Here's the thing: the GM has different roles depending on the game being played. A GM's role in a Paranoia game is going to be different than that of a GM's role in an OD&D game is going to be different than a GM's role in a D&D 4e game. And that's not even getting into storygames where the GM is part of a collective with shared responsibilities with the players like Eclipse Phase - many of these games redefine the role so drastically that they only exist in name.


A true all-encompassing definition has to acknowledge or account for all of this (well, all the RPGs at least, storygames can fend for themselves as far as I'm concerned).So yeah, playstyle-specific stuff like "the GM and players share equal power over the rules" doesn't any more belong in a general definition than "the GM is the one that hands out the cards"

Quote from: TristramEvans;630114Here's the thing: the GM has different roles depending on the game being played. A GM's role in a Paranoia game is going to be different than that of a GM's role in an OD&D game is going to be different than a GM's role in a D&D 4e game. And that's not even getting into storygames where the GM is part of a collective with shared responsibilities with the players like Eclipse Phase - many of these games redefine the role so drastically that they only exist in name.

No disagree with you there.

Those settings and genres are just that settings and genres the GMs role remains the same whatever game you play.

As I said pages and pages back

The GM's role

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles


So if you are playing OD&D or paranoia the GM's role doesn't change what changes are the interface to the world, the way the GM roleplays the world and the rules.

The GM still has to run the game by the rules in Paranoia just like they have to use the rules in OD&D.

It's easy to get a broad defintion as I provide here. It's almost impossible to get a general agreement on the specifics and precise verbiage because any two people will have different opinions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;630114Here's the thing: the GM has different roles depending on the game being played.

No. The role of the GM remains the same, what the GM does to fulfill that role varies. What you're saying here is the role of a GM can't be defined, which is nonsense. It has been defined, look at the link in my sig.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630134It's almost impossible to get a general agreement on the specifics and precise verbiage because any two people will have different opinions.

The definition has been adjusted to take into account objections raised so far, at this point we're more or less done I'd say.

Quote from: The Traveller;630145It has been defined, look at the link in my sig.


The definition has been adjusted to take into account objections raised so far, at this point we're more or less done I'd say.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for someone else to declare your work complete? How do you speak with authority, citing only your own work/words as a source?

Quote from: The Traveller;630145No. The role of the GM remains the same, what the GM does to fulfill that role varies. What you're saying here is the role of a GM can't be defined, which is nonsense. It has been defined, look at the link in my sig.

And your definition isn't comprehensive, hence the examples I gave (Paranoia, OD&D, and D&D 4th Edition). Of those three games, your definition fits the role of the GM in D&D 4th but not the other two. In other words, it describes one style of play, in a hobby with numerous playstyles.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630134No disagree with you there.

Those settings and genres are just that settings and genres the GMs role remains the same whatever game you play.

As I said pages and pages back

The GM's role

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles

Yeah, that definition works.

Just like you think the term Game Master is misleading. I think the term "The Awesome" is just as much, if not more misleading .  While you cannot change the terminology on Game Master, because it's too entrenched in the culture, you can change the term of "The Awesome".

Quote from: jibbajibba;630134No disagree with you there.

Those settings and genres are just that settings and genres the GMs role remains the same whatever game you play.

As I said pages and pages back

The GM's role

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles


So if you are playing OD&D or paranoia the GM's role doesn't change what changes are the interface to the world, the way the GM roleplays the world and the rules.

The GM still has to run the game by the rules in Paranoia just like they have to use the rules in OD&D.

It's easy to get a broad defintion as I provide here. It's almost impossible to get a general agreement on the specifics and precise verbiage because any two people will have different opinions.

With the possible exception of the fourth point, this sounds like a solid definition.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;630503With the possible exception of the fourth point, this sounds like a solid definition.

What is wrong with point 4?

Quote from: Bill;630528What is wrong with point 4?

For me, it's the part when the GM is supposed to generate stuff for each player's favored play style. I generate stuff for the play style the campaign is designed for. Players who aren't happy with that need to either live with it or find a new game.  For example, I do not detailed tactical combat so if that's one of a player's favored play styles and he/she elects to play in my campaign anyway, I am not going to add stuff to scratch his "detailed tactical combat" itch. Any more that I would treat the rules as rules instead of guidelines because a player wants to scratch his "RAW rules lawyer" itch.  Note that I certainly try to generate hooks and such so that each character has choices of things to do, but if a player is mainly interested in things that do not fit the campaign setting or play style(s) I'm running, those main interests are likely to be ignored.

Some of these GM definitions/guidelines seem like they are designed for the GM of a group of people who play many different games and campaigns instead for a GM who runs a single D&D campaign for players who choose to play in it. The needs of the former are different from those of the latter.

In fact, this is basically my problem with this entire discussion, it assumes that there is a single set of "good GM things" that apply to all groups, all settings, and all play styles. Once you get beyond vague generalities like "the GM is there to play the world and is show far as possible help the group have a enjoyable session", I simply think "one size fits all" not only does not help, but hurts.

Quote from: RandallS;630532For me, it's the part when the GM is supposed to generate stuff for each player's favored play style. I generate stuff for the play style the campaign is designed for. Players who aren't happy with that need to either live with it or find a new game.  For example, I do not detailed tactical combat so if that's one of a player's favored play styles and he/she elects to play in my campaign anyway, I am not going to add stuff to scratch his "detailed tactical combat" itch. Any more that I would treat the rules as rules instead of guidelines because a player wants to scratch his "RAW rules lawyer" itch.  Note that I certainly try to generate hooks and such so that each character has choices of things to do, but if a player is mainly interested in things that do not fit the campaign setting or play style(s) I'm running, those main interests are likely to be ignored.

Some of these GM definitions/guidelines seem like they are designed for the GM of a group of people who play many different games and campaigns instead for a GM who runs a single D&D campaign for players who choose to play in it. The needs of the former are different from those of the latter.

In fact, this is basically my problem with this entire discussion, it assumes that there is a single set of "good GM things" that apply to all groups, all settings, and all play styles. Once you get beyond vague generalities like "the GM is there to play the world and is show far as possible help the group have a enjoyable session", I simply think "one size fits all" not only does not help, but hurts.

I have always assumed that play style refers to how some players enjoy varying amounts of roleplay, investigation, and combat.

In general I agree with you but I think some things go way past play style.

Like; players that like to kill other players characters.

How's this for a rephrase:

Quoteiv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, manages player expectations against the content of the campaign

Meaning, either you give it to them to have a discussion as to why you're not giving it to them.  And it's totally okay if that discussion is up front when deciding the ever important 'what to play'.

Quote from: Bill;630543In general I agree with you but I think some things go way past play style.

Like; players that like to kill other players characters.

I'm not sure why this is past play style.*



*I say this as someone who would immediately remove a player attempting to kill another PC from the group for violating the Social Contract.

Quote from: gleichman;630623I'm not sure why this is past play style.*



*I say this as someone who would immediately remove a player attempting to kill another PC from the group for violating the Social Contract.

Technically you are correct, but no one is suggesting that a gm should accomadate a player who's style is to kick the other players in the balls evey five minutes.

Quote from: Bill;630628Technically you are correct, but no one is suggesting that a gm should accomadate a player who's style is to kick the other players in the balls evey five minutes.

Well if they're playing D&D, such physical pain would be a welcomed improvement...

Are you saying that Play Style (as you're defining it) is something that a GM *should* accommodate no matter how different it is unless it's as extreme as killing the other PCs?