Quote from: gleichman;626088I know enough.

And i'd say "You do not know enough, you just think you do."

Quote from: The Traveller;626077You haven't actually offered any rebuttals as to why the role of the GM shouldn't be described as a referee though. I've made it clear why I think there are good reasons to avoid the term, and so far the main response has been because tradition. This is silly.

I did in an earlier post, the gamemaster is a referee because his central role is to adjudicate the player's actions using the following,

• the mechanics of the roleplaying game.
• the personalities and motivations of the NPCs
• the details of the locale in which the characters are located
• the details of the setting in which the locale is placed.

These function as guidelines for the referee to resolve the fundamental mechanic of a roleplaying game which is when a player goes

"My character does X, what do I see or what happens?"

Since this results from player playing his character in accordance to a set of rules and setting guidelines, referee accurately describes the person who role is to make this judgment.

If are you sure I am wrong list the instances of when a referee of a tabletop roleplaying game is NOT adjudicating during a tabletop session.

Quote from: Catelf;6260905) Prepares the Setting, and knows the Setting (enough, at least), and/or is able to come up with a Setting on the fly.
6) Prepares the storylines/plots for the game, and/or is able to come up with plots on the fly.
7) Prepares the NPC's for the game, and/or is able to come up with NPC's on the fly.

While typical of most tabletop roleplaying sessions, the above is not true of organized play or referees running purchased adventures as is. For organized play referees are given prepared NPCs, Settings, storylines, and plots and run them for a group of interested players.

Now I realize that organized play doesn't interest everybody. But it is tabletop roleplaying. It has a referee, and has players. They use the same book, roll up characters the same way, and aside from not having to write the adventure and NPCS, the referee have to prepare the same way. So it is tabletop roleplaying.

So #5 to #7 on your list is not what distinguishes tabletop referees from other types of games with referees.

As I said earlier what distinguishes a tabletop referee is the fact they are adjudicating the actions of players playing individual characters interacting with a setting. This is the central innovation that set tabletop roleplaying apart from other game in the 70s (see Peterson's Playing at the World) and continues to be the one feature not co-opted by other forms of roleplaying games.

Quote from: Catelf;626092And i'd say "You do not know enough, you just think you do."

Have you lied and misrepresented yourself? I don't game with people such as that either.

Yes, I know enough. And as I get to choose who and under what conditions I game- my judgement makes any objections you have moot.

Quote from: Catelf;626092And i'd say "You do not know enough, you just think you do."

That describes our Gleichman rather well

Quote from: Catelf;626090Hmm ...
Perhaps something like this:

A GM
1) Is a part of the Group, but is not like the Players.
2) Knows the Rules
3) Upholds the Rules(is in a way being a judge)
4) Is kind of Impartial (or is at least supposed to be), but may be partial towards the Game Experience.
5) Prepares the Setting, and knows the Setting (enough, at least), and/or is able to come up with a Setting on the fly.
6) Prepares the storylines/plots for the game, and/or is able to come up with plots on the fly.
7) Prepares the NPC's for the game, and/or is able to come up with NPC's on the fly.

I would say that's a fairly good summation of many facets of being a GM. Estar noted the setting issues, I would say that upholding the rules is a shared GM/player responsibility. The problem of players looking for loopholes in the rules and outright breaking them should be lessened by the understanding that problems are part of the awesome. Yes, I know for some people that won't work, but still.

Quote from: estar;626099I did in an earlier post, the gamemaster is a referee because his central role is to adjudicate the player's actions using the following,

A rebuttal means a response to an objection. One of the main objections is that one can't referee where one is playing one of the sides. There's a built in bias in all such situations, even Gleichman acknowledged this. But okay, let's go right by the pseudo philosophical point of the impossibility of refereeing in a game where you're effectively a player.

Quote from: estar;626099Since this results from player playing his character in accordance to a set of rules and setting guidelines, referee accurately describes the person who role is to make this judgment.

You're supplanting "making a decision" with "refereeing". By this standard I'm refereeing whenever I go shopping for groceries, according to my budget and dietary plan.

