Quote from: gleichman;625920No.

I didn't detail all what all was contained in each of the simple list item- nothing more. it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I also wasn't interested in doing so, and I am not interested in doing so now.

Sounds more like you accept the role of GM is far more complicated than your simple list, but aren't willing to admit it. In fact that's exactly what you're saying.

Hence the thread.

Quote from: gleichman;625922Sigh.

When a GM is acting as Author, he is not acting a Referee. If he does, he is a bad GM.

When he's acting as Referee, he is not acting as Author. If he does, he is a bad GM.

Hold on a minute. This

Quote from: estar;625866A gamemaster is a referee in every sense of the word and needs to act fair and impartial in accordance to how the adventure, NPC and setting are defined.

is in direct conflict with this

Quote from: gleichman;625866- The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success

Is this another one of the unspoken complications which appear to be multiplying around the simple rules? Looks like it to me.

Quote from: The Traveller;625923Sounds more like you accept the role of GM is far more complicated than your simple list, but aren't willing to admit it. In fact that's exactly what you're saying.

I certainly could go into far more detail if I desired to, and if there was real interest.

However...

Quote from: The Traveller;625923Hence the thread.

If the thread is only interested in denying the Referee role, it will have failed in it's intent. I'm not interesting in going into detail in a failed thread.

Quote from: The Traveller;625925Hold on a minute. This

is in direct conflict with this

Is this another one of the unspoken complications which appear to be multiplying around the simple rules? Looks like it to me.

I think it might be the case that estar and I disagree.

For my part, I would consider a "fair and impartial" "adventure, NPC and setting" to be unplayable in the long term. At least that's the case to how I would read estar's post.

Quote from: gleichman;625926I certainly could go into far more detail if I desired to, and if there was real interest.

I'd be interested in reading it. I'm also interested in the apparent conflict here:

Quote from: gleichman;625922When a GM is acting as Author, he is not acting a Referee. If he does, he is a bad GM.

When he's acting as Referee, he is not acting as Author. If he does, he is a bad GM.

Quote from: gleichman;625919The concept of "more opportunities for adventures" is IMO covered by genre, and yes it has an influence in my games. But not during Combat.

Surely when you actively choose the route for more adventure you're exercising authorial powers on a refereeing decision, I mean can you see no areas of overlap here? I think there can be some, and these wouldn't make a person a bad GM.

Quote from: gleichman;625926If the thread is only interested in denying the Referee role, it will have failed in it's intent. I'm not interesting in going into detail in a failed thread.

The thread is about defining the role of a GM. What I'm trying to do here really is come up with a set of useful definitions that will explain the role to someone who's never heard of GMing before, I would say calling the GM a referee is not really helpful in that regard. That's one facet of the role, there are many others, I'm in no way fixated on the GM as a referee or otherwise.

I view that GMing is more of an art than a science, so is it really necessary to have an absolute, all-encompassing definition for what a GM does?

Quote from: The Traveller;625935I'd be interested in reading it. I'm also interested in the apparent conflict here:


Surely when you actively choose the route for more adventure you're exercising authorial powers on a refereeing decision,

No, as I said during that part of the game no rules apply (if the game came with them, I remove them upfront). Thus there is nothing to referee and one operates in Author mode until a point arises that rules again apply.

Quote from: The Traveller;625935I mean can you see no areas of overlap here? I think there can be some, and these wouldn't make a person a bad GM.

Ideally there is never a point when one is acting in anything but one mode. To do so is to corrupt the intent of at least one of the GM's responsibilities.


As a side note here, Storygames and Forge theory says that rules should be created and applied controlling when Author Mode can be entered and what can be done where in it- very non-traditional and in my view a different hobby from mine.

Quote from: The Traveller;625935The thread is about defining the role of a GM. What I'm trying to do here really is come up with a set of useful definitions that will explain the role to someone who's never heard of GMing before, I would say calling the GM a referee is not really helpful in that regard. That's one facet of the role, there are many others, I'm in no way fixated on the GM as a referee or otherwise.

I would claim that leaving out the term 'referee' would destroy the meaning of GM as used in traditional RPGs.

Quote from: jeff37923;625937I view that GMing is more of an art than a science, so is it really necessary to have an absolute, all-encompassing definition for what a GM does?

That question brings up other questions.


Does one have definitions for fashion designer, painter or movie director?

If yes, what purpose do those definitions serve?

And given that, what purpose would a definition for GM serve? Would it be at all similar to the above?

