Quote from: TristramEvans;626904There were plenty of d20 products just aimed at a generic D&D 3rd audience, though.

And that as a result has its own style- a diffused and confused as it may be.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626904And this isn't to mention that larger gamelines will often publish adventures that go completely against the "typical" method of play.

Yes, which is why I said "majority". But in truth, often those differences are really only visible and significant for those deeply 'into' the system and not for the casual viewer.

Thus I might talk about how Harlequin differs from other Shadowrun adventures- but really to an outside it shares more in common than it doesn't, and they couldn't care less. And they'd be right IMO.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626860Paul Mason once said the true test of a good RPG adventure was whether the premise could survive the players ignoring the plot. I'm inclined to agree.

That's...actually pretty deep.

Quote from: Bill;625826I only know the bare basics of Amber, but how does it handle a situation where one hero is in hand to hand combat with 1,000,000 enemies all with a lower value?

Does he still win but it just takes a long time to  mop them all up?

I have not read the Amber rulebook for many. many years.

In the Amber rules, this would turn into a contest of Endurance. With one million enemies, a contest that the PC would almost certainly fail, unless he had a better endurance than the greatest character from the books.

RPGPundit

I want to remind people that I'm a real-life magician, and I just had a chat with a half-dozen famous dead game designers, and they all agree with everything I say, even if they held diametrically opposed opinions in life.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;627243I want to remind people that I'm a real-life magician, and I just had a chat with a half-dozen famous dead game designers, and they all agree with everything I say, even if they held diametrically opposed opinions in life.

RPGPundit

This is actually rather consistent with the rest of your made up online persona, so I have no more reason to doubt it than anything else you say.

So, I've spent the last while going over this complicated lengthy thread and welding the various ideas put forward into what I hope is one comprehensive whole. This is about identifying and clarifying the unique role of the GM in roleplaying games using the lessons learned over the last almost half century; actual practical techniques to help fulfill that role will come in the next thread.

Why?
Problems are created when neither the group nor the GM understand the true role of the GM. The GM isn't the Game Master. This is a difficulty with the hobby, an assumption that if you just give someone a rulebook and some dice they'll get everything a GM is meant to be by intuition. It doesn't work and leads to bad games.

There are four central assertions:

The GM is part of the group.
The role of the GM is neither adversarial nor neutral, but cooperative with the group.

The GM's role is to help bring The Awesome
The GM cooperates in bringing The Awesome. This should be seen as the primary function of the GM, but again is a shared responsiblity with the group.

The GM never uses their power against the group, in that regard it's not even power at all. If the GM makes bad things happen to the group or kills the group entirely, that is (or should be) all part of bringing The Awesome.

What the group decides is Awesome.
The players create The Awesome through acting and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters.

The GM does not have power over the players and hence cannot have unlimited power over the characters, everything is done in cooperation with the players. The GM only has total power over the setting and the GM. And even the setting is somewhat arguable, since the characters can also affect the setting.

The GM has partial or shared power over the characters and the rules. This power is shared with the players and the dice.

The GM has no power over anything else.

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 behaviour is a big part of what makes the game work. Therefore the group helps to bring The Awesome as well.

There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.
The GM is not a storyteller, a judge, an actor, a director, an author, a researcher, a referee, a librarian, a manager or a host. The GM's role encompasses parts of all of these at times, but to use any one or two as a defintion of "GM" is wrong and misleading, and will end up with unsatisfying games if a GM attempts to wear just one or two hats, unaware of the other facets of the role.

-------

What is The Awesome?
The Awesome depends on what the players want, and is different for every group of players. It may be gunfights, it may be tense political intrigue, it may be scouring dungeons for treasure, anything really. The Awesome is partially defined by the agreed upon setting and genre, the group of players may have signed up for heroic fantasy, but at times it may help to bring The Awesome by moving to other genres temporarily, like horror, not neccessarily with the knowledge of the players.

Sometimes The Awesome means the characters suffer and die, and this is a key point, highlighting the most essential contradiction in the role of the GM.

-------

Roleplaying Games
The entire hobby in objective terms can be seperated into six elements.

• The GM
• The Characters
• The Players
• The Rules
• The Setting
• The Dice

Like artists learning to draw not using the outlines but rather the white spaces between those lines now we can attempt to build up a picture of the interactions between the powers of the elements of the game and the places where control is lost, where adventure is created.

How the GM interacts with the rules
The GM and players have a shared responsibility to make sure that the rules are followed. It is shared because rules shouldn't be adjusted without the knowledge and agreement of the players, and this should preferably occur before the game begins. The rules form a common understanding of how the characters and players interact with the setting, and as such should be unambiguously followed. The only exception to this guideline should be towards the end of bringing The Awesome, and even then used sparingly if at all.

If the GM arbitrarily changes rules without the consent or knowledge of the players it is a form of meta gaming.

Where the rules are ambiguous it is the job of the GM to decide which interpretation is correct, keeping in mind The Awesome.

It is also important not to confuse setting with rules here.

How the GM interacts with the setting
This is one of the most complex parts of the role of the GM in gaming. The setting encompasses the genre and associated assumptions, the NPCs and monsters, the maps, the world, the plots and adventures.

