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.

I don't know who said this first, but it is succinct and accurate. Hence, brilliant.

Quote from: The Traveller;631093good luck with your stuff.

Thank you.

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

I agree.  He's picking and choosing his sources, and then claiming they all agree.

Quote from: The Traveller;631093Heh, you mistake me for a salesman. Consider me rather an observer.

If you're just an observer, why are you interfering with the outcome?

Quote from: The Traveller;631093There 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.

OK wait. I've got one more thing to say actually. I have absolutely NO idea how many GMs have been considered "terrible" over the years, nor the percentage of the GMing population they actually represent. I think that a lot of what you're saying is pure assumption based on urban legends, gossip on the internet, and the like. I've ever met only a handful of really bad GMs over the years, and that's amongst dozens upon dozens of people running games actually met face-to-face.

So right there, your argument is based on an assumption with no facts to actually back it up.

But assuming that there would be a problem with a terrible GMing population out there, you certainly won't fix them by publishing a manifesto online, just like you wouldn't fix them through the rules of a role playing game. Switching jargon around and all that shit is just a pointless waste of time. At best. At worse, it looks like reeducation camps in Communist countries.

Terrible GMs are the only ones who can better themselves. You can provide them with advice and pointers and how-tos, for sure, but these things will not fix them by their mere existence. They've got to choose they want to help themselves first.

Quote from: mcbobbo;631104If you're just an observer, why are you interfering with the outcome?

The outcome has already been reached. The only question is whether or not the observations were accurate. Judging from the complete lack of engagement, with a few honourable exceptions, I've seen little to change the final result so far.

Keep in mind that the final definition was altered to encompass catelf's ideas, and the rules section was significantly changed to account for the contributions of Tristram and others. So I'm not sure why they are still arguing, except over the definition of the word "master" which is adequately provided for by numerous dictionaries.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;631100I don't know who said this first, but it is succinct and accurate. Hence, brilliant.

And yet useless for the purposes of the thread. You can't define the role of the GM without encompassing the players. PCs, after all.

Quote from: Benoist;631107So right there, your argument is based on an assumption with no facts to actually back it up.

No, the reason for the argument is based on assumptions, the argument itself is based on numerous facts, among them the fact that the GM has objectively no power over the players. Following on from this the GM only has shared power over the characters, and so on, it's all in the definition.

Be that as it may, there is no data either way so it's just as possible that a majority of GMs are crap. Aside from that entirely there are other reasons to define the role, not least of which is that such a central feature of the hobby needs defining.

Quote from: Benoist;631107But assuming that there would be a problem with a terrible GMing population out there, you certainly won't fix them by publishing a manifesto online, just like you wouldn't fix them through the rules of a role playing game.

Have to start somewhere, Ben.

Quote from: Benoist;631107Switching jargon around and all that shit is just a pointless waste of time. At best. At worse, it looks like reeducation camps in Communist countries.

I'm not switching jargon around. The only jargon I have a beef with is GM, and I haven't suggested alternatives really. Roleplaying is an excellent term to describe the hobby. Player characters, settings, rules, all very clear and obvious.

Quote from: Benoist;631107Terrible GMs are the only ones who can better themselves. You can provide them with advice and pointers and how-tos, for sure, but these things will not fix them by their mere existence. They've got to choose they want to help themselves first.

How on earth can they do that when there's no consensus on what a GM is in the first place? Is it a referee, a judge, a master, a librarian, what? After the definition is settled comes the advice - advice which I might add does not exist or only exists in very disparate scattered locations at the moment. It's every man for himself, and that's a shite state of affairs.

1st:

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.

Then:

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;631100I don't know who said this first, but it is succinct and accurate. Hence, brilliant.

And:

Quote from: The Traveller;631110And yet useless for the purposes of the thread. You can't define the role of the GM without encompassing the players. PCs, after all.

I'm not trying to define the role of the GM. (I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that I'm not trying to.)

The sentence is, however, a succinct description of one of the chief limitations on a GM's authority: he is in control of the game mechanics and game world ("the game"), not the players as people.

Encapsulating that truth in a succinct, accurate, and pithy sentence is worth complimenting.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;631113The sentence is, however, a succinct description of one of the chief limitations on a GM's authority: he is in control of the game mechanics and game world ("the game"), not the players as people.

Encapsulating that truth in a succinct, accurate, and pithy sentence is worth complimenting.

Good point; I'm seeing it in terms of how I imagine the author intended it rather than in terms of the larger thread. It does in fact support what I'm saying, although I would in certain situations dispute the mechanics element as far as the definition goes.

Quote from: The Traveller;631110How on earth can they do that when there's no consensus on what a GM is in the first place?

