Quote from: Catelf;629569It 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.

Another President of Roleplaying emerges and declares himself judge of the internet, when are all these elections taking place.

Objective fact:
The GM has power over the GM.

Objective fact:
The GM has no power over the players.

Objective fact:
Since the players have quite a lot of influence over their characters, the GM shares a minority of power over those characters with the players. If the GM decides to exercise majority power arbitrarily, they've stopped being a GM.

Up for discussion:
How much the GM and players should cooperate in upholding, interpreting and adjusting the rules.

Seems to be widely accepted:
The GM has massively majority power in the setting, but this isn't 100% true since the players also interact with the setting through their characters.

Matter of opinion:
The GM doesn't have power over the dice, that's called fudging. Fudge too often, or as some might say at all, and you may as well be having a conversation rather than playing a game. A weird and one sided conversation.

Since "Master" means "the person in control", it's a really poor description of what the GM does, as the GM only has total control over the GM and majority control over the setting.

You objected to none of this instead opting to come up with various definitions of master, none of which matter since we're talking about the master as the person in control. Objections for objections' sake.

Control versus cooperation, need these be mutually exclusive, it's an interesting question.

So, the conclusion on the role of the GM, with some changes particularly in how the GM interacts with the rules. I think this covers just about everything, unless there are other objections or amendments people think should be added...


Why do we need to define the role of the GM?
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. Also having a clear definition will help to bring new gamers on board.

-------

Definitions:

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.

There is an emphasis on inspiring roleplaying in The Awesome.

Rules and Setting
The setting is what the players interact with through their characters. This would include monsters, NPCs, spells, and so on. The role of the GM would be to mess with, meddle with, and adjust the setting, keep mysteries and secrets, thus creating discovery for the players and characters.

The rules are how the players and their characters interact with the setting.


-------

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. This qualification is important since parts of the setting are also parts of the characters, like spells and equipment, and so under the influence of the players.

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. As such the term "master", the person in control, is a misnomer.

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.

-------

*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 or other resolution mechanic

How the GM interacts with the rules
The influence that the GM and players have over the rules is a sliding scale depending on the preferences of the group as a whole.

At one end of the scale the GM operates all rules and the players are only very minimally aware of these rules, as such it doesn't matter if the rules get changed or not since the players don't know about them. This can help immersion; in these games there is an implicit understanding that the GM will interpret the rules as they see fit on the fly, as well as the setting.

At the other end of the scale the players are quite familiar with the rules, perhaps as much as the GM. 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 in this case 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 at this end of the scale 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. Ideally at this end of the spectrum, players should be familiar enough with the rules that their interactions should be second nature, so as to avoid reducing immersion.

All games fall somewhere between the two ends of this spectrum.

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.

The GM also needs to help create an environment conducive to gaming, whether that means music, candlelight, quiet, food, or whatever.

Saying the GM isn't really the "Game Master" because the players aren't forced to be there and can quit at any time is kinda the same as saying your boss at work isn't really your boss because you could quit at any time.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629968Saying the GM isn't really the "Game Master" because the players aren't forced to be there and can quit at any time is kinda the same as saying your boss at work isn't really your boss because you could quit at any time.

The GM isn't the boss at work either.

I've amended the GM's relationship with the rules to incorporate your comments above, does that look a bit more like it or did I miss anything - would you amend it further?

Quote from: The Traveller;629970The GM isn't the boss at work either.

I've amended the GM's relationship with the rules to incorporate your comments above, does that look a bit more like it or did I miss anything - would you amend it further?

The GM's Control ends when the session ends, it was never a talk about the GM having control over the Players, it was always about control of the game itself, and the Players are not a part of the Game.

If players dislike a certain persons GM'ing enough to perhaps even leaving the table, then they end the Game, but while the Game still is on, the GM is in control, the Master.

If you dislike Game Master that much, then why not try Game Keeper?

Quote from: Catelf;629992the Players are not a part of the Game.

