Quote from: Catelf;629276It is very much like the "Final say" - thing.
It must be used in moderation, and when it is appropriate, either due to percived flaws in the rules, to override rules discussions, or because it suits the setting and/or the genre and/or the style of play.
If it is abused, or used when it is unappropriate and so on, then that is being a bad GM, and it should not be endorsed.

And therefore is not a "master". There is nothing peculiar about it.

Quote from: RandallS;629277I've arbitrarily (as in GM decision based on what was happening in the game) nuked entire universes before. Of course, said universes were part of a multiverse and the play involved war between various multi-universial factions.

And if you had a clue what you were talking about you'd realise that a universe encompasses multiverses, not the other way around. But whatever, you aren't interested in serious discussion of the issue at hand, merely in playing devil's advocate badly, as when you advocated spinning characters on their heads randomly and at your exclusive discretion, despite which you somehow managed to retain a single player.

Oh you didn't do that? Well then we aren't talking about the same thing, champ.

Quote from: The Traveller;629287And therefore is not a "master". There is nothing peculiar about it.


And if you had a clue what you were talking about you'd realise that a universe encompasses multiverses, not the other way around. But whatever, you aren't interested in serious discussion of the issue at hand, merely in playing devil's advocate badly, as when you advocated spinning characters on their heads randomly and at your exclusive discretion, despite which you somehow managed to retain a single player.

Oh you didn't do that? Well then we aren't talking about the same thing, champ.

It is "Master"
Somehow you seem to think that a Master must be a bad master, or he's not a "Master".

If that really is what you think .... you are wrong.

Quote from: Catelf;629290It is "Master"
Somehow you seem to think that a Master must be a bad master, or he's not a "Master".

If that really is what you think .... you are wrong.

32 pages of closely argued discussion and this is the takeaway.

Seriously, read it again. The fact that a GM doesn't have in reality absolute power or anything resembling it means that the term "master" is at best a misnomer.

Quote from: The Traveller;62929132 pages of closely argued discussion and this is the takeaway.

Seriously, read it again. The fact that a GM doesn't have in reality absolute power or anything resembling it means that the term "master" is at best a misnomer.

Then you should not talk about "defining the GM's role".

Yes, it is the takeaway, you read it again.
Throughout this thread, people usually do not disagree with your opinions, people disagree with how you define "Total Power", "Master", and "Last say".

There have been factual disagreements, too, but those pale in the comparison with the argueings concerning "Total Power", "Master", and "Last say".
Ok, you managed to counter the "referee" defenition, but you need some other reasoning to remove the Master from Game Master.

Also, most here has played rpgs with a Game Master a lot of years, and it has worked, no fleeing players.
On the contrary, the players have liked the experience.
You say that they haven't played with or as Game Masters, they say they haven't played with or as BAD Game Masters.

.... Yes, this is a takeaway, but it remains to be seen if it is The Takeaway ...
Whatever you mean by that, really.

Quote from: The Traveller;629287And if you had a clue what you were talking about you'd realise that a universe encompasses multiverses, not the other way around.

Err, no. A multiverse contains universes. It is (fairly poorly, unfortunately) explained in the Wikipedia multiverse article. If by "universe" you meant "campaign setting" I see your point, but that terminology is confusing.

Quote from: Catelf;629300Then you should not talk about "defining the GM's role".

This is completely meaningless. Nobody should discuss anything if they think it is misleadingly named so. In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby.

Quote from: Catelf;629300Ok, you managed to counter the "referee" defenition, but you need some other reasoning to remove the Master from Game Master.

Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used.

Quote from: RandallS;629301Err, no. A multiverse contains universes. It is (fairly poorly, unfortunately) explained in the Wikipedia multiverse article. If by "universe" you meant "campaign setting" I see your point, but that terminology is confusing.

What isn't confusing is the actual point that was being made though, which you've twice faceplanted with a strawman.

Quote from: The Traveller;629380This is completely meaningless. Nobody should discuss anything if they think it is misleadingly named so. In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby.


Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used.

"Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used."
Why do you say that?
Don't you think i have read the arguments in this thread?
Clearly, you don't think i have.

"In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby."
How much bad GM'ing has you actually encountered?
I mean, i real life, and from actual stories you have heard?
Deducting someone is a bad GM solely based on their opinions on forums isn't really enough.

There are so many different ways to GM, so many different ways to "bring the awsome" as you call it.
You say you don't want to exclude different styles within rpg, yet you do that when you misunderstand how others define, for instance, "Master".

