TheRPGSite

This has been touched on in a few different threads recently so I reckon it's time to pin the issue down in as many words. I'll salt in a few previous comments of my own too which those who have been following these debates will recognise, a hat tip to those stalwarts.

What is the role of the GM in roleplaying games?

To start out with, I'd say it's easier to say what the GM isn't. The GM isn't a judge, solely weighing the relative merits of arguments according to pre-existing rules, the GM isn't a referee ensuring fair play between competitors, since there aren't competitors, there's the group and the game. There doesn't seem to be any real equivalent in any other activity, so comparisons to sports and judicial process are limited in value. That's not to say they have no value, the GM is partially a judge, partially an arbitrator. These are skillsets which have value for good GMing.

Probably the most important thing that the GM isn't, would be opposed to or in conflict with the group. The GM should be seen as part of the group, but in the role of a facilitator more so than anything else. There are no sides, the GM and the group are on the same side, and this is something that isn't well understood.

The GM facilitates the awesome. After that it just comes down to what kind of awesome you want to achieve, which should be understood before the game starts. If you're going for a political thriller, the GM can facilitate nuanced political thrills, horror has its own way of working, and pulp needs clean cut baddies and fast action scenes. Maybe in some cases the type of awesome might not be understood by the group before the game gets going, which can really work too if done right. Would you be horribly depressed if you signed up for cowboy bebop and got event horizon with a twist? Maybe, I wouldn't, because I think cowboy bebop has the scope to encompass that kind of horror, with a twist.

I feel it is important that the group and GM work together at the start of the game too, a place and time where the group can and should have a say in the layout of the setting until everyone is happy.

Then we haul up on the shores of power balance. 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. Then stir in rules and the extent to which the group and GM are willing to follow them, and the dice, the lifesbreath of roleplaying games. Random chance, power beyond the GM or group, lady luck is the spark that lights the fire.

The loss of control is itself exciting, for both the GM and the players. Losing control hits the same nerve as mysteries we don't understand or know anything about - the forest where people used to live and don't live anymore; but once the curtain gets pulled aside it's not so much fun. Control is not so important as the interplay between various deficiencies in control.

What the group decides to do is de facto awesome. The group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules and much more importantly the setting, their interpretation of these two elements and the resultant frisson is a huge part of what makes the game work.

Another part of the role of the GM is to decide how the setting should react to these actions, this may have been done in advance or on the fly. In the former case it's modular or plotted play, in the latter it would be sandbox play. There's no reason why these two mightn't be mixed in the same game to one degree or another. Also the GM can and should be proactive in some cases. Facilitating the awesome rather than the plot or the rules would be the main message in the complex relationship between group and GM.

So what's the final takeaway in my GManifesto?
- The GM is part of the group.
- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.
- There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.

This is I feel a hugely complicated and involved subject, and I've only touched on a few of the main features as I see them, so I'd welcome thoughts to guide my gropings in the dark on the matter.

Jesus Christ.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862So what's the final takeaway in my GManifesto?
- The GM is part of the group.
- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.
- There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.

1. The GM is NOT part of the group.
2. WHAT?
3. So?
4. So what?

This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?  

Quote from: The Traveller;624840Ahahah, ah jeez. We really need a thread on dungeon mastering techniques.

Shove your nonsensical manifesto back up your ass.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862What is the role of the GM in roleplaying games?

To start out with, I'd say it's easier to say what the GM isn't. The GM isn't a judge, solely weighing the relative merits of arguments according to pre-existing rules, the GM isn't a referee ensuring fair play between competitors, since there aren't competitors, there's the group and the game. There doesn't seem to be any real equivalent in any other activity, so comparisons to sports and judicial process are limited in value. That's not to say they have no value, the GM is partially a judge, partially an arbitrator. These are skillsets which have value for good GMing.

Probably the most important thing that the GM isn't, would be opposed to or in conflict with the group. The GM should be seen as part of the group, but in the role of a facilitator more so than anything else. There are no sides, the GM and the group are on the same side, and this is something that isn't well understood.

I broadly agree with you, but especially this part. This is one of the reasons I hate the term "referee" which implies a completely neutral and impartial non-participant, which a GM is not.

Quote from: Kiero;624871I broadly agree with you, but especially this part. This is one of the reasons I hate the term "referee" which implies a completely neutral and impartial non-participant, which a GM is not.

It's a bad game where the GM isn't a neutral and impartial non-participant referee.

Otherwise, you are probably playing a story game where the GM just wants his players to "have fun" and not adjudicate and REFEREE the scenario like it's supposed to be run.

I don't want the GM on my side giving me free ups, or "bringing the awesome" as it was put above.

Of course, if you're just making shit up on the fly you're storygaming anyway.  Meaning if you didn't write a scenario with specific encounters and specific reactions, there's nothing to referee and you're just stroking your player's junk.  Bringing the awesome, as it were.

Depends on the game ur running.
For example Paranioa is a game where PCs are to be crushed and destroyed without mercy.
It's not a matter of IF you die, but how many clones are killed and how much of a nasty death you can cause them.

PCs are the enemy of the GM in Paranioa to be eliminated for being the commie mutant traitors they are!

Quote from: Blackhand;624869Jesus Christ.



1. The GM is NOT part of the group.
2. WHAT?
3. So?
4. So what?

This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?  



Shove your nonsensical manifesto back up your ass.

Quote from: Blackhand;624874It's a bad game where the GM isn't a neutral and impartial non-participant referee.

Otherwise, you are probably playing a story game where the GM just wants his players to "have fun" and not adjudicate and REFEREE the scenario like it's supposed to be run.

I don't want the GM on my side giving me free ups, or "bringing the awesome" as it was put above.

Of course, if you're just making shit up on the fly you're storygaming anyway.  Meaning if you didn't write a scenario with specific encounters and specific reactions, there's nothing to referee and you're just stroking your player's junk.  Bringing the awesome, as it were.

The only reason you haven't made it as far as my ignore list son is I find your ranting mildly more entertaining than thinking about soup.

Had you been paying attention to previous discussions which considerably predate your "This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?" sentiment, you would have observed that I also said "(although the GM's decisions might result in killing some or all of the group whether they like it or not, and this is a vital factor)". One would have hoped this was conveyed by the comments about luck in the OP, but apparently not.

Kindly stop threadcrapping. You won't, in the pursuance of some sort of bizarre apha male jig, but I thought I'd make the token effort anyway.

Quote from: The Traveller;624879The only reason you haven't made it as far as my ignore list son is I find your ranting mildly more entertaining than thinking about soup.

Well hell, if it's THAT entertaining you should just ignore me.

Quote from: The Traveller;624879Had you been paying attention to previous discussions which considerably predate your "This is what you want to say after telling me (in so many words) I need a course in GM'ing?" sentiment, you would have observed that I also said "(although the GM's decisions might result in killing some or all of the group whether they like it or not, and this is a vital factor)". One would have hoped this was conveyed by the comments about luck in the OP, but apparently not.

What???  I have no idea how this relates to anything.

Quote from: The Traveller;624879Kindly stop threadcrapping. You won't, in the pursuance of some sort of bizarre apha male jig, but I thought I'd make the token effort anyway.

How interesting.  You prove that you're a total fuckwit, which I really wish you hadn't done.

Of course I'm the threadcrapper here, because you started this thread and of course you don't want negative comments.  

At least I don't cry Threadcrapper whenever you post in one of my threads, you sniveling hypocrite.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.

I've never had regular players who expected game sessions (or their characters) to be "awesome," so I've never been concerned with "the awesome" (I'm not even sure what it is, to be honest). I try to provide interesting campaign settings and lots of interesting things for the characters to do (if they want to -- I run a sandbox). But I certainly don't try to make everything possible for the characters to do "be awesome". I doubt that's even desirable as if everything is awesome, awesome becomes boring and you have to figure out a way to make everything even more awesome than awesome, etc. Most campaigns have times when events turned out to be awesome, but just like in the real world, such times are more the very memorable exception to "normal routine" of life.

Quote from: Blackhand;624883Well hell, if it's THAT entertaining you should just ignore me.

And, done.

Quote from: The Traveller;624890And, done.

Thanks.  I'll return that favor.

Quote from: RandallS;624886I've never had regular players who expected game sessions (or their characters) to be "awesome," so I've never been concerned with "the awesome" (I'm not even sure what it is, to be honest).

Awesome in this situation is just a subtext for the Platonic ideal of what makes a game fun, which itself varies depending on genre, setting, and the particulars of the group. Those moments when it all seems to work and comes together perfectly. Working towards this ideal can be quite a difficult and subtle task in its own right, and probably shouldn't imply all awesome all the time. For example, part of bringing the awesome might be the difficulty of striving towards a goal and overcoming all the odds, a culmination of lesser awesome to produce extra awesome.

One thing I didn't see that a GM (typically) is - host.  Usually, though not always, the GM is the one with the 'hey guys lets do X' ambition, inviting everyone to come play.  And this applies even when it isn't at a specific home.  There's something mildly selfless about the idea of giving everyone else a world to play with, particularly if you're trying to make it fun.  I see it as a type of hospitality.

Quote from: The Traveller;624897Awesome in this situation is just a subtext for the Platonic ideal of what makes a game fun, which itself varies depending on genre, setting, and the particulars of the group. Those moments when it all seems to work and comes together perfectly.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think that will ever be a goal for me as I try not to select goals that I'm likely to fail at -- and any "Plationic ideal" type goal is, almost by definition, beyond mere human ability. I prefer to set goals that will stretch my abilities but still be something I likely can achieve with reasonable effort. Setting my standards at some ideal/near state of perfection just means I am unlikely to achieve them, will likely become discouraged, and quit bothering to even try.

I also don't like setting hard to reach goals that I cannot possibility achieve unless many others also achieve them. Making gaming even close to  "awesome" requires an very high level of effort on the part of the GM and all of the players. Most of my players are casual players -- their goal is generally more like "having he most fun for the least effort."  :)

The GM is the living simulation engine that facilitates the combination of shared imagined realities.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862So what's the final takeaway in my GManifesto?
- The GM is part of the group.
- The GM's role is to help bring the awesome, as previously agreed (sometimes).
- The players create the awesome through acting out and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters. What the group decides is awesome.
- There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.

I agree the GM is part of the group. Usually, the table is full of our friends. Of course we are part of that group of people playing a game BUT as GM, we are not part of the group of player characters. There's the difference for me.

I am considered an "impartial referee", but its bullshit. I let the dice fall where they may, but I am rooting for the players while I am staying true to the "realities" of my setting.

It is my job to bring the awesome. It's my job to help immerse everyone into the setting. It's my job to give players incentives to suspend their disbelief and join me in the immersion. It's my job to do everything I can to bring the world alive.

There really isn't any equivalent role in any other endeavor. And that's both the boon and the bane of RPGs.

Quote from: RandallS;624923Most of my players are casual players -- their goal is generally more like "having the most fun for the least effort."  :)

For casual players, that is "the awesome."

I don't think The Awesome needs to be some awe inspiring session that everyone talks about for eternity. For casual players, The Awesome might be the ROI of time invested to fun enjoyed being so great that its worth attending every week.

Every group is going to define The Awesome differently.

I play a lot of convention one shots. Most con gamers define The Awesome as having fun in a 4-6 hour slot where they get a beginning, middle and end of an adventure where their choices are meaningful. They may win, lose or die, but what matters is if they walk away feeling the time slot was well spent. And the more memorable, the better.

Quote from: Spinachcat;624986For casual players, that is "the awesome."

I don't think The Awesome needs to be some awe inspiring session that everyone talks about for eternity. For casual players, The Awesome might be the ROI of time invested to fun enjoyed being so great that its worth attending every week.

Every group is going to define The Awesome differently.

This, exactly.

Quote from: Blackhand;624874It's a bad game where the GM isn't a neutral and impartial non-participant referee.

Otherwise, you are probably playing a story game where the GM just wants his players to "have fun" and not adjudicate and REFEREE the scenario like it's supposed to be run.

I don't want the GM on my side giving me free ups, or "bringing the awesome" as it was put above.

Of course, if you're just making shit up on the fly you're storygaming anyway.  Meaning if you didn't write a scenario with specific encounters and specific reactions, there's nothing to referee and you're just stroking your player's junk.  Bringing the awesome, as it were.

i make shit up on the fly all the time. Don't think its story gaming at all. YOu make shit up and write it down I make shit up at the table meh. So long as I give the PCs real decisions and make sure that those decisons are meaningful, so if they skip past the troll bridge I don't just move it up the river a few leagues then its totally fine.

Oh and to the OP I think the GMs main role is to act as the players interface to the gameworld. Everything they know, sense, see, experience depends on the GM. A good GM will manipulate that in line with the players desires and the PCs features so a PC with a weakness of paranoia will see 'a dark shadowy room with a suspicious looking middle aged man sitting at a small table reading a book of some type' where as a naive waif would see 'a kindly looking man sitting at a table reading a book' .
Delivery of the world is never a bland refering step it has to be much more than that and doing that well is what you have to strive for at the table. The rules meh... anyone can memorise the rules or extrapolate from a given standard rules structure to create suitable ad hoc rulings as required but delivering a real breathing living world that the players totally buy into that is the challenge.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624925The GM is the living simulation engine that facilitates the combination of shared imagined realities.

see this :) +1

Quote from: mcbobbo;624916One thing I didn't see that a GM (typically) is - host.  Usually, though not always, the GM is the one with the 'hey guys lets do X' ambition, inviting everyone to come play.  And this applies even when it isn't at a specific home.  There's something mildly selfless about the idea of giving everyone else a world to play with, particularly if you're trying to make it fun.  I see it as a type of hospitality.

The latter part assumes if the GM is the sole author/creator of the world in which the game takes place. While there is an effort in driving the world, that doesn't necessarily mean also coming up with it wholecloth and by themselves.

Our games have a pretty significant amount of player-creation of setting content and sharing in some of the supporting tasks like wiki creation and maintenance.

Quote from: danskmacabre;624877Depends on the game ur running.
For example Paranioa is a game where PCs are to be crushed and destroyed without mercy.
It's not a matter of IF you die, but how many clones are killed and how much of a nasty death you can cause them.

PCs are the enemy of the GM in Paranioa to be eliminated for being the commie mutant traitors they are!

Word.

I don't get these blanket statements really. How you GM a game depends on the game being run and what everyone wants out of it.

A classic dungeon bash or a Game of Thrones campaign are going to need a different approach then a high octane cinematic game or a Star Wars campaign.

I do think that the GM is there to make sure the players enjoy the game and certainly for my group what we enjoy and how we enjoy it very much depends on what we are playing.

To me, the GM is the facilitator of the game, the computergame while running, the referee, the host, the judge and, if need be, the executioner.
The GM is also essentially a kind of God in the game.
However, unlike a computergame while running, a GM is "only human", and limited in skill and knowledge.

To me, there is a great difference between "can do" and "should do".
Practically, a GM can abuse the rules and the player characters totally, but it is not a good thing to do so, because the Players will get pissed of such treatment, and start looking for another GM.

In order to be a Good GM, though, one needs at least some kind of impartiality.
If "shit happens" to the player characters, then they should also have the pleasure of noticing that "shit happens" to the opposition as well ....

One cannot be totally impartial, but one can at least try, or one may try to direct one's partiallity towards something that is less damaging.
Personally, i'm partial towards the plots being told, since anywhere the player character goes, at least something will happen that ties into any of the sandbox-plots i have laying in wait.

To me, the purpose of the GM is to be the planner, the knower of the Rules, and, first and foremost, the one to see to that the players has a good time.
Awesome?
I do not strive for that, it happens if it happens, the flow is more important, the entertainment is more important.

Is the GM a part of the group?
Yes and no, i find that question redundant.
The GM may not be the technical enemy of the characters, but he or she certainly should play the NPC enemies as if they are ... and bystanders should be played as bystanders, and so on.

Oh, and yes, i fudge dicerolls whenever there is need, usually to avoid that a player character dies for no reason.

GM is judge, arbiter, coach (e.g. for new players), rules enforcer, story teller, facilitator, thespian, narrator, strategist, trap maker, leader and other jobs with their various colourful hats.

A good GM knows which of the various hats to wear for a given theme, game, scenario, gaming group's preferences, mood at the table that night, etc.

A really good GM is self aware and knows some hats fit them better than others, and make the best use of the hats that work for them, and try to overcome their own shortcomings when they're forced to wear a hat they don't like.

There are many types of 'Good' gm's, but ultimately all that matters is if everyone has fun.

Different players enjoy different things, so I would suggest flexability is critical.

Quote from: Catelf;625053Oh, and yes, i fudge dicerolls whenever there is need, usually to avoid that a player character dies for no reason.

If a character dies, it's usually because something is trying to kill him.

It's your job as a DM to enforce this critical part of the game, not give the players free passes when they don't even know they have failed.

Quote from: Blackhand;625123If a character dies, it's usually because something is trying to kill him.

It's your job as a DM to enforce this critical part of the game, not give the players free passes when they don't even know they have failed.

Free passes ....
Get this:
It depends much on what style of play is used, and what setting it is, not to mention what kind of enemies there is.

Sure, i can do it hardcore, paranoia-style, and kill off characters as flies, but i often prefers to let the characters escape due to a fluke, or that someone arrives in the nick of time ... but it is even better if i allows the caracters escape by themselves, because ... as i pointed out, my partiality is towards the adventure, the story.
And as such, i save direct deaths for really serious occasions.
The important point is, that the players don't know where i draw the line, and as such, they should always do their best, anyway.

If you prefer to GM through harshness, fine, I prefer to GM through story, and some unexpected things.

Quote from: Catelf;625142If you prefer to GM through harshness, fine, I prefer to GM through story, and some unexpected things.

I GM the game, not the story.

Quote from: Blackhand;625123If a character dies, it's usually because something is trying to kill him.

It's your job as a DM to enforce this critical part of the game, not give the players free passes when they don't even know they have failed.

I tend to agree, but I would also comment that a gm needs to allow the characters reasonable options to outwit or avoid lethal threats.
Otherwise it can become "Five medusae step out of the shadows---characters all get petrified"
I like the pc's to have a chance to see a few lifelike statues, or hear legends of the 'snake haired women in the caves'.

Now, if no reasonable precautions are taken in a dangerous area...kill em all!


I never 'save' a character with my magic gm powers, but I rarely force players into a surprise deathtrap.

Yeah Bill, that's true...yet I get the overwhelming sense that many of these GM's save MANY characters from just, well...what I would consider to be BASIC death.

You know, an lucky orc with a sword.

Quote from: Blackhand;625144I GM the game, not the story.

Quote from: Blackhand;625149Yeah Bill, that's true...yet I get the overwhelming sense that many of these GM's save MANY characters from just, well...what I would consider to be BASIC death.

You know, an lucky orc with a sword.

To me, the story is a vital part of an rpg, if there is no story, or the story is just an excuse to kill monsters and get treasures, then i could just as well GM Descent or Warhammer Quest, and there i would have no reason to fudge dice rolls.

So, if an rpg is just that to you, then i agree with you.
But.
To me an rpg is story as well, and thus i have no qualms about fudging die rolls.

Also, in the games i GM, there is rarely any loot to be had, at all.

Forgive the induglance, but let me toss out a "please, not this again", just so I can scratch that itch.

There are multiple trains of thought on this, guys.  All we know for certain is that the guy that knows the ONE TRUE WAY is wrong.  And, quite possibly, lying to us.

Quote from: mcbobbo;625169There are multiple trains of thought on this, guys.  All we know for certain is that the guy that knows the ONE TRUE WAY is wrong.  And, quite possibly, lying to us.

I would say that the position put forward in the OP is broad enough to encompass a multitude while originating a few ideas, or at least ideas I haven't seen before. It's not really how to GM as such, more observations of how GMs tend to interact with the group et al. Something I'd like to explore further also is the role of randomness and rules as it pertains to GMing.

Quote from: The Traveller;625180I would say that the position put forward in the OP is broad enough to encompass a multitude while originating a few ideas, or at least ideas I haven't seen before. It's not really how to GM as such, more observations of how GMs tend to interact with the group et al. Something I'd like to explore further also is the role of randomness and rules as it pertains to GMing.

I wasn't so much replying to the OP, as to the other two about to square off in the debate to end all debates.

Quote from: The Travellerthe GM isn't a referee ensuring fair play between competitors, since there aren't competitors, there's the group and the game

That's the fashion these days, but why eliminate the pioneering D&D campaigns (or anything else) from the "RPG" category for not following it?

The GM's role is analogous to that of a video game designer in that he or she makes up an environment to present a fun challenge to players. This is different both from someone playing to win and from someone acting only as referee of a game set up by someone else.

I think the GM's job is simple: facilitate having fun.

That's why we play these games...to get together with friends, interact as a social group, and have fun.

Everything else is secondary, and as proof in this thread, highly subjective to personal tastes.

There is no 'ur doin it wrong' or 'this iz how you do it...'

There is only, 'are we having fun?'

Quote from: beermonk;625369I think the GM's job is simple: facilitate having fun.

That's the most singularly unhelpful answer ever offered.

It's like telling someone, if you want to win a race, you have to run faster. Super, thanks for clearing that for me. Now, can you also maybe tell me a little something about how I do that very thing?

It's your game. Why do I have to tell you how to have fun with your game?

Look around your table. Are your players having fun? Are they excited to play week after week or whenever? Are they coming up with interesting tidbits of background information for their characters that may never be used? Do they draw pictures or download art and say, 'this is what my dude looks like..."

Chances are, they're having fun.

Are they actively engaged in your story, or are they too busy looking for distractions while you describe in detail how the 307 kobolds attack?

These are games we play, not rocket science.

If it looks like they're not having fun, ask them to explain what's getting them stuck on the unfun. Ask if there's anything you can do better. Ask if this is the type of game they want to play.

Last I checked this was a discussion on 'the role of the gm' and not 'please tell me how to figure out if my players are bored as shit.'

That's my answer. Your answer in regards to 'how' is something for another discussion.

So the GM is part of the group, and yet the GM's decisions can end up killing the group, and the group should be fine with that, since it's part of the game (assuming no dick moves). This is very strange - how can someone be part of a group yet end up killing them?

It's worth thinking about because when things are going swimmingly nobody is bothered, such as in a shared narrative game for example, no matter what happens as long as people are satisfied with the resulting tale a good day was had. Which is a very low bar to set, as the endless reams of off-colour fanfiction populating some corners of the internet adequately illustrate.

But adversity, where things go wrong on a visceral level (equivalently taking a risk that the narrative might be soured completely, which is not possible), this builds an impetus that makes success truly poignant. An Olympic victory is for most people sweeter by far than a bronze at the local community games, setting the bar higher results in better rewards.

The same rule applies to any investment, whether of time or money.

That the GM can include killing the group with bringing the awesome and being part of the group is among the more stark of the apparent contradictions unique to roleplaying games. The thing is, the GM isn't entirely responsible, he or she shouldn't say "the group dies, fin". The players acting out the roles of their characters should also be seen as partially responsible, since their actions led to the demise of their characters.

But really, the elephant in the room is the dice or other randomiser. The GM and players can make it more or less likely for the group to come to a bad end, certainly the odds should be adjusted by actions, but the dice have the final say when the rubber meets the road. The dice are the executor of fate's estate, deciding who gets what.

This is a factor nobody has any control over short of fudging, and brings an important lesson on the delineation of powers within an RPG session and the value in a lack of control for both GM and players, the risk of failure.

So essentially failure itself and the loss of control that leads to failure, whether manipulated by the GM or the group, are a key part of the facilitation of awesome brought by the GM, while the GM remains part of the group. This to me is of use in trying to understand how the GM can be on the group's side while also potentially having a hand in bad things happening to their beloved characters.

I think a lot of problems are created when not only does the group not understand the role of the GM, but the GM doesn't understand the role of the GM, which isn't helped by the title itself; the GM isn't the Game Master.

I don't think a "Good DM" can truly be defined.

Similar to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on hardcore pornography, "I know it when I see it."

I don't get where the insistence that the DM is 'part of the group' comes from.  That seems to me to be as silly as calling the judge part of the Defense Team or Prosecutorial Team.

The DM is next to the group, sits at the same table with the group, is even friends with the group.  But not 'part of' the group.  Varying tables with have varying levels of DM involvement as befits the players' needs.  But, again, that isn't 'part of the group'.  

I haven't found this deconstructionist view of D&D to be helpful at, really, any point in the past.

I don't play 'storygames', so I limit my description to DM's and the Dungeons and Dragons game and any other game run similarly.

Hmm...Days later I stand by my original definition. Every other consideration brought up seems to me to be secondary.

The role of a GM seems too esoteric a concept to truly define.

In my mind, a GM operates beneath an unwritten social contract that they will provide a fun game for everyone (including themselves) while acting as a fair arbiter of the rules. Everything else is amorphous; I feel that no real consensus can be found as it is a matter of opinion and taste, varying by the needs of the group, the GM and the ruleset.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;625535I don't get where the insistence that the DM is 'part of the group' comes from.  That seems to me to be as silly as calling the judge part of the Defense Team or Prosecutorial Team.

The DM is next to the group, sits at the same table with the group, is even friends with the group.  But not 'part of' the group.  Varying tables with have varying levels of DM involvement as befits the players' needs.  But, again, that isn't 'part of the group'.  

I haven't found this deconstructionist view of D&D to be helpful at, really, any point in the past.

I don't play 'storygames', so I limit my description to DM's and the Dungeons and Dragons game and any other game run similarly.

The gm is part of the social group at the table, but not part of the character group. Regardless, I feel the gm should have total power tempered by common sense.

Quote from: Kaz;625477I don't think a "Good DM" can truly be defined.

Similar to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on hardcore pornography, "I know it when I see it."

I would work on the definition of a 'good DM' using practical tools and general techniques, and that might be the next step - but what I'm trying to do here is identify what a DM is. And it's not as simple as all that, unfortunately.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;625535I don't get where the insistence that the DM is 'part of the group' comes from.  That seems to me to be as silly as calling the judge part of the Defense Team or Prosecutorial Team.

Well I did address that fairly directly in the OP. Which points raised would you disagree with?

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;625535I haven't found this deconstructionist view of D&D to be helpful at, really, any point in the past.

Am I questioning assumptions or looking at the facts of GMing here though? I mean there are no commonly agreed upon assumptions on the role of GM, what a GM is, ask ten gamers and you'll get ten different answers. And if you examine these answers, all will be found to be at least partially wrong for given cases. What I'm attempting to do is identify all of the traits that define the role of a GM in as broad a spectrum as can be managed while still keeping it relatable enough to be useful. To test this, provide cases where the points I am raising don't apply, preferably without extending the scope of the assertions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;625540Hmm...Days later I stand by my original definition. Every other consideration brought up seems to me to be secondary.

Agreed but many people don't understand the role of a GM, this has led to all manner of confusion and really bad gaming. It's even led to shared narrative gaming, indirectly.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;625542In my mind, a GM operates beneath an unwritten social contract that they will provide a fun game for everyone (including themselves) while acting as a fair arbiter of the rules.

That's the understanding of the type of awesome agreed between the players and GM. The social contract is only one facet of the role, and the role is what we're talking about here.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;625542Everything else is amorphous; I feel that no real consensus can be found as it is a matter of opinion and taste, varying by the needs of the group, the GM and the ruleset.

Opinion and taste are again descriptions of the awesome, not the role. I reject claims that a useful definition of a GM cannot be found, of course it can. Just nobody has really tried yet, beyond handwaving about judges and referees.

If people could address the actual points raised or raise their own specific points I feel it would be more constructive than broad and overly vague assertions here.

Quote from: Bill;625554Regardless, I feel the gm should have total power tempered by common sense.

How is that even possible, unless the GM straps the players to their chairs and holds their mothers hostage? The GM never has total power, the GM has power delineated in certain peculiar but defineable ways.

Quote from: The Traveller;625563How is that even possible, unless the GM straps the players to their chairs and holds their mothers hostage? The GM never has total power, the GM has power delineated in certain peculiar but defineable ways.

Gm has final say.

What did you think I meant?

Quote from: Bill;625564Gm has final say.

What did you think I meant?