See this is what you're missing - the players are very much part of the game, the real life human beings sitting at the table. The GM has to interact with them and take into account their influence on the GM's decisions. You can't have a full definition of the role of the GM without taking into account all elements.

Quote from: Catelf;629992If you dislike Game Master that much, then why not try Game Keeper?

It's not a bad name, I'm not really looking for a replacement title for GM at this point, it's too ingrained into roleplaying culture to really change it, just observing that it's a poor description.

Awesome Facilitator? Is there a single word that means Awesome Bringer? Wondermaker? Meh.

In re-reading your latest writeup, I've come across an assumption that I thought I'd call out -

You're frequently assuming that the players are a unified body.  E.g. 'what is awesome' may vary.  In my experience, if one of the players is out of alignment with the rest of the group, I've relied on authority.

"Bill if you really want to roleplay that, you're going to need to GM your own game.  Don't count on me showing up."

Quote from: TristramEvans;629968Saying the GM isn't really the "Game Master" because the players aren't forced to be there and can quit at any time is kinda the same as saying your boss at work isn't really your boss because you could quit at any time.

What he's trying to say is that playing RPG's is a cooperative endeavor, aimed at entertainment or enjoyment.

The GM has a special role — which Traveller's attempting to define — but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

Surely that's beyond disputing, at least?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630002The GM has a special role — which Traveller's attempting to define — but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

Neither does the word "master" actually imply anything of the sort either, matter of fact. It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority. If one cannot make the difference between the two, I suggest it says more about the person's confusion than both of those concepts.

Quote from: Benoist;630006Neither does the word "master" actually imply anything of the sort either, matter of fact. It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority. If one cannot make the difference between the two, I suggest it's says more about the person's confusion than both of those concepts.

I was going to latch on to that part of the discussion, but Traveller dropped it pretty fast.  Anyway, if I had, I would have said something along the lines of 'Master of Ceremonies'.

Quote from: mcbobbo;630001You're frequently assuming that the players are a unified body.  E.g. 'what is awesome' may vary.  In my experience, if one of the players is out of alignment with the rest of the group, I've relied on authority.

That's already covered in terms of dealing with the players and what defines Awesome, the group as a whole should probably agree and understand before what sort of game and setting they are playing.

Regardless that's about good GM technique, which is different to the role of the GM. Another thread will be started to cover all that stuff once this is settled.

Quote from: Benoist;630006Neither does the word "master" actually imply anything of the sort either, matter of fact.

Of course master implies control. Not in every single corner of the English language but I'd say that's the most prominent implication, and hence the one I'm referring to.

Quote from: Benoist;630006It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority. If one cannot make the difference between the two, I suggest it's says more about the person's confusion than both of those concepts.

Authority: The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates". I'd say that's control, yes.

Rather than sitting here playing semantic word games all night, understand that I'm not saying the GM has no control. In fact a very brief reading of the conclusions should make that abundantly clear. If you haven't read it and tried to understand it, please do so.

Quote from: Benoist;630006It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority.

I happen to agree with you on that point. And I think GM authority is a positive aspect of roleplaying (or at least a necessary aspect).

But a lot of the stupid arguing going on in this thread revolves around "Total power!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yeah, so!"

So, I thought I'd cut to the chase:

The GM has a special role, but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

That is true, I think, and beyond controversy.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630019The GM has a special role, but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

Which is what I'm saying, in a more roundabout fashion.

I get the feeling that most of the objections in the thread aren't based on what's actually being said, but on prior ragewars with rules-uber-alles types (Denners?). This isn't one of those wars.

Quote from: The Traveller;630023Which is what I'm saying, in a more roundabout fashion.

Yes, I know.

I was trying to clarify your position, so we could short-circuit the "Nuh-uh!" "Yeah so!" roundhouse roundelay.

I thought that by cutting to the chase, we could move on to some more reasonable points.

The GM should, though, have the 'final word' on any disagreements.

This is really standard fare for RPGs.