Player agency is a crucial part of this picture, since what the group decides is Awesome, and as such has a profound effect on event chains and plots. Being able to respond to this agency is an important part of the GM toolkit, within the understood boundaries of how the world should react and act appropriately.

A 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.

The players have an input into the setting beyond their characters, since they have to be interested enough to actually play in the first place. Players that aren't interested aren't playing. This is important as regards creating the setting and understanding the setting.

The GM should work with the setting to create conditions making it possible for characters to succeed in their individual goals. That doesn't neccessarily mean a bias for character success, it can mean simply setting up opportunities. Bias should be more towards bringing The Awesome.

The same concept applies whether you're talking about precreated worlds or worlds the GM created themselves. Character actions change the fabric of the setting and the GM needs to be able to deal with that in a constructive way, not neccessarily pursuing the goals of their own plot. This is a very complex area which revolves around player engagement.

How the GM interacts with the Players
This is where people skills come in handy. Players, the human beings sitting across the table from you, all have their own agendas and desires in each game. Part of the role of the GM is to make these various needs and desires work together to bring The Awesome. This includes arbitrating disputes, making sure all players are participating and have a chance to do so in a way that individual players will enjoy.

As well as this narration skills are of value to the GM in dealing with players, being able to verbally portray the game world in an interesting and engaging fashion, pausing where pauses are needed, acting out the different roles of various NPCs, public speaking essentially.

------

So, to wrap it up these are my assertions and conclusions, as succinctly delivered as possible, perhaps too much so as many of the points raised could do with expansion, but I feel it is comprehensive and understandable enough to pass muster.

"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628858"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

Perhaps I should have highlighted it so:

"the Game Master isnt the Game Master"

This is the reality, I'm afraid ignoring player agency isn't conducive to good gaming. It really is a terrible title.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628858"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

Pretty much.

Quote from: The Traveller;628860This is the reality, I'm afraid ignoring player agency isn't conducive to good gaming. It really is a terrible title.

On the contrary, if one's definition of "good gaming" is Immersion, then the GM being the Game Master and "player agency" not existing is really the best possible situation.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628862On the contrary, if one's definition of "good gaming" is Immersion, then the GM being the Game Master and "player agency" not existing is really the best possible situation.

No, you're seeing players as characters in a movie, moving according to a pre-existing script. Away from the question of immersion and the degree to which it is enhanced by player agency (quite a lot), it is not possible to deny the amount of influence players have in a game as outlined above. Definetely the proportion of influence in any given part of the elements is up for discussion, and would vary depending on the type of game you want to play, but the fact of player agency is absolute.

Quote from: The Traveller;628865No, you're seeing players as characters in a movie, moving according to a pre-existing script.

Not at all. I advocate the exact opposite style of gaming. Players should only have to be aware of the rules as little as possible and only as those rules map to specific decisions they are making as a character. The GM handles everything else. He's the eyes, ears, and other senses of the player, and the world reacting to players. The rules system forms a toolkit to aid the GM in this task, but the "physics engine" should be the GM himself rather than the rules.

What this situation allows is the players to completely immerse in the character without having to be constantly aware they are in a game by condescending to the rules.

This has nothing to do with players as "characters in a movie" which is really an issue of Railroading GMs and Storygame systems where players are granted "narrative controls".

QuoteAway from the question of immersion and the degree to which it is enhanced by player agency (quite a lot), it is not possible to deny the amount of influence players have in a game as outlined above. Definetely the proportion of influence in any given part of the elements is up for discussion, and would vary depending on the type of game you want to play, but the fact of player agency is absolute.

Maybe you can define how you're using the term "player agency", because it seems different from how I've encountered the term in RPG discussions thus far.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628870Not at all. I advocate the exact opposite style of gaming. Players should only have to be aware of the rules as little as possible and only as those rules map to specific decisions they are making as a character. The GM handles everything else. He's the eyes, ears, and other senses of the player, and the world reacting to players. The rules system forms a toolkit to aid the GM in this task, but the "physics engine" should be the GM himself rather than the rules.

What this situation allows is the players to completely immerse in the character without having to be constantly aware they are in a game by condescending to the rules.

You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly. We aren't talking about a disagreement on how one should GM, we're talking about a fundamental incomprehension of the role of the GM here.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628870Maybe you can define how you're using the term "player agency", because it seems different from how I've encountered the term in RPG discussions thus far.

Player agency, what players (not characters) do to affect the game. That's everything from making coffee to deciding to squeeze the trigger on the Dictator of Tau Zero.

Quote from: DMG 1E Pg 230IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

This right here is bollocks. Not entirely, I support it as far as bringing the awesome goes, but it is factually incorrect and sets up a GM as an absolutely powerful figure, which is objectively wrong. Remember that word, wrong.

This is all part of the process of moving on from the initial understanding of what a GM was, to something more useful which encompasses experience in all of its many forms.

Quote from: The Traveller;628873You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly. We aren't talking about a disagreement on how one should GM, we're talking about a fundamental incomprehension of the role of the GM here.

Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years. It also fits the definition of GM put forth in most RPGs I own & play.

QuotePlayer agency, what players (not characters) do to affect the game. That's everything from making coffee to deciding to squeeze the trigger on the Dictator of Tau Zero.

It seems then that you're definition of "player agency" would fit what most people commonly called metagaming.