Quote from: The Traveller;625853Which is just what I said, if the referee controls one team, what sort of referee is that? A GM isn't a referee. Some of the skills used in refereeing come in handy for GMing at times, certainly, but beyond that the comparison stops working.

That's a solid point, and I may have to try a gaming experiment one time like so:

Bill runs a party of PCs.  Jim all the monsters.  I referee.

Could be a hoot, particularly in a board game setting.

Doesn't sound like an RPG though...

Quote from: gleichman;625866In a traditional PnP RPG:

- The GM must ensure that both the NPCs and the PCs follow all the rules of the game (referee)
- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)
- The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success

Failure on any of the above points indicates either a bad GM, and/or the play of a non-Traditional RPG.

It's that simple. Your goal to define things otherwise is foolish and counter-productive.

True or false - Gary Gygax was a good GM playing a traditional RPG.

Your unqualified opinion will do.

Quote from: smiorgan;626217B-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.

Don't sell yourself short. You are an above-average snowflake.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626017OMG, lets exclude everyone from the hobby who isn't instantly magically a great DM from the moment they were born!

+1

It's rather like being a 'good person', in my view.  Some days (some sessions) are better than others.  If your gaming is not a work in progress, then I can't identify with it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626312+1

It's rather like being a 'good person', in my view.  Some days (some sessions) are better than others.  If your gaming is not a work in progress, then I can't identify with it.

I can remember when I started dming 1E dnd and thought a campaign was drawing a dungeon, and placing level 1 monsters on level one, level two monsters on level two, etc...

It took me at least a year to learn not to suck at dming.

I agree it is a work in progress; you stagnate, you die.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626308True or false - Gary Gygax was a good GM playing a traditional RPG.

Your unqualified opinion will do.

I imagine it would depend upon what year we're talking about, people do change over time. I do know however that in recent years before his death he would not have significantly disagreed with me.

Gary's life is like the bible, packed full of words virtually anyone can twist to any purpose.

Quote from: Gib;626361Gary's life is like the bible, packed full of words virtually anyone can twist to any purpose.

True of everyone actually. Context is lost, especially over time. And people do change their mind as well- rejecting what they used to do or believe.

Quote from: gleichman;626362True of everyone actually. Context is lost, especially over time. And people do change their mind as well- rejecting what they used to do or believe.

Sure, but a reminder in the case of Gygax is relevant. Nobody is out there going over your or my words with talmudic intensity and quoting from the same to 'prove' some sort of point.

Quote from: Gib;626363Sure, but a reminder in the case of Gygax is relevant. Nobody is out there going over your or my words with talmudic intensity and quoting from the same to 'prove' some sort of point.

One might be surprised.

But yes, Gary does draw far more attention than you or I and gets twisted around a great deal for often very self-serving reasons.

Gary Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery would be relevant to this thread's topic.

Quote from: Benoist;626368Gary Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery would be relevant to this thread's topic.

Something over a quarter of a century old?

I'd only concern myself with it if he was still alive to answer questions as most of the 'insight' people are looking for involve issues, details, and people that didn't exist then.

IMO it's of historical interest at best.

Quote from: gleichman;626369Something over a quarter of a century old?

Yes. It can be just as useful today as it was back then.

Role-playing games don't become somehow "obsolete" with age, and neither do the thoughts of a Game Master worth his salt.

Quote from: Benoist;626371Yes. It can be just as useful today as it was back then.

You're such a child.

One that lives the past, yet unable to apply it to the present because you've spent so much effort distorting it to meet your personal needs.

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

I had a snarky reply, but then someone made a good point...

Quote from: Blackhand;624869Shove your nonsensical manifesto back up your ass.

...not yet...

Quote from: Blackhand;625144I GM the game, not the story.

The dichotomy would be flawed if the statement itself wasn't already completely nonsensical.

...and not yet...

Quote from: beermonk;625369There is only, 'are we having fun?'

I have fun with my friends getting drunk and playing Monopoly at my house. Hey, THAT MUST MEAN IT'S AN RPG!

...hold...

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;625542The role of a GM seems too esoteric a concept to truly define.

Then we might as well stop buying books because there's no way they can help anyone become a GM. If you're not born with the gift you're just screwed.

Bullshit.

...HoooooLD...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;625583Are you seriously arguing that the role of the referee is produce an outcome but how a referee goes about performing that role has no bearing on the discussion?

...FINALLY!

It's the ONLY thing that has bearing on the discussion. And we should talking far more about methods than intents.

These manifestos are great for ideological discussion, but they almost universally lack any statements about how to actually achieve what they describe. So how WOULD a GM achieve all these things the manifesto describes?