The GM doesn't have final say. As I said in the OP:

"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."

It's a self apparent truism. Not knowing this truism and misunderstanding of the 'power' of a GM leads to pointless conflict. Does the GM in most circumstances act as the translator of the combined rules/setting space? Yes, although I haven't addressed that fully yet. Does the GM have 'total power'? No.

Quote from: The Traveller;625569The GM doesn't have final say. As I said in the OP:

"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."

It's a self apparent truism. Not knowing this truism and misunderstanding of the 'power' of a GM leads to pointless conflict. Does the GM in most circumstances act as the translator of the combined rules/setting space? Yes, although I haven't addressed that fully yet. Does the GM have 'total power'? No.

I don't really agree, but we may just be defining things differently.

The gm does have total power.

Bad gm's abuse it.

Good gm's use the minimum of that power required to make the game work.

Where we likely agree is that a gm can't abuse power without pissing off players.

Quote from: Bill;625576Where we likely agree is that a gm can't abuse power without pissing off players.

...so the GM doesn't have total power. There is an extraneous factor here in that the players are not subject to the whims of a GM, and this is a reality it is neccessary to incorporate when understanding the role of the GM.

The entire hobby in objective terms can be seperated into six elements.

• The GM
• The characters
• The players
• The rules
• The setting (also incorporating the genre and mood)
• The dice (most wouldn't include that but for reasons previously and yet to be specified I have)

If we are to understand the role of a GM fully we must understand the GMs interactions with each of these elements. Excluding any of them must neccessarily therefore lead to an incomplete and hence useless definition.

Quote from: beermonk;625412Look around your table. Are your players having fun? Are they excited to play week after week or whenever? Are they coming up with interesting tidbits of background information for their characters that may never be used? Do they draw pictures or download art and say, 'this is what my dude looks like..."

'The role of the referee it to produce these results!' Great, thanks again, Captain Obvious.

Quote from: beermonk;625412Your answer in regards to 'how' is something for another discussion.

Is it, now?

Are you seriously arguing that the role of the referee is produce an outcome but how a referee goes about performing that role has no bearing on the discussion?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;625583'The role of the referee it to produce these results!' Great, thanks again, Captain Obvious.


Is it, now?

Are you seriously arguing that the role of the referee is produce an outcome but how a referee goes about performing that role has no bearing on the discussion?

Are you retarded?

If you can't figure out how to have fun in YOUR game with YOUR players without someone instructing you how to do it, then perhaps games like Boggle, UNO, and Connect 4 might be a better gateway drug for you before you jump into the real serious and heavy stuff such as RPGs with all their 'rules' and 'odd sided dice' and tough and impenetrable formulas for fun!

OMG! It's so difficult! The fun! How do I haz it?

Quote from: beermonk;625744Are you retarded?

If you can't figure out how to have fun in YOUR game with YOUR players without someone instructing you how to do it, then perhaps games like Boggle, UNO, and Connect 4 might be a better gateway drug for you before you jump into the real serious and heavy stuff such as RPGs with all their 'rules' and 'odd sided dice' and tough and impenetrable formulas for fun!

OMG! It's so difficult! The fun! How do I haz it?

I think he was objecting to your facile "the GM makes FUN!" statement. Which I completely agree with, it's just not very helpful when trying to pin down what the GM actually focuses on in a game to deliver the experience. If (like me) you're pretty comfortable with how you GM and the results you get, then this discussion probably isn't for you (or me).

There are whole screeds of text on what a GM does at the table--rightly or wrongly, White Wolf practically made an industry out of it.

Quote from: The Traveller;625580...so the GM doesn't have total power.

.....
Ok it is obvious that you somehow define "7" as max volume even though the volume really goes to 10, because 8, 9 and 10 is too uncomfortable.

But, to refer to your definitions of Elements, the Setting may in some cases require that you as a GM even crank it up to 11 .... while some settings may only manage max 5.
Not to mention Players that act out .. or doesn't act out, or are sensitive ... this also affects the effective "power volume" that is required and possible.

Quote from: The Traveller;625580There is an extraneous factor here in that the players are not subject to the whims of a GM, and this is a reality it is neccessary to incorporate when understanding the role of the GM.

The entire hobby in objective terms can be seperated into six elements.

• The GM
• The characters
• The players
• The rules
• The setting (also incorporating the genre and mood)
• The dice (most wouldn't include that but for reasons previously and yet to be specified I have)

If we are to understand the role of a GM fully we must understand the GMs interactions with each of these elements. Excluding any of them must neccessarily therefore lead to an incomplete and hence useless definition.

The Players are not subject to the whims of the GM, but their Player Characters are. That is what Bill referred to as "Total Power".

Using words like judge and referee is not "handwaving", it is explaining.

Including the dice as an element? ... I'm guessing it is due to the possibility of hidden die rolls and fudging die rolls.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes ...

Quote from: Catelf;625766.....
Ok it is obvious that you somehow define "7" as max volume even though the volume really goes to 10, because 8, 9 and 10 is too uncomfortable.

But, to refer to your definitions of Elements, the Setting may in some cases require that you as a GM even crank it up to 11 .... while some settings may only manage max 5.
Not to mention Players that act out .. or doesn't act out, or are sensitive ... this also affects the effective "power volume" that is required and possible.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Quote from: Catelf;625766The Players are not subject to the whims of the GM, but their Player Characters are. That is what Bill referred to as "Total Power".

Even the player characters are not fully subject to the whims of the GM, since they operate with the co-operation of the players. We can't take one element and exclude its interactions with the others, we're left with half the picture.

Of the six elements I listed, the GM only has total power over two, that would be the setting and the GM. And even the setting is somewhat arguable.

The GM has partial or shared power over the characters and the rules. This power is shared with the players and the dice.

The GM has no power over anything else.

Quote from: Catelf;625766Using words like judge and referee is not "handwaving", it is explaining.

No, it's handwaving because it is a case of simply reaching for the nearest approximation. Trying to apply this approximation directly to the role of the GM leads to bad calls and bad gaming, even with the best of intentions. We can do better.

Quote from: Catelf;625766Including the dice as am element? ... I'm guessing it is due to the possibility of hidden die rolls and fudging die rolls.

There are a lot of reasons for including the dice as a distinct element, I've gone over some above, but basically the dice are a factor that nobody has control over, which is important when we're talking about the GM and how GMs interact with the other elements.

Quote from: The Traveller;625767I don't understand what you're saying here.

Of course you don't.
I'll try to explain it better:
The GM has power as a GM.
This power is at 100 % = Total Power.
However, normally it is not adviceable to use more than 50 - 60%, or the players will get pissed.
Therfor, you define 60% as "Total Power" .... since that is what normally can be used.

However, Horror-settings and similar, may really increase the amount of power that can be used, because it relies on the unknown, and even discomfort, so the players will not get as pissed off if one of them temporarily turns into an NPC due to possession, insanity, or even just panic.
In that case, the "Power adviceable to use" may reach 80, 90, or even a 100%.

Quote from: The Traveller;625767No, it's handwaving because it is a case of simply reaching for the nearest approximation. Trying to apply this approximation directly to the role of the GM leads to bad calls and bad gaming, even with the best of intentions. We can do better.

"Nearest approximation".
The only thing that currently can describe a GM's role, if we don't use approximations, is "To be a GM".
The idea is to list the closest approximations, in order to explain the role of a GM, to mesh them together, or there will just be:
A GM's role is to be the GM.
And i am certain you want a better explanation than that.

As for the "Dispute things":
I dispute that the GM is unquestionably a part of the group.
Thing is, In one way, The GM IS a part of the Gaming Group.
But during the game, in the game, the GM is also clearly NOT a part of the group, since the roles of the GM is so diverse from the players.
However.
You have already made that distinction by placing the GM as a seperate Element ... so of course you don't have to point it out a second time, thereby the GM is a part of the gaming group ... but the GM is also a seperate Element from the players ...
Hmm...
As you see, i reasoned myself forward to that you were right, because i understood how you probably is thinking about it.

In a way, this whole post is now more an explanation of viewpoints, and why they seem to differ, ... while they probably doesn't ....

Quote from: The Traveller;625580The entire hobby in objective terms can be seperated into six elements.

• The GM
• The characters
• The players
• The rules
• The setting (also incorporating the genre and mood)
• The dice (most wouldn't include that but for reasons previously and yet to be specified I have)

I think this covers your list

A gamemaster is a referee for a tabletop roleplaying game where the players, as their characters interact with a setting with their actions adjudicated by using a set of rules and the referee's judgement using dice or abilities compared to a chance of success with play occurring in sessions which optionally can be combined to form a campaign with continuity from one session to the next.

The rest are details. I also tried to make it flexible enough to incorporate diceless RPGs like Amber and note that campaigns are optional as RPGs can be refereed as one-shots.

Quote from: estar;625815I think this covers your list

A gamemaster is a referee for a tabletop roleplaying game where the players, as their characters interact with a setting with their actions adjudicated by using a set of rules and the referee's judgement using dice or abilities compared to a chance of success with play occurring in sessions which optionally can be combined to form a campaign with continuity from one session to the next.

The rest are details. I also tried to make it flexible enough to incorporate diceless RPGs like Amber and note that campaigns are optional as RPGs can be refereed as one-shots.

doesn't really cover Amber as there is no concept of a chance of sucess in Amber.
Also All you have actualy done is add A gamemaster is a referee for a to your definition of a roleplaying game. So basically you are saying the GM is just the referee of a roleplaying game...

Quote from: jibbajibba;625817doesn't really cover Amber as there is no concept of a chance of sucess in Amber.
Also All you have actualy done is add A gamemaster is a referee for a to your definition of a roleplaying game. So basically you are saying the GM is just the referee of a roleplaying game...

I only know the bare basics of Amber, but how does it handle a situation where one hero is in hand to hand combat with 1,000,000 enemies all with a lower value?

Does he still win but it just takes a long time to  mop them all up?

I have not read the Amber rulebook for many. many years.

Quote from: Catelf;625808Of course you don't.
I'll try to explain it better:
The GM has power as a GM.
This power is at 100 % = Total Power.
However, normally it is not adviceable to use more than 50 - 60%, or the players will get pissed.
Therfor, you define 60% as "Total Power" .... since that is what normally can be used.

However, Horror-settings and similar, may really increase the amount of power that can be used, because it relies on the unknown, and even discomfort, so the players will not get as pissed off if one of them temporarily turns into an NPC due to possession, insanity, or even just panic.
In that case, the "Power adviceable to use" may reach 80, 90, or even a 100%.

Okay I understand a little better now.

The GM never uses their power against the group, in that regard it's not even power at all really. If 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, as explained above.

If a GM sees gaming as an adversarial situation however things are likely to go south sooner rather than later.

Quote from: Catelf;625808"Nearest approximation".
The only thing that currently can describe a GM's role, if we don't use approximations, is "To be a GM".
The idea is to list the closest approximations, in order to explain the role of a GM, to mesh them together, or there will just be:
A GM's role is to be the GM.
And i am certain you want a better explanation than that.

As for the "Dispute things":
I dispute that the GM is unquestionably a part of the group.
Thing is, In one way, The GM IS a part of the Gaming Group.
But during the game, in the game, the GM is also clearly NOT a part of the group, since the roles of the GM is so diverse from the players.
However.
You have already made that distinction by placing the GM as a seperate Element ... so of course you don't have to point it out a second time, thereby the GM is a part of the gaming group ... but the GM is also a seperate Element from the players ...
Hmm...
As you see, i reasoned myself forward to that you were right, because i understood how you probably is thinking about it.

In a way, this whole post is now more an explanation of viewpoints, and why they seem to differ, ... while they probably doesn't ....

So er, we're in agreement?

Quote from: estar;625815I think this covers your list

A gamemaster is a referee for a tabletop roleplaying game where the players, as their characters interact with a setting with their actions adjudicated by using a set of rules and the referee's judgement using dice or abilities compared to a chance of success with play occurring in sessions which optionally can be combined to form a campaign with continuity from one session to the next.

Well no. A referee acts as a neutral party working between two or more teams to ensure fair play. Who are the two teams here? There's only the group and the GM. Is the game world, the setting, the other team? But the GM controls that, so the referee controls one entire team?

The more we examine the analogy the more deformed it becomes, so I don't think referee is an adequate description of the role.

Quote from: beermonk;625744Are you retarded?

That hasn't been entirely ruled out.

Quote from: smiorgan;625745I think he was objecting to your facile "the GM makes FUN!" statement. Which I completely agree with, it's just not very helpful when trying to pin down what the GM actually focuses on in a game to deliver the experience.

*DING!* Winnah!

Quote from: Bill;625826I only know the bare basics of Amber, but how does it handle a situation where one hero is in hand to hand combat with 1,000,000 enemies all with a lower value?

Does he still win but it just takes a long time to  mop them all up?

I have not read the Amber rulebook for many. many years.

Well you can't actually get into hand to hand combat with 1 million guys ... well unless they were all really really small which is of course always possible in Amber.

Typically I use a rough scale of dozens, a dozen humans could beat a Chaosite a dozen chaosites an Amberite etc .... but with ranks its more complex.
Tactics matter a lot so in the book Corwin fights his way up a staircase on the side of a mountain and becuase he is only facing one or two enemies at a time and has supernatural stamina he kills hundreds.

Its similar to say how many men can superman fight at once except ... if a guys stabs corwing through the chest with a sword he will die, probably.

Quote from: The Traveller;625841Well no. A referee acts as a neutral party working between two or more teams to ensure fair play. Who are the two teams here?

The players (who *may* be multiple teams under certain conditions), and the NPCs of the World (who typically *are*  multiple teams).

It is not setting (which includes the creation of said NPCs), I would contend that setting is always bias in a well ran PnP RPG towards the players.

Quote from: gleichman;625851The players (who *may* be multiple teams under certain conditions), and the NPCs of the World (who typically *are*  multiple teams).

Which is just what I said, if the referee controls one team, what sort of referee is that? A GM isn't a referee. Some of the skills used in refereeing come in handy for GMing at times, certainly, but beyond that the comparison stops working.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625849Tactics matter a lot so in the book Corwin fights his way up a staircase on the side of a mountain and becuase he is only facing one or two enemies at a time and has supernatural stamina he kills hundreds.

Bleys does the heavy lifting there IIRC.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625854Bleys does the heavy lifting there IIRC.

You are correct though its probably a tie as Corwin doesn't talk much about his own exploit but waxes lyrical about Bleys.

Quote from: The Traveller;625853Which is just what I said, if the referee controls one team, what sort of referee is that?

Similar to the kind used when you're playing chess against yourself, verifying that each move is legal and under the time limit. Or similar to the the kind used when you're playing both sides of a wargame, again verifying that each move is legal and while attempting to win on both sides.

The latter is where PnP RPGs actually got the concept to begin with, it only shifted it slightly to bring the PCs in.


In a traditional PnP RPG, the GM creates the setting and NPCs with a bias toward player success (an author role). During actual conflict he then plays those NPCs to the best of their ability (as defined during creation) actually trying to win (i.e. he's the OpFor). As the game progresses, he will verify that the rules are followed by both the NPCs and the players at all times (the referee role).

There's nothing hard or twisted about that. That's why the original PnP used the term referee when describing the role of the GM, it is indeed a major element of his duties. He wears multiple hats.

Well, good ones do that is.

Quote from: gleichman;625857Similar to the kind used when you're playing chess against yourself, verifying that each move is legal and under the time limit. Or similar to the the kind used when you're playing both sides of a wargame, again verifying that each move is legal and while attempting to win on both sides.

Except this leaves out the concept of the players completely, in both of your examples there is only one agent. A more accurate comparison would be one person playing against another person while one of them also adjudicates the rules. It's really not applicable.

Quote from: gleichman;625857The latter is where PnP RPGs actually got the concept to begin with, it only shifted it slightly to bring the PCs in.

If by "shifted slightly" you mean the game wouldn't exist without players. This thread is an attempt to clarify the role of the GM beyond handwaving and poor analogies which came part and parcel with the original concepts. That means a lot of pat comparisons are going to be removed, which is for the best.

Quote from: The Traveller;625863This thread is an attempt to clarify the role of the GM beyond handwaving and poor analogies which came part and parcel with the original concepts. That means a lot of pat comparisons are going to be removed, which is for the best.

The traditional descriptions are not handwaving, there are actual and required roles.

In a traditional PnP RPG:

- The GM must ensure that both the NPCs and the PCs follow all the rules of the game (referee)
- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)
- The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success

Failure on any of the above points indicates either a bad GM, and/or the play of a non-Traditional RPG.

It's that simple. Your goal to define things otherwise is foolish and counter-productive.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625817doesn't really cover Amber as there is no concept of a chance of sucess in Amber.

Sure it does as the outcome of any conflict resolution is not always certain at the start. It just not a straight forward analysis of odds but more like a mini-game in of itself.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625817Also All you have actualy done is add A gamemaster is a referee for a to your definition of a roleplaying game. So basically you are saying the GM is just the referee of a roleplaying game...

Yes the GM is just a referee. You have the straightforward refereeing of the game mechanics, along with the much fuzzier refereeing of how to roleplay the NPCs in response to the player's roleplay of the character.  

Both instances involve the referee looking at what the players did, looking at a set of guidelines and deciding the results of the actions. For mechanics the guidelines are the game rules. For NPCs the guidelines are their personalities and motivations. And so on for the other aspect of the adventure.

The problem of storygames vs tabletop roleplaying has been their focus on making stuff up during the middle of play that in tabletop RPGs are defined before the session begins.

The only time you should have to make stuff up in the middle of a tabletop RPGs is when the sessions goes beyond the limits what the referee detailed. For example what color a mug is or moving off the amp. Even then there are still guidelines a prepared referee can use to remain objective and fair to his players. Random tables or reasoning from the premise of his setting are two techniques that can be employed.

Quote from: gleichman;625866- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)

The best ability of the NPCs? Or of the referee? If it is the referee then the referee is not being fair as NPCs should have personalities, and motivations that dictate how well they truly fight.

Quote from: estar;625869Yes the GM is just a referee. You have the straightforward refereeing of the game mechanics, along with the much fuzzier refereeing of how to roleplay the NPCs in response to the player's roleplay of the character.  

The GM is not a referee in any standard definition of the role. By dint of participating they fail to be a neutral, non-participating ajudicator. You don't see the ref in football picking up the ball and moving it to where they'd prefer play to be taking place.

Quote from: estar;625873The best ability of the NPCs? Or of the referee? If it is the referee then the referee is not being fair as NPCs should have personalities, and motivations that dictate how well they truly fight.

The NPC of course.

An Orc isn't Sun Tzu and shouldn't be ran as if he was.

Quote from: Kiero;625874The GM is not a referee in any standard definition of the role.

In a traditional RPG...

The GM enforces the rules on both the NPCs and the PCs, he does this in a neutral fashion no matter who the ruling may or may not favor. That is the actions of a referee. If he fails to do this for any reason, he has failed as referee and is a bad GM.


To use some other examples of GM failure:

- He may also fail as an Author by failing to create an engaging play experience for his players. Thus he would be a bad GM.

- He may also fail as an OpFor by just plain being bad at running his NPCs according to the abilities of those NPCs. Thus he would be a bad GM.

And so on.

I understand where the hatred for the term referee is coming from on this site. This is after all in general a group of people who think they can as GM change and add rules on the fly- the very idea that in traditional play the GM's job is to enforce the rules equally on both NPCs and PCs is an impossible concept.

But that concept was baked into the original generation of RPGs, which used the term referee in describing the role of the GM extensively.

To remove this function of the GM is to play a non-traditional RPG.

Quote from: gleichman;625866The traditional descriptions are not handwaving, there are actual and required roles.

You can't be a referee if you're also participating. You can be something similar to a referee some of the time, use some of the skills of a referee, but you aren't a referee.

You touched on this yourself when the element of players existing was mentioned regarding your "playing against yourself" analogy.

This:

Quote from: gleichman;625866- The GM must ensure that both the NPCs and the PCs follow all the rules of the game (referee)
- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)
- The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success

is not a bad description of some parts of GMing, but it's missing out on a lot of nuances of the interactions between the GM and other elements of the games, as you begin to expand upon yourself...

Quote from: gleichman;625866- He may also fail as an Author by failing to create an engaging play experience for his players. Thus he would be a bad GM.

...so now "an Author creating an engaging play experience" has been added to the "simple" list. Do you see why it is neccessary to examine the role of the GM a little further?

Quote from: gleichman;625866It's that simple. Your goal to other define things otherwise is foolish and counter-productive.

Sorry, I don't believe anyone appointed you arbiter of what constitutes purity of gaming. I also don't believe we're really at odds here, I'm just taking it much further than you have.

Quote from: gleichman;625876The NPC of course.

An Orc isn't Sun Tzu and should be ran as if he was.

Yup.

One of my pet peeves is when a gm runs mindless zombies as if they were a navy seal team.

And when a gm ha senemies move directly toward pc's suicidally when the npc would, by any common sense, flee.

Quote from: Bill;625883And when a gm ha senemies move directly toward pc's suicidally when the npc would, by any common sense, flee.

Genre has a impact here. If a group of bandits attack Conan, do you really expect him to be unable to kill them all because they fled?

It's very common for the bad guys in action adventure movie or book to be rather suicidal. It's how the Hero is shown to be mighty, and provides a clean end to the action scene before moving on with the plot.



Personally I use a mix of reactions depending upon the NPCs. But it should be noted that a withdraw in Age of Heroes is very difficult to pull off without covering fire or a terrain advantage to assist. As in real life- most deaths come during a retreat...

Quote from: The Traveller;625882You can't be a referee if you're also participating.

For this incorrect belief and together with other errors you've displayed in previous posts,  I consider you to be practicing a different hobby only somewhat related to mine. One that I have no interest in other than avoiding it.

Quote from: The Traveller;625882...so now "an Author creating an engaging play experience" has been added to the "simple" list.

It was already listed in a previous post of mine.

Quote from: Kiero;625874The GM is not a referee in any standard definition of the role. By dint of participating they fail to be a neutral, non-participating ajudicator.

When it comes time to make a decision about implementing the rules, interpreting the role of the dice, or making ruling for something not covered by the rules, then yes, I am a neutral adjudicator. I'm neither partisan for the npcs nor the pcs.

At other times I'm both the player characters' ruthless antagonist as well as their biggest fan and cheerleader, but at the crux moves, I step back and view the action as a third party.

Refereeing a roleplaying game requires wearing multiple hats, including the one that makes me look like a penis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DNBBrkIPN8).

Quote from: gleichman;625894For this incorrect belief and together with other errors you've displayed in previous posts,  I consider you to be practicing a different hobby only somewhat related to mine. One that I have no interest in other than avoiding it.

That's a pity, I found your objection to be thought provoking if minimalist.

Quote from: gleichman;625894It was already listed in a previous post of mine.

No, you posted "with a bias towards player success". No more and no less, to use your own hardline stance. There was no mention of "creating an engaging play experience", that's a whole other kettle of fish.

You really seem to be coming at this from a mechanics-heavy angle when you aren't tripping up your own argument with engaging play experiences, which is perfectly valid as far as it goes, it's just not the whole picture by a long shot.

Quote from: The Traveller;625902No, you posted "with a bias towards player success".

Please see post #66 in this thread and note that it comes before post #73 where you claim I suddenly added the term Author.

Quote from: Kiero;625874The GM is not a referee in any standard definition of the role. By dint of participating they fail to be a neutral, non-participating ajudicator. You don't see the ref in football picking up the ball and moving it to where they'd prefer play to be taking place.

Oh good god, here is the dictionary definition of referee from the Oxford English Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/referee?q=referee).

1 an official who watches a game or match closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to and (in some sports) to arbitrate on matters arising from the play: the referee sent off two French players

Note the arbitrate on matters arising from play which is why miniature wargamers and early roleplaying used referee until it was later changed to Dungeon Master/Gamemaster.

Quote from: estar;625906Oh good god, here is the dictionary definition of referee from the Oxford English Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/referee?q=referee).

1 an official who watches a game or match closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to and (in some sports) to arbitrate on matters arising from the play: the referee sent off two French players

Note the arbitrate on matters arising from play which is why miniature wargamers and early roleplaying used referee until it was later changed to Dungeon Master/Gamemaster.

Note the even earlier stress "watches a game or match" - they don't play, which is what GM does. A GM is not an observer, they are a participant, a very active one without which a game is often not possible. Whereas you can play a game of football without a referee, quite easily. Because they are an adjunct to the game, not a component of it.

As to what mini games or early roleplaying did, frankly I couldn't give a toss. Just because in the past they used a term wrongly doesn't make it valid. This is, after all, the era that produced retarded shit like The Caller.

Quote from: gleichman;625905Please see post #66 in this thread and note that it comes before post #73 where you claim I suddenly added the term Author.

I didn't claim you added the term author.

I claimed correctly that you expanded the role of the GM, which seems to happen a lot in your definitions, to include "creating an engaging play experience", which is not on your simple list and doesn't have anything in common with the items on said list.

Unless you meant "player success" as including less tangible goals like satisfaction and engagement, which while being the most charitable stretch of your comment possible, does in fact bring us to how and in what way the GM's role facilitates this success, raising a whole host of questions which this thread attempts to answer.

As I said we aren't really at odds, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Again, to describe the GM as a referee is misleading. The GM does use refereeing skills sometimes but it doesn't encompass the entire role by a long shot. And I'm trying to encompass the entire role.

Quote from: The Traveller;625910I didn't claim you added the term author.

I claimed correctly that you expanded the role of the GM, which seems to happen a lot in your definitions, to include "creating an engaging play experience",

I'm concise and don't detail things that should be obvious. In this case, "creating an engaging play experience" is part of the Author role.

Why?

Because good Authors create engaging works. Bad ones don't.

Quote from: The Traveller;625882You can't be a referee if you're also participating. You can be something similar to a referee some of the time, use some of the skills of a referee, but you aren't a referee.

As much I disagree with Gliechman on many points, I agree with him on this issue. A 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. The referee doesn't have the free choice the players have during the session. Any decision or actions he makes has to backed up by something he created beforehand or a reasonable consequence of what the players did. Or he is not being fair.

One area Gliechman and I disagree that he views refereeing roleplaying as deterministic as judging whether a sword hit or not.

My view is that there always a limited set of probable consequences arising out of the player's roleplaying of their characters. That the referee should not always pick the one he views as most probable but the one that leads to more opportunities for adventures.

Quote from: gleichman;625911I'm concise and don't detail things that should be obvious. In this case, "creating an engaging play experience" is part of the Author role.

Why?

Because good Authors create engaging works. Bad ones don't.

You added a fresh and completely different role to the position of GM which wasn't on your simple list. And if we keep picking at the loose threads I'm fairly sure more will tumble out.

This is a problem with the hobby, the assumption that if you sit someone down with a rulebook and some dice they'll get everything a GM is meant to be by intuition. That doesn't work and leads to bad games.

Some people think a GM has absolute power and can do what they like, some people think the GM can arbitrarily change rules without consulting the group, some people take the term "Master" far too literally. This can hurt much of the fun of gaming, in my opinion, since it doesn't represent an optimal arrangement, or indeed reality.

Quote from: estar;625912As much I disagree with Gliechman on many points, I agree with him on this issue. A 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.

It appears you disagree with Gleichman again so, since one of his simple rules includes a bias towards PC success ("The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success"). A referee can be many things, but biased isn't usually among them.

I do get what you're saying and I do agree to an extent, just what you're saying doesn't encompass the entire role of the GM.

Quote from: estar;625912My view is that there always a limited set of probable consequences arising out of the player's roleplaying of their characters. That the referee should not always pick the one he views as most probable but the one that leads to more opportunities for adventures.

Yes, and this is bringing the awesome.

Quote from: estar;625912One area Gliechman and I disagree that he views refereeing roleplaying as deterministic as judging whether a sword hit or not.

My view is that there always a limited set of probable consequences arising out of the player's roleplaying of their characters. That the referee should not always pick the one he views as most probable but the one that leads to more opportunities for adventures.

There's a bit of mistake in the view of my style. An understandable one I think given how narrow online debates get.


