This has been touched on in a few different threads recently so I reckon it's time to pin the issue down in as many words. I'll salt in a few previous comments of my own too which those who have been following these debates will recognise, a hat tip to those stalwarts.

What is the role of the GM in roleplaying games?

To start out with, I'd say it's easier to say what the GM isn't. The GM isn't a judge, solely weighing the relative merits of arguments according to pre-existing rules, the GM isn't a referee ensuring fair play between competitors, since there aren't competitors, there's the group and the game. There doesn't seem to be any real equivalent in any other activity, so comparisons to sports and judicial process are limited in value. That's not to say they have no value, the GM is partially a judge, partially an arbitrator. These are skillsets which have value for good GMing.

Probably the most important thing that the GM isn't, would be opposed to or in conflict with the group. The GM should be seen as part of the group, but in the role of a facilitator more so than anything else. There are no sides, the GM and the group are on the same side, and this is something that isn't well understood.

The GM facilitates the awesome. After that it just comes down to what kind of awesome you want to achieve, which should be understood before the game starts. If you're going for a political thriller, the GM can facilitate nuanced political thrills, horror has its own way of working, and pulp needs clean cut baddies and fast action scenes. Maybe in some cases the type of awesome might not be understood by the group before the game gets going, which can really work too if done right. Would you be horribly depressed if you signed up for cowboy bebop and got event horizon with a twist? Maybe, I wouldn't, because I think cowboy bebop has the scope to encompass that kind of horror, with a twist.

I feel it is important that the group and GM work together at the start of the game too, a place and time where the group can and should have a say in the layout of the setting until everyone is happy.

Then we haul up on the shores of power balance. The GM has more power than the group, right? He or she can summon ten million death demons to kill the group and take their stuff on a whim? Wrong.

The GM cannot force the group to do anything, charm spells notwithstanding. The group cannot force the GM to do anything. In the ultimate extremity, the group can simply decide to walk away from the table. Then stir in rules and the extent to which the group and GM are willing to follow them, and the dice, the lifesbreath of roleplaying games. Random chance, power beyond the GM or group, lady luck is the spark that lights the fire.

The loss of control is itself exciting, for both the GM and the players. Losing control hits the same nerve as mysteries we don't understand or know anything about - the forest where people used to live and don't live anymore; but once the curtain gets pulled aside it's not so much fun. Control is not so important as the interplay between various deficiencies in control.

What the group decides to do is de facto awesome. The group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules and much more importantly the setting, their interpretation of these two elements and the resultant frisson is a huge part of what makes the game work.

Another part of the role of the GM is to decide how the setting should react to these actions, this may have been done in advance or on the fly. In the former case it's modular or plotted play, in the latter it would be sandbox play. There's no reason why these two mightn't be mixed in the same game to one degree or another. Also the GM can and should be proactive in some cases. Facilitating the awesome rather than the plot or the rules would be the main message in the complex relationship between group and GM.

So what's the final takeaway in my GManifesto?
- The GM is part of the group.
- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.
- There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.

This is I feel a hugely complicated and involved subject, and I've only touched on a few of the main features as I see them, so I'd welcome thoughts to guide my gropings in the dark on the matter.

Jesus Christ.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862So what's the final takeaway in my GManifesto?
- The GM is part of the group.
- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.
- There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.

1. The GM is NOT part of the group.
2. WHAT?
3. So?
4. So what?

This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?  

Quote from: The Traveller;624840Ahahah, ah jeez. We really need a thread on dungeon mastering techniques.

Shove your nonsensical manifesto back up your ass.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862What is the role of the GM in roleplaying games?

To start out with, I'd say it's easier to say what the GM isn't. The GM isn't a judge, solely weighing the relative merits of arguments according to pre-existing rules, the GM isn't a referee ensuring fair play between competitors, since there aren't competitors, there's the group and the game. There doesn't seem to be any real equivalent in any other activity, so comparisons to sports and judicial process are limited in value. That's not to say they have no value, the GM is partially a judge, partially an arbitrator. These are skillsets which have value for good GMing.

