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

In what way is awesome misleading or ambiguous?

When I hear the term "Awesome" I think awe inspiring. At first my thoughts were, "Not all games are awesome." The problem I have with word is usually, when people use the term "the Awesome", it means something gonzo or over-the-top. But I was wrong. My first thought was it does not match my Warhammer Fantasy Game where being Pathetic is a key factor. But by your definition a game can be both Pathetic and Awesome.  If true, I can accept the definition for the purposes of this discussion, but the term does not invoke your premise.

I'm not verifying or denying your manifesto, but something about it feels off.  It reads like a guide on how to be a good GM instead of the role of a GM.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;631136If true, I can accept the definition for the purposes of this discussion, but the term does not invoke your premise.

The definition of Awesome is front and centre in the post, as others have previously questioned it, and it does match your interpretation.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;631136I'm not verifying or denying your manifesto, but something about it feels off.  It reads like a guide on how to be a good GM instead of the role of a GM.

How to be a good GM is the next thread, but we can't very well discuss that without first having settled what a GM is now, can we. If you feel something is off, pin it down and get back to me, I'm more than happy to engage on specific objections.

A GM is a special type of player whose primary duty is to conduct the game.

I like my word count better...

Quote from: mcbobbo;631252A GM is a special type of player whose primary duty is to conduct the game.

I like my word count better...

That's fairly accurate, and if I had to sum it up in one sentence during a conversation I'd probably use something similar. No reason not to include the elaborated version where the opportunity exists to do so though.

Quote from: mcbobbo;631252A GM is a special type of player whose primary duty is to conduct the game.

I like my word count better...

I'd replace "conduct" with "mediate" but otherwise this gets to the heart of the role. The honest fact is, the role varies by game but always around this hub.

Quote from: The Traveller;631086Oh right, so that list of dictionary definitions I linked to a page back doesn't work for you?

Its that one of those definitions very clearly exactly fits the use that the word "master" as employed in the term "Game Master", but because some of the other definitions don't fit you seem intent on that word ONLY meaning the definitions that don't apply. I mean seriously, you brought up slaves in an earlier post. No human being on earth is ever going to misinterpret the term GM to apply to a "slave master"outside of a Jack Chick comic. The use of the term Game Master isn't a misnomer simply because all definitions don't apply to it and if any new player was actually so stupid as to think some definition of "master" in which salves were involved could be applied to an RPG, that person should never be GMing in the first place. Moreover, I think if your purpose is to provide a comprehensive definition for new players, then its just confusing to complain about the term at the same time. And in your case what you've done is created your own definition of how GMing "should" be done (the GM and players collaborate on enforcing a rules system), and then saying the term is wrong because it doesn't fit that narrow conception (that frankly I would say pretty much only applies to storygames), is really not going to help a new player, especially when there's a good chance the rules themselves contradict that definition. For example, check out the definition of DM/GM in any of the following games: AD&D, Warhammer Fantasy, or Over The Edge. Each one specifically states that the rules are the domain of the GM and theirs to modify, alter or ignore as they see fit.

Also, since the purpose of a definition for new players would primarily be clarity, to start introducing  new terms like "The Awesome" (aka White Wolf-style redefined English) is contradictory to this goal, especially as there's no definition of the awesome for a new player to actually latch on to. You could call it "The Woooballooobadoo" for all the sense it would make to someone who's never roleplayed before.

QuoteAgain, 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.

Or, one could definie the player's role and define the GM's role, and not cripple one definition by trying so hard to prevent "bad GMs" that you strip the GM of authority on elements of the game they should have authority (the rules, the world). This really is the basis again for Storygames, where there's the "social contract", and "Shared narrative power" and all those other desperate attempts to "protect" players from bad GMs (see Burning Wheel). To subject new players to that as part of a standard definition seems to operate on the assumption that  if nothing is done about it, a person is more than likely to turn into a crap GM.

I do believe players should have complete control of their characters. That they should be able to make any choices as that character they like. This is the biggest advantage of an RPG over a videogame or MMORPG (besides it being an active social activity rather than a solitary solipsistic experience): that freedom of choice.

