Quote from: RPGPundit;416176Baker is spewing bullshit. Let me translate that from Forgespeak for you: he is saying that GMs are optional, and if they are used they have to play by exactly the same rules with no individual authority; the game itself is the only arbiter as dictated to the group by the all-knowing Indie Game Designer, and one of the central tenets of the Forgie Game Designer is that players should be able to at any time overrule the GM.

Its shit, and there would be no agreement whatsoever with it on my part.

RPGPundit

I disagree with your interpretation. "Player proposes, GM disposes," is a good way of regulating how things are introduced in the fiction, even if we can imagine alternatives (if we're willing).

But even in fairly traditional games, players do a lot of work to help the GM construct his or her authority. I wrote an article analyzing a moment of play from a Spirit of the Century game I ran, showing how that happens.

Here it is, if you're interested.

So I think the notion that everyone at the table is involved in creating the GM's authority is an important insight.

Epic apologetic is epic apologetic.

Quote from: Bill White;416184I disagree with your interpretation. "Player proposes, GM disposes," is a good way of regulating how things are introduced in the fiction, even if we can imagine alternatives (if we're willing).

But even in fairly traditional games, players do a lot of work to help the GM construct his or her authority. I wrote an article analyzing a moment of play from a Spirit of the Century game I ran, showing how that happens.

Here it is, if you're interested.

So I think the notion that everyone at the table is involved in creating the GM's authority is an important insight.

Spirit of the Century?  We were talking about RPGs weren't we?    Sorry, could not resist.  Ok, seriously now.  Here Pundit is right on, all that crap is total bullshit.  You do give the GM authority.  You do that when you sit down at his table.  No shit sherlock, move on.   Any deep analysis of the face, function, transfer of power, blah, is just trying to chop off the GM's balls and shove them up his ass because at some point in time, the BAD GMtm wouldn't let someone be a special snowflake.

I'm surprised some much Forge stuff is their own shitty games, instead of d20 supplements on how to play Dungeons and Dragons correctly.

I have mostly played "trad" games since the 80s, and before I even heard of the Forge, this idea of negotiation (implicit or explicit) rang true to me. It shows better at a conflicting table but even at a peaceful table it's there. Most of the time the negotiation is already pre-digested and players don't even notice that it happened. But if a GM starts with "you wake up in a prison your characters have lost all equipment and your spaceship was repossessed", it takes a significant level of trust to have players accept it. Or it should have been discussed beforehand. If this statement was to come at the beginning of a session in the middle of a long campaign I'd guess that most players would look at each other with WTF written on their forehead. This idea of tacit negotiation has nothing to do with castration fantasies and other silly cliches. It just happens at a subliminal level and/or is baked in the usual "trad" game flow.

I understand that games that mess with traditional methods aren't everybody's cup of tea. But destruction of the hobby? Really? Get a grip.

I've finally realised that BWA is another one of those trolls that appear here every now and then with the "what, moi?" routine.

I don't see the GM as final authority and the communication aspects of RPGs as being opposites at all. In the sense that a GM who knows anything about his job will engage the players by asking for their feedback, and making them feel "at home", so to speak, all the while maintaining the simple fact that the buck stops with him. In other words, GM leadership is part and parcel of the social interactions around an RPG.

The only people to my knowledge who try to put these elements in opposition to each other are the ones who just can't accept they aren't calling the shots beyond their characters at the game table. You know: whiners. These guys should shut the fuck up and roll some dice. That, or they should run their own games.

Quote from: boulet;416208I understand that games that mess with traditional methods aren't everybody's cup of tea. But destruction of the hobby? Really? Get a grip.

Who said destruction of the hobby?  Yeah of course there's a negotiation, any group of people who want to hang out have to agree not to be assholes to each other or there's gonna be trouble.  As you said, that's pretty intuitive.

All the psychobabble surrounding the forge description of that is just to push their agenda of player narration and control.

Mm, I can see the GM as a "leader" figure, in the sense that he sets the pace, (most of the time) the scene, and makes sure everything is running smoothly, but I've never really found using the role as an authority position as helpful with any of my games, as I usually look to the table for consensus, anyway.

IMO, though, the whole "GM word is law -- no exceptions" is just as bad as "The GM is evil" -- just people on each side of a dysfunctional social arrangement.  I prefer the "Try to work it out as friends and mature human beings" to either Rule 0 or GM-less play.