Yes- I'm quite hardcore during combat and other objective resolution sections of a game. What happens happens, the rules and dice are law. For that reason, I select rules that produce acceptable results in an acceptable way such that there is never a need to override or change them in play.

Outside those events (say, perhaps the other 50% of the game), there are no rules to apply (as they don't exist or I've removed them). So NPC reactions, role-playing, decision making and other such things are fully within my own judgement.

Here I consider a number of factors- genre, realism, personality, and many other odds and ends.

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

Quote from: The Traveller;625914You added a fresh and completely different role to the position of GM which wasn't on your simple list.

No.

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.

Quote from: The Traveller;625918It appears you disagree with Gleichman again so, since one of his simple rules includes a bias towards PC success ("The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success"). A referee can be many things, but biased isn't usually among them.

Sigh.

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.

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.

Quote from: beermonk;625744Are you retarded?

If you can't figure out how to have fun in YOUR game with YOUR players without someone instructing you how to do it, then perhaps games like Boggle, UNO, and Connect 4 might be a better gateway drug for you before you jump into the real serious and heavy stuff such as RPGs with all their 'rules' and 'odd sided dice' and tough and impenetrable formulas for fun!

OMG! It's so difficult! The fun! How do I haz it?

OMG, lets exclude everyone from the hobby who isn't instantly magically a great DM from the moment they were born!

Quote from: The Traveller;625841Okay I understand a little better now.

The GM never uses their power against the group, in that regard it's not even power at all really. If 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, as explained above.

If a GM sees gaming as an adversarial situation however things are likely to go south sooner rather than later.

I do so like when i manage to explain so that others understand what others are referring to.
It often removes seeming disagreements that only is based on misunderstandings ....

Here, we agree.

Quote from: The Traveller;625841So er, we're in agreement?

Yes, here too.

Quote from: The Traveller;625841Well no. A referee acts as a neutral party working between two or more teams to ensure fair play. Who are the two teams here? There's only the group and the GM. Is the game world, the setting, the other team? But the GM controls that, so the referee controls one entire team?

The more we examine the analogy the more deformed it becomes, so I don't think referee is an adequate description of the role.

Ok, this was directed towards someone else, but i might just as well give my view on it:
A referee
1) Knows the Rules
2) Upholds the Rules(is in a way being a judge)
3) Is Impartial (or is at least supposed to be)

A GM has better share those traits, too, right?

Ok, a GM has other things to care about too, like the plots, the NPC's and such, but those three points is still important.
Or do you disagree there?

"The GM is there to fetch the beer."
- Paul Mason

Quote from: Catelf;626018A referee
1) Knows the Rules
2) Upholds the Rules(is in a way being a judge)
3) Is Impartial (or is at least supposed to be)

A GM has better share those traits, too, right?

I would say so yes. All except being impartial, the GM can and probably should make decisions which continue the awesome so in that regard at least wouldn't be impartial.

I don't think there's much benefit in getting hung up on the "not a referee" thing, maybe it would be better to say "not just a referee". Some refereeing skills and methods are applied, I've said this from the start, but to describe the GM as a referee isn't helpful, any more than describing the GM as a judge, librarian, researcher, manager, host, or storyteller.

Quote from: gleichman;625943Ideally 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.
-snip-
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.

I always act as a GM when i GM.
No "Modes" when i GM, to me, the author part is often present, if only a little, even in fights, where the "referee" and antagonist parts really should rule ....
Corrupting the responsibilities?
Not hardly, players usually liked that odd things could happen during a fight, as long as their own capabilities wasn't messed with too much.

Quote from: gleichman;625959That 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.

Are you failing to see that you are insulting a lot of people here, and is doing so based on your "definition for what a GM is"?
Or do you not take the term "Bad GM" seriously yourself?
.... or "fools", for that sake?

Quote from: Catelf;626059I always act as a GM when i GM.
No "Modes" when i GM, to me, the author part is often present

You may play as you wish. I in turn want no part of it or any game ran as you describe.

Quote from: Catelf;626059Are you failing to see that you are insulting a lot of people here, and is doing so based on your "definition for what a GM is"?

I'm well aware of that.

If they had shown more concern towards me in the past, perhaps I would have returned the favor. But wishes and fishes...

Quote from: The Traveller;625918I do get what you're saying and I do agree to an extent, just what you're saying doesn't encompass the entire role of the GM.

I agree that the typical referee does more than what my definition states. Particularly for campaign preparation. I don't go into that because that excludes tabletop roleplaying at conventions and organized events where there is little or no prep on the part of the referee required.

Beyond what I said you have to start adding stuff like true in all but these cases, except when blah. And so on.

And while gamemaster are indeed doing all these things you, myself and other mentioned. The core that sets tabletop roleplaying from all other forms of gaming and other forms of roleplaying is

a group of players sitting around their characters in a setting with their actions adjudicated by a referee.

Quote from: The Traveller;626039I would say so yes. All except being impartial, the GM can and probably should make decisions which continue the awesome so in that regard at least wouldn't be impartial.

I don't think there's much benefit in getting hung up on the "not a referee" thing, maybe it would be better to say "not just a referee". Some refereeing skills and methods are applied, I've said this from the start, but to describe the GM as a referee isn't helpful, any more than describing the GM as a judge, librarian, researcher, manager, host, or storyteller.

Ok, so how about building on this list, then?

A GM
1) Knows the Rules
2) Upholds the Rules(is in a way being a judge)
3) Is kind of Impartial (or is at least supposed to be), but may be partial towards the Game Experience.

The Impartial/Partial part i only added as a reminder, because it still has something important, but that could probably be formulated better ....
Like ...
Being impartial between gamer groups and between players in the same group ...
perhaps?

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

It is a lonely life, the way of the true gamemaster...

Quote from: estar;626071a group of players sitting around their characters in a setting with their actions adjudicated by a referee.

You haven't actually offered any rebuttals as to why the role of the GM shouldn't be described as a referee though. I've made it clear why I think there are good reasons to avoid the term, and so far the main response has been because tradition. This is silly.

Quote from: Catelf;626072Ok, so how about building on this list, then?

A GM
1) Knows the Rules
2) Upholds the Rules(is in a way being a judge)
3) Is kind of Impartial (or is at least supposed to be), but may be partial towards the Game Experience.

Those only deal with one or two of the elements of a roleplaying game though, we can't build on half a foundation. If you read through the couple of posts where I lay out the relationship of the GM to some of these elements, it can be seen that there's a lot more involved. One more of those posts yet to come incidentally.

Quote from: gleichman;626070You may play as you wish. I in turn want no part of it or any game ran as you describe.

I'm well aware of that.

If they had shown more concern towards me in the past, perhaps I would have returned the favor. But wishes and fishes...

Hmm ...
But then, you do not know how it is to play with me as the GM.

Perhaps you would like it, perhaps not.
As i think it was you yourself who pointed out:
Different people GM's in different ways, depending on preference, skill, and knowledge.
But here i have to add, that that does not neccesarily make them bad GM's.
Also, many has to learn how to do it, in order to get better.

Quote from: The Traveller;626079Those only deal with one or two of the elements of a roleplaying game though, we can't build on half a foundation. If you read through the couple of posts where I lay out the relationship of the GM to some of these elements, it can be seen that there's a lot more involved. One more of those posts yet to come incidentally.

Yet another case of misunderstanding, i see. ;)

With "building on", i meant "add more things to this list".

Quote from: Catelf;626081Hmm ...
But then, you do not know how it is to play with me as the GM.

I know enough.

Hmm ...
Perhaps something like this:

A GM
1) Is a part of the Group, but is not like the Players.
2) Knows the Rules
3) Upholds the Rules(is in a way being a judge)
4) Is kind of Impartial (or is at least supposed to be), but may be partial towards the Game Experience.
5) Prepares the Setting, and knows the Setting (enough, at least), and/or is able to come up with a Setting on the fly.
6) Prepares the storylines/plots for the game, and/or is able to come up with plots on the fly.
7) Prepares the NPC's for the game, and/or is able to come up with NPC's on the fly.

Quote from: gleichman;626088I know enough.

And i'd say "You do not know enough, you just think you do."

Quote from: The Traveller;626077You haven't actually offered any rebuttals as to why the role of the GM shouldn't be described as a referee though. I've made it clear why I think there are good reasons to avoid the term, and so far the main response has been because tradition. This is silly.

I did in an earlier post, the gamemaster is a referee because his central role is to adjudicate the player's actions using the following,

• the mechanics of the roleplaying game.
• the personalities and motivations of the NPCs
• the details of the locale in which the characters are located
• the details of the setting in which the locale is placed.

These function as guidelines for the referee to resolve the fundamental mechanic of a roleplaying game which is when a player goes

"My character does X, what do I see or what happens?"

Since this results from player playing his character in accordance to a set of rules and setting guidelines, referee accurately describes the person who role is to make this judgment.

If are you sure I am wrong list the instances of when a referee of a tabletop roleplaying game is NOT adjudicating during a tabletop session.

Quote from: Catelf;6260905) Prepares the Setting, and knows the Setting (enough, at least), and/or is able to come up with a Setting on the fly.
6) Prepares the storylines/plots for the game, and/or is able to come up with plots on the fly.
7) Prepares the NPC's for the game, and/or is able to come up with NPC's on the fly.

While typical of most tabletop roleplaying sessions, the above is not true of organized play or referees running purchased adventures as is. For organized play referees are given prepared NPCs, Settings, storylines, and plots and run them for a group of interested players.

Now I realize that organized play doesn't interest everybody. But it is tabletop roleplaying. It has a referee, and has players. They use the same book, roll up characters the same way, and aside from not having to write the adventure and NPCS, the referee have to prepare the same way. So it is tabletop roleplaying.

So #5 to #7 on your list is not what distinguishes tabletop referees from other types of games with referees.

As I said earlier what distinguishes a tabletop referee is the fact they are adjudicating the actions of players playing individual characters interacting with a setting. This is the central innovation that set tabletop roleplaying apart from other game in the 70s (see Peterson's Playing at the World) and continues to be the one feature not co-opted by other forms of roleplaying games.

Quote from: Catelf;626092And i'd say "You do not know enough, you just think you do."

Have you lied and misrepresented yourself? I don't game with people such as that either.

Yes, I know enough. And as I get to choose who and under what conditions I game- my judgement makes any objections you have moot.

Quote from: Catelf;626092And i'd say "You do not know enough, you just think you do."

That describes our Gleichman rather well :)

Quote from: Catelf;626090Hmm ...
Perhaps something like this:

A GM
1) Is a part of the Group, but is not like the Players.
2) Knows the Rules
3) Upholds the Rules(is in a way being a judge)
4) Is kind of Impartial (or is at least supposed to be), but may be partial towards the Game Experience.
5) Prepares the Setting, and knows the Setting (enough, at least), and/or is able to come up with a Setting on the fly.
6) Prepares the storylines/plots for the game, and/or is able to come up with plots on the fly.
7) Prepares the NPC's for the game, and/or is able to come up with NPC's on the fly.

I would say that's a fairly good summation of many facets of being a GM. Estar noted the setting issues, I would say that upholding the rules is a shared GM/player responsibility. The problem of players looking for loopholes in the rules and outright breaking them should be lessened by the understanding that problems are part of the awesome. Yes, I know for some people that won't work, but still.

Quote from: estar;626099I did in an earlier post, the gamemaster is a referee because his central role is to adjudicate the player's actions using the following,

A rebuttal means a response to an objection. One of the main objections is that one can't referee where one is playing one of the sides. There's a built in bias in all such situations, even Gleichman acknowledged this. But okay, let's go right by the pseudo philosophical point of the impossibility of refereeing in a game where you're effectively a player.

Quote from: estar;626099Since this results from player playing his character in accordance to a set of rules and setting guidelines, referee accurately describes the person who role is to make this judgment.

You're supplanting "making a decision" with "refereeing". By this standard I'm refereeing whenever I go shopping for groceries, according to my budget and dietary plan.

Quote from: estar;626099If are you sure I am wrong list the instances of when a referee of a tabletop roleplaying game is NOT adjudicating during a tabletop session.

Every instance is one of refereeing if you want to extend the definition of referee that much. In fact every single choice I make is refereeing. This is almost as useful as "dungeon" being extended to mean every possible adventuring milieu.

Quote from: gleichman;626112Have you lied and misrepresented yourself? I don't game with people such as that either.

Yes, I know enough. And as I get to choose who and under what conditions I game- my judgement makes any objections you have moot.

Misrepresenting ...?!
No, you just think the worst of people, rather.
Point in case:
You assumed i was lying instead of that you might even be the slightest wrong in your assumptions on how i would, in reality, seem like a GM to you.

Quote from: Catelf;626125Misrepresenting ...?!
No, you just think the worst of people, rather.

I take what they write as the truth (as they see it), you've written things that let me know that I don't want to game with you.

End of story. Be a man and owe up to what you've said and accept, the fault of your words are not mine.

Quote from: estar;625869Sure it does as the outcome of any conflict resolution is not always certain at the start. It just not a straight forward analysis of odds but more like a mini-game in of itself.

Well not again not quitre first off you narrow down to conflict resolution which si correct but wasn't specified in your orginal post. Only a small quibble. Secondly if I fight you and you have better warfare I will loose unless I chance the area for the conflcit. Its not about odds or even close to an odds game.
So my Amber skill system just has difficulties and a skill leve if you are better than the difficulty you suceed. There is never a chance you won't do so. If you are in conflict over a skill, who can write the best Hiku for example... the best skill wins.
The psuedo randomness comes in because no one knows the other players nor PC skills and levels so the player skills comes in reading the other players.

QuoteYes the GM is just a referee. You have the straightforward refereeing of the game mechanics, along with the much fuzzier refereeing of how to roleplay the NPCs in response to the player's roleplay of the character.  

Both instances involve the referee looking at what the players did, looking at a set of guidelines and deciding the results of the actions. For mechanics the guidelines are the game rules. For NPCs the guidelines are their personalities and motivations. And so on for the other aspect of the adventure.

Which is fine if an embelishment of your original defintion.

QuoteThe problem of storygames vs tabletop roleplaying has been their focus on making stuff up during the middle of play that in tabletop RPGs are defined before the session begins.

The only time you should have to make stuff up in the middle of a tabletop RPGs is when the sessions goes beyond the limits what the referee detailed. For example what color a mug is or moving off the amp. Even then there are still guidelines a prepared referee can use to remain objective and fair to his players. Random tables or reasoning from the premise of his setting are two techniques that can be employed.

Now here we disagree, improv does not = Story game not even close.

I make stuff up in the middle of an RPG all the time. I do so in a reasoned manner that is logical to the setting and consistent with the past and future and you admit this is possible thus contradicting yourself.
Basically you are saying you shouldn't make stuff up unless you do it from a random table or you do it by reasoning premises from your setting ..... which is a bit like saying you can't make stuff up unless you want to .....

Also you exclude GMs who make stuff up to make the tembre of the session work. I knwo GMs like this they knwo they players like about 1 hour puzzles/exploration, 2 hours roleplay and goofing about andf 1 hour combat in a 4 hour session so they mix up their stuff add things drop stuff etc to amke the sesisons work liek that. Not my favoured approach but its very workable and its certainly still a desktop RPG.

Quote from: estar;626102While typical of most tabletop roleplaying sessions, the above is not true of organized play or referees running purchased adventures as is. For organized play referees are given prepared NPCs, Settings, storylines, and plots and run them for a group of interested players.

Another case of misunderstanding ...
In "prepare" i counted in "getting pre-made ones".
As in buying adventures, sourcebooks, and so on.
One may even summarise it to "brings to the table".

Quote from: estar;626102So #5 to #7 on your list is not what distinguishes tabletop referees from other types of games with referees.

The problem with that comment, is that Traveller seems to be asking for what the GM is supposed to do in rpg sessions, not if those duties is unique for GMs or not.

Quote from: estar;626102As I said earlier what distinguishes a tabletop referee is the fact they are adjudicating the actions of players playing individual characters interacting with a setting. This is the central innovation that set tabletop roleplaying apart from other game in the 70s (see Peterson's Playing at the World) and continues to be the one feature not co-opted by other forms of roleplaying games.

Ok, can you summarize it to one or two sentences that is .. a bit easier to understand, so it can be added to the list?

Again people are all missing the key most important thing the GM does.
They deliver the world to the players. Without the GM saying "you are standing in a 5 foot wide corridor there is a battered wooden door in front of you" nothing happens.

My stuff GMs do list in order of priority is

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles

Creating settings and all that is not a GM duty as has been said you can buy those

Quote from: The Traveller;626118A rebuttal means a response to an objection. One of the main objections is that one can't referee where one is playing one of the sides. There's a built in bias in all such situations, even Gleichman acknowledged this. But okay, let's go right by the pseudo philosophical point of the impossibility of refereeing in a game where you're effectively a player.

Roleplaying games are not an adversarial conflict between all participants like wargames are. One person has a special role compared the rest.

There is no gain or loss for the individual referee in a specific encounter only consequences to figured out. For the player it very different as he is focused on his individual characters.

If you are a poor referee, you could turn a RPG into adversarial conflict. Lord knows there are enough jokes about including KenzerCo's Knights of the Dinner Table. But the reality that the referee is not in a adversarial relationship.

Quote from: The Traveller;626118You're supplanting "making a decision" with "refereeing". By this standard I'm refereeing whenever I go shopping for groceries, according to my budget and dietary plan.

Refereeing is a specific type of decision. Decisions based on the rules or the play of a game. Shopping is not a game while tabletop roleplaying is. And it not a new use of the term either. By the late 19th both in Germany and the United States referee was being using for the people in charge of resolving the action of wargames. This role expanded to include control of third party forces that complicated their situation.

Ultimately this came together in David Welsey's Braustein game, it ideas were adapted by Dave Arneson into the Blackmoor campaign.

Quote from: gleichman;626126I take what they write as the truth (as they see it), you've written things that let me know that I don't want to game with you.

End of story. Be a man and owe up to what you've said and accept, the fault of your words are not mine.

I think most of the people on the board are happy you would never want to game with them, so its not much loss.

Quote from: gleichman;626070If they had shown more concern towards me in the past, perhaps I would have returned the favor. But wishes and fishes...

B-but sweetheart, I thought you were happy here... I had no idea how you felt...

Does... [sniff] does this mean we're not going to Paris? I bought tickets.

Quote from: jibbajibba;626146Again people are all missing the key most important thing the GM does.
They deliver the world to the players. Without the GM saying "you are standing in a 5 foot wide corridor there is a battered wooden door in front of you" nothing happens.

Yeah that's the third post which will cover rules and setting interactions. Basically that can also be filed under "bringing the awesome".

Quote from: estar;626168But the reality that the referee is not in a adversarial relationship.

That's very much the point I'm trying to make by saying the GM is part of the group. It's not an adversarial position, it's not a neutral position, therefore it must be a co-operative position because there aren't any other options left.

And you can keep saying referee all day if you want, it won't change the simple fact that a GM isn't a referee. Unless you extend the definition of referee every which way.

Quote from: estar;626168Refereeing is a specific type of decision. Decisions based on the rules or the play of a game. Shopping is not a game while tabletop roleplaying is. And it not a new use of the term either. By the late 19th both in Germany and the United States referee was being using for the people in charge of resolving the action of wargames. This role expanded to include control of third party forces that complicated their situation.

To have a third party you need a first and second party. Roleplaying is as usual unique in its arrangements.

Quote from: estar;626168Ultimately this came together in David Welsey's Braustein game, it ideas were adapted by Dave Arneson into the Blackmoor campaign.

Honestly unless you think 1e D&D was the height of roleplaying sophistication and nobody will ever make better rules, things change. Understanding grows. Better ways of looking at and dealing with issues emerge. This is what we're doing here.

Again I mean even Gleichman admits a GM isn't just a referee. Are you saying that's all a GM is?

Quote from: The Traveller;625853Which is just what I said, if the referee controls one team, what sort of referee is that? A GM isn't a referee. Some of the skills used in refereeing come in handy for GMing at times, certainly, but beyond that the comparison stops working.

That's a solid point, and I may have to try a gaming experiment one time like so:

Bill runs a party of PCs.  Jim all the monsters.  I referee.

Could be a hoot, particularly in a board game setting.

Doesn't sound like an RPG though...

Quote from: gleichman;625866In a traditional PnP RPG:

- The GM must ensure that both the NPCs and the PCs follow all the rules of the game (referee)
- The GM must play the NPCs to their best ability during conflict (OpFor)
- The GM must create the Setting and NPCs (Author) with a bias towards player success

Failure on any of the above points indicates either a bad GM, and/or the play of a non-Traditional RPG.

It's that simple. Your goal to define things otherwise is foolish and counter-productive.

True or false - Gary Gygax was a good GM playing a traditional RPG.

Your unqualified opinion will do.

Quote from: smiorgan;626217B-but sweetheart, I thought you were happy here... I had no idea how you felt...

Does... [sniff] does this mean we're not going to Paris? I bought tickets.

Don't sell yourself short. You are an above-average snowflake.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626017OMG, lets exclude everyone from the hobby who isn't instantly magically a great DM from the moment they were born!

+1

It's rather like being a 'good person', in my view.  Some days (some sessions) are better than others.  If your gaming is not a work in progress, then I can't identify with it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626312+1

It's rather like being a 'good person', in my view.  Some days (some sessions) are better than others.  If your gaming is not a work in progress, then I can't identify with it.

I can remember when I started dming 1E dnd and thought a campaign was drawing a dungeon, and placing level 1 monsters on level one, level two monsters on level two, etc...

It took me at least a year to learn not to suck at dming.

I agree it is a work in progress; you stagnate, you die.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626308True or false - Gary Gygax was a good GM playing a traditional RPG.

Your unqualified opinion will do.

I imagine it would depend upon what year we're talking about, people do change over time. I do know however that in recent years before his death he would not have significantly disagreed with me.

Gary's life is like the bible, packed full of words virtually anyone can twist to any purpose.

Quote from: Gib;626361Gary's life is like the bible, packed full of words virtually anyone can twist to any purpose.

True of everyone actually. Context is lost, especially over time. And people do change their mind as well- rejecting what they used to do or believe.

Quote from: gleichman;626362True of everyone actually. Context is lost, especially over time. And people do change their mind as well- rejecting what they used to do or believe.

Sure, but a reminder in the case of Gygax is relevant. Nobody is out there going over your or my words with talmudic intensity and quoting from the same to 'prove' some sort of point.

Quote from: Gib;626363Sure, but a reminder in the case of Gygax is relevant. Nobody is out there going over your or my words with talmudic intensity and quoting from the same to 'prove' some sort of point.

One might be surprised.

But yes, Gary does draw far more attention than you or I and gets twisted around a great deal for often very self-serving reasons.

Gary Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery (http://www.amazon.com/Role-Playing-Mastery-Gary-Gygax/dp/0399512934) would be relevant to this thread's topic.

Quote from: Benoist;626368Gary Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery (http://www.amazon.com/Role-Playing-Mastery-Gary-Gygax/dp/0399512934) would be relevant to this thread's topic.

Something over a quarter of a century old?

I'd only concern myself with it if he was still alive to answer questions as most of the 'insight' people are looking for involve issues, details, and people that didn't exist then.

IMO it's of historical interest at best.

Quote from: gleichman;626369Something over a quarter of a century old?

Yes. It can be just as useful today as it was back then.

Role-playing games don't become somehow "obsolete" with age, and neither do the thoughts of a Game Master worth his salt.

Quote from: Benoist;626371Yes. It can be just as useful today as it was back then.

You're such a child.

One that lives the past, yet unable to apply it to the present because you've spent so much effort distorting it to meet your personal needs.

Quote from: The Traveller;624862What is the role of the GM in roleplaying games?

I had a snarky reply, but then someone made a good point...

Quote from: Blackhand;624869Shove your nonsensical manifesto back up your ass.

...not yet...

Quote from: Blackhand;625144I GM the game, not the story.

The dichotomy would be flawed if the statement itself wasn't already completely nonsensical.

...and not yet...

Quote from: beermonk;625369There is only, 'are we having fun?'

I have fun with my friends getting drunk and playing Monopoly at my house. Hey, THAT MUST MEAN IT'S AN RPG!

...hold...

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;625542The role of a GM seems too esoteric a concept to truly define.

Then we might as well stop buying books because there's no way they can help anyone become a GM. If you're not born with the gift you're just screwed.

Bullshit.

...HoooooLD...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;625583Are you seriously arguing that the role of the referee is produce an outcome but how a referee goes about performing that role has no bearing on the discussion?

...FINALLY!

It's the ONLY thing that has bearing on the discussion. And we should talking far more about methods than intents.

These manifestos are great for ideological discussion, but they almost universally lack any statements about how to actually achieve what they describe. So how WOULD a GM achieve all these things the manifesto describes?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;626373It's the ONLY thing that has bearing on the discussion. And we should talking far more about methods than intents.

That is to be the subsequent thread, which I think I mentioned earlier.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;626373These manifestos are great for ideological discussion, but they almost universally lack any statements about how to actually achieve what they describe. So how WOULD a GM achieve all these things the manifesto describes?

Well you can't really decide how to achieve something until you've fully decided what you want to achieve first. That's one of the places we're trying to get to here. Also and importantly a clear, succinct definition of what a GM is rather than reaching for one or two of the hats a GM wears will be handy in getting new gamers on board.

I've one more post to make in the GManifesto, throw that open for discussion, change the ideas around a bit depending on the discussion, and then we get to methods.

Quote from: gleichman;626372You're such a child.

One that lives the past, yet unable to apply it to the present because you've spent so much effort distorting it to meet your personal needs.

Wasn't it your use of the word traditional?  What are traditions, if not grounded in the past!

Quote from: mcbobbo;626394Wasn't it your use of the word traditional?  What are traditions, if not grounded in the past!

Knowledge of the past is wonderful, as long as one doesn't distort it for their own purposes like Benoist does.

His past was not the one I lived through. His is pipe dreams and rose color glasses, a place to hide from reality.

Charming as ever, Brian.

Quote from: gleichman;626398Knowledge of the past is wonderful, as long as one doesn't distort it for their own purposes like Benoist does.

His past was not the one I lived through. His is pipe dreams and rose color glasses, a place to hide from reality.

I don't give two shits about your pissing contest, so please don't drag me into that.

Remember, I brought up Gygax, and I did so specifically to corner your position on whether or not he is a representitive sample of a 'good GM' for a 'traditional RPG'.  Assuming that this is true, it flies in the face of a lot of your own examples.  I could quote the DMG, if it would help, but I think you know what I'm illustrating already.  Either that or you wouldn't be persuaded by it anyway.

Quote from: gleichman;626398His past was not the one I lived through. His is pipe dreams and rose color glasses, a place to hide from reality.

In other words you had a sucky life and are too wrapped up in yourself to believe anyone else's experiences didn't suck as much as yours.

And, I'm sorry, you're perpetuating a fued with Benoist? Seriously? Of all the people on this site? Benoist is one of the most friendly, positive, well-spoken and read fellows here who never fails to contribute something positive to the conversation. You literally have your pick of trolls to chose from here but you've got a chip on your shoulder about him? Wow. Just...wow.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626476In other words you had a sucky life and are too wrapped up in yourself to believe anyone else's experiences didn't suck as much as yours.

And, I'm sorry, you're perpetuating a fued with Benoist? Seriously? Of all the people on this site? Benoist is one of the most friendly, positive, well-spoken and read fellows here who never fails to contribute something positive to the conversation. You literally have your pick of trolls to chose from here but you've got a chip on your shoulder about him? Wow. Just...wow.

"Friendly?"  "Positive?"

Are you sure you're talking about the same guy?  The same guy who makes Pundit look moderate?  

gleichman is a useless attention whore, and I'm ashamed to see this site give him what he comes for again and again, but come on, let's not revise history just to dig at the assclown.  Just ignore him until he cries and goes back to his little hole again.

Quote from: J Arcane;626479"Friendly?"  "Positive?"

Are you sure you're talking about the same guy?  The same guy who makes Pundit look moderate?  