That aside, its the GM's game. They design it, run it, and do all the heavy lifting. They are in control of the gameworld and final authority on rules. The GM handles the consequences of the player's choices. But his role isn't definied by the player's choice to participate in the game. Hence the metaphor of the boss at work which you didn't grasp. Yes, an employee can quit at any time. But while working at a job, the employee has agreed to submit to the boss's authority. the role of the boss does not need to be defined by this situation: its a basic premise that implicitly exists in society that everyone understands. Just like the players in an RPG have, in agreeing to play in a GM's game, tacitly agreed to that person's authority over the rules and gameworld. To even bring up that "the game master isnt the GM because the players could walk if they don't like it" suggests thats a sort of bargaining tool for players or a sword of Damocles hanging over the GM's head to make sure they "do right by the players". Again , player protection. This may not be how you meant it, but its the only interpretation of why it would even need to be stated when discussing a GM's role in the first place. Rather than using the player's ability to chose to not play as a "threat" to keep GM's in line, I'd prefer starting from the assumption that both the GM and players are friends and everyone is there to have fun. As such, the "player's role" in the definition of a GM is simply that they are the players,  not the GM. They aren't responsible for the gameworld, they are not responsible for the rules, and they are not responsible for "bringing the kewlness". In fact, they're not responsible for anything, which is kind of the point. The players have the freedom to play a character how they want and use that character to explore the gameworld presented by the GM. The GM is providing a gift to players: he's the videogame system and game that is completely adaptable to whatever the players want to do within it. He does all the work so players can just play. The quickest and easiest way to determine if someone is going to be a good GM is if they find that in and of itself rewarding.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302I mean seriously, you brought up slaves in an earlier post.

The dictionaries brought it up, I just mentioned it. I was a bit suprised myself, but it does underline that Master has primarily got negative connotations - which I thought was the obvious point from the context I mentioned it in.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302Moreover, I think if your purpose is to provide a comprehensive definition for new players, then its just confusing to complain about the term at the same time.

I don't. Clarifications exist for all sorts of terms with good reason, and the GM's role is unique and non-intuitive.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302And in your case what you've done is created your own definition of how GMing "should" be done (the GM and players collaborate on enforcing a rules system), and then saying the term is wrong because it doesn't fit that narrow conception (that frankly I would say pretty much only applies to storygames), is really not going to help a new player, especially when there's a good chance the rules themselves contradict that definition.

I've included your own ideas in the definition, so far everyone else seems to be reaching a consensus, while you're sitting there dropping a wall'o'text rather than engaging with the points raised, again.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302especially as there's no definition of the awesome for a new player to actually latch on to.

Yes, there is, it's right at the top of the post.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302Or, one could definie the player's role and define the GM's role, and not cripple one definition by trying so hard to prevent "bad GMs" that you strip the GM of authority on elements of the game they should have authority (the rules, the world).

And again, this idea has been included.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302This really is the basis again for Storygames, where there's the "social contract", and "Shared narrative power" and all those other desperate attempts to "protect" players from bad GMs (see Burning Wheel).

I don't think roleplaying rises and sets on the absolute whim of the GM. I don't think anyone would seriously claim as much. I think the players contribute quite a lot as well, and it's a mistake to exclude that contribution from the role of the GM.

What you're saying here is that if the GM doesn't have real ultimate power, it's not an RPG. Now I've factored your ideas into the definition, again it's right there for all to see, so the one true wayism ain't on my part, buddy. You don't get to shut down discussions about gaming by shouting about "storygamers".

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302To subject new players to that as part of a standard definition seems to operate on the assumption that  if nothing is done about it, a person is more than likely to turn into a crap GM.

Why not stack the odds is my view.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631302In fact, they're not responsible for anything, which is kind of the point.

You do accept that some people mightn't agree with your ideas here. There is nothing in that definition to deny or even avoid your preferred method of gaming. If there is, find it and let's talk about it. It's not as though the definition is lengthy.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;6311131st:


Then:


And:


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.

Thank you for that compliment ... (I do think my post was before evans' ... but somehow, only Ben noticed it.)

On topic:
This thread really is (currently) a deadend, since the Traveller is correct on every point (more or less), except one:
The meaning of the words "Game" and "Master" when they are used in conjunction.
However, he supports himself on his definition of "Bringing the awesome", which actually works in that context, so he do not see the fallacy.
I'd prefer to give him some space to think it over instead.