After all, if I'm a fair and have good communication skills as a GM, I shouldn't need to have the final say to make things work.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416200Here Pundit is right on, all that crap is total bullshit.  You do give the GM authority.  You do that when you sit down at his table.  No shit sherlock, move on.   Any deep analysis of the face, function, transfer of power, blah, is just trying to chop off the GM's balls and shove them up his ass because at some point in time, the BAD GMtm wouldn't let someone be a special snowflake.

Well, the obvious rebuttal to that is that not everyone plays that way. Even if I'm playing traditional game (say, D&D), I really don't like that whole "GM Is The Boss" thing. He's not the boss, and when I'm the GM, I don't want to be the boss.

But on an even deeper level than just personal taste ... examine what you're saying.

Role-playing is nothing more than sitting at a table, agreeing on imaginary stuff. There's no objective reality aside from what we all agree to.

If a DM says "Suddenly, an ogre attacks!", everyone accepts that, right? Sure, that's how it works.

But if a DM says "Suddenly, a thousand ogres attack!" or "Suddenly, an ogre with a laser-sword attacks!", you'd be like "What? That's some bullshit, dude." And he'd either say "Yeah, just kidding" or "No! That's what happens!" (in which case you'd never play with him again, because WTF?).

But in the second scenario, how did you know? How did you know it was joking and/or bullshit? Because any table you sit down to game at has a big, complex set of (usually) unspoken rules and shared ideas about what's going on. If my wife were watching that game, she'd have NO IDEA that a thousand ogres is ridiculous.

So the idea that Benoist alluded to, that the "system" of the game extends way beyond the actual words in the rulebook, is absolutely right on.

It's not heresy or ideological warfare to acknowledge that. It's what role-playing games are. Some people agreeing (by whatever means) on imaginary stuff.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416211I've finally realised that BWA is another one of those trolls that appear here every now and then with the "what, moi?" routine.

Yeah, yeah, cry me a river.

Quote from: BWA;416225Yeah, yeah, cry me a river.

I'll take that as an admission.

You are right, there isn't an objective reality to gaming. I think the GM's job is to try and create one, and he can't do that with players who want to murk it up with their own authority.

Different strokes for different folks, I'm sure lots of people like shared story telling, but that shit bores me to tears. I want the GM to lay it down, and I want him to lay it down well. That's the only way I'll play. I'm not doing his work for him. I'm not writing his game world. I'm not coming up wit NPCs. That shit is his job. If he doesn't want to do that, he can step aside and let someone else.

Furthermore, when he comes up with whatever, he better sell it as really cool or I'm still not playing. One way to be sure that what you have is really good is to not fuck with the standard model. I love the standard model. If you do come up with something else, like ogres with lasers, it had better be sold really well.

Ogres with laser swords isn't a breaking point. If the game is PA and people are escalating tech from downed alien ships and ancient ruins, then it could be awesome. The point is, the GM has to make it awesome. Making up crap, just to hear yourself talk, usually isn't.

Quote from: Cranewings;416241You are right, there isn't an objective reality to gaming. I think the GM's job is to try and create one, and he can't do that with players who want to murk it up with their own authority.

Cranewings, I agree with you on most of what you're saying. Listening to one dude tell a long-winded story and pretend its a game? That is ZERO fun, and I've done it, and I would never willingly do it again.

Similarly, "collaborating" on a story is only fun for me if no one knows what the story is or where its going, and there are rules in place that let me change the course of events through the game mechanics. Usually that's my character, but I'm cool with whatever else the game offers - Fate points or action points or oracles or what have you.

I disagree on the idea that the only good kind of game is one that vests total authority in one player. But, as you say, different strokes, etc.

Quote from: Benoist;416213In other words, GM leadership is part and parcel of the social interactions around an RPG.

Right. I'm all for GM leadership. I bring it myself. (Everyone on every RPG message board is a GM anyway, right?)

But social interactions are complex. What your group does is probably a little different than what my groups does, and so on and so on.

Hence, games that put constraints on the GM's "power" or mechanical role are fun and interesting sometimes, rather than being The Worst Thing Ever.

It's like eating eggs instead of hash browns. It doesn't mean that has browns are bad, it just means that, hey, let's have eggs today.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416230I'll take that as an admission.

Dude, don't be lame. If you disagree with something I'm writing, say so. Don't just point at me and wave your arms, like you found another kid breaking the rules on the swingset.