Quote from: The Traveller;631031Aha! But the players are part of the game, part of the game environment, part of the game structure, and certainly part of gameplay.

No, their characters are. The players are playing the game, they aren't a part of it. In the sameway someone who plays a videogame is not a part of the videogame, unless they're Captain N or the Last Starfighter.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631062The players are playing the game, they aren't a part of it.

I think you need to take a long hard look at that sentence.

Incidentally there's plenty of room for open ended elements in definitions, as long as they work well with the rest of the elements. And in this case "The Awesome" works perfectly well with everything else.

Quote from: The Traveller;631035Pithy. But as explained above, wrong.

No. Just no.

Quote from: Benoist;631065No. Just no.

Even more pithy, but just as wrong.

Quote from: The Traveller;631066Even more pithy, but just as wrong.

I hate to break it to you dude, but just because you say something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily make it so. Your arguments are fallacious and your conclusions faulty. You've been accusing several people here of acting like they hold all the answers and their word expressed some sort of truth of the universe and everything, and I'm just going to tell it to you how I see it: I think you are projecting BIG TIME in this particular instance.

Quote from: Benoist;631069I hate to break it to you dude, but just because you say something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily make it so. You've been accusing several people from acting like they hold all the answers and their word expressed some sort of truth of the universe and everything, and I'm just going to tell it to you how I see it: I think you are projecting BIG TIME on this thread.

Feel free to argue with the points put forward rather than try to attack me personally.

Tristram and Catelf are leaving players, the human beings across the table out of the picture of what a GM is, perhaps because the concept is too meta. Too meta, when we're talking about an element that can arbitrarily change most of the game setting and system. Too meta.

There's a damn good reason they are called player characters.

Quote from: The Traveller;631071Feel free to argue with the points put forward rather than try to attack me personally.

Tristram and Catelf are leaving players, the human beings across the table out of the picture of what a GM is, perhaps because the concept is too meta. Too meta, when we're talking about an element that can arbitrarily change most of the game setting and system. Too meta.

There's a damn good reason they are called player characters.

I don't think English works the way you're using it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631072I don't think English works the way you're using it.

That wasn't even pithy.

Quote from: The Traveller;631071Feel free to argue with the points put forward rather than try to attack me personally.

The phrase "Game Master" refers to the game as in "Tunnels & Trolls". A master in this instance is someone who actually masters the skill of running the game, and who is put in a position of referee of the game as the activity being participated in.

That does not imply that the Game Master is lording over the players. It means that he is breaking ties, administrating the game and activity, has the last word when there are disputes about elements of the game, those kinds of things.

You choosing to view the word "master" as some sort of slight to your personal ego as a game participant doesn't magically change what the expression has actually meant for decades. You aren't the holder of the keys of truthiness just by the mere fact of opening your mouth or hammering your fingers on the keyboard to let us know plebeians what the wisdom of the day ought to be through your mental diarrhea. It's like you just did with your "wrong". It's not "wrong" just by virtue of you saying so. Your arguments have holes the size of Boeing 747 in them, your expression of your ... whatever that is, a thesis, a manifesto? What the fuck is going on with everyone posting manifestos lately? In any case. Your expression of your ideas is poor at best, and not conducive, I imagine, of what you actually intended, or wished to convey to your audience. Hence, as a manifesto, or a piece meant to propagate some ideas, it sucks. That's it.

Quote from: The Traveller;631074That wasn't even pithy.

No, it was earnest. You really seem to be unable to grasp a lot of the nuances of the English language and seem to be operating with a set of contexts that don't apply.

Quote from: Benoist;631076The phrase "Game Master" refers to the game as in "Tunnels & Trolls". A master in this instance is someone who actually masters the skill of running the game, and who is put in a position of referee of the game as the activity being participated in.

Hang on, is it a master or a referee? These are two very different things. And you're also using it to describe someone who masters a skill, which is the first time anyone has even suggested as much in the thread. Gets complicated when you start looking at it a bit more closely, doesn't it?

Quote from: Benoist;631076That does not imply that the Game Master is lording over the players.

At no point did I say the GM's role was to lord it over the players.

Quote from: Benoist;631076You choosing to view the word "master" as some sort of slight to your personal ego as a game participant doesn't magically change what the expression has actually meant for decades.