Quote from: Catelf;631322Thank you for that compliment ... (I do think my post was before evans' ... but somehow, only Ben noticed it.)

On topic:
This thread really is (currently) a deadend, since the Traveller is correct on every point (more or less), except one:
The meaning of the words "Game" and "Master" when they are used in conjunction.
However, he supports himself on his definition of "Bringing the awesome", which actually works in that context, so he do not see the fallacy.
I'd prefer to give him some space to think it over instead.

It's very simple.

Master implies complete control, in the common understanding. Hence the dictionary links.

Game indicates the game as a whole, including all elements.

If you say, well master means something different in the hobby, I say, where exactly, since nobody has yet bothered to clearly define the role.

And so here we are with this thread.

I don't think it's a useful or constructive title. I have no alternatives because I don't care enough about it - the actual functions of the role are much more important than the job description, as with everything. The observation that it's a poor fit to help new entrants to the hobby, among others, is adequate for me. Call yourself the grand sultan of chapter six or the ayatollah dice rolla if you like.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321I've included your own ideas in the definition, so far everyone else seems to be reaching a consensus, while you're sitting there dropping a wall'o'text rather than engaging with the points raised, again.

(snip)

You do accept that some people mightn't agree with your ideas here. There is nothing in that definition to deny or even avoid your preferred method of gaming. If there is, find it and let's talk about it. It's not as though the definition is lengthy.

Okay, let me deal with exactly what I don't agree with in your "definition" itself :

Quote from: The Traveller;631321What 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 necessarily 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.

Notice there is no actual definition of "The Awesome". Its an invented term which doesn't match the dictionary definition of "awesome", and all you've stated about it is that it "changes for every game".

For example, if I rewrite the previous paragraph using any random made up term, it reads the same:

QuoteThe Monkey 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 Monkey  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 Monkey  by moving to other genres temporarily, like horror, not neccessarily with the knowledge of the players

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The setting is what the players interact with through their characters. This would include monsters, NPCs, spells, and so on.

This is a definition that includes terms that a player would need to be familair with RPGs to understand. So not very useful for a new player.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The 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.

I really object to this as any kind of succinct summation of a GM's role. You don't explain what is meant by "mess with, meddle with, adjust etc", and it seems to assume a GM needs to alter a setting, whereas this is largely not the case, especially in culture or historical-based games. There's no defined parameters for what messing with, meddling or adjusting entails, should entail, how that activity relates to the game, etc. Its a very muddled statement.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The rules are how the players and their characters interact with the setting.

This suffices, but its not great. I'd prefer something like "the rules exist to deal with Reality Clash", or at least something that defines the purpose of the rules rather than simply stating what they do. If the Gm is responsible for using the rules, to what end and how does the GM apply them? Again, its not a statement I think would be useful to a new player.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321There are four central assertions:

The GM is part of the group.

I find this assertion meaningless. It doesn't define anything about the role opf the GM in the group its just a statement of the obvious. Moreover, its a bit misleading, as the GM is not a player,, so he's not a part of a "group" that exists in the game. You could just as easily have asserted "The GM plays in the game" and it would be as meaningless and misleading an assertion.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The role of the GM is neither adversarial nor neutral, but cooperative with the group.

Statements that aren't universally true. In some games the GM is neutral arbiter, in some RPGs his role is antagonistic.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The 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.

Again, since "The awesome" is an undefined made up term, this statement is incredibly unhelpful. Also, why is it a "shared responsibility"? In what way? If a player's responsibility is to roleplay his character, how is he also responsible for helping the GM bring the Monkey?

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The GM never uses their power against the group, in that regard it's not even power at all.

So you have not defined what "power" a GM has in the game, you've simply stated that he shouldn't use it against the players, and as such it doesn't even really exist. Its a self-defeating non-statement.

Might as well say "A GM shouldn't use his psychic abilities on the players, especially since psychic powers don't exist anyways."

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321What the group decides is Awesome.
The players create The Awesome through acting and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters.

So the Awesome is immersion? The Awesome is roleplaying? It just seems to be a blanket term as generic as the word  "stuff".  You're using it in any number of contradictory manners here. The group "decides" the Awesome, the group "brings" the awesome, if anything bad happens its part of "the awesome". There's no meaning to any of this.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321*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.