You may have missed the operative word:  "here"

:D

Quote from: TristramEvans;626476And, I'm sorry, you're perpetuating a fued with Benoist? Seriously? Of all the people on this site? Benoist is one of the most friendly, positive, well-spoken and read fellows here who never fails to contribute something positive to the conversation. You literally have your pick of trolls to chose from here but you've got a chip on your shoulder about him? Wow. Just...wow.

Lol wut?

Quote from: Gib;626485Lol wut?

Eh, IME. I suppose YMMV, but all my interactions with him on this site and what of his posts I've read informs the view I expressed. But then, generally speaking, I'd say almost mostly the same about Pundit, ignoring his ongoing Swine and Storygame wars, whereas I know there are people here who belive him "objectivelly the worst person in gaming". So maybe its just simply that I agree with these fellows 7 times out of 10.

Or maybe its just that Benoist has such a cheerful picture with rosy cheeks that I associate him with Dom Deluise.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626482You may have missed the operative word:  "here"

:D

Yeah, Im not familiar with the activities of any poster here elsewhere online besides the ancient history of Big Purple.

You mean like when he asks someone to show them on the doll where the bad DM touched them five times in a single post? Maybe you consider that to that as friendly and positive; however equating bad dming with child molestation and then putting those words in someone else's mouth, multiple times, for years and years on end, i might add, more properly fits my definition of ignorant, insensitive and loathsome. Ymmv, of course.

As for the role of the GM, I think you'll have to wait for my next book. ;)

In general though, the core tenets of my opinion on the matter can be summed up in two phrases: "Premise is better than plot," and "The GM is a world builder, not a storyteller." The role of the GM is to create a scenario and then adjudicate how that scenario responds to the actions of the players. Everything beyond premise is best left emergent, because anything beyond premise and scenario is doomed to fail and thus wastes both player and GM time.  

Remember those two things and you've got it right, in my view.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626487So maybe its just simply that I agree with these fellows 7 times out of 10.

It's that.

One of the greatest faults of mankind is their ability to ignore the sins of people who believe as they do. And who I might add, they share those same sins with.

Quote from: J Arcane;626513In general though, the core tenets of my opinion on the matter can be summed up in two phrases: "Premise is better than plot," and "The GM is a world builder, not a storyteller." The role of the GM is to create a scenario and then adjudicate how that scenario responds to the actions of the players. Everything beyond premise is best left emergent, because anything beyond premise and scenario is doomed to fail and thus wastes both player and GM time.  

Remember those two things and you've got it right, in my view.

"In my view" ... I love those words in cases like this, ....

I'm not sure wether to agree with you or not, because i, as a GM, prefer to use a setting that i already has made up, i already have a sandbox, but sometimes i need to define it further, with plots, NPC's ... and things the Characters only will encounter if they walk down that specific alley, and opens that specific door ... and similar, that will later have effects on the characters if they stay in the area or goes away but comes back just in time ...
Like ...
Someone is ordered to spy on the characters in a city, but that spy is brutally murdered by a serial killer that roams the city for the time being. The characters sleeps at an inn, but the door to the winecellar also leads to the rooms where a Necromancer is planning to raise all the recently dead in the area ... and so on.

So to me, story is very much important, but since i tend to use a sandbox, you may be right as well ...
Hmm ...

Quote from: mcbobbo;626470I don't give two shits about your pissing contest, so please don't drag me into that.

*YOU* dragged yourself into it by jumping on a replay I made to him.

Seriously, dude. Be aware of your own actions.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626470Remember, I brought up Gygax, and I did so specifically to corner your position on whether or not he is a representitive sample of a 'good GM' for a 'traditional RPG'.

And Benoist brought up a 26 year old book.

I gave my position on what a good GM is, and I gave my opinion on what Gygax would think of it in recent times. I think that rather ends my interest in the subject.

Quote from: The Traveller;626382Well you can't really decide how to achieve something until you've fully decided what you want to achieve first. That's one of the places we're trying to get to here. Also and importantly a clear, succinct definition of what a GM is rather than reaching for one or two of the hats a GM wears will be handy in getting new gamers on board.

Well I can't argue with that kind of logic.

Looking forward to the companion thread then.

Quote from: Catelf;626542"In my view" ... I love those words in cases like this, ....

I'm not sure wether to agree with you or not, because i, as a GM, prefer to use a setting that i already has made up, i already have a sandbox, but sometimes i need to define it further, with plots, NPC's ... and things the Characters only will encounter if they walk down that specific alley, and opens that specific door ... and similar, that will later have effects on the characters if they stay in the area or goes away but comes back just in time ...
Like ...
Someone is ordered to spy on the characters in a city, but that spy is brutally murdered by a serial killer that roams the city for the time being. The characters sleeps at an inn, but the door to the winecellar also leads to the rooms where a Necromancer is planning to raise all the recently dead in the area ... and so on.

So to me, story is very much important, but since i tend to use a sandbox, you may be right as well ...
Hmm ...

What I mean by "plot vs. premise", elucidated further, is sort of that you can define a point A and point B, and let the players find their way in between, and that's fine.

But when you define points C, D, E, and so forth and expect the players to follow each one in turn, they're either not going to do it, or they're going to have to be forced to follow them.  In the former, the GM has wasted his time, and in the latter, the players are miserable because their characters have no freedom.

So you can say, "Here is the dungeon, and there's a thing somewhere in here you should find for the king," but after they get in there all bets should be off, and there should be plenty of paths for the characters to follow on their way to the MacGuffin or whatever.

Quote from: gleichman;626543*YOU* dragged yourself into it by jumping on a replay I made to him.

Seriously, dude. Be aware of your own actions.




And Benoist brought up a 26 year old book.

I gave my position on what a good GM is, and I gave my opinion on what Gygax would think of it in recent times. I think that rather ends my interest in the subject.

Is your dodge skill maxed, or did you roll a natural 20?

Quote from: J Arcane;626513the core tenets of my opinion on the matter can be summed up in two phrases: "Premise is better than plot," and "The GM is a world builder, not a storyteller."

I understood what you meant, and I can get behind both of those.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626607Is your dodge skill maxed, or did you roll a natural 20?

You asked the question, and I gave you a truthful and complete answer. It was to be expected that it didn't make you happy as you really weren't interested in getting the truth- just scoring points.

Quote from: gleichman;626611You asked the question, and I gave you a truthful and complete answer. It was to be expected that it didn't make you happy as you really weren't interested in getting the truth- just scoring points.

Mirror mirror - you're projecting.

Your words:

Quote from: gleichman;625866In a traditional PnP RPG:

- The GM must ensure that both the NPCs and the PCs follow all the rules of the game (referee)

Gary's words:

Quote from: DMG 1E Pg 230IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

I like this one as well...

Quote"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."

And this one...

Quote"Send anyone claiming that their RPG activity is an art form my way, and I'll gladly stick a pin in their head and deflate it just to have the satisfaction of the popping sound that makes.

One might play a game artfully, but that makes neither the game nor its play art."

With all respect to tradition, the 'art' of being a GM is nothing as close to cut and dried as you represent it to be.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626663With all respect to tradition, the 'art' of being a GM is nothing as close to cut and dried as you represent it to be.

Quote the old books all you want, I content with how Mr. Gygax viewed the concepts I've put forth.

Quote from: gleichman;626668Quote the old books all you want, I content with how Mr. Gygax viewed the concepts I've put forth.

As you wish.  Take care to make no claim over anything but forum combat in the future, though, if you're going to retreat to such a shitty intellectual position.

I thought maybe we might talk about games.

Quote from: mcbobbo;626672As you wish.  Take care to make no claim over anything but forum combat in the future, though, if you're going to retreat to such a shitty intellectual position.

Little child, you have no idea what you're talking about. If I had any respect or even a faint hope you were capable of learning something- I'd explain your error.

But I don't waste my time on fools.

Quote from: J Arcane;626513In general though, the core tenets of my opinion on the matter can be summed up in two phrases: "Premise is better than plot," and "The GM is a world builder, not a storyteller."

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;626608I understood what you meant, and I can get behind both of those.

Great stuff, boiled right down to the essentials.  

Quote from: gleichman;626674Little child, you have no idea what you're talking about. If I had any respect or even a faint hope you were capable of learning something- I'd explain your error.

But I don't waste my time on fools.

(http://www.tedhickman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Braying-demo-Jackass.jpg)

Quote from: J Arcane;626580What I mean by "plot vs. premise", elucidated further, is sort of that you can define a point A and point B, and let the players find their way in between, and that's fine.
-----
So you can say, "Here is the dungeon, and there's a thing somewhere in here you should find for the king," but after they get in there all bets should be off, and there should be plenty of paths for the characters to follow on their way to the MacGuffin or whatever.

Hm, i think that i what i call "plot", you call "premise" ....
I have always had problems understanding what "premise" really meant ... or the problems arose when i first joined the Forge ...

To me, a plot do not always have to be followed, especially not if one does it "sandbox-style" ... and clearly not when i'm the GM.
But you say that's really the "premise" ....
I think premise means "situation that holds requirements" ... oh no, i think i just made the understanding worse this time ...
Sorry, i have no idea how to express it in a good way at the moment.
I seem to agree with you though, just that i seem to use the word "plot" as you use "premise" ...
:huhsign::confused:

Quote from: Catelf;626807Hm, i think that i what i call "plot", you call "premise" ....
I have always had problems understanding what "premise" really meant ... or the problems arose when i first joined the Forge ...

To me, a plot do not always have to be followed, especially not if one does it "sandbox-style" ... and clearly not when i'm the GM.
But you say that's really the "premise" ....
I think premise means "situation that holds requirements" ... oh no, i think i just made the understanding worse this time ...
Sorry, i have no idea how to express it in a good way at the moment.
I seem to agree with you though, just that i seem to use the word "plot" as you use "premise" ...
:huhsign::confused:

I think the important point is that a premise (or plot if you like) can have a "default path" - a path which events will take absent the PCs' involvement.  And if they waltz in, take stock of events, shrug their shoulders and walk away, that's what will happen.  But if PCs actually take an interest, that's a catalyst that can change everything.  It's when GMs fall in love with their "storylines", and wish to protect them from being befouled by PC action, that you run into trouble.  For me (and, I think, many here) the term "premise" (or "scenario") is clear, where "plot" or "story" is less so.

Quote from: gleichman;626541It's that.

One of the greatest faults of mankind is their ability to ignore the sins of people who believe as they do. And who I might add, they share those same sins with.

Again, applying the concept of "sins" to discussing roleplaying games suggests to  me that you really take this stuff way too seriously.  Do you think people are "sinners" for not playing Monopoly the way you like? Even if I ascribed to the Judeo-Christian concept of sin as part of my worldview (which I don't), calling people who have differing ideas on how to play games than I do "sinners" would suggest a Kirk Cameron-level of fanaticism and self-absorption

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626811I think the important point is that a premise (or plot if you like) can have a "default path" - a path which events will take absent the PCs' involvement.  And if they waltz in, take stock of events, shrug their shoulders and walk away, that's what will happen.  But if PCs actually take an interest, that's a catalyst that can change everything.  It's when GMs fall in love with their "storylines", and wish to protect them from being befouled by PC action, that you run into trouble.  For me (and, I think, many here) the term "premise" (or "scenario") is clear, where "plot" or "story" is less so.

Ah, Scenario!
That is something that i understand fully.... i think.
And yes, i do think all plots, scenarios, and so on should have default paths, not only makes it the Players happier to not having to be forced into a set or semi-set story, it also makes the world seem "alive", in a way.

Hm, it seems i use "story" different as well:
The reasoning you just gave, gives me the impression that people here see "Story" as "Enforced Story", while i see "Story" as ... the paths that may be taken when the players encouter the plots ... or the premises ... or scenarios, no matter whether they decide to affect the plot/storyline or not ...

Hm, i think that is one of the things that really troubled me when i was on the Forge, i used the words to my understanding ... and they meant something else.
..... I hate when people that is supposed to be using the same language really doesn't ... but it also pleases me when understanding is finally reached, like now.
The differences in the same language still annoys me, though.

Oh, and thank you for explaining. :)
:thanx:

Quote from: gleichman;626668Quote the old books all you want, I content with how Mr. Gygax viewed the concepts I've put forth.

You mean Lejendary Adventures? Because that's his last game, a game that is basically the ultimate fruit of his evolution as a GM and designer over time, and I'd be quite surprised if you endorsed it as a "good game", since it leaves a large part of its practical use and application to GM adjudication, imagination, and is very loose by design, on purpose. Quite the contrary of the style of design you explicitly support. So really, when it comes to twisting dead people's thoughts and intents after the fact, I don't think you're above criticism yourself.

Quote from: Benoist;626831You mean Lejendary Adventures?

No. The last published work of his that I've read or owned is something in the AD&D line purchased in the late 70s.

Quote from: Benoist;626831Because that's his last game, a game that is basically the ultimate fruit of his evolution as a GM and designer over time, and I'd be quite surprised if you endorsed it as a "good game", since it leaves a large part of its practical use and application to GM adjudication, imagination, and is very loose by design, on purpose.

One of the reasons I think so little of you is your inability to grasp the concept that most things are a mix of conflicting concerns that must be dealt with in order to achieve a goal. That I say that the rules (taking into account pre-existing house rules) must be enforced in your eyes means that I must therefore be against GM adjudication and imagination. What a odd concept that is, and one so alien to me.

John Morrow upon reading Age of Heroes told me that he doubts anyone on this site has even a vague understanding of how I play- as he noted all the calls in the rules to GM adjudication and imagination.

I think he's quite right. Strawmen and Knee-Jerks are the only significant reaction by many here.

Quote from: Benoist;626831You mean Lejendary Adventures?

No. The last published work of his that I've read or owned is something in the AD&D line purchased in the late 70s.

Quote from: Benoist;626831Because that's his last game, a game that is basically the ultimate fruit of his evolution as a GM and designer over time, and I'd be quite surprised if you endorsed it as a "good game", since it leaves a large part of its practical use and application to GM adjudication, imagination, and is very loose by design, on purpose.

One of the reasons I think so little of you is your inability to grasp the concept that most things are a mix of conflicting concerns that must be dealt with in order to achieve a goal. That I say that the rules (taking into account pre-existing house rules) must be enforced in your eyes means that I must therefore be against GM adjudication and imagination. What a odd concept that is, and one so alien to me.

John Morrow upon reading Age of Heroes told me that he doubts anyone on this site has even a vague understanding of how I play- as he noted all the calls in the rules to GM adjudication and imagination.

I think he's quite right. Strawmen and Knee-Jerks are the only significant reaction by many here.

Quote from: gleichman;626838No. The last published work of his that I've read or owned is something in the AD&D line purchased in the late 70s.

Okay. So you've basically not read or played a game of Gary Gygax since the late 70s and you bitch at me for talking about a book, Role-Playing Mastery, which you therefore have not read and know nothing about? And from there, you basically intimate I live in the past, whereas your references go farther back, since I read Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures and actually know these games myself?

And you tell me you think Gary would have approved of your stances here on the site, though there is a game, the most recent game of his, mind you, which basically runs against the tenets you're pushing constantly in a variety of threads, like say strict simulation of combat with miniatures and grids, limiting the potential for house ruling in the game to a maximum because if the game leaves gaps it's badly designed, and so on.

And you are totally not using dead people who can't respond to further your agenda. Not at all.

Hm-hm. Sorry. Does not compute, Brian.

Quote from: Benoist;626844whereas your references go farther back, since I read Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures and actually know these games myself?

My understanding does not go futher back. It goes back a few years before his death.

Quote from: Benoist;626844And you tell me you think Gary would have approved of your stances here on the site

I have high confidence that if he was still alive and involved in this thread- he would have sided with me on the subject we were talking about.

I have absolute confidence that if Dave Arnerson was alive and involved in this conversation, he'd side with me.

HG Wells and Tolkien too

Quote from: gleichman;626848I have high confidence that if he was still alive and involved in this thread- he would have sided with me on the subject we were talking about.

QED.

Quote from: Benoist;626851QED.

Believe what you will.

For what it's worth, people like you depressed him. Not that he'd change the way you game- but rather your hatred of those who game differently.

Quote from: gleichman;626853For what it's worth, people like you depressed him.

People like you depressed Napoleon. Hardcore. He would be so pissed off at you right now if he read your posts.

Quote from: gleichman;626853Believe what you will.

For what it's worth, people like you depressed him. Not that he'd change the way you game- but rather your hatred of those who game differently.

Oh, you too can believe what you will, or build whatever misrepresentations making sense of your own delusions, for that matter. It's not going to make much difference in the end. It just creates more grief for you to chew on, and you are the main victim of this self-created state of affairs. Since you seem quite happy with it, or so you say, by all means, keep on trucking, partner.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626811I think the important point is that a premise (or plot if you like) can have a "default path" - a path which events will take absent the PCs' involvement.  And if they waltz in, take stock of events, shrug their shoulders and walk away, that's what will happen.  But if PCs actually take an interest, that's a catalyst that can change everything.  It's when GMs fall in love with their "storylines", and wish to protect them from being befouled by PC action, that you run into trouble.  For me (and, I think, many here) the term "premise" (or "scenario") is clear, where "plot" or "story" is less so.

A premise or a scenario is an initial set of circumstances and variables.

A plot is an order of events.

The former is great for RPGs because it sets the scene, but lets the players roam about as they choose and events unfold organically.  A "plot" will emerge from that, of a sort, but it is an unplanned, organic sort of plot.  

Trying to make a plot happen is, I think, a fool's errand.  You simply cannot plan for what the players will try to do with your plot, so any linear or even branching series of events is going to fall on its face and become irrelevant inside of five minutes, unless you manipulate the game as such that players have to follow your plot.  

Unfortunately, RPG adventures of the last 30 years or so largely took on the structure of plot over premise because it was easier to write in some ways, and it made them of fuck all use for actually gaming, and taught a lot of gamers a very awkward and rubbish way of going about running an RPG.

Quote from: J Arcane;626857Unfortunately, RPG adventures of the last 30 years or so largely took on the structure of plot over premise because it was easier to write in some ways, and it made them of fuck all use for actually gaming, and taught a lot of gamers a very awkward and rubbish way of going about running an RPG.

Paul Mason once said the true test of a good RPG adventure was whether the premise could survive the players ignoring the plot. I'm inclined to agree.

Quote from: Benoist;626856It just creates more grief for you to chew on, and you are the main victim of this self-created state of affairs.

Please.

I'd have to care about the opinions and ideas of such as yourself to have grief, and I'd have to submit to your views to be a victim.

You think too highly of yourself, as usual.

Yes. Of course. My mistake.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626860Paul Mason once said the true test of a good RPG adventure was whether the premise could survive the players ignoring the plot. I'm inclined to agree.

I think it's why the old school dungeon structure still holds up so well compared to later models of play.

Good dungeons are a fundamental expression of premise over plot.  

I also think it's a reason why Shadowrun did so well and is so fondly loved by many despite the actual mechanics being kind of rubbish, because the model of mission-based play adheres to a scenario type.

It's also why I wrote the GM advice in Heaven's Shadow the way I did. ;)

Quote from: J Arcane;626864I also think it's a reason why Shadowrun did so well and is so fondly loved by many despite the actual mechanics being kind of rubbish, because the model of mission-based play adheres to a scenario type.

I think you need to find another reason, I have all the early Shadowrun adventures and have played them in the last decade- in many cases raidroaded (i.e follow the plot of the writer) is definitely one of the best words for a number of them.

We would had to do a fair amount of work pulling some that out, but mostly we just flowed with it.

I don't know anyone who ever even bought a Shadowrun published adventure, let alone ran one.

The folks I know who loved the game all ran their own shadowruns, and they tended to be of a distinctly dungeon/mission structure: "go in this building, find/hack/destroy/explode MacGuffin".

Quote from: J Arcane;626874I don't know anyone who ever even bought a Shadowrun published adventure, let alone ran one.

The folks I know who loved the game all ran their own shadowruns, and they tended to be of a distinctly dungeon/mission structure: "go in this building, find/hack/destroy/explode MacGuffin".

So they love their own style of playing the game and not really the game itself.

Seems like that would work with anything. Why bother pointing out Shadowrun as something special then?

Ladies and Gentleman, exhibit #347 why you do not engage the gliechman.

My bad.

Quote from: J Arcane;626857A premise or a scenario is an initial set of circumstances and variables.

A plot is an order of events.

The former is great for RPGs because it sets the scene, but lets the players roam about as they choose and events unfold organically.  A "plot" will emerge from that, of a sort, but it is an unplanned, organic sort of plot.  

Trying to make a plot happen is, I think, a fool's errand.  You simply cannot plan for what the players will try to do with your plot, so any linear or even branching series of events is going to fall on its face and become irrelevant inside of five minutes, unless you manipulate the game as such that players have to follow your plot.  

Unfortunately, RPG adventures of the last 30 years or so largely took on the structure of plot over premise because it was easier to write in some ways, and it made them of fuck all use for actually gaming, and taught a lot of gamers a very awkward and rubbish way of going about running an RPG.

Um, the thing you quoted an answered to there, was really directed towards me, so i would understand what "premise" means.

I'm certain he agrees with you, it is just that he used the word "plot" as i had used the word, so that i would understand, but not really as you just used the word ...

Let me explain:
I may be using the word "plot" wrong according to you, but please bear with me.
Plot, to me, is a situation, and a series of tied-in events that will happen.
However, once the Characters encounters those plots, they may change what happens, or not, and that is what creates the actual story, to me.

To enforce a ready story onto the players rarely works as well, as giving several plots, situations, to encounter, and/or try to avoid ...

Do that clear things up for you?

Quote from: Catelf;626882Let me explain:
I may be using the word "plot" wrong according to you, but please bear with me.
Plot, to me, is a situation, and a series of tied-in events that will happen.
However, once the Characters encounters those plots, they may change what happens, or not, and that is what creates the actual story, to me.

I would have thought that Plot in RPGs would automatically invoke that definition. Always has for me.

Meta/Mega-Plot however invokes an image of events that players cannot alter...

But I may be atypical, especially on this board.

Quote from: gleichman;626876So they love their own style of playing the game and not really the game itself.

The style of the game put forth in the corebook is not the "real" style of the game, it ONLY comes from published scenarios? Really? That's the position you're taking?

Quote from: J Arcane;626874I don't know anyone who ever even bought a Shadowrun published adventure, let alone ran one.

The folks I know who loved the game all ran their own shadowruns, and they tended to be of a distinctly dungeon/mission structure: "go in this building, find/hack/destroy/explode MacGuffin".

I have bought a few ...
I never ran them "correctly", if at all, though, but i did turn DNA/DOA into a miniature - and rpg-ish scenario once, but with my home-made rules ... :D

Quote from: TristramEvans;626886The style of the game put forth in the corebook is not the "real" style of the game, it ONLY comes from published scenarios? Really? That's the position you're taking?

The style of a game line certainly is determined by the entire (or at least the majority) of published works- i.e. core, supplement and adventures. That would be what I'd consider the published style of a game line.

What people do or do not do with a subset of the published work is the group's style.

This should be clear to anyone who takes a passing notice of the subject.

Quote from: Catelf;626882Um, the thing you quoted an answered to there, was really directed towards me, so i would understand what "premise" means.

I'm certain he agrees with you, it is just that he used the word "plot" as i had used the word, so that i would understand, but not really as you just used the word ...

Let me explain:
I may be using the word "plot" wrong according to you, but please bear with me.
Plot, to me, is a situation, and a series of tied-in events that will happen.
However, once the Characters encounters those plots, they may change what happens, or not, and that is what creates the actual story, to me.

To enforce a ready story onto the players rarely works as well, as giving several plots, situations, to encounter, and/or try to avoid ...

Do that clear things up for you?

I was not arguing with him, merely elucidating further on my position.  It is the nature of sites like these that everyone begins to take a reply as an argumentative one because they are unaccustomed to conversation.

As for the meaning of plot, as a film student and writer, I am naturally using the traditional definition, which is well described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_(narrative)

Quote from: gleichman;626884I would have thought that Plot in RPGs would automatically invoke that definition. Always has for me.

Meta/Mega-Plot however invokes an image of events that players cannot alter...

But I may be atypical, especially on this board.

You agree with me in this case?
:jaw-dropping:

Quote from: gleichman;626891The style of a game line certainly is determined by the entire (or at least the majority) of published works- i.e. core, supplement and adventures. That would be what I'd consider the published style of a game line.

So do you consider every book published with the d20 logo to, as a whole, inform what the d20 playstyle should be? Or that if a core game is great, but the company publishes a bunch of crappy adventures it ruins the entire game? "Gamelines" and games are not the same thing. A core rulebook should stand on its own, providing everything needed to play the game. Adventures and supplements are rarely written by the same authors or system designers, are not written in conjunction with the corebook, and often come from 3rd party contributers.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626898So do you consider every book published with the d20 logo to, as a whole, inform what the d20 playstyle should be?

I'd break it up by game line to a degree- Ravenloft vs. whatever. That sort of thing.

Quote from: Catelf;626897You agree with me in this case?
:jaw-dropping:

When people are right, they are right.

I think it's foolish to bring the the concept of  movie or literary definiton of Plot to an RPG as so many attempt to do. An RPG is an interactive creature, and so 'plot' must take that into account, i.e. it must be possible for players to alter it.

I happen to think you're just stating the practical reality of a RPG with your plot definition.

Quote from: gleichman;626900I'd break it up by game line to a degree- Ravenloft vs. whatever. That sort of thing.

There were plenty of d20 products just aimed at a generic D&D 3rd audience, though. And this isn't to mention that larger gamelines will often publish adventures that go completely against the "typical" method of play. Shadowrun presents a pretty specific codified pattern for adventures to take. Following this and  never using tany published adventures, just like Call of Cthulhu and other RPgs with a strong premise as far as what player characters are expected to do is not "ignoring the game to play it in an individual group's style". Its playing the game as written without relying on other people's imaginations to hold one's hand through a campaign.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626904There were plenty of d20 products just aimed at a generic D&D 3rd audience, though.

And that as a result has its own style- a diffused and confused as it may be.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626904And this isn't to mention that larger gamelines will often publish adventures that go completely against the "typical" method of play.

Yes, which is why I said "majority". But in truth, often those differences are really only visible and significant for those deeply 'into' the system and not for the casual viewer.

Thus I might talk about how Harlequin differs from other Shadowrun adventures- but really to an outside it shares more in common than it doesn't, and they couldn't care less. And they'd be right IMO.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626860Paul Mason once said the true test of a good RPG adventure was whether the premise could survive the players ignoring the plot. I'm inclined to agree.

That's...actually pretty deep.

Quote from: Bill;625826I only know the bare basics of Amber, but how does it handle a situation where one hero is in hand to hand combat with 1,000,000 enemies all with a lower value?

Does he still win but it just takes a long time to  mop them all up?

I have not read the Amber rulebook for many. many years.

In the Amber rules, this would turn into a contest of Endurance. With one million enemies, a contest that the PC would almost certainly fail, unless he had a better endurance than the greatest character from the books.

RPGPundit

I want to remind people that I'm a real-life magician, and I just had a chat with a half-dozen famous dead game designers, and they all agree with everything I say, even if they held diametrically opposed opinions in life.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;627243I want to remind people that I'm a real-life magician, and I just had a chat with a half-dozen famous dead game designers, and they all agree with everything I say, even if they held diametrically opposed opinions in life.

RPGPundit

This is actually rather consistent with the rest of your made up online persona, so I have no more reason to doubt it than anything else you say.

So, I've spent the last while going over this complicated lengthy thread and welding the various ideas put forward into what I hope is one comprehensive whole. This is about identifying and clarifying the unique role of the GM in roleplaying games using the lessons learned over the last almost half century; actual practical techniques to help fulfill that role will come in the next thread.

Why?
Problems are created when neither the group nor the GM understand the true role of the GM. The GM isn't the Game Master. This is a difficulty with the hobby, an assumption that if you just give someone a rulebook and some dice they'll get everything a GM is meant to be by intuition. It doesn't work and leads to bad games.

There are four central assertions:

The GM is part of the group.
The role of the GM is neither adversarial nor neutral, but cooperative with the group.

The 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.

The GM never uses their power against the group, in that regard it's not even power at all. If 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.

What the group decides is Awesome.
The players create The Awesome through acting and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters.

