Quote from: mcbobbo;625169There are multiple trains of thought on this, guys.  All we know for certain is that the guy that knows the ONE TRUE WAY is wrong.  And, quite possibly, lying to us.

I would say that the position put forward in the OP is broad enough to encompass a multitude while originating a few ideas, or at least ideas I haven't seen before. It's not really how to GM as such, more observations of how GMs tend to interact with the group et al. Something I'd like to explore further also is the role of randomness and rules as it pertains to GMing.

Quote from: The Traveller;625180I would say that the position put forward in the OP is broad enough to encompass a multitude while originating a few ideas, or at least ideas I haven't seen before. It's not really how to GM as such, more observations of how GMs tend to interact with the group et al. Something I'd like to explore further also is the role of randomness and rules as it pertains to GMing.

I wasn't so much replying to the OP, as to the other two about to square off in the debate to end all debates.

Quote from: The Travellerthe GM isn't a referee ensuring fair play between competitors, since there aren't competitors, there's the group and the game

That's the fashion these days, but why eliminate the pioneering D&D campaigns (or anything else) from the "RPG" category for not following it?

The GM's role is analogous to that of a video game designer in that he or she makes up an environment to present a fun challenge to players. This is different both from someone playing to win and from someone acting only as referee of a game set up by someone else.

I think the GM's job is simple: facilitate having fun.

That's why we play these games...to get together with friends, interact as a social group, and have fun.

Everything else is secondary, and as proof in this thread, highly subjective to personal tastes.

There is no 'ur doin it wrong' or 'this iz how you do it...'

There is only, 'are we having fun?'

Quote from: beermonk;625369I think the GM's job is simple: facilitate having fun.

That's the most singularly unhelpful answer ever offered.

It's like telling someone, if you want to win a race, you have to run faster. Super, thanks for clearing that for me. Now, can you also maybe tell me a little something about how I do that very thing?

It's your game. Why do I have to tell you how to have fun with your game?

Look around your table. Are your players having fun? Are they excited to play week after week or whenever? Are they coming up with interesting tidbits of background information for their characters that may never be used? Do they draw pictures or download art and say, 'this is what my dude looks like..."

Chances are, they're having fun.

Are they actively engaged in your story, or are they too busy looking for distractions while you describe in detail how the 307 kobolds attack?

These are games we play, not rocket science.

If it looks like they're not having fun, ask them to explain what's getting them stuck on the unfun. Ask if there's anything you can do better. Ask if this is the type of game they want to play.

Last I checked this was a discussion on 'the role of the gm' and not 'please tell me how to figure out if my players are bored as shit.'

That's my answer. Your answer in regards to 'how' is something for another discussion.

So the GM is part of the group, and yet the GM's decisions can end up killing the group, and the group should be fine with that, since it's part of the game (assuming no dick moves). This is very strange - how can someone be part of a group yet end up killing them?

It's worth thinking about because when things are going swimmingly nobody is bothered, such as in a shared narrative game for example, no matter what happens as long as people are satisfied with the resulting tale a good day was had. Which is a very low bar to set, as the endless reams of off-colour fanfiction populating some corners of the internet adequately illustrate.

But adversity, where things go wrong on a visceral level (equivalently taking a risk that the narrative might be soured completely, which is not possible), this builds an impetus that makes success truly poignant. An Olympic victory is for most people sweeter by far than a bronze at the local community games, setting the bar higher results in better rewards.

The same rule applies to any investment, whether of time or money.

That the GM can include killing the group with bringing the awesome and being part of the group is among the more stark of the apparent contradictions unique to roleplaying games. The thing is, the GM isn't entirely responsible, he or she shouldn't say "the group dies, fin". The players acting out the roles of their characters should also be seen as partially responsible, since their actions led to the demise of their characters.

But really, the elephant in the room is the dice or other randomiser. The GM and players can make it more or less likely for the group to come to a bad end, certainly the odds should be adjusted by actions, but the dice have the final say when the rubber meets the road. The dice are the executor of fate's estate, deciding who gets what.

This is a factor nobody has any control over short of fudging, and brings an important lesson on the delineation of powers within an RPG session and the value in a lack of control for both GM and players, the risk of failure.

So essentially failure itself and the loss of control that leads to failure, whether manipulated by the GM or the group, are a key part of the facilitation of awesome brought by the GM, while the GM remains part of the group. This to me is of use in trying to understand how the GM can be on the group's side while also potentially having a hand in bad things happening to their beloved characters.