Probably the most important thing that the GM isn't, would be opposed to or in conflict with the group. The GM should be seen as part of the group, but in the role of a facilitator more so than anything else. There are no sides, the GM and the group are on the same side, and this is something that isn't well understood.

I broadly agree with you, but especially this part. This is one of the reasons I hate the term "referee" which implies a completely neutral and impartial non-participant, which a GM is not.

Quote from: Kiero;624871I broadly agree with you, but especially this part. This is one of the reasons I hate the term "referee" which implies a completely neutral and impartial non-participant, which a GM is not.

It's a bad game where the GM isn't a neutral and impartial non-participant referee.

Otherwise, you are probably playing a story game where the GM just wants his players to "have fun" and not adjudicate and REFEREE the scenario like it's supposed to be run.

I don't want the GM on my side giving me free ups, or "bringing the awesome" as it was put above.

Of course, if you're just making shit up on the fly you're storygaming anyway.  Meaning if you didn't write a scenario with specific encounters and specific reactions, there's nothing to referee and you're just stroking your player's junk.  Bringing the awesome, as it were.

Depends on the game ur running.
For example Paranioa is a game where PCs are to be crushed and destroyed without mercy.
It's not a matter of IF you die, but how many clones are killed and how much of a nasty death you can cause them.

PCs are the enemy of the GM in Paranioa to be eliminated for being the commie mutant traitors they are!

Quote from: Blackhand;624869Jesus Christ.



1. The GM is NOT part of the group.
2. WHAT?
3. So?
4. So what?

This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?  



Shove your nonsensical manifesto back up your ass.

Quote from: Blackhand;624874It's a bad game where the GM isn't a neutral and impartial non-participant referee.

Otherwise, you are probably playing a story game where the GM just wants his players to "have fun" and not adjudicate and REFEREE the scenario like it's supposed to be run.

I don't want the GM on my side giving me free ups, or "bringing the awesome" as it was put above.

Of course, if you're just making shit up on the fly you're storygaming anyway.  Meaning if you didn't write a scenario with specific encounters and specific reactions, there's nothing to referee and you're just stroking your player's junk.  Bringing the awesome, as it were.

The only reason you haven't made it as far as my ignore list son is I find your ranting mildly more entertaining than thinking about soup.

Had you been paying attention to previous discussions which considerably predate your "This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?" sentiment, you would have observed that I also said "(although the GM's decisions might result in killing some or all of the group whether they like it or not, and this is a vital factor)". One would have hoped this was conveyed by the comments about luck in the OP, but apparently not.

Kindly stop threadcrapping. You won't, in the pursuance of some sort of bizarre apha male jig, but I thought I'd make the token effort anyway.

Quote from: The Traveller;624879The only reason you haven't made it as far as my ignore list son is I find your ranting mildly more entertaining than thinking about soup.

Well hell, if it's THAT entertaining you should just ignore me.

Quote from: The Traveller;624879Had you been paying attention to previous discussions which considerably predate your "This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?" sentiment, you would have observed that I also said "(although the GM's decisions might result in killing some or all of the group whether they like it or not, and this is a vital factor)". One would have hoped this was conveyed by the comments about luck in the OP, but apparently not.

What???  I have no idea how this relates to anything.

Quote from: The Traveller;624879Kindly stop threadcrapping. You won't, in the pursuance of some sort of bizarre apha male jig, but I thought I'd make the token effort anyway.

How interesting.  You prove that you're a total fuckwit, which I really wish you hadn't done.

Of course I'm the threadcrapper here, because you started this thread and of course you don't want negative comments.  

At least I don't cry Threadcrapper whenever you post in one of my threads, you sniveling hypocrite.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.