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. The GM only has total power over the setting and the GM. And even the setting is somewhat arguable, since the characters can also affect the setting.

The GM has partial or shared power over the characters and the rules. This power is shared with the players and the dice.

The GM has no power over anything else.

The group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules 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. Therefore the group helps to bring The Awesome as well.

There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.
The GM is not a storyteller, a judge, an actor, a director, an author, a researcher, a referee, a librarian, a manager or a host. The GM's role encompasses parts of all of these at times, but to use any one or two as a defintion of "GM" is wrong and misleading, and will end up with unsatisfying games if a GM attempts to wear just one or two hats, unaware of the other facets of the role.

-------

What 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 neccessarily 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.

-------

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

Like artists learning to draw not using the outlines but rather the white spaces between those lines now we can attempt to build up a picture of the interactions between the powers of the elements of the game and the places where control is lost, where adventure is created.

How the GM interacts with the rules
The GM and players have a shared responsibility to make sure that the rules are followed. It is shared because rules shouldn't be adjusted without the knowledge and agreement of the players, and this should preferably occur before the game begins. The rules form a common understanding of how the characters and players interact with the setting, and as such should be unambiguously followed. The only exception to this guideline should be towards the end of bringing The Awesome, and even then used sparingly if at all.

If the GM arbitrarily changes rules without the consent or knowledge of the players it is a form of meta gaming.

Where the rules are ambiguous it is the job of the GM to decide which interpretation is correct, keeping in mind The Awesome.

It is also important not to confuse setting with rules here.

How the GM interacts with the setting
This is one of the most complex parts of the role of the GM in gaming. The setting encompasses the genre and associated assumptions, the NPCs and monsters, the maps, the world, the plots and adventures.

Player agency is a crucial part of this picture, since what the group decides is Awesome, and as such has a profound effect on event chains and plots. Being able to respond to this agency is an important part of the GM toolkit, within the understood boundaries of how the world should react and act appropriately.

A part of the role of the GM is to decide how the setting should react to these actions, this may have been done in advance or on the fly. In the former case it's modular or plotted play, in the latter it would be sandbox play. There's no reason why these two mightn't be mixed in the same game to one degree or another. Also the GM can and should be proactive in some cases. Facilitating the awesome rather than the plot or the rules would be the main message in the complex relationship between group and GM.

The players have an input into the setting beyond their characters, since they have to be interested enough to actually play in the first place. Players that aren't interested aren't playing. This is important as regards creating the setting and understanding the setting.

The GM should work with the setting to create conditions making it possible for characters to succeed in their individual goals. That doesn't neccessarily mean a bias for character success, it can mean simply setting up opportunities. Bias should be more towards bringing The Awesome.

The same concept applies whether you're talking about precreated worlds or worlds the GM created themselves. Character actions change the fabric of the setting and the GM needs to be able to deal with that in a constructive way, not neccessarily pursuing the goals of their own plot. This is a very complex area which revolves around player engagement.

How the GM interacts with the Players
This is where people skills come in handy. Players, the human beings sitting across the table from you, all have their own agendas and desires in each game. Part of the role of the GM is to make these various needs and desires work together to bring The Awesome. This includes arbitrating disputes, making sure all players are participating and have a chance to do so in a way that individual players will enjoy.

As well as this narration skills are of value to the GM in dealing with players, being able to verbally portray the game world in an interesting and engaging fashion, pausing where pauses are needed, acting out the different roles of various NPCs, public speaking essentially.

------

So, to wrap it up these are my assertions and conclusions, as succinctly delivered as possible, perhaps too much so as many of the points raised could do with expansion, but I feel it is comprehensive and understandable enough to pass muster.

"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628858"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

Perhaps I should have highlighted it so:

"the Game Master isnt the Game Master"

This is the reality, I'm afraid ignoring player agency isn't conducive to good gaming. It really is a terrible title.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628858"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

Pretty much.

Quote from: The Traveller;628860This is the reality, I'm afraid ignoring player agency isn't conducive to good gaming. It really is a terrible title.

On the contrary, if one's definition of "good gaming" is Immersion, then the GM being the Game Master and "player agency" not existing is really the best possible situation.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628862On the contrary, if one's definition of "good gaming" is Immersion, then the GM being the Game Master and "player agency" not existing is really the best possible situation.

No, you're seeing players as characters in a movie, moving according to a pre-existing script. Away from the question of immersion and the degree to which it is enhanced by player agency (quite a lot), it is not possible to deny the amount of influence players have in a game as outlined above. Definetely the proportion of influence in any given part of the elements is up for discussion, and would vary depending on the type of game you want to play, but the fact of player agency is absolute.

Quote from: The Traveller;628865No, you're seeing players as characters in a movie, moving according to a pre-existing script.

Not at all. I advocate the exact opposite style of gaming. Players should only have to be aware of the rules as little as possible and only as those rules map to specific decisions they are making as a character. The GM handles everything else. He's the eyes, ears, and other senses of the player, and the world reacting to players. The rules system forms a toolkit to aid the GM in this task, but the "physics engine" should be the GM himself rather than the rules.

What this situation allows is the players to completely immerse in the character without having to be constantly aware they are in a game by condescending to the rules.

This has nothing to do with players as "characters in a movie" which is really an issue of Railroading GMs and Storygame systems where players are granted "narrative controls".

QuoteAway from the question of immersion and the degree to which it is enhanced by player agency (quite a lot), it is not possible to deny the amount of influence players have in a game as outlined above. Definetely the proportion of influence in any given part of the elements is up for discussion, and would vary depending on the type of game you want to play, but the fact of player agency is absolute.

Maybe you can define how you're using the term "player agency", because it seems different from how I've encountered the term in RPG discussions thus far.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628870Not at all. I advocate the exact opposite style of gaming. Players should only have to be aware of the rules as little as possible and only as those rules map to specific decisions they are making as a character. The GM handles everything else. He's the eyes, ears, and other senses of the player, and the world reacting to players. The rules system forms a toolkit to aid the GM in this task, but the "physics engine" should be the GM himself rather than the rules.

What this situation allows is the players to completely immerse in the character without having to be constantly aware they are in a game by condescending to the rules.

You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly. We aren't talking about a disagreement on how one should GM, we're talking about a fundamental incomprehension of the role of the GM here.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628870Maybe you can define how you're using the term "player agency", because it seems different from how I've encountered the term in RPG discussions thus far.

Player agency, what players (not characters) do to affect the game. That's everything from making coffee to deciding to squeeze the trigger on the Dictator of Tau Zero.

Quote from: DMG 1E Pg 230IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

This right here is bollocks. Not entirely, I support it as far as bringing the awesome goes, but it is factually incorrect and sets up a GM as an absolutely powerful figure, which is objectively wrong. Remember that word, wrong.

This is all part of the process of moving on from the initial understanding of what a GM was, to something more useful which encompasses experience in all of its many forms.

Quote from: The Traveller;628873You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly. We aren't talking about a disagreement on how one should GM, we're talking about a fundamental incomprehension of the role of the GM here.

Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years. It also fits the definition of GM put forth in most RPGs I own & play.

QuotePlayer agency, what players (not characters) do to affect the game. That's everything from making coffee to deciding to squeeze the trigger on the Dictator of Tau Zero.

It seems then that you're definition of "player agency" would fit what most people commonly called metagaming.

Quote from: The Traveller;628874This right here is bollocks. Not entirely, I support it as far as bringing the awesome goes, but it is factually incorrect and sets up a GM as an absolutely powerful figure, which is objectively wrong. Remember that word, wrong.
.

Since you are proposing that you're opinions are "objective facts" , then it should be very easy to provide definitive proof for your claims.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628880Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years. It also fits the definition of GM put forth in most RPGs I own & play.

It may be what you read into the games, but "players not learning the rules as a feature" is nonsensical in any gaming environment. It is amazing that I even need to say this, and even more amazing that you take it as a given.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628880It seems then that you're definition of "player agency" would fit what most people commonly called metagaming.

Again, astonishing that this needs to be asked, but why? All of these things affect the gaming environment, why would player agency upset you that much?

Quote from: TristramEvans;628882Since you are proposing that you're opinions are "objective facts" , then it should be very easy to provide definitive proof for your claims.

Already have, see the thread previous. For example, the GM can no more arbitrarily nuke the game world than someone in possession of a driving licence can arbitrarily choose to plough into the nearest crowded pavement with their vehicle. Yes technically it's an option but they stop being a driver and start being a mass murderer at that point. Similarly a GM stops being a GM and starts being a dick if assertions of "absolute power" are taken as fact. They aren't, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

Quote from: The Traveller;628873You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly.

I wouldn't say you should play like that to the exclusion of other styles, but it (GM handles most all the rules, player has very limited awareness of them) is definitely worth trying sometime for a hard-immersion-type experience, if you've never done it. It's pretty different.

Quote from: Imp;628887I wouldn't say you should play like that to the exclusion of other styles, but it (GM handles most all the rules, player has very limited awareness of them) is definitely worth trying sometime for a hard-immersion-type experience, if you've never done it. It's pretty different.

Are you saying that awareness of the rules adversely affects immersion? I can't say I agree with that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628880Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years. It also fits the definition of GM put forth in most RPGs I own & play.

It's worked for mine since 1975. I will not be a GM who acts like The Traveller describes and as a player would not enjoy gaming with such a GM. That said, The Traveller's version of what a good GM is does seem to be exactly what one subset of the tabletop RPG hobby wants. I'm just not part of that subset.

Quote from: RandallS;628889It's worked for mine since 1975. I will not be a GM who acts like The Traveller describes and as a player would not enjoy gaming with such a GM. That said, The Traveller's version of what a good GM is does seem to be exactly what one subset of the tabletop RPG hobby wants. I'm just not part of that subset.

Feel free to argue with the specific points raised rather than putting forth your opinion as fact.

Quote from: The Traveller;628886It may be what you read into the games, but "players not learning the rules as a feature" is nonsensical in any gaming environment. It is amazing that I even need to say this, and even more amazing that you take it as a given.

Well, look at why rules exist in most games: to define the "win condition". RPGs are unique in that  there is no "win condition" (unless its forced onto the game, in which case its limiting player freedom of choice). Instead rules in RPG exist simply to avoid "Reality Clash", and even this isn't entirely necessary all the time. Its very possible to play RPGs using no rules whatsoever.

QuoteAgain, astonishing that this needs to be asked, but why? All of these things affect the gaming environment, why would player agency upset you that much?

It doesn't upset me at all. What are you talking about?

QuoteAlready have, see the thread previous. For example, the GM can no more arbitrarily nuke the game world than someone in possession of a driving licence can arbitrarily choose to plough into the nearest crowded pavement with their vehicle. Yes technically it's an option but they stop being a driver and start being a mass murderer at that point. Similarly a GM stops being a GM and starts being a dick if assertions of "absolute power" are taken as fact. They aren't, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

Okay, so its not factual or objective, the word you're looking for is "subjective".

Quote from: The Traveller;628888Are you saying that awareness of the rules adversely affects immersion? I can't say I agree with that.

I suspect you are also operating under a different definition of Immersion than the way you're going to find it most often discussed by people who play in that style.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628892Its very possible to play RPGs using no rules whatsoever.

Congratulations, you're a storygamer. Why not sit around having a conversation instead? Here, throw a dice and we can all have a referendum on what that means.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628892Okay, so its not factual or objective, the word you're looking for is "subjective".

Yeah but you must agree that what works for you might not work for most people, especially those with no history or understanding of what a GM is or does. What we're trying to do here is make the role understandable to those who just want to pick it up and play.

Any way you slice it, players not knowing the rules is pretty off the rails.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628894I suspect you are also operating under a different definition of Immersion than the way you're going to find it most often discussed by people who play in that style.

Again, you've appointed yourself president of roleplaying. How come I wasn't made aware of the election?

Quote from: The Traveller;628896Again, you've appointed yourself president of roleplaying. How come I wasn't made aware of the election?

Funny, as you're the one claiming your opinion on how games should be played is objective and factual.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628897Funny, as you're the one claiming your opinion on how games should be played is objective and factual.

I'm backing my observations up with as much evidence as can be accumulated. You on the other hand are saying that players shouldn't know the rules of the game. Seriously take a step back and look at that. It may work for you but that doesn't mean it will work in the vast majority of cases, or that it's not wide open to abuse. It is in short terrible advice for a budding GM.

The founding fathers of the USA had some ideas that still hold true today, and were pretty good.

The founding fathers of software development had some half-decent ideas that may or may not hold true today depending on the case.

The founding fathers of architecture had some seriously shit ideas that would be laughed out of the room today.

Things change, understanding grows.

Quote from: The Traveller;628895Congratulations, you're a storygamer. Why not sit around having a conversation instead? Here, throw a dice and we can all have a referendum on what that means.

so, you don't know what a storygame is and how it differs from an RPG, and instead you think "roleplaying" itself is a bad thing and that people should only be focused on rules systems with "roleplaying" extant. Gotcha.

QuoteYeah but you must agree that what works for you might not work for most people, especially those with no history or understanding of what a GM is or does.

I see no reason to agree with that, as it flies in the face of reality, specifically ALL roleplaying in the 70s.

QuoteWhat we're trying to do here is make the role understandable to those who just want to pick it up and play.

And instead you've adopted the tactic of enforcing you're own particular gamist playstyle on people as if its the "correct and only" way to play.

QuoteAny way you slice it, players not knowing the rules is pretty off the rails.

Only as "The Rails" are in this case a dictatorial rules-overt style of play thats contrary to the players immersing in a role, making choices as the character interacting with a "real" world.

Quote from: The Traveller;628899I'm backing my observations up with as much evidence as can be accumulated.

you haven't provided ANY evidence yet, simply made assertions.

QuoteThe founding fathers of the USA had some ideas that still hold true today, and were pretty good.

The founding fathers of software development had some half-decent ideas that may or may not hold true today depending on the case.

The founding fathers of architecture had some seriously shit ideas that would be laughed out of the room today.

Things change, understanding grows.

Thats kind of a meaningless statement.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628900Only as "The Rails" are in this case a dictatorial rules-overt style of play thats contrary to the players immersing in a role, making choices as the character interacting with a "real" world.

Great, please tell me of any other game anywhere where the players would be well advised not to learn the rules for fear of being called facists by Supreme Justice Evans?

This is wild, it really is.

:popcorn:

Quote from: The Traveller;628891Feel free to argue with the specific points raised rather than putting forth your opinion as fact.

It's fact as to what I enjoy running and playing, not opinion. I have no need to argue with you points as I am not trying to claim that all players/GMs should want what I want. I don't give a damn (even) if every tabletop RPG player outside my group agreed with you as those people aren't in my campaigns and therefore what they like/want has little to no effect on me.

Quote from: RandallS;628904It's fact as to what I enjoy running and playing, not opinion. I have no need to argue with you points as I am not trying to claim that all players/GMs should want what I want. I don't give a damn (even) if every tabletop RPG player outside my group agreed with you as those people aren't in my campaigns and therefore what they like/want has little to no effect on me.

This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

So you are also firm in your belief that the players in a game shouldn't know the rules?

I'm not saying my theorem above is the One True Way or anything, it's being put out for discussion for a reason, but this little segue is fairly impressively fucked up.

Quote from: The Traveller;628903Great, please tell me of any other game anywhere where the players would be well advised not to learn the rules for fear of being called facists by Supreme Justice Evans?

I see, we've reached the point in the conversation where, lacking any argument for what I've said, and incapable of providing any of the "evidence" you claim led to your opinions being objective facts, you've instead decided to resort to hyperbolic ad hominem. LOL, funny how easy it is to tell if a poster knows what they're talking about by observing how quickly they resort to that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628912I see, we've reached the point in the conversation where, lacking any argument for what I've said, and incapable of providing any of the "evidence" you claim led to your opinions being objective facts, you've instead decided to resort to hyperbolic ad hominem. LOL, funny how easy it is to tell if a poster knows what they're talking about by observing how quickly they resort to that.

Lacking any argument against the players not knowing the rules of the game they are playing in. Great. One would have thought that such an objection wouldn't need a counter argument, especially in a thread about good GMing.

Keep wheeling out those accusations of totalitarianism though, they always win arguments.

Quote from: The Traveller;628888Are you saying that awareness of the rules adversely affects immersion? I can't say I agree with that.

Taken to the extreme I'm describing, yes absolutely, though you lose the game part more than I generally enjoy as a standard mode of play. Immersion is nice but it's not always everything.

Quote from: Imp;628914Taken to the extreme I'm describing, yes absolutely, though you lose the game part more than I generally enjoy as a standard mode of play. Immersion is nice but it's not always everything.

Should something like that be part of the standard description of the role of a GM though? I don't think it's an accurate way to explain what a GM does. It wouldn't be hard to fit it into a general overview mind you, but it's falling into the same trap as "referee", a very one sided picture. Basically you're talking about the GM doing everything short of actually rolling for the players, although from the sounds of it that doesn't seem to be too far off. It is a distant outlier at best.

Quote from: The Traveller;628918Should something like that be part of the standard description of the role of a GM though? I don't think it's an accurate way to explain what a GM does. It wouldn't be hard to fit it into a general overview mind you, but it's falling into the same trap as "referee", a very one sided picture. Basically you're talking about the GM doing everything short of actually rolling for the players, although from the sounds of it that doesn't seem to be too far off. It is a distant outlier at best.

you are presnting an extremely one-sided picture of GMing, and everyone who brings up to you that there are alternate methods of GMing you're accusing of proposing a one-sided view. Hypocrisy much?

Quote from: TristramEvans;628922you are presnting an extremely one-sided picture of GMing, and everyone who brings up to you that there are alternate methods of GMing you're accusing of proposing a one-sided view. Hypocrisy much?

You haven't bothered to put in the basic effort of reading and trying to understand the post made, preferring instead to leap to accusations of fascism for who knows what reason, telling us that the

players

shouldn't know

the rules.

Not sure how much clearer that can be made. I actually understand the point you're lashing with your handbag there, I'm just not sure it should be included as being part of the role of a GM on account of it being bizarre.

Quote from: The Traveller;628923You haven't bothered to put in the basic effort of reading and trying to understand the post made, preferring instead to leap to accusations of fascism for who knows what reason players shouldn't know the rules.

Hm, that sentence needs a little work to be translated into English. But apparently you equate old school style play with fascism, which is rather silly.

"Players don't need to know the rules" isn't the same as "player's shouldn't", but I expect such nuances are lost on you.

QuoteI'm just not sure it should be included as being part of the role of a GM on account of it being bizarre.

 If you think that one of the common methods of play since the origin of the hobby is bizarre, then I'm going to suggest you don't really have enough experience with RPGs to be offering a comprehensive definition of Gamemastering.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628930Hm, that sentence needs a little work to be translated into English. But apparently you equate old school style play with fascism, which is rather silly.

"Players don't need to know the rules" isn't the same as "player's shouldn't", but I expect such nuances are lost on you.



 If you think that one of the common methods of play since the origin of the hobby is bizarre, then I'm going to suggest you don't really have enough experience with RPGs to be offering a comprehensive definition of Gamemastering.

Keep paddling that keyboard susan. Meanwhile if any of the adults would like to weigh in, I'd welcome some reasoned discussion, gleichman failed to derail the thread, tristram sure as hell isn't going to manage it.

Quote from: The Traveller;628931Keep paddling that keyboard susan. Meanwhile if any of the adults would like to weigh in, I'd welcome some reasoned discussion, gleichman failed to derail the thread, tristram sure as hell isn't going to manage it.

again, no actual argument so a fall back to ad hominem. You and gleichman sound pretty much the same to me.

Quote from: The Traveller;628905So you are also firm in your belief that the players in a game shouldn't know the rules?

Players should not need to know or even own the rules to be able to play (and play well). The only person who should need to know many rules is the GM. Players should be able to just say what their character is trying to do in "real world" terms and the GM should translate what they are trying to do into either a decision on whether or not it works (and how well) or dice rolls to decide the same.

If players want to learn more rules, they certainly are welcome to do so, however, you probably need to remember that to me, tabletop RPGs do not really have rules -- they only have guidelines for the GM. The GM, not the rules (or the game designer or the publishing company), is the final authority.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628858"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

I don't mind not being the Game MASTER in the sense of having the only contributing voice or absolute authority to do whatever I want (which you don't really have anyway. The players can always leave and if they do you're not gming, you're maybe writing fiction). But I do dislike the line of thought that GM is essentially the players' trained monkey there to do what they want, carry out their wishes and generally facilitate glorified fanfic in the guise of a rpg.

I have to go back a few pages to find the origin of this debacle between Tristram & the Traveller.
I found this:

Quote from: TristramEvans;628870Not at all. I advocate the exact opposite style of gaming. Players should only have to be aware of the rules as little as possible and only as those rules map to specific decisions they are making as a character. The GM handles everything else.

And this, Traveller interpreted as this:

Quote from: The Traveller;628873You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense?

Traveller, Tristram may have expressed it clumsily what he meant at that time, but has after that clearified at least 2 times what he meant:
"Players don't need to know the rules" isn't the same as "player's shouldn't".
Essentially, Tristram meant it like this:
A player should only have to learn the bare neccessities of the rules, they may of course learn more if they like, but they should not have to.
But you, Traveller, got the impression he meant:
"The players should not know the rules, so the GM may have free reign."
Do you see the difference?

Oh, and just ditch any arguments about who insulted who, both of you, because the first insult, Traveller referring to Tristrams kind of gameplay as faschistoid was clearly due to him misunderstanding what Tristram wrote, and it rolled on from there.
Arguing further on insults won't progress the real point of, and reason for this thread.

"Bring the awesome"?
"Shared imaginary space"?
"It depends on the game"?

What is this commie nonsense?

The players decide whether to take the adventure hook, the GM offers the adventure hook. The players decide what their characters do. The GM decides if it succeeds or fails, and what the rest of the world does.

That's it, boys and girls, it really is not more complicated than that.

Quote from: The Traveller;628851The entire hobby in objective terms can be seperated into six elements.

• The GM
• The Characters
• The Players
• The Rules
• The Setting
• The Dice

The GM, the rules and the dice may be subsumed into one, the GM, since the GM has the power to overrule any dice roll or rule at any time for any reason they see fit.

You omitted snacks. Roleplaying games are a social hobby, and food brings people together.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628978The GM, the rules and the dice may be subsumed into one, the GM, since the GM has the power to overrule any dice roll or rule at any time for any reason they see fit.

You omitted snacks. Roleplaying games are a social hobby, and food brings people together.

Good to have you back mate :)

Quote from: RandallS;628942The GM, not the rules (or the game designer or the publishing company), is the final authority.

So, the PC has 130 hp, and leaps off a kilometer high cliff knowing that the maximum falling damage is 20d6. Oho says the GM, not in my game, makes it 30d6 on the spot, and the PC goes splat.

Who was in the right here?

The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules. If the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well. Maybe the player was taking the piss a bit but this does illustrate the limitations of a GM's power when it runs into the Players, note not their characters.

Whether or not you like it the GM doesn't in reality have final authority over anything except the GM and sort of the setting. Everything else is shared power to one degree or another.

Quote from: Nexus;628943But I do dislike the line of thought that GM is essentially the players' trained monkey there to do what they want, carry out their wishes and generally facilitate glorified fanfic in the guise of a rpg.

Nobody is actually saying that though. That's why I placed repeated emphasis on the role of the GM in causing the group to suffer and die.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628978The GM, the rules and the dice may be subsumed into one, the GM, since the GM has the power to overrule any dice roll or rule at any time for any reason they see fit.

Again, power you can't use isn't power at all. The GM can arbitrarily change rules, overrule dice, and make the characters spin on their heads. But the GM that does this won't have a group of players for long. So there are real restrictions to that power. Absolute power is a misconception here.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628978You omitted snacks. Roleplaying games are a social hobby, and food brings people together.

That falls under the heading of Awesome.

Just because the power isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not power. The British PM cannot simply decide one day that all the citizens of the UK will all convert to Shi'ite Islam. Does that mean the British PM has no power?

The GM's power overrules all dice rolls and rules. Like the PM, the GM acts more-or-less with the consent of the governed, even if the consent is nothing more than "well, nobody else can be bothered doing the job."

Teh 4wes0m3 is too nebulous and undefined. It's simply saying, "um, I guess we should try to have fun." Which is like the stupid arseholes who go to a restaurant and ask, "What's good?"
"Well most of it tastes awful, that's why we spend thousands of dollars buying the ingredients and hours chopping it up and preparing it for you to eat. We do however have a secret menu of Stuff That Tastes Good, slip me a twenty and you can have a look."

The point of going to a restaurant is to eat food that tastes good, the point of gaming is to have fun. This can be assumed. If nothing tastes good or is fun, why the fuck are you there? It's tautological.

The players play their characters, the GM plays everyone and everything else. The GM offers plot hooks, the players take some.

You're trying to make simple stuff complex. Ron Edwards tried that about ten years back, we still make fun of him for it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997Just because the power isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not power.

Never said otherwise.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997Like the PM, the GM acts more-or-less with the consent of the governed

So not absolute final say power then.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997Teh 4wes0m3 is too nebulous and undefined. It's simply saying, "um, I guess we should try to have fun." Which is like the stupid arseholes who go to a restaurant and ask, "What's good?"

It was defined a lot more earlier in the thread but I cut a lot of that out for the sake of getting the point across quickly.

"Awesome in this situation is just a subtext for the Platonic ideal of what makes a game fun, which itself varies depending on genre, setting, and the particulars of the group. Those moments when it all seems to work and comes together perfectly. Working towards this ideal can be quite a difficult and subtle task in its own right, and probably shouldn't imply all awesome all the time. For example, part of bringing the awesome might be the difficulty of striving towards a goal and overcoming all the odds, a culmination of lesser awesome to produce extra awesome."
"I don't think The Awesome needs to be some awe inspiring session that everyone talks about for eternity. For casual players, The Awesome might be the ROI of time invested to fun enjoyed being so great that its worth attending every week.

Every group is going to define The Awesome differently.

I play a lot of convention one shots. Most con gamers define The Awesome as having fun in a 4-6 hour slot where they get a beginning, middle and end of an adventure where their choices are meaningful. They may win, lose or die, but what matters is if they walk away feeling the time slot was well spent. And the more memorable, the better."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997The players play their characters, the GM plays everyone and everything else. The GM offers plot hooks, the players take some.

There's a whole lot that can go wrong though. I mean look how many experienced GMs in this thread are having to backtrack on the idea of complete power. It hasn't really been thought about and this has led to all sorts of problems with otherwise well meaning GMs trying to act like a referee or godling in the mistaken belief that this was how it was done.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997You're trying to make simple stuff complex. Ron Edwards tried that about ten years back, we still make fun of him for it.

Look calling me a totalitarian fascist is one thing but that's just going too far!

:D

Quote from: Catelf;628974Traveller, Tristram may have expressed it clumsily what he meant at that time, but has after that clearified at least 2 times what he meant:
"Players don't need to know the rules" isn't the same as "player's shouldn't".
Essentially, Tristram meant it like this:
A player should only have to learn the bare neccessities of the rules, they may of course learn more if they like, but they should not have to.
But you, Traveller, got the impression he meant:
"The players should not know the rules, so the GM may have free reign."
Do you see the difference?

This exchange says otherwise:
"You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly."

"Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years."

My position on it is again
The GM and players have a shared responsibility to make sure that the rules are followed. It is shared because rules shouldn't be adjusted without the knowledge and agreement of the players, and this should preferably occur before the game begins. The rules form a common understanding of how the characters and players interact with the setting, and as such should be unambiguously followed. The only exception to this guideline should be towards the end of bringing The Awesome, and even then used sparingly if at all.

Note this does make it clear that rules can be adjusted either before or in play, albeit with player cooperation.

Now with all that said I do get what TristramEvans is trying to get across, and RandallS as well. The main difference as far as I can see between what they're saying and what I'm saying is in the amount of responsibility the players should have for keeping to the rules, as well as possibly the degree to which rules should be followed, that wasn't made clear.

Obviously if the players aren't aware of the rules it doesn't matter if the rules are followed or not except in the most academic sense. In this situation the GM acts as a rule interpreter as well as every other role.