Your peculiarity, as i mentioned before, was that you earlier seemed to be willing to accept that others define "last say" in a different way than you, but that you still seemed as adamant as before on the subject of "Master".
This makes me suspect, that you really play "the devil's advocate" already.
But, why would you do that?
Well, throughout this thread, you have showed an utter disdain(i think that is the right word) for generalizations.
No matter what the generalization: Referee, Judge, god, .... and also Master.

As i pointed out, the disagreements throughout this thread has not really been on the actual ways of playing presented, but rather on what you (seem to?)think the generalizations stands for, especially "Master".

However, what you are facing, is having to rename the position of "GM", if you really is that much against the "Master" part.
Now, practically no matter how you do, any name that you come up with instead of GM is bound to either be non-descriptive, or a generalization.
Also, no matter how you do, this role will eventually become more generalized, and interpreted in several ways, and it may even, if it do catch on, ultimately become to mean something you did not intend it to mean instead.

So, why this antagonism against "Master"?
Yes, yes, you have said it several times over, that a GM can't excercize real total power.
What says that a Master can excercize total power?
A master may have great power, and masters whatever it is a master of, .... but that do not mean "Total Power" ...
Definitions of "Master" (and i'm not using dictionary now, so it is rater general definitions):
* Lord of the house/Mansion
Has often last say in the house, and have typically employees to order around.
However, people are usually able to leave the premises, and the lord of the house normally can't force people to do things against their own will.
* Controller of Servants and/or Slaves
Not even a master that can enforce its will on people it controls, is still unable to change actual reality, and in modern times BDSM-Masters often also require that the relationships is Consensual.
* Skill level: Martial Artist
Is able to perform most or all attacks in a certain dicipline, and knows at least most of its knowledge. possibly knows a lot about several other diciplines as well.

Do also notice, that neither of those excerzices the full extent of their influence/abilities unless they have to.
Now, do i need to bold that last sentence or not?

Quote from: The Traveller;628992So, the PC has 130 hp, and leaps off a kilometer high cliff knowing that the maximum falling damage is 20d6. Oho says the GM, not in my game, makes it 30d6 on the spot, and the PC goes splat.

Who was in the right here?

The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules. If the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well. Maybe the player was taking the piss a bit but this does illustrate the limitations of a GM's power when it runs into the Players, note not their characters.

Ehem.  This is cake:

"There were sharp rocks at the bottom, Mr Player.  Stop being a dick.  We're not playing Cliff Divers and Carabeeners..."

Yours is an example of player agency taken too far.  No PC, short of an insane one, would willing to suffer the pain of that jump.  Making your character take it, knowing they can weather the damage, is playing with out-of-game knowledge.  Wouldn't fly at my table.  In fact if you presented at my table with a character who leaps of off cliffs in an insane manner to see if he can survive it, I'd ask you to go game with someone else.  Because what we want out of a game would be very, very, very different.

Same argument could be made for monster manuals, back when they had 'secrets' in them.  You were expected to learn about the creatures through trial and error.  'Knowing the rules' meant quoting stats verbatim from the book, and advising the party of all the weak points.  Which, without the appropriate (basketweaver) skills, would have been CHEATING.  Would it not?

Quote from: mcbobbo;629480Yours is an example of player agency taken too far.  No PC, short of an insane one, would willing to suffer the pain of that jump.

You really can't think of a reason that wouldn't justify the PC taking damage he knew he could live through and perhaps even almost immediately heal? I can think of any number myself.

And he'd know he has a good chance of living, given the system there would be tales of great heroes doing the same just like there are tales of heroes withstanding Dragon Breath and other insane things that games like D&D allow.

When one views the game system as the world's physics, one needs to take these things into account. The idea only seems impossible to you because you refuse to consider the rules in that way. To myself, taking the rules and constructing a world view around them to match is part of what it means to role-play.

Quote from: Catelf;629434"Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used."
Why do you say that?
Don't you think i have read the arguments in this thread?
Clearly, you don't think i have.

"In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby."
How much bad GM'ing has you actually encountered?
I mean, i real life, and from actual stories you have heard?
Deducting someone is a bad GM solely based on their opinions on forums isn't really enough.

There are so many different ways to GM, so many different ways to "bring the awsome" as you call it.
You say you don't want to exclude different styles within rpg, yet you do that when you misunderstand how others define, for instance, "Master".