Why do there need to be a consensus on this issue for terrible GMs to be able to help themselves?

I would think that if anything, the plurality of advice (and therefore, definitions) would be more helpful, since various terrible GMs might very well have different types of issues with their GMing, which they are more likely to find specific, targeted responses to if there are different types of how-tos and so on coming from different types of successful GMs in the first place, rather than a single one-size-fits-all consensus based on mere assumptions.

Quote from: Benoist;631117Why do there need to be a consensus on this issue for terrible GMs to be able to help themselves?

How will anyone recognise that they are messing up as a GM unless the role of a GM is known? If you're unsure if you're being a bad referee, there's a very clear definition of the role of a ref with which to compare your actions. If you're unsure if you're doing "judge" right, there is likewise a clear definition to fall back on.

There has not been, at least until now, any such definition for GM.

Quote from: Benoist;631117I would think that if anything, the plurality of advice (and therefore, definitions) would be more helpful, since various terrible GMs might very well have different types of issues with their GMing, which they are more likely to find specific, targeted responses to if there are different types of how-tos and so on coming from different types of successful GMs in the first place, rather than a single one-size-fits-all consensus based on mere assumptions.

That's what I envision the next thread will accomplish, once this is done. Solid advice on various situations which may be more or less applicable depending on the situation.

Quote from: The Traveller;631118How will anyone recognize that they are messing up as a GM (...)?

Practice. Unless you are completely blind psychologically and socially (which ANY amount of advice, pointers, definitions or anything just wouldn't fix, by definition, since you'd be socially inept), you can see what it is you are getting right and wrong when you run the game. Or at least, you can identify you have a problem somewhere and go seek advice and how tos from there.

A clear-cut one-size-fits-all definition of "GM" will not help them in that regard, and on the contrary, might actually mislead them and hinder them, the way the codification of the GM's actions into "rules" and "moves" in Forge-like games actually encourages the GMs to just remain stagnant and rely on the rules all the more. Do you realize that what you're doing sounds a lot like the shaping of a Forge item like saying something like "actually, simulation doesn't exist, if you have a creative agenda - and you do, otherwise you are brain damaged - you're either gamist or narrativist"?

"Actually, there's no such thing as a 'Game Master.' That term is broken. You are of the group forged by a social contract (tm) and your role is to bring the Awesome (tm). If you think you are a Master, you are brain damaged."

Quote from: Benoist;631125Practice. Unless you are completely blind psychologically and socially (which ANY amount of advice, pointers, definitions or anything just wouldn't fix, by definition, since you'd be socially inept), you can see what it is you are getting right and wrong when you run the game.

Or, you could go down the road of all education ever and impart the knowledge of those who came before to help avoid mistakes.

Quote from: Benoist;631125A clear-cut one-size-fits-all definition of "GM" will not help them in that regard, and on the contrary, might actually mislead them and hinder them,

Only if the definition is wrong, and I have seen no evidence so far to indicate as much.

Quote from: Benoist;631125the way the codification of the GM's actions into "rules" and "moves" in Forge-like games actually encourages the GMs to just remain stagnant and rely on the rules all the more. Do you realize that what you're doing sounds a lot like the shaping of a Forge item like saying something like "actually, simulation doesn't exist, if you have a creative agenda - and you do, otherwise you are brain damaged - you're either gamist or narrativist"?

"Actually, there's no such thing as a 'Game Master.' That term is broken. You are of the group forged by a social contract (tm) and your role is to bring the Awesome (tm). If you think you are a Master, you are brain damaged."

Argue with the points put forward. It is very easy to knock down arguments I haven't made, but doesn't advance the discussion in the slightest.

You have to be very careful about what you consider good GM advice and the objective role of a GameMaster. A GM is not a bad GM if he does not bend to the player's objections or wishes, but if they are not having fun they should not be playing with him.  Invalidating the playstyles of many who play with a Viking Hat GM is not a proper definition.

How does your manifesto deal with the Game Master who does not bend, but is straight forward about his desires up front? Does it make his game wrong?

Quote from: Crabbyapples;631130A GM is not a bad GM if he does not bend to the player's objections or wishes, but if they are not having fun they should not be playing with him.  

Exactly what I'm saying.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;631130How does your manifesto deal with the Game Master who does not bend, but is straight forward about his desires up front? Does it make his game wrong?

Read it for yourself, it's right there in my sig. The players and GM should have a clear understanding of what they expect before the game even commences, which can be temporarily adjusted by the GM if it helps bring The Awesome. It's not a great idea to introduce laser guns to a game where the players have signed up for high fantasy (hello Glantri).