Quote from: estar;626099If are you sure I am wrong list the instances of when a referee of a tabletop roleplaying game is NOT adjudicating during a tabletop session.

Every instance is one of refereeing if you want to extend the definition of referee that much. In fact every single choice I make is refereeing. This is almost as useful as "dungeon" being extended to mean every possible adventuring milieu.

Quote from: gleichman;626112Have you lied and misrepresented yourself? I don't game with people such as that either.

Yes, I know enough. And as I get to choose who and under what conditions I game- my judgement makes any objections you have moot.

Misrepresenting ...?!
No, you just think the worst of people, rather.
Point in case:
You assumed i was lying instead of that you might even be the slightest wrong in your assumptions on how i would, in reality, seem like a GM to you.

Quote from: Catelf;626125Misrepresenting ...?!
No, you just think the worst of people, rather.

I take what they write as the truth (as they see it), you've written things that let me know that I don't want to game with you.

End of story. Be a man and owe up to what you've said and accept, the fault of your words are not mine.

Quote from: estar;625869Sure it does as the outcome of any conflict resolution is not always certain at the start. It just not a straight forward analysis of odds but more like a mini-game in of itself.

Well not again not quitre first off you narrow down to conflict resolution which si correct but wasn't specified in your orginal post. Only a small quibble. Secondly if I fight you and you have better warfare I will loose unless I chance the area for the conflcit. Its not about odds or even close to an odds game.
So my Amber skill system just has difficulties and a skill leve if you are better than the difficulty you suceed. There is never a chance you won't do so. If you are in conflict over a skill, who can write the best Hiku for example... the best skill wins.
The psuedo randomness comes in because no one knows the other players nor PC skills and levels so the player skills comes in reading the other players.

QuoteYes the GM is just a referee. You have the straightforward refereeing of the game mechanics, along with the much fuzzier refereeing of how to roleplay the NPCs in response to the player's roleplay of the character.  

Both instances involve the referee looking at what the players did, looking at a set of guidelines and deciding the results of the actions. For mechanics the guidelines are the game rules. For NPCs the guidelines are their personalities and motivations. And so on for the other aspect of the adventure.

Which is fine if an embelishment of your original defintion.

QuoteThe problem of storygames vs tabletop roleplaying has been their focus on making stuff up during the middle of play that in tabletop RPGs are defined before the session begins.

The only time you should have to make stuff up in the middle of a tabletop RPGs is when the sessions goes beyond the limits what the referee detailed. For example what color a mug is or moving off the amp. Even then there are still guidelines a prepared referee can use to remain objective and fair to his players. Random tables or reasoning from the premise of his setting are two techniques that can be employed.

Now here we disagree, improv does not = Story game not even close.

I make stuff up in the middle of an RPG all the time. I do so in a reasoned manner that is logical to the setting and consistent with the past and future and you admit this is possible thus contradicting yourself.
Basically you are saying you shouldn't make stuff up unless you do it from a random table or you do it by reasoning premises from your setting ..... which is a bit like saying you can't make stuff up unless you want to .....

Also you exclude GMs who make stuff up to make the tembre of the session work. I knwo GMs like this they knwo they players like about 1 hour puzzles/exploration, 2 hours roleplay and goofing about andf 1 hour combat in a 4 hour session so they mix up their stuff add things drop stuff etc to amke the sesisons work liek that. Not my favoured approach but its very workable and its certainly still a desktop RPG.

Quote from: estar;626102While typical of most tabletop roleplaying sessions, the above is not true of organized play or referees running purchased adventures as is. For organized play referees are given prepared NPCs, Settings, storylines, and plots and run them for a group of interested players.

Another case of misunderstanding ...
In "prepare" i counted in "getting pre-made ones".
As in buying adventures, sourcebooks, and so on.
One may even summarise it to "brings to the table".

Quote from: estar;626102So #5 to #7 on your list is not what distinguishes tabletop referees from other types of games with referees.

The problem with that comment, is that Traveller seems to be asking for what the GM is supposed to do in rpg sessions, not if those duties is unique for GMs or not.