Here you have a statement where you should have a proof. "Hence" isn't a logical following proposition form the initial statement. "I left my milk out in the sun, hence it went bad" is a logically-following course of events because its based on common knowledge (milk spoils in heat). Since we're not dealing with statements drawing on common knowledge "hence" is a misnomer. "You have to show the work", to quote every English and math teacher I've ever had.

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The GM only has total power over the setting and the GM.

First off, saying the GM has power over the GM is another meaningless statement. Its unnecessary and confusing, for in even bringing it up you're suggesting there might be some reason the Gm wouldn't have power over the GM.
Secondly, in many games, a GM also has complete control over the rules.

 

Quote from: The Traveller;631321And even the setting is somewhat arguable, since the characters can also affect the setting.

Can they do so in some way that the GM doesn't create or allow themselves as the GM is the one defining how the setting reacts to the players?

QuoteThis 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.

So here you're stretching the word "setting" into an entirely new meaning. So thats the second "redefined english term" in the definition. I don't think thats going to be helpful to new players either. The setting is the gameworld. Equipment is equipment. I wouldn't say that the lighter in my pocket is "part of planet earth", so why describe things in such terms here?

Quote from: The Traveller;631321The GM has partial or shared power over the characters and the rules. This power is shared with the players and the dice.

Except when it isn't. again this statement is very game-sepcific and doesn't belong in a general definition of the role of a GM. There are games where the GM has TOTAL authority over the rules. There are plenty of games that don't use dice. And there are plenty of role-playing games where the  GM doesn't have shared power over the player characters.

QuoteThe GM has no power over anything else, except with player cooperation. As such the term "master", the person in control, is a misnomer.

So again, leading with a meaningless statement. What is the "anything else"? Snacks? The game table? Miniatures? Maps? And the second statement, besides, as already pointed out repeatedly, not being universally correct, adsds nothing to the discussion besides more confusion and simply seems to be pushing the agenda of a particular playstyle where the GMing duties are shared by all players.

QuoteThe group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules

So far you've said "The GM is a member of the group", and now you're saying "the group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules". More confusion. The GM has a character? The players have multiple characters?

Quote...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.

Well, beyond just being a giant run-on sentence, you're again just saying a bunch of stuff completely out of any kind of established context. Resultant behaviour? Makes the game "work"? What defines if the game is  working? What is resultant behaviour and what resultant behaviour should be expected?

QuoteTherefore the group helps to bring The Awesome as well.

Sure, whatever.

Quote*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

If the players and the characters are included, why not the NPCs as well as the GM? Are the characters not part of the setting as you said earlier? If not, that means you're once again switching definitions around.

Also "the dice" should probably be "the resolution mechanic" , as not every RPG uses dice. And as such, it would just be part of the rules. I  don't think you put much thought into these divisions and how they relate to what you've wrote up until this point.


Anyways, I'm getting bored at this point, but I think I've made my point.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Notice there is no actual definition of "The Awesome". Its an invented term which doesn't match the dictionary definition of "awesome", and all you've stated about it is that it "changes for every game".

And yet everyone else in the thread seemed to get it, even crabbyapples after a concise explanation.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330For example, if I rewrite the previous paragraph using any random made up term, it reads the same:

Facetious and pointless.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330This is a definition that includes terms that a player would need to be familair with RPGs to understand. So not very useful for a new player.

Good thing it's being addressed towards new and existing GMs then, isn't it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330I really object to this as any kind of succinct summation of a GM's role. You don't explain what is meant by "mess with, meddle with, adjust etc", and it seems to assume a GM needs to alter a setting, whereas this is largely not the case, especially in culture or historical-based games. There's no defined parameters for what messing with, meddling or adjusting entails, should entail, how that activity relates to the game, etc. Its a very muddled statement.

That would be GM technique and actual things to do, going beyond the role of the GM, a point I've made many times in this thread.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330If the Gm is responsible for using the rules, to what end and how does the GM apply them?

I would have thought the end was fairly obvious given that it's clearly stated earlier in the definition.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330I find this assertion meaningless. It doesn't define anything about the role opf the GM in the group its just a statement of the obvious.

And that would be a problem if that sentence were the entire definition.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Statements that aren't universally true. In some games the GM is neutral arbiter, in some RPGs his role is antagonistic.