If you have players happy to play without knowledge of the rules, then that's a legitimate form of roleplaying. It doesn't describe any group I've ever come across, at least a minimal amount of understanding is needed in order to grasp what's on their character sheets, and after that they want to know more.

I guess the difference in opinions can really be boiled down to encouraging player understanding of the rules versus not viewing it as important.

I would also dispute that there's a linear scale with player knowledge and operation of the rules on one hand and character immersion on the other. There is a scale of sorts but it isn't linear. To expand on this a bit, once players are familiar with the rules, using them becomes almost instinctive. The GM as rules interpreter might be beneficial when introducing new games to people, but as time goes on I'd expect players to show a natural interest in the rules of the game. Being familiar with rules should make using them as much of an immersion breaker as rolling the dice - which is to say very little or not at all. That depends on whether or not the players do have an interest of course, some players just don't want to know. I wouldn't discourage those that do want to know however.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020This exchange says otherwise:
"You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly."

"Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years."

I have come across this kind of misunderstanding before:
Tristram may have said that sarcastically, or far more probable, Tristram probably referred to what he meant, rather than your misunderstanding of it, not understanding that what he wrote there only would confirm your impression ... which, as said, built on misunderstanding.
I may have personally made the same mistake as Tristram a few years back.
So, you both made mistakes:
You misunderstood him, and he confirmed that misunderstanding without understanding that he did.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020If you have players happy to play without knowledge of the rules, then that's a legitimate form of roleplaying. It doesn't describe any group I've ever come across, at least a minimal amount of understanding is needed in order to grasp what's on their character sheets, and after that they want to know more.

I guess the difference in opinions can really be boiled down to encouraging player understanding of the rules versus not viewing it as important.

This rather give me the impression that you and Tristram really doesn't disagree, although it is obvious you do vary in how you approach it, possibly leading to a difference in nuance.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020I would also dispute that there's a linear scale with player knowledge and operation of the rules on one hand and character immersion on the other. There is a scale of sorts but it isn't linear. To expand on this a bit, once players are familiar with the rules, using them becomes almost instinctive. The GM as rules interpreter might be beneficial when introducing new games to people, but as time goes on I'd expect players to show a natural interest in the rules of the game. Being familiar with rules should make using them as much of an immersion breaker as rolling the dice - which is to say very little or not at all. That depends on whether or not the players do have an interest of course, some players just don't want to know. I wouldn't discourage those that do want to know however.

Here, i fully, or mainly, agree with you:
I'm very knowledgable with the storytelling system, and with my approach to it, as well as with my own rules, which builds on them ... and i have no problem with immersion even when being a player in games using them.

To me, the real immersion breakers are rules discussions, having to wait too long for ones turn, and the GM deciding things that neither seems appropriate, logical, nor according to known rules ... or the world and/or setting.

Quote from: The Traveller;628992So, the PC has 130 hp, and leaps off a kilometer high cliff knowing that the maximum falling damage is 20d6. Oho says the GM, not in my game, makes it 30d6 on the spot, and the PC goes splat.

Who was in the right here?

Setting reality/verisimilitude trumps rules every time in games I run. Players are informed of both this fact and the fact that the rules are just guidelines for the GM that he can and will ignore or change as needed. Players are told to use common sense about the rules because where where common sense says one thing (like jumping off a one kilometer high cliff and surviving with only 20 dice damage) and setting reality/verisimilitude says another (barring a miracle even Conan would die trying that), common sense will likely prevail over the rules. Players who want rules over common sense (as interpreted by the GM) are free to find another campaign with another GM as I will not run my campaigns the why they want.

In this situation, I would probably have asked the player to roll 1d1000. If he rolled the character's Level + Con modifier or less, the character survived the fall due to a miracle, (but took the number rolled on that D1000 in dice of critical hit style damage). Otherwise, splat and dead.

QuoteThe player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules. If the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well.

I fix all such loopholes in the rules by informing players that reality trumps the rules and that the rules are just guidelines for the GM as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

QuoteAgain, power you can't use isn't power at all. The GM can arbitrarily change rules, overrule dice, and make the characters spin on their heads.

I do the first often, the second occasionally, and there is a spell in one of my settings that could be used to spin characters on their heads (although it normally just levitates the target and spins him around very fast in the air) -- yet I have no trouble finding or keeping players.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628977The players decide whether to take the adventure hook, the GM offers the adventure hook. The players decide what their characters do. The GM decides if it succeeds or fails, and what the rest of the world does.

That's it, boys and girls, it really is not more complicated than that.

Kyle Aaron speaks for me.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020"Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years."

This is such a silly comment. And so typical of therpgsite.

The stick plows worked for a lot longer than 30 years before a better version was invented in what... 1797 according to a quick google.

People got along without flying until 1903 and many thought that idea insane.

If you're going to say you don't want to do something, debate it on the merits. Not if it has or hasn't been done, nor how successfuly you've been in the past with other methods.

Quote from: RandallS;629046Setting reality/verisimilitude trumps rules every time in games I run. Players are informed of both this fact and the fact that the rules are just guidelines for the GM that he can and will ignore or change as needed. Players are told to use common sense about the rules because where where common sense says one thing (like jumping off a one kilometer high cliff and surviving with only 20 dice damage) and setting reality/verisimilitude says another (barring a miracle even Conan would die trying that), common sense will likely prevail over the rules. Players who want rules over common sense (as interpreted by the GM) are free to find another campaign with another GM as I will not run my campaigns the why they want.

In this situation, I would probably have asked the player to roll 1d1000. If he rolled the character's Level + Con modifier or less, the character survived the fall due to a miracle, (but took the number rolled on that D1000 in dice of critical hit style damage). Otherwise, splat and dead.



I fix all such loopholes in the rules by informing players that reality trumps the rules and that the rules are just guidelines for the GM as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Agreed. If someone simple jumeped off a 1Km high building they are dead in my game no roll, well they might ask for divine intervention on the way down I guess.

Expecting to survive a fall that high because the rule books says 20d6 is terminal velocity is a bit like asking how much damage you take from the guillotine that just chopped into your neck and then arguing that a guillotine should do a d10 like a halberd.....

Quote from: gleichman;629075The stick plows worked for a lot longer than 30 years before a better version was invented in what... 1797 according to a quick google.

However, "better way to GM" is subjective and it also varies by play style and group taste. The best way to GM for your group would be on of the worst ways to GM for my group (as it from your descriptions of how you run your games, all my players would walk) and probably vice-versa (your players would likely walk from my games). This is no one objective best way to GM that is best for all tables. Trying to claim there is one best way top GM that is best for all styles of play and for all groups of players is basically claiming that there is only "one true way to play and that's my way."

Quote from: RandallS;629103However, "better way to GM" is subjective

It is, for one thing, plus you responded to a particular argument, which was that the traditional way to GM just "didn't fly" (the part of the post Brian Gleichman did not bold for some reason, which is the ACTUAL argument being made prior to your response), does not work, and since a lot of people, as you pointed out for yourself, have been doing it for decades without major issues, it is a statement that is flat out, factually, wrong, on its face.

Quote from: RandallS;629103However, "better way to GM" is subjective and it also varies by play style and group taste.

Than if that's the best reply you can manage- argue that, not that "I've done this for 30 years...".

I didn't say that there was a 'better way to GM', I just called that type reply to it lazy and unthinking.

I should note however that while I agree the proposed change in GM would be a negative, I think even your "it's subjective" answer rather sucks too. It's unserious, self-serving and in the end says nothing other than you're stuck in one style and refuse to change.

Quote from: RandallS;629046Setting reality/verisimilitude trumps rules every time in games I run.

When I'm playing, there are two things that annoy the hell out of me*:

1. GM fudges rolls to help our party win when the dice really say that we didn't. That takes away the enjoyment I get from my character and his or her actions being at risk.

2. GM fails to modify/discard rules when they conflict with common sense/verisimilitude/in-setting physics. That takes away the enjoyment I get from being able to make logical, setting-coherent decisions about which risks my character is going to take.

Above all else (except maybe being good at playing NPC motivations), I want a GM who is an objective-as-possible arbitrator who is possessed of enough judgement to make good calls on when a roll should be based on the rules and when it should be based on a modified version of the rules or even on entirely different rules.

*Actually, more than two. But let's call it two for rhetorical purposes.

Quote from: The Traveller;628992The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules. If the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well.

Both "prior to the game starting" and in the course of play, we communicate with one another about the rules of the world perceptible to characters -- not necessarily always about the game abstractions of which they have no knowledge.

This is a matter of common sense, maturity and good will! People too maladjusted to work appropriately within the social contract create problems, not the contract itself.

QuoteThe GM can arbitrarily change rules, overrule dice, and make the characters spin on their heads. But the GM that does this won't have a group of players for long. So there are real restrictions to that power. Absolute power is a misconception here.

Exactly!

My friends and I generally regard the GM's main role as relieving us of concerns that would detract from our enjoyment if we had to pay attention to them ourselves.

When acting as GM, my primary goal is to maximize the pleasure my friends take in our spending an evening together.

Quote from: gleichman;629075This is such a silly comment. And so typical of therpgsite.

The stick plows worked for a lot longer than 30 years before a better version was invented in what... 1797 according to a quick google.

People got along without flying until 1903 and many thought that idea insane.

If you're going to say you don't want to do something, debate it on the merits. Not if it has or hasn't been done, nor how successfuly you've been in the past with other methods.

So build a better mousetrap.

None of your examples have any relevance to RPgs, because there's no such thing as an objective measurement of fun. If someone has more fun with a game published in 78 than they do with one published in 2010, then the older game is objectivelly better for their group. But you're whole "everyone needs to have fun my way which is clearly superior" rhetoric is as stupid as it sounds.

Quote from: Catelf;629041I have come across this kind of misunderstanding before:
Tristram may have said that sarcastically, or far more probable, Tristram probably referred to what he meant, rather than your misunderstanding of it, not understanding that what he wrote there only would confirm your impression ... which, as said, built on misunderstanding.
I may have personally made the same mistake as Tristram a few years back.
So, you both made mistakes:
You misunderstood him, and he confirmed that misunderstanding without understanding that he did.

I appreciate your attempts at mediation, but when it coems down to it there's a fundamental impossibility of communication, as Traveller is unaware of and obviously doesn't understand the style of roleplaying I advocate. The fact he think its 'bizarre' shows that he's ignorant of the majority of roleplaying's history.

QuoteThis rather give me the impression that you and Tristram really doesn't disagree, although it is obvious you do vary in how you approach it, possibly leading to a difference in nuance.

Oh, we do, on a very fundamental level, in that I believe rules are for the most part the least importance and are merely there to serve as a tool for the GM for his job, whereas Traveller clearly believes that the rules are "Laws" that should be obeyed by the GM as much as the players, and that the GM exists primarily as, how did he put it? Custodian to the rules? He also cannot conceive of why players wouldn't need to know the rules, suggesting he really doesn't understand the difference between a player who makes choices as a living person in a shared imagined space, rather that he's only ever played to the rules. Its fine if thats what he wants, but it certainly should not be the standard line or definition of a GM, as its an exceptionally limited and obtuse view of roleplaying.

I dunno, this 'rules as God' PoV seems to be getting more and more common online in the last few years. Is this what WoTC has done to gamers?

Quote from: TristramEvans;629118So build a better mousetrap.

None of your examples have any relevance to RPgs, because there's no such thing as an objective measurement of fun. If someone has more fun with a game published in 78 than they do with one published in 2010, then the older game is objectivelly better for their group. But you're whole "everyone needs to have fun my way which is clearly superior" is as stupid as it sounds.

I don't know who you are responding to, but whoever it is holds completely different opinions than I do.

Quote from: The Traveller;628992So, the PC has 130 hp, and leaps off a kilometer high cliff knowing that the maximum falling damage is 20d6. Oho says the GM, not in my game, makes it 30d6 on the spot, and the PC goes splat.

Who was in the right here?

The GM was wrong for making it 30d6. They should have said "okay you're character dies", and that's that.. A Kilometer high cliff is instant death for any living being. They'd die before they hit the ground, and HP certainly don't enter into it. Moreover the player was in the wrong from the getgo for "playing the rules" instead of "playing the character". Its bad roleplaying and an incredibly stupid decision.

The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules.[/quote]

Meaning the player wasn't roleplaying. Exactly why I advocate games where the players don't need to know the rules: so they make decisions in-character and as if they are actually involved in real events instead of simply "playing a videogame".

QuoteIf the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well. Maybe the player was taking the piss a bit but this does illustrate the limitations of a GM's power when it runs into the Players, note not their characters.

It illustrates a situation where , if a GM accepts the RAW as a limitation to their role as arbiter and judge, it leads to bad GMing.

QuoteWhether or not you like it the GM doesn't in reality have final authority over anything except the GM and sort of the setting. Everything else is shared power to one degree or another.

Whether you like it or not, many people do play with the GM as having final authority. This is, in my experience, and overwhelmingly good thing. I'd rather have a game with a creative, intelligent GM capable of making common sense rulings and confident enough to allow their judgment supersede the limitations of any ruleset based on in-game context than one who simply arbitraily enforced the rules even when they made no sense like a "by the book" banal police officer anyday.

QuoteAgain, power you can't use isn't power at all. The GM can arbitrarily change rules, overrule dice, and make the characters spin on their heads. But the GM that does this won't have a group of players for long. So there are real restrictions to that power. Absolute power is a misconception here.

again, played this way for 30 years, and my group has tons of fun. I'm in pretty high demand as a GM, currently running 2 weekly games, 1 bi-weekly game, 1 monthly game and innumerable one-shots at any given time. You make the assumption players will object to rulings from a GM, but that only applies to a very limited percentage of players who don't trust GMs or engage solely in tournament-style dungeoncrawl grinders.

Quote from: gleichman;629120I don't know who you are responding to, but whoever it is holds completely different opinions than I do.

The response was to you, but feel free to play dumb.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629122The response was to you, but feel free to play dumb.

Your response was dumb.

I have never claimed that people are not having fun when they say they are, or if I did- I misspoke in the heat of a debate and was wrong.

ADDED: Even worse is the claim that I somehow value 'fun' in relation to the date of the game- finding old game (like one from 78) worthless just because they're old or something is really odd as I'm long on record as playing only games from 1980...

I'll get round to the rest later but just to clear up a misconception

Quote from: RandallS;629103However, "better way to GM" is subjective and it also varies by play style and group taste. The best way to GM for your group would be on of the worst ways to GM for my group (as it from your descriptions of how you run your games, all my players would walk) and probably vice-versa (your players would likely walk from my games). This is no one objective best way to GM that is best for all tables. Trying to claim there is one best way top GM that is best for all styles of play and for all groups of players is basically claiming that there is only "one true way to play and that's my way."

We aren't talking about the best way to GM. This isn't one of those many threads. We're identifying the role of the GM at this point, which is certainly doable.

Quote from: Benoist;629109It is, for one thing, plus you responded to a particular argument, which was that the traditional way to GM just "didn't fly" (the part of the post Brian Gleichman did not bold for some reason, which is the ACTUAL argument being made prior to your response), does not work, and since a lot of people, as you pointed out for yourself, have been doing it for decades without major issues, it is a statement that is flat out, factually, wrong, on its face.

I suspect he didn't bold it because that isn't what was being said. The objection was and is to the concept that players should be actively discouraged from learning the rules.

If TE wasn't saying that, I'd appreciate a clarification.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629121A Kilometer high cliff is instant death for any living being.

That is factly wrong, as a quick search online would show.

And you wonder why I can't take you seriously...

Quote from: gleichman;629126That is factly wrong, as a quick search online would show.

Yes a quick search online shows that 99% of people die from any fall of over 30 feet.

Do you not know what a kilometer is? Were you perhaps mistaking it with a milimeter?

Quote from: gleichman;629124Your response was dumb.

I have never claimed that people are not having fun when they say they are, or if I did- I misspoke in the heat of a debate and was wrong.

ADDED: Even worse is the claim that I somehow value 'fun' in relation to the date of the game- finding old game (like one from 78) worthless just because they're old or something is really odd as I'm long on record as playing only games from 1980...

The point of an RPG is to have fun.

Therefor the game that provides the most fun for any one group is the best game for that group.

whereas you've continually argued that RPG systems have improved over time and that modern game systems are objectively better than older game systems.


The two PoV don't mesh.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629133Yes a quick search online shows that 99% of people die from any fall of over 30 feet.

Do you not know what a kilometer is? Were you perhaps mistaking it with a milimeter?

And that 1% means it's not impossible. Look up the record for living after a long fall, it's something like over 6 miles.

Given the D&D HP abstraction, and what it already doesn't allow due to the 'heroic' state of the characters, nitpicking falls (kilometer or not) is rather pointless. Better to complain about the whole game- at least then one is consistent and logical instead of beating a personal dead horse.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629134whereas you've continually argued that RPG systems have improved over time and that modern game systems are objectively better than older game systems.

I have never said that.

Both games I play was written in 1980, and I consider those games to be the best the RPG has ever offered.

Quote from: gleichman;629137And that 1% means it's not impossible.

Good enough for shits and giggles. Meaning the fraction of a chance is so small its not worth accounting for as anything besides "freak act of God".

QuoteGiven the D&D HP abstraction, and what it already doesn't allow due to the 'heroic' state of the characters, nitpicking falls (kilometer or not) is rather pointless. Better to complain about the whole game- at least then one is consistent and logical instead of beating a personal dead horse.

There's that too. Hit Points in earlier editions were abstractions that didn't represent a videogame "life meter", so they didn't apply to falls or other sources of unavoidable damage. But by the time of WoTC it seems Hit Points had been cannonized as "health points", whatever that means. Which means them increasing with each level is another way in which later editions turned D&D into a videogame.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629141Good enough for shits and giggles. Meaning the fraction of a chance is so small its not worth accounting for as anything besides "freak act of God".

Odd, I thought the point of fantasy adventure was "freak act of God", you know- slaying dragons, fighting what to us would be impossible odds, etc. I'd think that someone really into that would aim the game design *at* that 1%, or at least allow for it.

Note: I don't carry it that far myself, but that's why I don't play D&D.

Quote from: gleichman;629144Odd, I thought the point of fantasy adventure was "freak act of God", you know- slaying dragons, fighting what to us would be impossible odds, etc. I'd think that someone really into that would aim the game design *at* that 1%, or at least allow for it.

Context would matter. I'd be more likely, as a GM, to give a player that !% chance if they were doing something heroic like facing down a dragon, then if they said "hey, I have enough hit points, I'm just going to walk off this mile-high cliff-face. Faster than walking down."

Quote from: gleichman;629138I have never said that.

Both games I play was written in 1980, and I consider those games to be the best the RPG has ever offered.

Then I'm either confusing you with another poster (if so, my bad), or I don't understand what your tool analogy was all about.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629148Then I'm either confusing you with another poster (if so, my bad), or I don't understand what your tool analogy was all about.

I don't recall a recent tool analogy that I made.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629147Context would matter. I'd be more likely, as a GM, to give a player that !% chance if they were doing something heroic like facing down a dragon, then if they said "hey, I have enough hit points, I'm just going to walk off this mile-high cliff-face. Faster than walking down."

I understand the impulse.

For my part, I wouldn't punish the player for taking advantage of a set of rules I picked to play and told him was in use. I'd let him walk off the cliff, review my rule selection and either issue a written house rule or change systems before the next game.

Quote from: gleichman;629151I understand the impulse.

For my part, I wouldn't punish the player for taking advantage of a set of rules I picked to play and told him was in use. I'd let him walk off the cliff, review my rule selection and either issue a written house rule or change systems before the next game.

I would punish the player for that (well its no really "punishment" for them to take the natural consequences of a choice), mainly because the player isn't playing their role. I'd make the call, the player could challenge that, but the argument would have to be based upon that .001% chance of survival rather than the rules themselves.

Honestly, though, in that situation, I'm most likely to tell the player what would be obvious to their character: "if you walk off that cliff, you're going to die". If they said "But I have 130 Hit Points!" I'd look at them blankly and ask "What's a Hit Point? Your character has never heard that term before."

But I'd always feel free, as the GM, to alter or ignore the rules where they are superseded by common sense and my judgment based on the context.

Quote from: gleichman;629149I don't recall a recent tool analogy that I made.

this one...

Quote from: gleichmanThe stick plows worked for a lot longer than 30 years before a better version was invented in what... 1797 according to a quick google.

People got along without flying until 1903 and many thought that idea insane.

If you're going to say you don't want to do something, debate it on the merits. Not if it has or hasn't been done, nor how successfuly you've been in the past with other methods.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629119I appreciate your attempts at mediation, but when it coems down to it there's a fundamental impossibility of communication, as Traveller is unaware of and obviously doesn't understand the style of roleplaying I advocate. The fact he think its 'bizarre' shows that he's ignorant of the majority of roleplaying's history.

Oh, we do, on a very fundamental level, in that I believe rules are for the most part the least importance and are merely there to serve as a tool for the GM for his job, whereas Traveller clearly believes that the rules are "Laws" that should be obeyed by the GM as much as the players, and that the GM exists primarily as, how did he put it? Custodian to the rules? He also cannot conceive of why players wouldn't need to know the rules, suggesting he really doesn't understand the difference between a player who makes choices as a living person in a shared imagined space, rather that he's only ever played to the rules. Its fine if thats what he wants, but it certainly should not be the standard line or definition of a GM, as its an exceptionally limited and obtuse view of roleplaying.

I dunno, this 'rules as God' PoV seems to be getting more and more common online in the last few years. Is this what WoTC has done to gamers?

As i mentioned it is clear you approach the subject in different ways, and that is due to your different viewpoints.
I do dare say that you have common ground, though ....

Personally, i just think "Whatever gets the job done, i'm fine".

I just thought, perhaps people don't know where i stand in this ..
On the insane jump thing, i just may give the jumper a D20, and say "Roll a 1, and you survive.."
But since i fancy (perhaps insane?) crossings of genres, even if the character do die, i might allow it to stick around as a ghost ... or similar.
To me, that may just open up a new plotline to ... explore.

I prefer my rules clear and simple, so there wont be any arguments, but when the rules doesn't cover things it is up to the GM to make the decision, and i also fudge dice rolls whenever i see it fit to do.
To me there is a Good reason to why GM stands for Game(s) Master, those exact words, and yes, this means i Disagree with Traveller on that subject, but i have not bothered enforcing it for the sake of the progress of this thread.

I think the "rules is god" is a counter-reaction against the freeform gaming, and perhaps also an attempt to bring back some of the "gaming" part to the rpg's.
And by "gaming" i mean like in miniatures games that may have rpg-tendencies, like Heroquest and Space Crusade, or Descent and Doom (boardgame).
That is at least an idea that i fully like ....

Quote from: TristramEvans;629156this one...

Ah.

That was for a line of debate (i.e. saying this is how it's always been, and thus how it always must be)- not a rule system (i.e. 1980 HERO vs. 2012 Only War).

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629155I would punish the player for that (well its no really "punishment" for them to take the natural consequences of a choice), mainly because the player isn't playing their role.

Since for me, the rules are the physics of the setting- the player is playing their role.

I just happened to pick a set of physics that sort of sucks. Thus the fault (and punishment) should be mine. Hence the player gets 'alway' with it, and my adventure/world has to suck it up.

Quote from: RandallS;629046I fix all such loopholes in the rules by informing players that reality trumps the rules and that the rules are just guidelines for the GM as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

It was an absurdum argument to illustrate the point. The players are aware of the rules in lopts of different ways, from buying equipment to the limitations of their characters and so on.

Quote from: RandallS;629046I do the first often, the second occasionally, and there is a spell in one of my settings that could be used to spin characters on their heads (although it normally just levitates the target and spins him around very fast in the air) -- yet I have no trouble finding or keeping players.

Oh so you arbitrarily decide to spin characters on their heads every half hour and players are okay with that? If not, you're responding to a point you made up yourself, not the one I made.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629119I appreciate your attempts at mediation, but when it coems down to it there's a fundamental impossibility of communication, as Traveller is unaware of and obviously doesn't understand the style of roleplaying I advocate. The fact he think its 'bizarre' shows that he's ignorant of the majority of roleplaying's history.

What I found bizarre is your insistence that players should be discouraged from learning the rules. Do you forbid anyone who has GMed that system from ever playing in your games? Because they're going to know the rules as well as you do.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629119whereas Traveller clearly believes that the rules are "Laws" that should be obeyed by the GM as much as the players, and that the GM exists primarily as, how did he put it? Custodian to the rules?

Show me once where I said the GM was a custodian to anything. Show me, please. No? So again it's easier to make up arguments to respond to than deal with what's actually being said, but it doesn't actually get anywhere.

I reckon you've had similar arguments with so many people that you can't tell the difference at this stage.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629121The GM was wrong for making it 30d6. They should have said "okay you're character dies", and that's that.. A Kilometer high cliff is instant death for any living being. They'd die before they hit the ground, and HP certainly don't enter into it.

People have fallen from higher than that before and survived. Lots of living beings have. I won't even ask why you think they'd die before the ground (that's not what terminal velocity means). But that's not the point being made.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629121The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules.

Players can be aware of the rules, players most often are aware of the rules. This is a reality which means that fixes for shitty rulesets as well as on-the-fly adjustments for Awesome should probably be agreed upon by everyone.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629121This is, in my experience, and overwhelmingly good thing. I'd rather have a game with a creative, intelligent GM capable of making common sense rulings and confident enough to allow their judgment supersede the limitations of any ruleset based on in-game context than one who simply arbitraily enforced the rules even when they made no sense like a "by the book" banal police officer anyday.

In my experience if the ruleset is consistently in need of on-the-fly adjustments you're playing with a shitty ruleset.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629121again, played this way for 30 years, and my group has tons of fun.

Again, unless you are saying you make characters spin on their heads regularly for the hell of it, you're answering a different argument than the one I made.

------

Let's try it again:

You're saying that true immersion is best reached if the GM handles all of the rule decisions and indeed the operation of almost everything except the dice and the PC's sheets. This is because the singular vision of a GM and the lack of immersion-snags work best for you. You're saying the GM should arbitrarily change rules as they see fit, which a) works fine if the players are unaware of the rules and b) the GM is able to deal with that. And not all GMs are, not out of malice but because rule changes can have knock on effects which aren't immediately apparent among other things.

That 20d6 rule for example was I'm sure put into place to stop teleport other becoming the most dangerous spell in the universe. The reality-bending side effect either wasn't considered or wasn't considered important.

-----

I'm saying that rules don't interfere with immersion if the players are sufficiently familiar with them, and it is more helpful than otherwise if the players help to uphold the rules themselves, at a minimum in terms of taking some of the strain off the GM. Also the rules are written down, there's nothing to stop the players reading them.

If the GM causes bad things to happen to the group by changing the rules, the players might rightfully feel hard done by. This is why I feel the cooperative aspect is important. How you would deal with that situation is not neccessarily how other GMs might deal with it, and can lead to all sorts of problems, which is why I'd be cautious about including it in the basic definition of the role of the GM.

The bottom line is however if you're constantly swapping rules around you need a better set of rules.

The setting is a different story of course, and do not confuse the two.

Anyway I'm encouraged by the discussion so far, as far as I can see we made it as far as the GM's interactions with the rules before serious objections were raised so I'm confident a unified definition can be reached on the last hurdle. Obviously none of this is set in stone and it's all wide open for adjustment if good enough reasons are put forward.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629134The point of an RPG is to have fun.

Therefor the game that provides the most fun for any one group is the best game for that group.

whereas you've continually argued that RPG systems have improved over time and that modern game systems are objectively better than older game systems.


The two PoV don't mesh.

Well, they do, if you look at it this way:
There is a reason why Rpgs became big as a part of "geek culture".
The original rules were a mix of fantasizing and broken and/or rules that was hard to understand.
Then, after playing those games a long time, you do know its inns-and-outs, and where the house rules and/or GM/DM rulings is neccesary, and these things are learned by the ones that play with you.

However, some rpgs that is done today, has learned from past mistakes, and is easier, less broken, and so on, and therefor, objectively better.
Yes, objectively.
However, to the one that knows all the inns and outs of the old game, that old game is still percived as subjectivly better than the objectively better game ...