I think a lot of problems are created when not only does the group not understand the role of the GM, but the GM doesn't understand the role of the GM, which isn't helped by the title itself; the GM isn't the Game Master.

I don't think a "Good DM" can truly be defined.

Similar to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on hardcore pornography, "I know it when I see it."

I don't get where the insistence that the DM is 'part of the group' comes from.  That seems to me to be as silly as calling the judge part of the Defense Team or Prosecutorial Team.

The DM is next to the group, sits at the same table with the group, is even friends with the group.  But not 'part of' the group.  Varying tables with have varying levels of DM involvement as befits the players' needs.  But, again, that isn't 'part of the group'.  

I haven't found this deconstructionist view of D&D to be helpful at, really, any point in the past.

I don't play 'storygames', so I limit my description to DM's and the Dungeons and Dragons game and any other game run similarly.

Hmm...Days later I stand by my original definition. Every other consideration brought up seems to me to be secondary.

The role of a GM seems too esoteric a concept to truly define.

In my mind, a GM operates beneath an unwritten social contract that they will provide a fun game for everyone (including themselves) while acting as a fair arbiter of the rules. Everything else is amorphous; I feel that no real consensus can be found as it is a matter of opinion and taste, varying by the needs of the group, the GM and the ruleset.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;625535I don't get where the insistence that the DM is 'part of the group' comes from.  That seems to me to be as silly as calling the judge part of the Defense Team or Prosecutorial Team.

The DM is next to the group, sits at the same table with the group, is even friends with the group.  But not 'part of' the group.  Varying tables with have varying levels of DM involvement as befits the players' needs.  But, again, that isn't 'part of the group'.  

I haven't found this deconstructionist view of D&D to be helpful at, really, any point in the past.

I don't play 'storygames', so I limit my description to DM's and the Dungeons and Dragons game and any other game run similarly.

The gm is part of the social group at the table, but not part of the character group. Regardless, I feel the gm should have total power tempered by common sense.

Quote from: Kaz;625477I don't think a "Good DM" can truly be defined.

Similar to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on hardcore pornography, "I know it when I see it."

I would work on the definition of a 'good DM' using practical tools and general techniques, and that might be the next step - but what I'm trying to do here is identify what a DM is. And it's not as simple as all that, unfortunately.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;625535I don't get where the insistence that the DM is 'part of the group' comes from.  That seems to me to be as silly as calling the judge part of the Defense Team or Prosecutorial Team.

Well I did address that fairly directly in the OP. Which points raised would you disagree with?

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;625535I haven't found this deconstructionist view of D&D to be helpful at, really, any point in the past.

Am I questioning assumptions or looking at the facts of GMing here though? I mean there are no commonly agreed upon assumptions on the role of GM, what a GM is, ask ten gamers and you'll get ten different answers. And if you examine these answers, all will be found to be at least partially wrong for given cases. What I'm attempting to do is identify all of the traits that define the role of a GM in as broad a spectrum as can be managed while still keeping it relatable enough to be useful. To test this, provide cases where the points I am raising don't apply, preferably without extending the scope of the assertions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;625540Hmm...Days later I stand by my original definition. Every other consideration brought up seems to me to be secondary.

Agreed but many people don't understand the role of a GM, this has led to all manner of confusion and really bad gaming. It's even led to shared narrative gaming, indirectly.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;625542In my mind, a GM operates beneath an unwritten social contract that they will provide a fun game for everyone (including themselves) while acting as a fair arbiter of the rules.

That's the understanding of the type of awesome agreed between the players and GM. The social contract is only one facet of the role, and the role is what we're talking about here.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;625542Everything else is amorphous; I feel that no real consensus can be found as it is a matter of opinion and taste, varying by the needs of the group, the GM and the ruleset.

Opinion and taste are again descriptions of the awesome, not the role. I reject claims that a useful definition of a GM cannot be found, of course it can. Just nobody has really tried yet, beyond handwaving about judges and referees.

If people could address the actual points raised or raise their own specific points I feel it would be more constructive than broad and overly vague assertions here.

Quote from: Bill;625554Regardless, I feel the gm should have total power tempered by common sense.

How is that even possible, unless the GM straps the players to their chairs and holds their mothers hostage? The GM never has total power, the GM has power delineated in certain peculiar but defineable ways.