Again, by reading the actual definition rather than taking individual sentences as if they stood alone, all becomes clear. The role of the GM is neither adversarial nor neutral, but cooperative with the group in bringing The Awesome.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Again, since "The awesome" is an undefined made up term, this statement is incredibly unhelpful. Also, why is it a "shared responsibility"? In what way? If a player's responsibility is to roleplay his character, how is he also responsible for helping the GM bring the Monkey?

You really aren't helping your own argument here.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330So you have not defined what "power" a GM has in the game

Except in the rest of the definition.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330So the Awesome is immersion? The Awesome is roleplaying? It just seems to be a blanket term as generic as the word  "stuff".  You're using it in any number of contradictory manners here. The group "decides" the Awesome, the group "brings" the awesome, if anything bad happens its part of "the awesome". There's no meaning to any of this.

I see, so you think roleplaying and immersion are contradictory? Because none of the rest is.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330"Hence" isn't a logical following proposition form the initial statement.

Yes, it is.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330First off, saying the GM has power over the GM is another meaningless statement.

Except for the way that it's true.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Can they do so in some way that the GM doesn't create or allow themselves as the GM is the one defining how the setting reacts to the players?

You can GM that way if you like, but if the setting doesn't react in a reasonably logical manner, the players will lose interest.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330So here you're stretching the word "setting" into an entirely new meaning. So thats the second "redefined english term" in the definition. I don't think thats going to be helpful to new players either. The setting is the gameworld. Equipment is equipment. I wouldn't say that the lighter in my pocket is "part of planet earth", so why describe things in such terms here?

Besides what you're saying being factually wrong, the definition isn't primarily addressed to players. This isn't a tutorial on how to roleplay.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Except when it isn't. again this statement is very game-sepcific and doesn't belong in a general definition of the role of a GM. There are games where the GM has TOTAL authority over the rules. There are plenty of games that don't use dice. And there are plenty of role-playing games where the  GM doesn't have shared power over the player characters.

The only part of this which is correct is the dice thing. That should probably be amended to indicate "or other randomising element of unpredictability".

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330So again, leading with a meaningless statement. What is the "anything else"? Snacks? The game table? Miniatures? Maps? And the second statement, besides, as already pointed out repeatedly, not being universally correct, adsds nothing to the discussion besides more confusion and simply seems to be pushing the agenda of a particular playstyle where the GMing duties are shared by all players.

It matters not in the slightest whether or not you like it, these are the facts.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330So far you've said "The GM is a member of the group", and now you're saying "the group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules". More confusion. The GM has a character? The players have multiple characters?

Oddly enough you seem to be the only one confused by it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Well, beyond just being a giant run-on sentence, you're again just saying a bunch of stuff completely out of any kind of established context. Resultant behaviour? Makes the game "work"? What defines if the game is  working? What is resultant behaviour and what resultant behaviour should be expected?

And here you're saying you just don't understand a simple sentence. Imma have to go with sceptical.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Sure, whatever.

Indeed.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330If the players and the characters are included, why not the NPCs as well as the GM? Are the characters not part of the setting as you said earlier? If not, that means you're once again switching definitions around.

Technically everything is part of the setting, including the rules, and technically everything has rules attached. Human beings and fish are made up of the same basic components but that doesn't mean we can't tell tehm apart usefully.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Also "the dice" should probably be "the resolution mechanic" , as not every RPG uses dice. And as such, it would just be part of the rules. I  don't think you put much thought into these divisions and how they relate to what you've wrote up until this point.

More thought than you apparently. But I will amend it to reflect resolution mechanic, that makes sense.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631330Anyways, I'm getting bored at this point, but I think I've made my point.

Yes, if your point was never, no never, not never, no way, because I say so.

What you've done here is to disagree with everything, because you say so. That's it, and really obviously it. I can see why you might have a problem with accepting other people have power in the game if you GM the way you post.

Incidentally before you start braying about how you did engage and nobody listened, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Do not mistake me for a salesman. These are my observations from many years of gaming, being adjusted to reflect the opinions of others, and the wall'o'text followed by the jackhammer objection style are two hallmarks of someone intent on derailing the thread, not to mention somone with far too much time on their hands.

I've shown you enough respect to respond to your individual points, but try that again and its ignore list time. Which it probably should be anyway given how wild eyed almost all of the objections are.