I've never had regular players who expected game sessions (or their characters) to be "awesome," so I've never been concerned with "the awesome" (I'm not even sure what it is, to be honest). I try to provide interesting campaign settings and lots of interesting things for the characters to do (if they want to -- I run a sandbox). But I certainly don't try to make everything possible for the characters to do "be awesome". I doubt that's even desirable as if everything is awesome, awesome becomes boring and you have to figure out a way to make everything even more awesome than awesome, etc. Most campaigns have times when events turned out to be awesome, but just like in the real world, such times are more the very memorable exception to "normal routine" of life.

Quote from: Blackhand;624883Well hell, if it's THAT entertaining you should just ignore me.

And, done.

Quote from: The Traveller;624890And, done.

Thanks.  I'll return that favor.

Quote from: RandallS;624886I've never had regular players who expected game sessions (or their characters) to be "awesome," so I've never been concerned with "the awesome" (I'm not even sure what it is, to be honest).

Awesome in this situation is just a subtext for the Platonic ideal of what makes a game fun, which itself varies depending on genre, setting, and the particulars of the group. Those moments when it all seems to work and comes together perfectly. Working towards this ideal can be quite a difficult and subtle task in its own right, and probably shouldn't imply all awesome all the time. For example, part of bringing the awesome might be the difficulty of striving towards a goal and overcoming all the odds, a culmination of lesser awesome to produce extra awesome.

One thing I didn't see that a GM (typically) is - host.  Usually, though not always, the GM is the one with the 'hey guys lets do X' ambition, inviting everyone to come play.  And this applies even when it isn't at a specific home.  There's something mildly selfless about the idea of giving everyone else a world to play with, particularly if you're trying to make it fun.  I see it as a type of hospitality.

Quote from: The Traveller;624897Awesome in this situation is just a subtext for the Platonic ideal of what makes a game fun, which itself varies depending on genre, setting, and the particulars of the group. Those moments when it all seems to work and comes together perfectly.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think that will ever be a goal for me as I try not to select goals that I'm likely to fail at -- and any "Plationic ideal" type goal is, almost by definition, beyond mere human ability. I prefer to set goals that will stretch my abilities but still be something I likely can achieve with reasonable effort. Setting my standards at some ideal/near state of perfection just means I am unlikely to achieve them, will likely become discouraged, and quit bothering to even try.

I also don't like setting hard to reach goals that I cannot possibility achieve unless many others also achieve them. Making gaming even close to  "awesome" requires an very high level of effort on the part of the GM and all of the players. Most of my players are casual players -- their goal is generally more like "having he most fun for the least effort."  

The GM is the living simulation engine that facilitates the combination of shared imagined realities.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862So what's the final takeaway in my GManifesto?
- The GM is part of the group.
- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.
- There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.

I agree the GM is part of the group. Usually, the table is full of our friends. Of course we are part of that group of people playing a game BUT as GM, we are not part of the group of player characters. There's the difference for me.

I am considered an "impartial referee", but its bullshit. I let the dice fall where they may, but I am rooting for the players while I am staying true to the "realities" of my setting.

It is my job to bring the awesome. It's my job to help immerse everyone into the setting. It's my job to give players incentives to suspend their disbelief and join me in the immersion. It's my job to do everything I can to bring the world alive.

There really isn't any equivalent role in any other endeavor. And that's both the boon and the bane of RPGs.

Quote from: RandallS;624923Most of my players are casual players -- their goal is generally more like "having the most fun for the least effort."  

For casual players, that is "the awesome."

I don't think The Awesome needs to be some awe inspiring session that everyone talks about for eternity. For casual players, The Awesome might be the ROI of time invested to fun enjoyed being so great that its worth attending every week.

Every group is going to define The Awesome differently.

I play a lot of convention one shots. Most con gamers define The Awesome as having fun in a 4-6 hour slot where they get a beginning, middle and end of an adventure where their choices are meaningful. They may win, lose or die, but what matters is if they walk away feeling the time slot was well spent. And the more memorable, the better.