Quote from: estar;626102As I said earlier what distinguishes a tabletop referee is the fact they are adjudicating the actions of players playing individual characters interacting with a setting. This is the central innovation that set tabletop roleplaying apart from other game in the 70s (see Peterson's Playing at the World) and continues to be the one feature not co-opted by other forms of roleplaying games.

Ok, can you summarize it to one or two sentences that is .. a bit easier to understand, so it can be added to the list?

Again people are all missing the key most important thing the GM does.
They deliver the world to the players. Without the GM saying "you are standing in a 5 foot wide corridor there is a battered wooden door in front of you" nothing happens.

My stuff GMs do list in order of priority is

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles

Creating settings and all that is not a GM duty as has been said you can buy those

Quote from: The Traveller;626118A rebuttal means a response to an objection. One of the main objections is that one can't referee where one is playing one of the sides. There's a built in bias in all such situations, even Gleichman acknowledged this. But okay, let's go right by the pseudo philosophical point of the impossibility of refereeing in a game where you're effectively a player.

Roleplaying games are not an adversarial conflict between all participants like wargames are. One person has a special role compared the rest.

There is no gain or loss for the individual referee in a specific encounter only consequences to figured out. For the player it very different as he is focused on his individual characters.

If you are a poor referee, you could turn a RPG into adversarial conflict. Lord knows there are enough jokes about including KenzerCo's Knights of the Dinner Table. But the reality that the referee is not in a adversarial relationship.

Quote from: The Traveller;626118You're supplanting "making a decision" with "refereeing". By this standard I'm refereeing whenever I go shopping for groceries, according to my budget and dietary plan.

Refereeing is a specific type of decision. Decisions based on the rules or the play of a game. Shopping is not a game while tabletop roleplaying is. And it not a new use of the term either. By the late 19th both in Germany and the United States referee was being using for the people in charge of resolving the action of wargames. This role expanded to include control of third party forces that complicated their situation.

Ultimately this came together in David Welsey's Braustein game, it ideas were adapted by Dave Arneson into the Blackmoor campaign.

Quote from: gleichman;626126I take what they write as the truth (as they see it), you've written things that let me know that I don't want to game with you.

End of story. Be a man and owe up to what you've said and accept, the fault of your words are not mine.

I think most of the people on the board are happy you would never want to game with them, so its not much loss.

Quote from: gleichman;626070If they had shown more concern towards me in the past, perhaps I would have returned the favor. But wishes and fishes...

B-but sweetheart, I thought you were happy here... I had no idea how you felt...

Does... [sniff] does this mean we're not going to Paris? I bought tickets.

Quote from: jibbajibba;626146Again people are all missing the key most important thing the GM does.
They deliver the world to the players. Without the GM saying "you are standing in a 5 foot wide corridor there is a battered wooden door in front of you" nothing happens.

Yeah that's the third post which will cover rules and setting interactions. Basically that can also be filed under "bringing the awesome".

Quote from: estar;626168But the reality that the referee is not in a adversarial relationship.

That's very much the point I'm trying to make by saying the GM is part of the group. It's not an adversarial position, it's not a neutral position, therefore it must be a co-operative position because there aren't any other options left.

And you can keep saying referee all day if you want, it won't change the simple fact that a GM isn't a referee. Unless you extend the definition of referee every which way.

Quote from: estar;626168Refereeing is a specific type of decision. Decisions based on the rules or the play of a game. Shopping is not a game while tabletop roleplaying is. And it not a new use of the term either. By the late 19th both in Germany and the United States referee was being using for the people in charge of resolving the action of wargames. This role expanded to include control of third party forces that complicated their situation.

To have a third party you need a first and second party. Roleplaying is as usual unique in its arrangements.

Quote from: estar;626168Ultimately this came together in David Welsey's Braustein game, it ideas were adapted by Dave Arneson into the Blackmoor campaign.

Honestly unless you think 1e D&D was the height of roleplaying sophistication and nobody will ever make better rules, things change. Understanding grows. Better ways of looking at and dealing with issues emerge. This is what we're doing here.

Again I mean even Gleichman admits a GM isn't just a referee. Are you saying that's all a GM is?