Your peculiarity, as i mentioned before, was that you earlier seemed to be willing to accept that others define "last say" in a different way than you, but that you still seemed as adamant as before on the subject of "Master".
This makes me suspect, that you really play "the devil's advocate" already.
But, why would you do that?
Well, throughout this thread, you have showed an utter disdain(i think that is the right word) for generalizations.
No matter what the generalization: Referee, Judge, god, .... and also Master.

As i pointed out, the disagreements throughout this thread has not really been on the actual ways of playing presented, but rather on what you (seem to?)think the generalizations stands for, especially "Master".

However, what you are facing, is having to rename the position of "GM", if you really is that much against the "Master" part.
Now, practically no matter how you do, any name that you come up with instead of GM is bound to either be non-descriptive, or a generalization.
Also, no matter how you do, this role will eventually become more generalized, and interpreted in several ways, and it may even, if it do catch on, ultimately become to mean something you did not intend it to mean instead.

So, why this antagonism against "Master"?
Yes, yes, you have said it several times over, that a GM can't excercize real total power.
What says that a Master can excercize total power?
A master may have great power, and masters whatever it is a master of, .... but that do not mean "Total Power" ...
Definitions of "Master" (and i'm not using dictionary now, so it is rater general definitions):
* Lord of the house/Mansion
Has often last say in the house, and have typically employees to order around.
However, people are usually able to leave the premises, and the lord of the house normally can't force people to do things against their own will.
* Controller of Servants and/or Slaves
Not even a master that can enforce its will on people it controls, is still unable to change actual reality, and in modern times BDSM-Masters often also require that the relationships is Consensual.
* Skill level: Martial Artist
Is able to perform most or all attacks in a certain dicipline, and knows at least most of its knowledge. possibly knows a lot about several other diciplines as well.

Do also notice, that neither of those excerzices the full extent of their influence/abilities unless they have to.
Now, do i need to bold that last sentence or not?

At no point do you actually object to the specific arguments that were made, except to raise rambling objections for their own sake.

Master means the person in control. This is not conducive to gaming for the following reasons:

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

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

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, except with player cooperation.

----

By the above arguments I would hope it is clear that "being in control" isn't a huge part of the GM's job description. So like all the other hats, using the term "Master" isn't really useful. You can make arguments just as much for every other role the GM plays, calling the GM a storyteller or referee end of story, and some in this thread have, but they don't encompass the full role.

Unlike most of the other hats, "Master" could lead a well meaning but inexperienced GM to assume control in places where they really shouldn't, and wreck the game, which is why I say it's a damaging title.

I'm not proposing any alternatives at this point, just noting the fact.

Also I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to disdain for generalisations, the entire thread is about generalisations.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629480Yours is an example of player agency taken too far.  

That was kind of the point, as already mentioned.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629480Same argument could be made for monster manuals, back when they had 'secrets' in them.  You were expected to learn about the creatures through trial and error.  'Knowing the rules' meant quoting stats verbatim from the book, and advising the party of all the weak points.  Which, without the appropriate (basketweaver) skills, would have been CHEATING.  Would it not?

I'm seriously going to start a new thread which just gathers all the various points raised into one place, I'm repeating myself repeatedly here.

The setting is what the players interact with through their characters.
This would include monsters, NPCs, spells, etc. I would definetely see the role of the GM being to mess with meddle with and adjust the setting, keep mysteries and secrets. That's where we get discovery.

The rules are how the players and their characters interact with the setting. I see no pressing reason why the players should be unaware of the rules, and several good reasons why they should be aware of them. There's some debate on that score but I'm happy to hammer it out.

Quote from: gleichman;629485You really can't think of a reason that wouldn't justify the PC taking damage he knew he could live through and perhaps even almost immediately heal? I can think of any number myself.

And he'd know he has a good chance of living, given the system there would be tales of great heroes doing the same just like there are tales of heroes withstanding Dragon Breath and other insane things that games like D&D allow.

You're ignoring pain.  Imagine the following scenario, IRL.  I douse myself with gasoline and light the match, then dive immediately into water.  Do I have a 'good chance' of living?  Sure.  Would I do so?  Almost certainly not.  BECAUSE IT WOULD HURT LIKE HELL AND I MIGHT SCREW UP AND DIE.

Why is having the capability of surviving it equivalent to the desire to do it in RPGs but nowhere else?

