Quote from: el-remmenHe's right about this.  If you are into baseball think about how different umps handle things differently, and how the strike zone seems to widen when one team is up 10 run, or he is less lenient in a ruling if there are lots of hits batsmen, etc. . .

And then there are those times when the ump decides the game is boring and onesided so he adds a gorilla to one team and declares that all of the outfielders on the other team are suffering from blindness.  Then just for kicks, he decides that the winner gets the mayor's daughter.

A sports referee is not even remotely similar to a GM.  Change refs and you get maybe a 2% difference in the game and the overall outcome will be different only in very close games.  Change GMs and the game changes vastly.  Refs can interpret rules differently, GMs can throw out or rewrite whole sections of the rules.

The only games where GMs are remotely like a ref is in extreme Gygaxian play style where the world is laid out, and the DM reads out what happens at various times without regard to pacing, plot, or player fun.

Quote from: NicephorusThe only games where GMs are remotely like a ref is in extreme Gygaxian play style where the world is laid out, and the DM reads out what happens at various times without regard to pacing, plot, or player fun.

Exactly.  A ref is there to make a fair game, and is rather unconcerned about making it an interesting one.  A good GM tries to make the game interesting and engaging.

Quote from: NicephorusThe only games where GMs are remotely like a ref is in extreme Gygaxian play style where the world is laid out, and the DM reads out what happens at various times without regard to pacing, plot, or player fun.

And yet I've never heard complaints from the grognards who actually *played* with Gygax.  I suspect his style just doesn't translate well to other DMs.

Quote from: CyberzombieAnd yet I've never heard complaints from the grognards who actually *played* with Gygax.  I suspect his style just doesn't translate well to other DMs.

There is more myth than fact about Mr. Gygax.

I found him to be reasoned and intelligent, and more than willing to carry on an lengthy exchange with a nobody like me. Not some raving dice throwing  fanatical dictator as he's often protrayed.

I think he and I share a fault. Our very method of writing rubs people the wrong way.