Quote from: The Traveller;631337And yet everyone else in the thread seemed to get it, even crabbyapples after a concise explanation.

Seems like the definition itself should have included a concise explanation, or any explanation whatsoever. Not that " a few veteran roleplayers on an online forum got it after I re-explained it a few times" is really an argument in its favour.

QuoteFacetious and pointless.

Yes, it is.  

QuoteGood thing it's being addressed towards new and existing GMs then, isn't it.

No, not at all, for the reason I said.

QuoteThat would be GM technique and actual things to do, going beyond the role of the GM, a point I've made many times in this thread.

then it shouldn't have been brought up. Otherwise, it requires an explanation.

QuoteI would have thought the end was fairly obvious given that it's clearly stated earlier in the definition.

where? Are you falling back on "bringing the awesome " again, which clearly wasn't defined?

QuoteAnd that would be a problem if that sentence were the entire definition.

So as it is its superfluous and should simply be omitted, right?

QuoteAgain, by reading the actual definition rather than taking individual sentences as if they stood alone, all becomes clear. The role of the GM is neither adversarial nor neutral, but cooperative with the group in bringing The Awesome.

The "actual definition" is a mess, and I've pointed out individually sentence-by-sentence why. and once again you're falling back on the "bring the awesome" meaningless tripe, and insisting on elements that aren't universal as part of a universal definition.
 

QuoteYou really aren't helping your own argument here.

Thats not a response to what I said. "Again, since "The awesome" is an undefined made up term, this statement is incredibly unhelpful. Also, why is it a "shared responsibility"? In what way? If a player's responsibility is to roleplay his character, how is he also responsible for helping the GM bring [insert made-up undefined term]?"

All of which are questions that would occur to anyone reading your definition for the first time. You don't answer them in your definition, and now you're simply avoiding them.

QuoteExcept in the rest of the definition.

where?

QuoteI see, so you think roleplaying and immersion are contradictory? Because none of the rest is.

No, you obviously don't "see". Your use of the term "the awesome" is arbitrary and alters in meaning depending on when you bring it up, so that its often contradictory within your definition.

QuoteYes, it is.

Citation definitely needed. that is, if you actually read and comprehended what Iw rote and are not, as I suspect, simply going "nuh-uh" for lack of a real response.

QuoteExcept for the way that it's true.

So is the statement "the GM has a stomach". It can be true and trivial and meaningless at the same time.

QuoteYou can GM that way if you like, but if the setting doesn't react in a reasonably logical manner, the players will lose interest.

Funny how that statement would make more sense in the definition than what you wrote. Of course, I'd leave off your assumptions about how the players will react. You can say "the GM should present the setting in a logical and consistent manner", (though even this needs to be clarified, as most RPG settings are fantasy with plenty of elements that aren't logical), but once again your falling back on your "if you dont GM "right" the players will leave" is really ...well, its the difference between deterrent and reinforcement. Concepts that you might want to do some research into as they both are very applicable to a GM's role and RPG systems in general.  

QuoteBesides what you're saying being factually wrong, the definition isn't primarily addressed to players. This isn't a tutorial on how to roleplay.

So GMing isnt a part of roleplaying anymore? but roleplaying is a part of "bringing the awesome" , and the Gm  is "a part of the group", and the group's main responsibility is to "roleplay their characters" and "work together to bring the awesome"? More contradictions. Care to explain how what I said was "factually wrong"? Or is this just another way in which your opinions are factually and objectively correct?

QuoteThe only part of this which is correct is the dice thing. That should probably be amended to indicate "or other randomising element of unpredictability".

Unless its a system that doesn't use randomizers, such as Amber, Theatrix, Active Exploits, The Marvel Universe RPG, etc. And again, you can say its incorrect, but you can't back that statement up. "Show the Work".

QuoteIt matters not in the slightest whether or not you like it, these are the facts.

Assuming you actually know the definition of "fact", you're now just lying.

QuoteOddly enough you seem to be the only one confused by it.

And I've been roleplaying for 30 + years. Imagine how confused a new person trying to learn to GM based on your definition would be.

QuoteAnd here you're saying you just don't understand a simple sentence. Imma have to go with sceptical.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/run-on-sentences.aspx

QuoteTechnically everything is part of the setting, including the rules, and technically everything has rules attached.

So everything is now part of the setting? So what definition of setting does that match?

