Defining the role of the GM and the players, I want to continue this discussion here. Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Paul]

Ok, obviously you're not getting me: (so just one last time)

Scenario is GM territory. Obviously the GM decides what things happen in the world. He has full control over all of that, which obviously still means that while playing the game, his leverage is always greater. Still, whatever he does should all the while obey the rules and mechanics of the game (if not to the letter, then at least in spirit). (Which also means that he shouldn't prepare plot, because that often has problems, for instance sacrificing consistency for drama and stuff like that. Different topic again.)

Rules are GROUP territory. Rules and mechanics make interactions in the game world possible. They facilitate anything that happens in the game world, and they define and give structure (and limitations) to the overlapping spheres of influence of players (and their characters) and the GM. Therefore they must be transparent, obvious, understood and mutually agreed upon. You agree on a game and the available source material, and that defines the basis of the game you are playing. Any and all deviations from that basis, i.e. from the rules and mechanics of the game, must be put by the group, or else no further interaction is possible. If one guy just decides he'll do things differently, then the game falls apart - even if that guy is the GM. Because once the GM starts doing things differently, then I can no longer rely on the possible interactions within the game world (and certain metagame things, too). And even just giving him the possibility of changing things on the fly without prior notice or discussion is making these interactions impossible to gauge. Of course the GM also acts as mediator and moderator - but his weight in any given matter shouldn't be much greater than everyone else's. He might be the one to tip the scales, but he doesn't get to decide against all others involved.

So obviously this is all in theory, and in practice we generally have to compromise for all sorts of imperfections - laziness, lack of rules knowledge, time, etc., all of which blur the handle you can have on the game world. So... game rules should be a bit like the laws physics - you don't have to know all of them, but you can still rely on certain things working in certain ways. And gravity won't stop just because one guy says so. (Unless he's a wizard.)

That's all I'm saying, and no matter what game you are playing that simple division holds up. I'm not saying that the trust relationship is wrong, obviously you trust the GM to create a scenario that is fun for everyone, and in turn uphold the very important responsibility of a player to likewise ensure that everyone else can have fun, too.

And why do I think this method is better than the old "it's the GM's game, he gets final say on everything" method? Because that old one can cause all kinds of crap. Crap that doesn't happen once you understand that the GM is basically just a player - albeit with greater responsibilities. I'm not saying the other one can't work, it's just that mine works better in more cases. If the rule books of all the games out there were more clear on the matter (and sometimes less reactionary) then gaming would be more fun for a lot of people.

And ok, end of that OT.

From the original thread. I want to continue the discussion here, and will come back to ask some questions and make a few comments.