I'd contend that the set of professions I gave at first are just that- professions. GM is not, and thus there is less need for formal definitions. It's a hobby and a hobby consists of whatever the hobbyist wants it to consist of.

Thus there will never be agreement on a formal definition.

Quote from: jeff37923;625937I view that GMing is more of an art than a science, so is it really necessary to have an absolute, all-encompassing definition for what a GM does?

I would say so yes. Everyone agrees that there are good GMs and bad GMs. What that means varies from person to person because there is no really useful definition of what a GM is, and how the GM fits into the whole game ecosystem. Simply by saying that the GM is a part of the group for example cuts out a whole swathe of misunderstandings about the power a GM has and how it should be used.

I mean its not like I'm saying that this must be adhered to by anyone, I'm just putting it forward and supporting these views with as much fact as can be dredged up from the murky depths of the hobby.

Also of course it would be very useful to have a good clean definition to help bring new people into the hobby, that's a significant factor for me.

Quote from: The Traveller;625952I would say so yes. Everyone agrees that there are good GMs and bad GMs. What that means varies from person to person because there is no really useful definition of what a GM is, and how the GM fits into the whole game ecosystem.

That not why it varies from person to person. It varies from person to person because people have different needs, tastes, intelligence levels, and degrees of exposure to the hobby to list but a few things.

I have my own definition for what a GM is, and from that I can define a good one. I've given a high level view of that in this thread. And frankly, as a result I'd label most of the posters at this site as 'Bad GMs'. Very few share my definition however, and they think they're the bee's knees as a result.

That is the nature of this hobby, fragmented and generally speaking made up of underwhelming players, designers and GMs. It's only due to the incompetence being so widely spread that the hobby survives, for fools will still play with fools.

Quote from: The Traveller;625952Simply by saying that the GM is a part of the group for example cuts out a whole swathe of misunderstandings about the power a GM has and how it should be used.

I wouldn't say that. Indeed, I would say that would spread its own misunderstandings.

Quote from: gleichman;625959It's only due to the incompetence being so widely spread that the hobby survives, for fools will still play with fools.

Why would anyone take what you have to say about the hobby seriously after a comment like that. Looks like blackhand has some company on the ignore list.

Quote from: The Traveller;625569"The GM has more power than the group, right? He or she can summon ten million death demons to kill the group and take their stuff on a whim? Wrong.

The GM cannot force the group to do anything, charm spells notwithstanding. The group cannot force the GM to do anything. In the ultimate extremity, the group can simply decide to walk away from the table."

This is a minor quibble, but a misunderstanding of this point or rather a misstatement of it, is common.

The GM does have total power, complete and absolute, over the reality of the game setting he is GMing.  He can summon Orcus and curbstomp your group at will.  You as players can walk away and do something else, but that's immaterial to your characters who are dead.  You can reform the same group without that GM if you want to, but that's a different world, a different setting, not the same reality.

The GM has no power over the players, he has complete power over the characters.

Quote from: The Traveller;625966Why would anyone take what you have to say about the hobby seriously after a comment like that.

I'm not in the habit of ignoring reality, nor do I conceal my opinions. I've given you my truthful view of the matter.

If that's offends- the issue is yours. I at least lied neither to you nor to myself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625974The GM has no power over the players, he has complete power over the characters.

The GM certainly has influence over the players, but that can be broken so it really doesn't alter your point which in general I agree with.

Ever read Oath of Fealty?

The concept of Fealty there applies in a way to RPGs. Yes, being King (or the like) comes with all sorts of power. But one tends to forget that it also comes with a set of responsibilities to those you have power over. Thus Fealty is in a real sense owed in both directions.

I tend to think of GMing in the same terms.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625974This is a minor quibble, but a misunderstanding of this point or rather a misstatement of it, is common.

The GM does have total power, complete and absolute, over the reality of the game setting he is GMing.  He can summon Orcus and curbstomp your group at will.  You as players can walk away and do something else, but that's immaterial to your characters who are dead.  You can reform the same group without that GM if you want to, but that's a different world, a different setting, not the same reality.

The GM has no power over the players, he has complete power over the characters.

Power that you can't use isn't really power at all though. I'm not addressing GMs who want to kamikaze their game, but people who want to GM. Technically of course a GM can do whatever, but they've stopped being a GM at that point - the idea that randomly nuking the universe is an option shouldn't even enter a GM's head.

If you accept that, then the GM in reality hasn't much power over the PCs. They have a shared power with the players, and the majority of that power is with the players. It's less about theoretical what ifs and more about the reality at the table.