Quote from: The Dictionarysetting
noun
Definition of SETTING
1
: the manner, position, or direction in which something is set
2
: the frame or bed in which a gem is set; also : style of mounting
3
a : the time, place, and circumstances in which something occurs or develops
b : the time and place of the action of a literary, dramatic, or cinematic work
c : the scenery used in a theatrical or film production
4
: the music composed for a text (as a poem)
5
: the articles of tableware for setting a place at table
6
: a batch of eggs for incubation

QuoteHuman beings and fish are made up of the same basic components but that doesn't mean we can't tell tehm apart usefully.

So the Setting is DNA too now?

QuoteMore thought than you apparently.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/sentence-fragments-grammar.aspx

Yeah, you can ignore all these criticisms, but they are not only obvious but they are all good reasons to reject your definition offhand. You could either take the criticism and go about revising your definition, or , as you seem intent on, ignore basic realities and your definition will likely fall away into internet obscurity. I don't care either way, I'm just killing time at work pointing out the obvious faults. And seriously, threatening me with putting me on ignore for criticizing your post? Yeah, you'll last long here.

Quote from: TristramEvans;631351Seems like the definition itself ishould have included a concise explanation, or any explanation whatsoever. Not that " a few veteran roleplayers on an online forum got it after I re-explained it a few times" is really an argument in its favour.




Yes, it is.  



No, not at all, for the reason I said.



then it shouldn't have been brought up. Otherwise, it requires an explanation.




where? Are you falling back on "bringing the awesome " again, which clearly wasn't defined?




So as it is its superfluous and should simply be omitted, right?



The "actual definition" is a mess, and I've pointed out individually sentence-by-sentence why. and once again you're falling back on the "bring the awesome" meaningless tripe, and insisting on elements that aren't universal as part of a universal definition.
 


Thats not a response to what I said. "Again, since "The awesome" is an undefined made up term, this statement is incredibly unhelpful. Also, why is it a "shared responsibility"? In what way? If a player's responsibility is to roleplay his character, how is he also responsible for helping the GM bring [insert made-up undefined term]?"

All of which are questions that would occur to anyone reading your definition for the first time. You don't answer them in your definition, and now you're simply avoiding them.



where?


I see, so you think roleplaying and immersion are contradictory? Because none of the rest is.

No, I think your use of the term "the awesome" is arbitrary and alters in meaning depending on when you bring it up, so that its often contradictory within your definition.



Citation definitely needed. that is, if you actually read and comprehended what Iw rote and are not, as I suspect, simply going "nuh-uh" for lack of a real response.



So is the statement "the GM has a stomach". It can be true and trivial and meaningless at the same time.



Funny how that statement would make more sense in the definition than what you wrote. Of course, I'd leave off your assumptions about how the players will react. You can say "the GM should present the setting in a logical and consistent manner", (though even this needs to be clarified, as most RPG settings are fantasy with plenty of elements that aren't logical), but once again your falling back on your "if you dont GM "right" the players will leave".  




So GMing isnt a part of roleplaying anymore? but roleplaying is a part of "bringing the awesome" , and the Gm  is "a part of the group", and the group's main responsibility is to "roleplay their characters" and "work together to bring the awesome"? More contradictions. Care to explain how what I said was "factually wrong"? Or is this just another way in which your opinions are factually and objectively correct?




Unless its a system that doesn't use randomizers, such as Amber, Theatrix, Active Exploits, The Marvel Universe RPG, etc. And again, you can say its incorrect, but you can't back that statement up. "Show the Work".



Assuming you actually know the definition of "fact", you're now just lying.



And I've been roleplaying for 30 + years. Imagine how confused a new person trying to learn to GM based on your definition would be.



http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/run-on-sentences.aspx



So everything is now part of the setting? So what definition of setting does that match?





So the Setting is DNA too now?



http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/sentence-fragments-grammar.aspx

Yeah, you can ignore all these criticisms, but they are not only obvious but they are all good reasons to reject your definition offhand. You could either take the criticism and go about revising your definition, or , as you seem intent on, ignore basic realities and your definition will likely fall away into internet obscurity. I don't care either way, I'm just killing time at work pointing out the obvious faults.

In the immortal words of my avatar...



Buh bye now.

The GM is God.

RPGPundit