Quote from: mcbobbo;630208Wouldn'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?

As far as I can see it's complete. If you have anything to add, object to, or amend by all means do so.

Quote from: TristramEvans;630339And 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.

Okay, you're not understanding the Awesome, or haven't read the post, not sure which. In Paranoia the GM is antagonistic to the characters, but that is part of the Awesome, so the definition works fine. Note the difference between the characters and everything else, the GM cooperates with the group towards the end of bringing the awesome, not making sure the characters live happily ever after surrounded by fat grandchildren. This apparent contradiction was gone over in the first few pages of the thread.

Quote from: CrabbyapplesJust 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".

This is really about the level of objection to the definition as it stands.

In what way is awesome misleading or ambiguous?

Master:
1. One that has control over another or others.
2.
a. The owner or keeper of an animal: The dog ran toward its master.
b. The owner of a slave.

Master:
mas·ter  
/ˈmastər/
Noun

    A man who has people working for him, esp. servants or slaves.

Master
 a : one having authority over another : ruler, governor
b : one that conquers or masters : victor, superior

Master
noun
1.
a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something: a master of six languages; to be master of one's fate.
2.
an owner of a slave, animal, etc.

Does anyone seriously believe that represents a healthy or useful way to describe the role of the GM?

Quote from: gleichman;630642Well 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?

I think some degree of accomadation is good for the game.

Not sure how to define playstyle.

Quote from: The Traveller;630950Master:
1. One that has control over another or others.
2.
a. The owner or keeper of an animal: The dog ran toward its master.
b. The owner of a slave.

Master:
mas·ter  
/ˈmastər/
Noun

    A man who has people working for him, esp. servants or slaves.

Master
 a : one having authority over another : ruler, governor
b : one that conquers or masters : victor, superior

Master
noun
1.
a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something: a master of six languages; to be master of one's fate.
2.
an owner of a slave, animal, etc.

Does anyone seriously believe that represents a healthy or useful way to describe the role of the GM?

Which of these describes a 'Master of Ceremonies'?

Quote from: WikipediaA master of ceremonies (MC), or compère, is the official host of a staged event or similar performance. An MC usually presents performers, speaks to the audience, and generally keeps the event moving. An MC may also tell jokes or anecdotes. The MC sometimes also acts as the protocol officer during an official state function.

Is this not an EXACT MATCH to what a GM does?  And where does this function mean this person has domination over others?

If you missed the post earlier, I apologize, but it seems your ignoring this already-raised point due to convenience.

Quote from: The Traveller;630950As far as I can see it's complete. If you have anything to add, object to, or amend by all means do so.


Okay, you're not understanding the Awesome, or haven't read the post, not sure which. In Paranoia the GM is antagonistic to the characters, but that is part of the Awesome, so the definition works fine. Note the difference between the characters and everything else, the GM cooperates with the group towards the end of bringing the awesome, not making sure the characters live happily ever after surrounded by fat grandchildren. This apparent contradiction was gone over in the first few pages of the thread.


This is really about the level of objection to the definition as it stands.

In what way is awesome misleading or ambiguous?

Master:
1. One that has control over another or others.
2.
a. The owner or keeper of an animal: The dog ran toward its master.
b. The owner of a slave.

Master:
mas·ter  
/ˈmastər/
Noun

    A man who has people working for him, esp. servants or slaves.

Master
 a : one having authority over another : ruler, governor
b : one that conquers or masters : victor, superior

Master
noun
1.
a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something: a master of six languages; to be master of one's fate.
2.
an owner of a slave, animal, etc.

Does anyone seriously believe that represents a healthy or useful way to describe the role of the GM?

And you fail to see that a Game Master is a master over the game, and not over the players.

.....

However, that you finally describes how for instance, Paranoia is explained through your definition was not done well enough in "the first few pages of the thread".
I do guess you have explained that part well enough now, though.

By now, i both agree and disagree with you.
I agree for reasons that should be obvious: The explanation do work.
However.
I disagree with that this do not fit in the definition "Game Master".

Quote from: Bill;630990I think some degree of accomadation is good for the game.

Some, yes.

But in my case it's only some. There is much that I won't allow at my table.

Quote from: Bill;630990Not sure how to define playstyle.

Frankly I think just about anything related to the game falls under style. The rules selected, the type of characters ran, the degree and style of role-play, etc.

I really don't see anything about RPGs that isn't an issue of style (well, some are personal limits- but that counts as much the same).

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.

Ah, I see you've played the Captain Planet RPG

Quote from: TristramEvans;631020Ah, I see you've played the Captain Planet RPG

That exists?

Quote from: The Traveller;630950Okay, you're not understanding the Awesome, or haven't read the post, not sure which. In Paranoia the GM is antagonistic to the characters, but that is part of the Awesome, so the definition works fine.

"The awesome" isn't really a thing. If the goal is to come up with a  comprehensive definition of a GM's role, it really shouldn't start with made-up definitions for other words, especially as a "it means anything you want" -patch to handle the way the rest of the definition doesn't universally apply.

Quote from: Bill;631021That exists?

It exists in the hearts of young children everywhere who paint themselves blue and run around kicking people who litter in the balls.

http://www.myspace.com/video/jonny/captain-planet/11113296

Quote from: The Traveller;630950Does anyone seriously believe that represents a healthy or useful way to describe the role of the GM?

Actually, this one:

 

Quotea : one having authority over another : ruler, governor

fits perfectly. But I think the point being missed is that the Game Master is the Master of the Game, not Master of the Players.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631025It exists in the hearts of young children everywhere who paint themselves blue and run around kicking people who litter in the balls.

http://www.myspace.com/video/jonny/captain-planet/11113296

That reminds me of a movie called 'Super'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IdM84YVmV0

Quote from: mcbobbo;631001Is this not an EXACT MATCH to what a GM does?  And where does this function mean this person has domination over others?

If you missed the post earlier, I apologize, but it seems your ignoring this already-raised point due to convenience.

No, I ignored it because it's about as relevant to gaming as the "master" of a ship, or a "master" craftsman. A master of ceremonies is largely a host; while this is certainly one of the hats a GM wears, it isn't the full description by a long shot. Hence the thread. You can pick out and bold words in every possible definition of master and it still won't describe the role.

Every dictionary and definition of master puts power, control, and often slaves as the first or second description. The common understanding of master is exactly the same, which is why it is put first in the definitions, and this is why it has participated in the creation of lot of shitty GMs, even well meaning ones. It's a poor way to describe the role, and it bothers me not in the least if Gygax himself came up with it.

Quote from: Catelf;631011I disagree with that this do not fit in the definition "Game Master".

Not one objection based on the definition. And not to put too fine a point on it but you may be missing some of the nuances of the word.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631026fits perfectly. But I think the point being missed is that the Game Master is the Master of the Game, not Master of the Players.

Aha! But the players are part of the game, part of the game environment, part of the game structure, and certainly part of gameplay. You can't just ignore players, you're left with half the picture. Or possibly less.

Quote from: Catelf;631011And you fail to see that a Game Master is a master over the game, and not over the players.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631026I think the point being missed is that the Game Master is the Master of the Game, not Master of the Players.

Ding ding ding. We have winners.

Quote from: Benoist;631033Ding ding ding. We have winners.

Pithy. But as explained above, wrong.