The two PoV do mesh, in that way.

Quote from: The Traveller;629168What I found bizarre is your insistence that players should be discouraged from learning the rules. Do you forbid anyone who has GMed that system from ever playing in your games? Because they're going to know the rules as well as you do.

Back in the 1970s, many people (including Gary Gygax) regarded that as unfortunate. Becoming a DM entailed giving up some opportunities for discovery. Preferably, there would be enough experienced players serving as DMs, and enough opportunity for low-level adventures as well, not to deprive newcomers of the thrills.

Not only was this often not the case once D&D books (especially the Basic sets) started to spread the game far in advance of experienced players, but also many people happened to prefer being the "knower of all."

I don't know how it was elsewhere, but what I heard in my town during the D&D 3E years was that there was a shortage of DMs because people found the job less appealing than formerly (whereas plenty of people liked the new attitude toward rules when they were playing characters).

Quote from: Phillip;629182Back in the 1970s, many people (including Gary Gygax) regarded that as unfortunate. Becoming a DM entailed giving up some opportunities for discovery.

This is what I don't understand, the discovery should probably be in the setting rather than the rules, unless the GM whips up a new type of magic or or flying ship or something, which is still mostly in the setting. There's too much of a borderland between setting and rules in some arguments here, the two are fairly distinct for the most part.

Quote from: Phillip;629182Not only was this often not the case once D&D books (especially the Basic sets) started to spread the game far in advance of experienced players, but also many people happened to prefer being the "knower of all."

This would reflect my experiences as well, once players start to learn the rules they want to learn more. Which is perfectly understandable, people want to know the rules of the game they are playing.

Quote from: gleichman;629159Since for me, the rules are the physics of the setting- the player is playing their role.

I just happened to pick a set of physics that sort of sucks. Thus the fault (and punishment) should be mine. Hence the player gets 'alway' with it, and my adventure/world has to suck it up.

I haven't yet come across a system that actually models "physics" in a way that was still gameable, so I prefer to see the rules simply as a means of arbitrating Reality Clash between players.

Quote from: The Traveller;629189There's too much of a borderland between setting and rules in some arguments here, the two are fairly distinct for the most part.

Well, what was in the D&D books? Details of this monster, that magic, the precise probability of this or that event occurring.

Some people don't mind (indeed prefer) knowing all that from the word go; maybe they are more common in the popularized-D&D demographic than in the early-1970s group of hobbyists.

For some other people, it's a "spoiler." It's less than getting a walk-through of an adventure game, yet still a case of an innocence that can be lost but once.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629201I haven't yet come across a system that actually models "physics" in a way that was still gameable, so I prefer to see the rules simply as a means of arbitrating Reality Clash between players.

I have two that do so well at it that I haven't seen a problem in decades (other than playtest for newly added rules).

And I've never seen an example online that was possible to duplicate in my games.

Quote from: Phillip;629205Well, what was in the D&D books? Details of this monster, that magic, the precise probability of this or that event occurring.

Some people don't mind (indeed prefer) knowing all that from the word go; maybe they are more common in the popularized-D&D demographic than in the early-1970s group of hobbyists.

For some other people, it's a "spoiler." It's less than getting a walk-through of an adventure game, yet still a case of an innocence that can be lost but once.

Differentiating the rules and the setting isn't a problem really.

The setting is what the players interact with through their characters.

The rules are how they interact with the setting.

Even setting-specific rules like insanity in CoC or half of Unknown Armies still fall under the same definition of rules. Conversely monsters and spells are part of the setting, despite often being placed in rulebooks.

Of course knowing all the stats of the monsters and spells can act as a spoiler but I wouldn't view either of those as being rules, they are setting, which the GM can and should mess with gleefully.

Quote from: The Traveller;629208Of course knowing all the stats of the monsters and spells can act as a spoiler but I wouldn't view either of those as being rules, they are setting, which the GM can and should mess with gleefully.

Trouble is, there wasn't a whole lot else in the original D&D set. Since the DM was left to make up most of the stuff I guess you would distinguish as "rules," the value of the booklets -- apart from conveying the basic concept, which T&T did with even less -- lay chiefly in the head start such material gave before one needed to invent new stuff.

Quote from: Phillip;629214Trouble is, there wasn't a whole lot else in the original D&D set.

I'm not terribly familiar with 1e, my acquaintance with D&D starts and ends with 2e/AD&D, and completely amazing it was too, even with a subpar ruleset (in my opinion). Nonetheless there wouldn't be anything which falls outside the categorisations of rules and setting given above. If the first release consisted mainly of monsters and spells, then of course the GM should feel free to meddle with those, but I would have no difficulty with the players knowing how to create characters, how to attack and act in combat, how to cast spells. The body of those spells and what they were fighting would be a different matter entirely.

Quote from: The Traveller;629168What I found bizarre is your insistence that players should be discouraged from learning the rules. Do you forbid anyone who has GMed that system from ever playing in your games? Because they're going to know the rules as well as you do.

I never said "discourage". simply "shouldn't need" to know the rules. If a player happens to know the rules to anyone ruleset though there's no obligation for me to conform to his interpretation of the rules. what the players shouldn't be doing, in my games, is playing teh rules rather than playing their characters.

QuoteShow me once where I said the GM was a custodian to anything. Show me, please. No? So again it's easier to make up arguments to respond to than deal with what's actually being said, but it doesn't actually get anywhere.

Rather than going back and rereading through posts I took a guess and very specifically noted it as such (hence the repeating of the question in the post and the use of question marks). I don't recall your exact wording, I was not attempting to put words in your mouth. I thought the meaning was pretty much analogous.

QuoteI reckon you've had similar arguments with so many people that you can't tell the difference at this stage.

No, just you and a few random posters on here. IRL I've never encountered your opinion among anyone I've gamed with.

QuotePlayers can be aware of the rules, players most often are aware of the rules. This is a reality which means that fixes for shitty rulesets as well as on-the-fly adjustments for Awesome should probably be agreed upon by everyone.

But "players most often are aware of the rules" doesn't support the conclusion that "should probably be agreed upon by everyone". If I chose to run a game, then I pitch the game to anyone I'd like to play. This pitch is tailored to the players based on what kind of games interest them and my opinion of how well they'd manage in that type of game. Beyond that, I will then explain any rules the players need to know, if any. Usually, this only amounts to how to read the character sheet and the general resolution mechanic (dice pool, roll vs TN, etc), if the player happens to know the rules set is immaterial to how they play their character. Beyond that, I dont discuss rules with the players. They may challenge rulings from time (though usually this never amounts to more than me explaining why. Thats generally enough to satisfy anyone), but they can only do so from a character perspective.

QuoteIn my experience if the ruleset is consistently in need of on-the-fly adjustments you're playing with a shitty ruleset.

Sure, if that were the case. But "adjustments" are different than making a ruling. I use rules lite systems that cover the basics, because I'm capable of doing the rest on my own, and its easier and faster than looking up a rule in a book, and generally superior as its tailored to the specific context of in-game events.


Again, unless you are saying you make characters spin on their heads regularly for the hell of it, you're answering a different argument than the one I made. [/quote]

Your argument was: But the GM that does this won't have a group of players for long. So there are real restrictions to that power.

And I answered by pointing out this hasn't been the case at all, in my experience.

QuoteYou're saying that true immersion is best reached if the GM handles all of the rule decisions and indeed the operation of almost everything except the dice and the PC's sheets.

Yes

QuoteThis is because the singular vision of a GM and the lack of immersion-snags work best for you.

Well, it works because every time a player has to think about the rules they are, in that moment, no longer immersed in their character. Its like method acting. The reason that method actors don't break character even when not being filmed is because the longer they stay in character, the more natural and complete the immersive experience is.

QuoteYou're saying the GM should arbitrarily change rules as they see fit,

If its "as they see fit" it shouldn't be "arbitrary",.

Quotewhich a) works fine if the players are unaware of the rules and b) the GM is able to deal with that.

I'd say it works fine as long as the players trust the GM, whether they happen to know the rules-set used or not.

QuoteAnd not all GMs are, not out of malice but because rule changes can have knock on effects which aren't immediately apparent among other things.

Depends entirely on the system. One of the reasons I intensely dislike 4th edition. you cant tinker with anything, because the morass of rules is all part of a whole. I have no use for a game like that. But yeah, its also about the confidence of the GM.

QuoteI'm saying that rules don't interfere with immersion if the players are sufficiently familiar with them,

That would really depend on the rules themselves, and , again, if the players are playing their role or playing the rules. the example of a player thinking he can walk over a KM-high cliff because of his HP total is a pretty blatant example of the latter.

Quoteand it is more helpful than otherwise if the players help to uphold the rules themselves, at a minimum in terms of taking some of the strain off the GM.

I think "upholding the rules" is also a circumstance which would really only occur in games like 4e, where EVERYthing is arbitrated by a rule.



 

QuoteAlso the rules are written down, there's nothing to stop the players reading them.

I'm not actively trying to keep any players from learning the rules, but rules lawyering isnt a desirable trait in a player.

I

Quotef the GM causes bad things to happen to the group by changing the rules, the players might rightfully feel hard done by.

sure, but thats an example of bad GMing,. I don't make a ruling just to fuck with the players. Its not about being a dick. In fact, 9 times out of ten, if I make a ruling is going to be in the player's favour.

QuoteThis is why I feel the cooperative aspect is important. How you would deal with that situation is not neccessarily how other GMs might deal with it, and can lead to all sorts of problems, which is why I'd be cautious about including it in the basic definition of the role of the GM.

I don't think there needs to be a standardized expectation of GMing. every Gm has their own style,. thats not something I consider a bad thing. Because one GM might interpret or apply rules differently than another, isnt a reason for players to be upset, unless they are stepping out of character and basing their decisions on the expectation that a GM is going to rule the same way as another. Which again, would be them playing the rules rather than playing their character.

QuoteThe bottom line is however if you're constantly swapping rules around you need a better set of rules.

I guess it depends what you mean by "constant". Rules dont play a large role in most games I play. I've gone entire sessions without more than one roll of the dice. I'm not talking about a GM sitting there completely altering the rules every minute. Again, I would consider that bad GMing.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629218I never said "discourage". simply "shouldn't need" to know the rules. If a player happens to know the rules to anyone ruleset though there's no obligation for me to conform to his interpretation of the rules. what the players shouldn't be doing, in my games, is playing teh rules rather than playing their characters.

"In my games," being an important caveat IMO.

Cats who roll some other way might as well rock on, because it's not like anybody (except maybe a rare real nut case) is gonna be busting in to hassle them. If I don't dig your game, I'm not obligated to play it (and vice-versa).

Quote from: Phillip;629223"In my games," being an important caveat IMO.

Yes, it just gets annoying to say it over and over. Please assume that anything I say I am merely stating what works for me in my games and with the groups I've played with over the years. I am not saying every group needs to game this way.

QuoteIf I don't dig your game, I'm not obligated to play it (and vice-versa).

Sure. And I've dropped a lot of games because I didn't dig the GM or the gamestyle. Better no gaming than bad gaming. at the same time, I've been relatively lucky in that Ive never had trouble finding (or creating) gamers I get on with in any of the places I've lived. Might have something to do with me chosing primarily to live in large metropolitan cities.

Okay forget every other tangent, this is the real issue:

Quote from: TristramEvans;629218Well, it works because every time a player has to think about the rules they are, in that moment, no longer immersed in their character. Its like method acting. The reason that method actors don't break character even when not being filmed is because the longer they stay in character, the more natural and complete the immersive experience is.

I get what you're saying, all I'm saying is that there isn't a substantial difference between players who are unaware of the rules and players that respond to the rules by reflex due to familiarity in terms of immersion. In every game the players must be minimally aware of the rules, and quite often become far more familiar with the rules.

As such it's an exercise in futility to ignore this player knowledge, and the better option should be to accept that in ambiguous cases the GM has final arbitration, but in other cases it should be an environment of cooperation.

What I'm seeing here is either a useful middle ground OR an option for a different type of interaction between the GM and the rules. And that's all we're discussing here, the GM and the rules.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629218I don't think there needs to be a standardized expectation of GMing.

But there should be a standardised understanding of the role of the GM, plus a voluminous body of advice on how to deal with the many facets of GMing and the challenges thereof.

I'm getting tired of the squabbles in this thread ....
And why shouldn't i?
The OP wants to define the GM/DM, but essentially starts by removing the "M" from the titles.

And then, someone with opposite wiewpoint to the OP, but yet shares many opinions, just expressed slightly differently ... but have any of the two realized that yet?
So they have been bickering about details in wordings, thinking it stands for more than it does ....
And some just join in the bickering.

Oh, and let's not forget the one that at least someone said was "trolling", but is really just ... to hard, perhaps even impossible to reason with, because of his near set-in-stone-like opinions on things.

Why should i care ....

Quote from: The Traveller;629230What I'm seeing here is either a useful middle ground OR an option for a different type of interaction between the GM and the rules. And that's all we're discussing here, the GM and the rules.

At last!
..... by the way, it is both middleground and options for different kinds of interaction between the GM and the rules.

Quote from: The Traveller;629230But there should be a standardised understanding of the role of the GM....

First, why is such a "standardized understanding" needed?

Second, would a "standardized understanding" favor any style of play or style of GMing over another? (Your current proposal certainly seems to.) Would a "standardized understanding" rule out ANY style of play or style of GMing?

If the answer to the second set of questions is anything other than "Not only no, but HELL NO!", I (and I expect many others) would want nothing to do with it even if we were convinced that a "standardized understanding of the role of the GM" was needed.



Would I be expected to conform to this standard if it existed when I GMed games with my own group Or any other person GMed games for there own group)? (Warning: if the answer to this last question is anything but "Not only no, but hell no" I want nothing to do with such a "standardized understanding"

Quote from: RandallS;629237First, why is such a "standardized understanding" needed?

Quote from: The Traveller;628851Why?
Problems are created when neither the group nor the GM understand the true role of the GM. The GM isn't the Game Master. This is a difficulty with the hobby, an assumption that if you just give someone a rulebook and some dice they'll get everything a GM is meant to be by intuition. It doesn't work and leads to bad games.

Plus it will be of use when introducing new people to the hobby, which is important to me.

Quote from: RandallS;629237Second, would a "standardized understanding" favor any style of play or style of GMing over another? (Your current proposal certainly seems to.) Would a "standardized understanding" rule out ANY style of play or style of GMing?

Preferably no (see below). My assertion is that there are certain things in common to the role of GM regardless of game, style or preference. As I mentioned earlier we managed to get pretty deep into the role of the GM before hitting a hurdle, which is the interaction of the GM with the rules. Now we're hammering out a useful definition of that, which doesn't invalidate anything previously mentioned.

Quote from: RandallS;629237Would I be expected to conform to this standard if it existed when I GMed games with my own group Or any other person GMed games for there own group)? (Warning: if the answer to this last question is anything but "Not only no, but hell no" I want nothing to do with such a "standardized understanding"

Do what you like, but as mentioned previously as much as possible we're trying to elaborate the role of the GM based on self evident truths, such as that the GM can't nuke the whole universe arbitrarily or they stop being GMs. It's all laid out earlier.

Of course it should go without saying that if a "style of GMing" includes arbitrarily nuking the entire universe as part of the MO, I don't think it should be included in the standard definition of the role of GM.

Quote from: The Traveller;629242My assertion is that there are certain things in common to the role of GM regardless of game, style or preference. As I mentioned earlier we managed to get pretty deep into the role of the GM before hitting a hurdle, which is the interaction of the GM with the rules. Now we're hammering out a useful definition of that, which doesn't invalidate anything previously mentioned.

I find you very peculiar, Traveller.

....
Anyway, I must point out, that by saying "The Game Master is not the Game Master", you Do remove several styles of playing rpg, of which several are, if not the most common ones, then clearly among the most common ones that works.

This is not depending on GM's being enforcing things on the players and/or player characters whenever the GM so likes, but on that others clearly define the "Master" part differently than you.
It is very much like the "Final say" - thing.
It must be used in moderation, and when it is appropriate, either due to percived flaws in the rules, to override rules discussions, or because it suits the setting and/or the genre and/or the style of play.
If it is abused, or used when it is unappropriate and so on, then that is being a bad GM, and it should not be endorsed.

Quote from: The Traveller;629242Of course it should go without saying that if a "style of GMing" includes arbitrarily nuking the entire universe as part of the MO, I don't think it should be included in the standard definition of the role of GM.

I've arbitrarily (as in GM decision based on what was happening in the game) nuked entire universes before. Of course, said universes were part of a multiverse and the play involved war between various multi-universial factions. This, of course, is why I oppose "standardizing GM stuff, rules stuff, and the like for tabletop RPGs. Every attempt to do so I've ever seen effectively rules out campaigns, play styles, and the like that some people out there consider fun. You take a wide-open anything can go if a group likes it idea (tabletop roleplaying) and put in a box to make it all nice and managable/standard. Unfortunately, no matter how big the box, it leaves something that is fun to some outside the box.

Quote from: Catelf;629276It is very much like the "Final say" - thing.
It must be used in moderation, and when it is appropriate, either due to percived flaws in the rules, to override rules discussions, or because it suits the setting and/or the genre and/or the style of play.
If it is abused, or used when it is unappropriate and so on, then that is being a bad GM, and it should not be endorsed.

And therefore is not a "master". There is nothing peculiar about it.

Quote from: RandallS;629277I've arbitrarily (as in GM decision based on what was happening in the game) nuked entire universes before. Of course, said universes were part of a multiverse and the play involved war between various multi-universial factions.

And if you had a clue what you were talking about you'd realise that a universe encompasses multiverses, not the other way around. But whatever, you aren't interested in serious discussion of the issue at hand, merely in playing devil's advocate badly, as when you advocated spinning characters on their heads randomly and at your exclusive discretion, despite which you somehow managed to retain a single player.

Oh you didn't do that? Well then we aren't talking about the same thing, champ.

Quote from: The Traveller;629287And therefore is not a "master". There is nothing peculiar about it.


And if you had a clue what you were talking about you'd realise that a universe encompasses multiverses, not the other way around. But whatever, you aren't interested in serious discussion of the issue at hand, merely in playing devil's advocate badly, as when you advocated spinning characters on their heads randomly and at your exclusive discretion, despite which you somehow managed to retain a single player.

Oh you didn't do that? Well then we aren't talking about the same thing, champ.

It is "Master"
Somehow you seem to think that a Master must be a bad master, or he's not a "Master".

If that really is what you think .... you are wrong.

Quote from: Catelf;629290It is "Master"
Somehow you seem to think that a Master must be a bad master, or he's not a "Master".

If that really is what you think .... you are wrong.

32 pages of closely argued discussion and this is the takeaway.

Seriously, read it again. The fact that a GM doesn't have in reality absolute power or anything resembling it means that the term "master" is at best a misnomer.

Quote from: The Traveller;62929132 pages of closely argued discussion and this is the takeaway.

Seriously, read it again. The fact that a GM doesn't have in reality absolute power or anything resembling it means that the term "master" is at best a misnomer.

Then you should not talk about "defining the GM's role".

Yes, it is the takeaway, you read it again.
Throughout this thread, people usually do not disagree with your opinions, people disagree with how you define "Total Power", "Master", and "Last say".

There have been factual disagreements, too, but those pale in the comparison with the argueings concerning "Total Power", "Master", and "Last say".
Ok, you managed to counter the "referee" defenition, but you need some other reasoning to remove the Master from Game Master.

Also, most here has played rpgs with a Game Master a lot of years, and it has worked, no fleeing players.
On the contrary, the players have liked the experience.
You say that they haven't played with or as Game Masters, they say they haven't played with or as BAD Game Masters.

.... Yes, this is a takeaway, but it remains to be seen if it is The Takeaway ...
Whatever you mean by that, really.

Quote from: The Traveller;629287And if you had a clue what you were talking about you'd realise that a universe encompasses multiverses, not the other way around.

Err, no. A multiverse contains universes. It is (fairly poorly, unfortunately) explained in the Wikipedia multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) article. If by "universe" you meant "campaign setting" I see your point, but that terminology is confusing.

Quote from: Catelf;629300Then you should not talk about "defining the GM's role".

This is completely meaningless. Nobody should discuss anything if they think it is misleadingly named so. In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby.

Quote from: Catelf;629300Ok, you managed to counter the "referee" defenition, but you need some other reasoning to remove the Master from Game Master.

Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used.

Quote from: RandallS;629301Err, no. A multiverse contains universes. It is (fairly poorly, unfortunately) explained in the Wikipedia multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) article. If by "universe" you meant "campaign setting" I see your point, but that terminology is confusing.

What isn't confusing is the actual point that was being made though, which you've twice faceplanted with a strawman.

Quote from: The Traveller;629380This is completely meaningless. Nobody should discuss anything if they think it is misleadingly named so. In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby.


Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used.

"Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used."
Why do you say that?
Don't you think i have read the arguments in this thread?
Clearly, you don't think i have.

"In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby."
How much bad GM'ing has you actually encountered?
I mean, i real life, and from actual stories you have heard?
Deducting someone is a bad GM solely based on their opinions on forums isn't really enough.

There are so many different ways to GM, so many different ways to "bring the awsome" as you call it.
You say you don't want to exclude different styles within rpg, yet you do that when you misunderstand how others define, for instance, "Master".

Your peculiarity, as i mentioned before, was that you earlier seemed to be willing to accept that others define "last say" in a different way than you, but that you still seemed as adamant as before on the subject of "Master".
This makes me suspect, that you really play "the devil's advocate" already.
But, why would you do that?
Well, throughout this thread, you have showed an utter disdain(i think that is the right word) for generalizations.
No matter what the generalization: Referee, Judge, god, .... and also Master.

As i pointed out, the disagreements throughout this thread has not really been on the actual ways of playing presented, but rather on what you (seem to?)think the generalizations stands for, especially "Master".

However, what you are facing, is having to rename the position of "GM", if you really is that much against the "Master" part.
Now, practically no matter how you do, any name that you come up with instead of GM is bound to either be non-descriptive, or a generalization.
Also, no matter how you do, this role will eventually become more generalized, and interpreted in several ways, and it may even, if it do catch on, ultimately become to mean something you did not intend it to mean instead.

So, why this antagonism against "Master"?
Yes, yes, you have said it several times over, that a GM can't excercize real total power.
What says that a Master can excercize total power?
A master may have great power, and masters whatever it is a master of, .... but that do not mean "Total Power" ...
Definitions of "Master" (and i'm not using dictionary now, so it is rater general definitions):
* Lord of the house/Mansion
Has often last say in the house, and have typically employees to order around.
However, people are usually able to leave the premises, and the lord of the house normally can't force people to do things against their own will.
* Controller of Servants and/or Slaves
Not even a master that can enforce its will on people it controls, is still unable to change actual reality, and in modern times BDSM-Masters often also require that the relationships is Consensual.
* Skill level: Martial Artist
Is able to perform most or all attacks in a certain dicipline, and knows at least most of its knowledge. possibly knows a lot about several other diciplines as well.

Do also notice, that neither of those excerzices the full extent of their influence/abilities unless they have to.
Now, do i need to bold that last sentence or not?

Quote from: The Traveller;628992So, the PC has 130 hp, and leaps off a kilometer high cliff knowing that the maximum falling damage is 20d6. Oho says the GM, not in my game, makes it 30d6 on the spot, and the PC goes splat.

Who was in the right here?

The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules. If the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well. Maybe the player was taking the piss a bit but this does illustrate the limitations of a GM's power when it runs into the Players, note not their characters.

Ehem.  This is cake:

"There were sharp rocks at the bottom, Mr Player.  Stop being a dick.  We're not playing Cliff Divers and Carabeeners..."

Yours is an example of player agency taken too far.  No PC, short of an insane one, would willing to suffer the pain of that jump.  Making your character take it, knowing they can weather the damage, is playing with out-of-game knowledge.  Wouldn't fly at my table.  In fact if you presented at my table with a character who leaps of off cliffs in an insane manner to see if he can survive it, I'd ask you to go game with someone else.  Because what we want out of a game would be very, very, very different.

Same argument could be made for monster manuals, back when they had 'secrets' in them.  You were expected to learn about the creatures through trial and error.  'Knowing the rules' meant quoting stats verbatim from the book, and advising the party of all the weak points.  Which, without the appropriate (basketweaver) skills, would have been CHEATING.  Would it not?

Quote from: mcbobbo;629480Yours is an example of player agency taken too far.  No PC, short of an insane one, would willing to suffer the pain of that jump.

You really can't think of a reason that wouldn't justify the PC taking damage he knew he could live through and perhaps even almost immediately heal? I can think of any number myself.

And he'd know he has a good chance of living, given the system there would be tales of great heroes doing the same just like there are tales of heroes withstanding Dragon Breath and other insane things that games like D&D allow.

When one views the game system as the world's physics, one needs to take these things into account. The idea only seems impossible to you because you refuse to consider the rules in that way. To myself, taking the rules and constructing a world view around them to match is part of what it means to role-play.

Quote from: Catelf;629434"Why would I do that, you haven't even looked at the reasoning already used."
Why do you say that?
Don't you think i have read the arguments in this thread?
Clearly, you don't think i have.

"In fact the title of GM is probably single handedly responsible for more bad GMing than anything else in the hobby."
How much bad GM'ing has you actually encountered?
I mean, i real life, and from actual stories you have heard?
Deducting someone is a bad GM solely based on their opinions on forums isn't really enough.

There are so many different ways to GM, so many different ways to "bring the awsome" as you call it.
You say you don't want to exclude different styles within rpg, yet you do that when you misunderstand how others define, for instance, "Master".

Your peculiarity, as i mentioned before, was that you earlier seemed to be willing to accept that others define "last say" in a different way than you, but that you still seemed as adamant as before on the subject of "Master".
This makes me suspect, that you really play "the devil's advocate" already.
But, why would you do that?
Well, throughout this thread, you have showed an utter disdain(i think that is the right word) for generalizations.
No matter what the generalization: Referee, Judge, god, .... and also Master.

As i pointed out, the disagreements throughout this thread has not really been on the actual ways of playing presented, but rather on what you (seem to?)think the generalizations stands for, especially "Master".

However, what you are facing, is having to rename the position of "GM", if you really is that much against the "Master" part.
Now, practically no matter how you do, any name that you come up with instead of GM is bound to either be non-descriptive, or a generalization.
Also, no matter how you do, this role will eventually become more generalized, and interpreted in several ways, and it may even, if it do catch on, ultimately become to mean something you did not intend it to mean instead.

So, why this antagonism against "Master"?
Yes, yes, you have said it several times over, that a GM can't excercize real total power.
What says that a Master can excercize total power?
A master may have great power, and masters whatever it is a master of, .... but that do not mean "Total Power" ...
Definitions of "Master" (and i'm not using dictionary now, so it is rater general definitions):
* Lord of the house/Mansion
Has often last say in the house, and have typically employees to order around.
However, people are usually able to leave the premises, and the lord of the house normally can't force people to do things against their own will.
* Controller of Servants and/or Slaves
Not even a master that can enforce its will on people it controls, is still unable to change actual reality, and in modern times BDSM-Masters often also require that the relationships is Consensual.
* Skill level: Martial Artist
Is able to perform most or all attacks in a certain dicipline, and knows at least most of its knowledge. possibly knows a lot about several other diciplines as well.

Do also notice, that neither of those excerzices the full extent of their influence/abilities unless they have to.
Now, do i need to bold that last sentence or not?

At no point do you actually object to the specific arguments that were made, except to raise rambling objections for their own sake.

Master means the person in control. This is not conducive to gaming for the following reasons:

The entire hobby in objective terms can be seperated into six elements.

    The GM
    The Characters
    The Players
    The Rules
    The Setting
    The Dice

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. The GM only has total power over the setting and the GM. And even the setting is somewhat arguable, since the characters can also affect the setting.

The GM has partial or shared power over the characters and the rules. This power is shared with the players and the dice.

The GM has no power over anything else, except with player cooperation.

----

By the above arguments I would hope it is clear that "being in control" isn't a huge part of the GM's job description. So like all the other hats, using the term "Master" isn't really useful. You can make arguments just as much for every other role the GM plays, calling the GM a storyteller or referee end of story, and some in this thread have, but they don't encompass the full role.