And what decades of GMing they have been. My ego has nothing to do with the thread or my arguments - it's just a poor description of the role. The word "master" has very deliberate and precise implications in the English language and western culture generally, I have already shown this beyond doubt. These implications are not conducive to good gaming.

Quote from: Benoist;631076You aren't the holder of the keys of truthiness just by the mere fact of opening your mouth or hammering your fingers on the keyboard to let us know plebeians what the wisdom of the day really is through your mental diarrhea. It's like you just did with your "wrong". It's not "wrong" just by virtue of you saying so.

No, it's wrong by virtue of the previously raised points, one on the very same page, which you are still studiously refusing to engage with.

Quote from: Benoist;631076Your arguments have holes the size of Boeing 747 in them, your expression of your ... whatever that is, a thesis, a manifesto? What the fuck is going on with everyone posting manifestos lately? In any case. Your expression of your ideas is poor at best, and not conducive, I imagine, of what you actually intended, or wished to convey to your audience. Hence, as a manifesto, it sucks. That's it.

Well thats me told, if only you had posted at the start of the thread you could have saved everyone a lot of time.

Note I'm not personally attacking you, claiming you are projecting, saying your ideas are crap, or what have you. The painful fact is you haven't bothered to grace us with your arguments to counter the points raised, you haven't expressed your ideas, all you've done is sit there saying nuh-uh.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631080No, it was earnest. You really seem to be unable to grasp a lot of the nuances of the English language and seem to be operating with a set of contexts that don't apply.

Oh right, so that list of dictionary definitions I linked to a page back doesn't work for you? Again, you're ducking the real issue - players need to be factored into the role of the GM. Just because the GM is a role and a person in one doesn't mean... wait wait PCs are a role and a person in one too.

Quote from: The Traveller;631071Feel free to argue with the points put forward rather than try to attack me personally.

I believe you are failing to understand the situation. You have proposed a "standard GM description" (for lack of a better name for it) and want all of us to agree that it is correct and should be used. Therefore, you have to convince US to accept it if you want it accepted. It is your job to counter the points that objectors have to it to their satisfaction to get them to accept your position. The burden of proving your position to those you wish to accept it is yours. Those who object to your position do not have to prove their objections to your satisfaction or else accept your position is correct and agree to it.

Quote from: The Traveller;631085And what decades of GMing they have been.

I'm going to leave you to your crusading with this simple thought, in response to that particular bit which I've seen you intimate in other places of this thread. If your theory or manifesto or whatever the hell that is starts with the idea that somehow gamers haven't been enjoying themselves playing games for the past decades and that RPG gaming needs to be "fixed" at a fundamental level somehow, you lose me right there. This is stupid. On its face.

It's like saying that "D&D is bad and should be fixed" to start a theory about role playing games. It's damn stupid to say something like this. It's a non-starter, because it's fundamentally, intellectually broken as a thought.

That's the same thing that's happening here.

With this, back to my stuff now.

Quote from: RandallS;631088I believe you are failing to understand the situation. You have proposed a "standard GM description" (for lack of a better name for it) and want all of us to agree that it is correct and should be used.

Heh, you mistake me for a salesman. Consider me rather an observer.

Quote from: RandallS;631088Therefore, you have to convince US to accept it if you want it accepted. It is your job to counter the points that objectors have to it to their satisfaction to get them to accept your position.

Points have been countered, but you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Quote from: RandallS;631088Those who object to your position do not have to prove their objections to your satisfaction or else accept your position is correct and agree to it.

So tell us, do you think players should be removed from the definition of the role of the GM?

Quote from: Benoist;631089If your theory or manifesto or whatever the hell that is starts with the idea that somehow gamers haven't been enjoying themselves playing games for the past decades and that gaming needs to be "fixed" as a fundamental level somehow, you lose me right there. This is stupid.

Yes, and yet again the thread has been mistaken for previous unrelated threads. I've explained very clearly why this should be done. So far nobody, including you, has challenged those reasons.

There have been a lot of terrible GMs, there have been a lot of problems caused by terrible GMing. This is beyond dispute. It's quite likely that the standard of GMing in part at least led to shared narrative games. I am not saying gamers haven't been enjoying themselves, I am certainly saying that a significant percentage of gamers have had bad experiences, and I am saying that is in part because of a misunderstanding of the role of the GM, because that role has never been clearly defined.

If you haven't anything to say about the specific arguments raised, good luck with your stuff.