And again, does said PC have a laser range finder to know the exact distance of the fall?  'Sharp rocks' could easily be replaced by 'misjudged the distance', and unless they had a lot of skill/experience in judging cliff height, that would probably mesh with most rule systems.

Quote from: gleichman;629485When one views the game system as the world's physics, one needs to take these things into account. The idea only seems impossible to you because you refuse to consider the rules in that way. To myself, taking the rules and constructing a world view around them to match is part of what it means to role-play.

I doubt very, very seriously that you actually imagine a world with the physics that the rules represent.  Because that gets absurd, fast.  And I don't believe you're playing a game in which the characters know that they are simply replacable characters and not actual people.

If you are, that's fine, but I can't relate.

Personally, I try to view these worlds as real or nearly-real places (typically earth analogs), and see the rules as tools to describe the interactions with these places.  Real people hate pain, and work to avoid it.  Even heroes.  Real people aren't sure they will survive 'xyz danger' and experience risk when facing it.  Even heroes.

If the rules don't adequately describe the scenario in a way that makes this make sense, I see it as a fault of the rules.  Not as a world with absurd physics.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629525You're ignoring pain.  Imagine the following scenario, IRL.  I douse myself with gasoline and light the match, then dive immediately into water.  Do I have a 'good chance' of living?  Sure.  Would I do so?  Almost certainly not.

There is no cause for which you do that or something similar? Really, none at all?

I suppose such committment is a fading thing.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629525I doubt very, very seriously that you actually imagine a world with the physics that the rules represent.  Because that gets absurd, fast.

I can easily imagine it.

Absurd? Yes, might be the reason I don't play D&D.

Quote from: The Traveller;629503The setting is what the players interact with through their characters.
This would include monsters, NPCs, spells, etc. I would definetely see the role of the GM being to mess with meddle with and adjust the setting, keep mysteries and secrets. That's where we get discovery.

The rules are how the players and their characters interact with the setting. I see no pressing reason why the players should be unaware of the rules, and several good reasons why they should be aware of them. There's some debate on that score but I'm happy to hammer it out.

Monsters are setting items with specific rules (often) attached.  The player characters should have no knowledge that such rules even exist, unless they have earned said by either character development or design.

Traps are another example.  They have specific mechanics attached, and by definition your character isn't in a place to know exactly what those are.  The rules necessary to adjudicate that trap (particularly if it is brand new) should only be revealed upon discovery.

I realize this confuzzes your clean lines, but it is true.

Imagine the surprise here, "Hey guys, I need to inform you of some new monster/trap rules.  No reason, really.  But here they are..."

I also take exception with your placing an entire power category - spells - in the 'fiddle with' box.  If you can take 90% of what being a 'mage' is about and adjudicate it without constants, then why not what a 'fighter' is about as well?  Where's the distinction?  Where's the agency?

Quote from: mcbobbo;629531Monsters are setting items with specific rules (often) attached.  

Sophistry, technically everything comes with rules attached. Equally every rule could technically be said to be part of the setting. Arguments have also been made that GMs can be solely described as referees, none of these are useful definitions since they are stretched so far beyond their purpose. Now you might say that only defined instances of monsters are part of the setting, but that's just more sophistry.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629531I also take exception with your placing an entire power category - spells - in the 'fiddle with' box.  If you can take 90% of what being a 'mage' is about and adjudicate it without constants, then why not what a 'fighter' is about as well?  Where's the distinction?  Where's the agency?

This is why I always qualify the GM's control over the setting (and I have every time, check back if you like). Once a PC has a spell and knows what it does, the GM shouldn't mess with it without a very good reason or player cooperation. Before that why not, if the means by which the character learns the spell enable them to know in advance the alterations, and they should, the character can choose whether or not to pick up that spell. If fireballs make a tinkling wind chime sound instead of a deafening boom, the mage should reasonably know that in advance.

This is another of many game-specific (as evidenced by your picking out a fighter's powers(? oh, D&D)) grey areas that aren't useful when defining the role of the GM. Some games don't even use classes, it's not helpful to drill down to that level of detail, we'd have caveats for WH40k and Rolemaster and every game under the sun while not actually adding anything to the defintion of the role of a GM.

Quote from: The Traveller;629503At no point do you actually object to the specific arguments that were made, except to raise rambling objections for their own sake.

Sorry, you have to make your "hammering out" without me, if that is how you see it.
I might check out this thread to see if you progress at all.

It is sad, really, if such a promising endeavor falls on the OP's failure to understand that other people define a word in a very different way than he does.