Unlike most of the other hats, "Master" could lead a well meaning but inexperienced GM to assume control in places where they really shouldn't, and wreck the game, which is why I say it's a damaging title.

I'm not proposing any alternatives at this point, just noting the fact.

Also I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to disdain for generalisations, the entire thread is about generalisations.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629480Yours is an example of player agency taken too far.  

That was kind of the point, as already mentioned.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629480Same argument could be made for monster manuals, back when they had 'secrets' in them.  You were expected to learn about the creatures through trial and error.  'Knowing the rules' meant quoting stats verbatim from the book, and advising the party of all the weak points.  Which, without the appropriate (basketweaver) skills, would have been CHEATING.  Would it not?

I'm seriously going to start a new thread which just gathers all the various points raised into one place, I'm repeating myself repeatedly here.

The setting is what the players interact with through their characters.
This would include monsters, NPCs, spells, etc. I would definetely see the role of the GM being to mess with meddle with and adjust the setting, keep mysteries and secrets. That's where we get discovery.

The rules are how the players and their characters interact with the setting. I see no pressing reason why the players should be unaware of the rules, and several good reasons why they should be aware of them. There's some debate on that score but I'm happy to hammer it out.

Quote from: gleichman;629485You really can't think of a reason that wouldn't justify the PC taking damage he knew he could live through and perhaps even almost immediately heal? I can think of any number myself.

And he'd know he has a good chance of living, given the system there would be tales of great heroes doing the same just like there are tales of heroes withstanding Dragon Breath and other insane things that games like D&D allow.

You're ignoring pain.  Imagine the following scenario, IRL.  I douse myself with gasoline and light the match, then dive immediately into water.  Do I have a 'good chance' of living?  Sure.  Would I do so?  Almost certainly not.  BECAUSE IT WOULD HURT LIKE HELL AND I MIGHT SCREW UP AND DIE.

Why is having the capability of surviving it equivalent to the desire to do it in RPGs but nowhere else?

And again, does said PC have a laser range finder to know the exact distance of the fall?  'Sharp rocks' could easily be replaced by 'misjudged the distance', and unless they had a lot of skill/experience in judging cliff height, that would probably mesh with most rule systems.

Quote from: gleichman;629485When one views the game system as the world's physics, one needs to take these things into account. The idea only seems impossible to you because you refuse to consider the rules in that way. To myself, taking the rules and constructing a world view around them to match is part of what it means to role-play.

I doubt very, very seriously that you actually imagine a world with the physics that the rules represent.  Because that gets absurd, fast.  And I don't believe you're playing a game in which the characters know that they are simply replacable characters and not actual people.

If you are, that's fine, but I can't relate.

Personally, I try to view these worlds as real or nearly-real places (typically earth analogs), and see the rules as tools to describe the interactions with these places.  Real people hate pain, and work to avoid it.  Even heroes.  Real people aren't sure they will survive 'xyz danger' and experience risk when facing it.  Even heroes.

If the rules don't adequately describe the scenario in a way that makes this make sense, I see it as a fault of the rules.  Not as a world with absurd physics.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629525You're ignoring pain.  Imagine the following scenario, IRL.  I douse myself with gasoline and light the match, then dive immediately into water.  Do I have a 'good chance' of living?  Sure.  Would I do so?  Almost certainly not.

There is no cause for which you do that or something similar? Really, none at all?

I suppose such committment is a fading thing.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629525I doubt very, very seriously that you actually imagine a world with the physics that the rules represent.  Because that gets absurd, fast.

I can easily imagine it.

Absurd? Yes, might be the reason I don't play D&D.

Quote from: The Traveller;629503The setting is what the players interact with through their characters.
This would include monsters, NPCs, spells, etc. I would definetely see the role of the GM being to mess with meddle with and adjust the setting, keep mysteries and secrets. That's where we get discovery.

The rules are how the players and their characters interact with the setting. I see no pressing reason why the players should be unaware of the rules, and several good reasons why they should be aware of them. There's some debate on that score but I'm happy to hammer it out.

Monsters are setting items with specific rules (often) attached.  The player characters should have no knowledge that such rules even exist, unless they have earned said by either character development or design.

Traps are another example.  They have specific mechanics attached, and by definition your character isn't in a place to know exactly what those are.  The rules necessary to adjudicate that trap (particularly if it is brand new) should only be revealed upon discovery.

I realize this confuzzes your clean lines, but it is true.

Imagine the surprise here, "Hey guys, I need to inform you of some new monster/trap rules.  No reason, really.  But here they are..."

I also take exception with your placing an entire power category - spells - in the 'fiddle with' box.  If you can take 90% of what being a 'mage' is about and adjudicate it without constants, then why not what a 'fighter' is about as well?  Where's the distinction?  Where's the agency?

Quote from: mcbobbo;629531Monsters are setting items with specific rules (often) attached.  

Sophistry, technically everything comes with rules attached. Equally every rule could technically be said to be part of the setting. Arguments have also been made that GMs can be solely described as referees, none of these are useful definitions since they are stretched so far beyond their purpose. Now you might say that only defined instances of monsters are part of the setting, but that's just more sophistry.

Quote from: mcbobbo;629531I also take exception with your placing an entire power category - spells - in the 'fiddle with' box.  If you can take 90% of what being a 'mage' is about and adjudicate it without constants, then why not what a 'fighter' is about as well?  Where's the distinction?  Where's the agency?

This is why I always qualify the GM's control over the setting (and I have every time, check back if you like). Once a PC has a spell and knows what it does, the GM shouldn't mess with it without a very good reason or player cooperation. Before that why not, if the means by which the character learns the spell enable them to know in advance the alterations, and they should, the character can choose whether or not to pick up that spell. If fireballs make a tinkling wind chime sound instead of a deafening boom, the mage should reasonably know that in advance.

This is another of many game-specific (as evidenced by your picking out a fighter's powers(? oh, D&D)) grey areas that aren't useful when defining the role of the GM. Some games don't even use classes, it's not helpful to drill down to that level of detail, we'd have caveats for WH40k and Rolemaster and every game under the sun while not actually adding anything to the defintion of the role of a GM.

Quote from: The Traveller;629503At no point do you actually object to the specific arguments that were made, except to raise rambling objections for their own sake.

Sorry, you have to make your "hammering out" without me, if that is how you see it.
I might check out this thread to see if you progress at all.

It is sad, really, if such a promising endeavor falls on the OP's failure to understand that other people define a word in a very different way than he does.

Quote from: Catelf;629569It is sad, really, if such a promising endeavor falls on the OP's failure to understand that other people define a word in a very different way than he does.

Another President of Roleplaying emerges and declares himself judge of the internet, when are all these elections taking place.

Objective fact:
The GM has power over the GM.

Objective fact:
The GM has no power over the players.

Objective fact:
Since the players have quite a lot of influence over their characters, the GM shares a minority of power over those characters with the players. If the GM decides to exercise majority power arbitrarily, they've stopped being a GM.

Up for discussion:
How much the GM and players should cooperate in upholding, interpreting and adjusting the rules.

Seems to be widely accepted:
The GM has massively majority power in the setting, but this isn't 100% true since the players also interact with the setting through their characters.

Matter of opinion:
The GM doesn't have power over the dice, that's called fudging. Fudge too often, or as some might say at all, and you may as well be having a conversation rather than playing a game. A weird and one sided conversation.

Since "Master" means "the person in control", it's a really poor description of what the GM does, as the GM only has total control over the GM and majority control over the setting.

You objected to none of this instead opting to come up with various definitions of master, none of which matter since we're talking about the master as the person in control. Objections for objections' sake.

Control versus cooperation, need these be mutually exclusive, it's an interesting question.

So, the conclusion on the role of the GM, with some changes particularly in how the GM interacts with the rules. I think this covers just about everything, unless there are other objections or amendments people think should be added...


Why do we need to define the role of the GM?
Problems are created when neither the group nor the GM understand the true role of the GM. The GM isn't the Game Master. This is a difficulty with the hobby, an assumption that if you just give someone a rulebook and some dice they'll get everything a GM is meant to be by intuition. It doesn't work and leads to bad games. Also having a clear definition will help to bring new gamers on board.

-------

Definitions:

What 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 neccessarily 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.

Rules and Setting
The setting is what the players interact with through their characters. This would include monsters, NPCs, spells, and so on. The 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.

The rules are how the players and their characters interact with the setting.


-------

There are four central assertions:

The GM is part of the group.
The role of the GM is neither adversarial nor neutral, but cooperative with the group.

The 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.

The GM never uses their power against the group, in that regard it's not even power at all. If 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.

What the group decides is Awesome.
The players create The Awesome through acting and becoming immersed in the roles of their characters.

*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.

The GM only has total power over the setting and the GM. And even the setting is somewhat arguable, since the characters can also affect the setting. This 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.

The GM has partial or shared power over the characters and the rules. This power is shared with the players and the dice.

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

The group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules 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. Therefore the group helps to bring The Awesome as well.

There is no equivalent role in any other endeavour.
The GM is not a storyteller, a judge, an actor, a director, an author, a researcher, a referee, a librarian, a manager or a host. The GM's role encompasses parts of all of these at times, but to use any one or two as a defintion of "GM" is wrong and misleading, and will end up with unsatisfying games if a GM attempts to wear just one or two hats, unaware of the other facets of the role.

-------

*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 or other resolution mechanic

How the GM interacts with the rules
The influence that the GM and players have over the rules is a sliding scale depending on the preferences of the group as a whole.

At one end of the scale the GM operates all rules and the players are only very minimally aware of these rules, as such it doesn't matter if the rules get changed or not since the players don't know about them. This can help immersion; in these games there is an implicit understanding that the GM will interpret the rules as they see fit on the fly, as well as the setting.

At the other end of the scale the players are quite familiar with the rules, perhaps as much as the GM. The GM and players have a shared responsibility to make sure that the rules are followed. It is shared because rules shouldn't be adjusted without the knowledge and agreement of the players, and this should preferably occur before the game begins. The rules in this case form a common understanding of how the characters and players interact with the setting, and as such should be unambiguously followed. The only exception to this guideline should be towards the end of bringing The Awesome, and even then used sparingly if at all.

If the GM arbitrarily changes rules without the consent or knowledge of the players at this end of the scale it is a form of meta gaming. Where the rules are ambiguous it is the job of the GM to decide which interpretation is correct, keeping in mind The Awesome. Ideally at this end of the spectrum, players should be familiar enough with the rules that their interactions should be second nature, so as to avoid reducing immersion.

All games fall somewhere between the two ends of this spectrum.

How the GM interacts with the setting
This is one of the most complex parts of the role of the GM in gaming. The setting encompasses the genre and associated assumptions, the NPCs and monsters, the maps, the world, the plots and adventures.

Player agency is a crucial part of this picture, since what the group decides is Awesome, and as such has a profound effect on event chains and plots. Being able to respond to this agency is an important part of the GM toolkit, within the understood boundaries of how the world should react and act appropriately.

A part of the role of the GM is to decide how the setting should react to these actions, this may have been done in advance or on the fly. In the former case it's modular or plotted play, in the latter it would be sandbox play. There's no reason why these two mightn't be mixed in the same game to one degree or another. Also the GM can and should be proactive in some cases. Facilitating the awesome rather than the plot or the rules would be the main message in the complex relationship between group and GM.

The players have an input into the setting beyond their characters, since they have to be interested enough to actually play in the first place. Players that aren't interested aren't playing. This is important as regards creating the setting and understanding the setting.

The GM should work with the setting to create conditions making it possible for characters to succeed in their individual goals. That doesn't neccessarily mean a bias for character success, it can mean simply setting up opportunities. Bias should be more towards bringing The Awesome.

The same concept applies whether you're talking about precreated worlds or worlds the GM created themselves. Character actions change the fabric of the setting and the GM needs to be able to deal with that in a constructive way, not neccessarily pursuing the goals of their own plot. This is a very complex area which revolves around player engagement.

How the GM interacts with the Players
This is where people skills come in handy. Players, the human beings sitting across the table from you, all have their own agendas and desires in each game. Part of the role of the GM is to make these various needs and desires work together to bring The Awesome. This includes arbitrating disputes, making sure all players are participating and have a chance to do so in a way that individual players will enjoy.

As well as this narration skills are of value to the GM in dealing with players, being able to verbally portray the game world in an interesting and engaging fashion, pausing where pauses are needed, acting out the different roles of various NPCs, public speaking essentially.

The GM also needs to help create an environment conducive to gaming, whether that means music, candlelight, quiet, food, or whatever.

Saying the GM isn't really the "Game Master" because the players aren't forced to be there and can quit at any time is kinda the same as saying your boss at work isn't really your boss because you could quit at any time.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629968Saying the GM isn't really the "Game Master" because the players aren't forced to be there and can quit at any time is kinda the same as saying your boss at work isn't really your boss because you could quit at any time.

The GM isn't the boss at work either.

I've amended the GM's relationship with the rules to incorporate your comments above, does that look a bit more like it or did I miss anything - would you amend it further?

Quote from: The Traveller;629970The GM isn't the boss at work either.

I've amended the GM's relationship with the rules to incorporate your comments above, does that look a bit more like it or did I miss anything - would you amend it further?

The GM's Control ends when the session ends, it was never a talk about the GM having control over the Players, it was always about control of the game itself, and the Players are not a part of the Game.

If players dislike a certain persons GM'ing enough to perhaps even leaving the table, then they end the Game, but while the Game still is on, the GM is in control, the Master.

If you dislike Game Master that much, then why not try Game Keeper?

Quote from: Catelf;629992the Players are not a part of the Game.

See this is what you're missing - the players are very much part of the game, the real life human beings sitting at the table. The GM has to interact with them and take into account their influence on the GM's decisions. You can't have a full definition of the role of the GM without taking into account all elements.

Quote from: Catelf;629992If you dislike Game Master that much, then why not try Game Keeper?

It's not a bad name, I'm not really looking for a replacement title for GM at this point, it's too ingrained into roleplaying culture to really change it, just observing that it's a poor description.

Awesome Facilitator? Is there a single word that means Awesome Bringer? Wondermaker? Meh.

In re-reading your latest writeup, I've come across an assumption that I thought I'd call out -

You're frequently assuming that the players are a unified body.  E.g. 'what is awesome' may vary.  In my experience, if one of the players is out of alignment with the rest of the group, I've relied on authority.

"Bill if you really want to roleplay that, you're going to need to GM your own game.  Don't count on me showing up."

Quote from: TristramEvans;629968Saying the GM isn't really the "Game Master" because the players aren't forced to be there and can quit at any time is kinda the same as saying your boss at work isn't really your boss because you could quit at any time.

What he's trying to say is that playing RPG's is a cooperative endeavor, aimed at entertainment or enjoyment.

The GM has a special role — which Traveller's attempting to define — but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

Surely that's beyond disputing, at least?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630002The GM has a special role — which Traveller's attempting to define — but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

Neither does the word "master" actually imply anything of the sort either, matter of fact. It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority. If one cannot make the difference between the two, I suggest it says more about the person's confusion than both of those concepts.

Quote from: Benoist;630006Neither does the word "master" actually imply anything of the sort either, matter of fact. It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority. If one cannot make the difference between the two, I suggest it's says more about the person's confusion than both of those concepts.

I was going to latch on to that part of the discussion, but Traveller dropped it pretty fast.  Anyway, if I had, I would have said something along the lines of 'Master of Ceremonies'.

Quote from: mcbobbo;630001You're frequently assuming that the players are a unified body.  E.g. 'what is awesome' may vary.  In my experience, if one of the players is out of alignment with the rest of the group, I've relied on authority.

That's already covered in terms of dealing with the players and what defines Awesome, the group as a whole should probably agree and understand before what sort of game and setting they are playing.

Regardless that's about good GM technique, which is different to the role of the GM. Another thread will be started to cover all that stuff once this is settled.

Quote from: Benoist;630006Neither does the word "master" actually imply anything of the sort either, matter of fact.

Of course master implies control. Not in every single corner of the English language but I'd say that's the most prominent implication, and hence the one I'm referring to.

Quote from: Benoist;630006It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority. If one cannot make the difference between the two, I suggest it's says more about the person's confusion than both of those concepts.

Authority: The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates". I'd say that's control, yes.

Rather than sitting here playing semantic word games all night, understand that I'm not saying the GM has no control. In fact a very brief reading of the conclusions should make that abundantly clear. If you haven't read it and tried to understand it, please do so.

Quote from: Benoist;630006It's not a question of control, it's a question of authority.

I happen to agree with you on that point. And I think GM authority is a positive aspect of roleplaying (or at least a necessary aspect).

But a lot of the stupid arguing going on in this thread revolves around "Total power!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yeah, so!"

So, I thought I'd cut to the chase:

The GM has a special role, but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

That is true, I think, and beyond controversy.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630019The GM has a special role, but that role doesn't include being in total charge of everything at the table.

Which is what I'm saying, in a more roundabout fashion.

I get the feeling that most of the objections in the thread aren't based on what's actually being said, but on prior ragewars with rules-uber-alles types (Denners?). This isn't one of those wars.

Quote from: The Traveller;630023Which is what I'm saying, in a more roundabout fashion.

Yes, I know. :)

I was trying to clarify your position, so we could short-circuit the "Nuh-uh!" "Yeah so!" roundhouse roundelay.

I thought that by cutting to the chase, we could move on to some more reasonable points.

The GM should, though, have the 'final word' on any disagreements.

This is really standard fare for RPGs.

Here's the thing: the GM has different roles depending on the game being played. A GM's role in a Paranoia game is going to be different than that of a GM's role in an OD&D game is going to be different than a GM's role in a D&D 4e game. And that's not even getting into storygames where the GM is part of a collective with shared responsibilities with the players like Eclipse Phase - many of these games redefine the role so drastically that they only exist in name.


A true all-encompassing definition has to acknowledge or account for all of this (well, all the RPGs at least, storygames can fend for themselves as far as I'm concerned).So yeah, playstyle-specific stuff like "the GM and players share equal power over the rules" doesn't any more belong in a general definition than "the GM is the one that hands out the cards"

Quote from: TristramEvans;630114Here's the thing: the GM has different roles depending on the game being played. A GM's role in a Paranoia game is going to be different than that of a GM's role in an OD&D game is going to be different than a GM's role in a D&D 4e game. And that's not even getting into storygames where the GM is part of a collective with shared responsibilities with the players like Eclipse Phase - many of these games redefine the role so drastically that they only exist in name.

No disagree with you there.

Those settings and genres are just that settings and genres the GMs role remains the same whatever game you play.

As I said pages and pages back

The GM's role

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles


So if you are playing OD&D or paranoia the GM's role doesn't change what changes are the interface to the world, the way the GM roleplays the world and the rules.

The GM still has to run the game by the rules in Paranoia just like they have to use the rules in OD&D.

It's easy to get a broad defintion as I provide here. It's almost impossible to get a general agreement on the specifics and precise verbiage because any two people will have different opinions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;630114Here's the thing: the GM has different roles depending on the game being played.

No. The role of the GM remains the same, what the GM does to fulfill that role varies. What you're saying here is the role of a GM can't be defined, which is nonsense. It has been defined, look at the link in my sig.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630134It's almost impossible to get a general agreement on the specifics and precise verbiage because any two people will have different opinions.

The definition has been adjusted to take into account objections raised so far, at this point we're more or less done I'd say.

Quote from: The Traveller;630145It has been defined, look at the link in my sig.


The definition has been adjusted to take into account objections raised so far, at this point we're more or less done I'd say.

Wouldn'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?

Quote from: The Traveller;630145No. The role of the GM remains the same, what the GM does to fulfill that role varies. What you're saying here is the role of a GM can't be defined, which is nonsense. It has been defined, look at the link in my sig.

And 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.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630134No disagree with you there.

Those settings and genres are just that settings and genres the GMs role remains the same whatever game you play.

As I said pages and pages back

The GM's role

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles

Yeah, that definition works.

Just 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".

Quote from: jibbajibba;630134No disagree with you there.

Those settings and genres are just that settings and genres the GMs role remains the same whatever game you play.

As I said pages and pages back

The GM's role

i) They act as the interface between the game world and the players
ii) They 'roleplay' the world ensuring the world obeys whatever laws have been selected for it and its denizens act and react as appropriate
iii) The GM enforces the rules consistently adjudicating fairly when there is room for debate - the rules are how the GM roleplays the world
iv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, generates hooks and opportunities for favoured play styles


So if you are playing OD&D or paranoia the GM's role doesn't change what changes are the interface to the world, the way the GM roleplays the world and the rules.

The GM still has to run the game by the rules in Paranoia just like they have to use the rules in OD&D.

It's easy to get a broad defintion as I provide here. It's almost impossible to get a general agreement on the specifics and precise verbiage because any two people will have different opinions.

With the possible exception of the fourth point, this sounds like a solid definition.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;630503With the possible exception of the fourth point, this sounds like a solid definition.

What is wrong with point 4?

Quote from: Bill;630528What is wrong with point 4?

For me, it's the part when the GM is supposed to generate stuff for each player's favored play style. I generate stuff for the play style the campaign is designed for. Players who aren't happy with that need to either live with it or find a new game.  For example, I do not detailed tactical combat so if that's one of a player's favored play styles and he/she elects to play in my campaign anyway, I am not going to add stuff to scratch his "detailed tactical combat" itch. Any more that I would treat the rules as rules instead of guidelines because a player wants to scratch his "RAW rules lawyer" itch.  Note that I certainly try to generate hooks and such so that each character has choices of things to do, but if a player is mainly interested in things that do not fit the campaign setting or play style(s) I'm running, those main interests are likely to be ignored.

Some of these GM definitions/guidelines seem like they are designed for the GM of a group of people who play many different games and campaigns instead for a GM who runs a single D&D campaign for players who choose to play in it. The needs of the former are different from those of the latter.

In fact, this is basically my problem with this entire discussion, it assumes that there is a single set of "good GM things" that apply to all groups, all settings, and all play styles. Once you get beyond vague generalities like "the GM is there to play the world and is show far as possible help the group have a enjoyable session", I simply think "one size fits all" not only does not help, but hurts.

Quote from: RandallS;630532For me, it's the part when the GM is supposed to generate stuff for each player's favored play style. I generate stuff for the play style the campaign is designed for. Players who aren't happy with that need to either live with it or find a new game.  For example, I do not detailed tactical combat so if that's one of a player's favored play styles and he/she elects to play in my campaign anyway, I am not going to add stuff to scratch his "detailed tactical combat" itch. Any more that I would treat the rules as rules instead of guidelines because a player wants to scratch his "RAW rules lawyer" itch.  Note that I certainly try to generate hooks and such so that each character has choices of things to do, but if a player is mainly interested in things that do not fit the campaign setting or play style(s) I'm running, those main interests are likely to be ignored.

Some of these GM definitions/guidelines seem like they are designed for the GM of a group of people who play many different games and campaigns instead for a GM who runs a single D&D campaign for players who choose to play in it. The needs of the former are different from those of the latter.

In fact, this is basically my problem with this entire discussion, it assumes that there is a single set of "good GM things" that apply to all groups, all settings, and all play styles. Once you get beyond vague generalities like "the GM is there to play the world and is show far as possible help the group have a enjoyable session", I simply think "one size fits all" not only does not help, but hurts.

I have always assumed that play style refers to how some players enjoy varying amounts of roleplay, investigation, and combat.

In general I agree with you but I think some things go way past play style.

Like; players that like to kill other players characters.

How's this for a rephrase:

Quoteiv) The GM ensures each player have the opportunity to participate in the game and have fun - enough face time with each PC, manages player expectations against the content of the campaign

Meaning, either you give it to them to have a discussion as to why you're not giving it to them.  And it's totally okay if that discussion is up front when deciding the ever important 'what to play'.

Quote from: Bill;630543In general I agree with you but I think some things go way past play style.

Like; players that like to kill other players characters.

I'm not sure why this is past play style.*



*I say this as someone who would immediately remove a player attempting to kill another PC from the group for violating the Social Contract.

Quote from: gleichman;630623I'm not sure why this is past play style.*



*I say this as someone who would immediately remove a player attempting to kill another PC from the group for violating the Social Contract.

Technically 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.

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.

Well 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?

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: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/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: (https://www.google.com/search?q=master+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
mas·ter  
/ˈmastər/
Noun

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

Master (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master)
 a : one having authority over another : ruler, governor
b : one that conquers or masters : victor, superior

Master (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/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: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/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: (https://www.google.com/search?q=master+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
mas·ter  
/ˈmastər/
Noun

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

Master (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master)
 a : one having authority over another : ruler, governor
b : one that conquers or masters : victor, superior

Master (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/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: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/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: (https://www.google.com/search?q=master+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
mas·ter  
/ˈmastər/
Noun

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

Master (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master)
 a : one having authority over another : ruler, governor
b : one that conquers or masters : victor, superior

Master (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/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.

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.

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).

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=629911&postcount=330), 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...

(http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1337/28/1337289691039.jpg)

Buh bye now.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ln-DEVzC2WM/SyGQ3T6WLWI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/mHU22Fn6Cy8/s320/Waaambulance.jpg)

The GM is God.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Traveller;631326It's very simple.

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

In what way was Seth McFarlane in complete control of the Oscars last night?

Oh wait, I forgot, you're deliberately dismissing that input because it's logically incongruent with your own point of view.

Let's see, then.  Another example...

In what way was Orko in total control of Eternia in the Masters of the Universe series?

In what way is masterbation in total control of anyone else, period?

What about a Kung Fu master?  Who does he control?

What about a mistress?  Does this also mean slaves?  Maybe figuratively, I guess.  Or if you're in to S&M.

In short, I being closed minded and linking dictionary.com is probably not a great way to gain understanding of language.  It has nuances.  Context.

Quote from: RPGPundit;631520The GM is God.

It's extremely unlikely that he exists? :eek:

It does seem to me Traveller that your definition is a bit circular. 'Bringing the awesome' is a loose enough term, and seems to vary so much depending on group and system etc, that we might as well just say that there isn't one sole definition of GMing at all. What's good practice for one group or system is going to be anathema to another group or system - and that's not even including storygames and stuff like that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;631520The GM is God.

RPGPundit

Absolute power and all that. I've no doubt that the members of this forum can deal with it, and I'm not saying that in a facetious manner, there are a lot of experienced GMs here, but that doesn't make it a good general idea. Nonetheless it has been included.

Quote from: mcbobbo;631619In short, I being closed minded and linking dictionary.com is probably not a great way to gain understanding of language.  It has nuances.  Context.

A context which isn't clear or immediately obvious in RPGs, which is why I'm using the most common and widely understood definition since that's what people will think of first. I'm not denying other definitions exist, far from it. But even those other definitions don't form a complete picture of what a GM is, and so are equally useless if a bit less damaging.

Quote from: soviet;631706It does seem to me Traveller that your definition is a bit circular.

Well I tried to cover all the bases, so I'd prefer "complete". :D

Quote from: soviet;631706'Bringing the awesome' is a loose enough term, and seems to vary so much depending on group and system etc, that we might as well just say that there isn't one sole definition of GMing at all. What's good practice for one group or system is going to be anathema to another group or system - and that's not even including storygames and stuff like that.

That it's an open ended term doesn't obviate its usefulness as far as the rest of the definition goes. I actually find it puzzling that people might think so, there must be an open ended element since the role of the GM is open ended. But crucially, only in that way.

Quote from: soviet;631706It's extremely unlikely that he exists? :eek:

As a matter of fact, if the GM is really good, then the players should be able to forget that the world they're playing in is just coming from his head, that the characters they're interacting with are just coming from his voice.

The more the players forget that the GM exists while in play, the better.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;632127As a matter of fact, if the GM is really good, then the players should be able to forget that the world they're playing in is just coming from his head, that the characters they're interacting with are just coming from his voice.

The more the players forget that the GM exists while in play, the better.

RPGPundit

I think I agree with that, yeah. It should feel natural.

Quote from: soviet;632133I think I agree with that, yeah. It should feel natural.

Well, glad we agree!

RPGPundit