GM Styles, Collaborative vs. "Benelovent Dictator" Options

[Cain]

Doc asked someone to move this to its own thread, so here we go.

I'm going to open this with the same controversial comment that started this whole mess:

THE GM IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PLAYERS!!

The GM is just another player. He had added responsibility, but he ultimately doesn't have any more authority than the other players. If there's a conflict between the GM and a player, he shouldn't be: "I'm god, what I say goes!" Instead, he should be seeking group consensus; and if the consensus goes against him, the GM should bow gracefully to the will of the group, just like any other player.

The GM does not need to be the final rules arbiter. In fact, sometimes it's better when he isn't. Not everyone can memorize rulebooks. Most people just skim through the sections that pertain to their character. It takes a dedicated sort to fully absorb a ruleset, and that skill is really quite low among the qualities that make up a good GM. Being able to create fun, collaborative stories is #1. I'd rather have a GM who can tell good stories but can't remember rules, than one who can quote chapter and verse, but can't tell a good story.

Now, for those of you who claim that the benevolent dictator style works for them-- have you tried a more collaborative game before? Something like Wushu, which gives many of the traditional GM roles to the players; or Capes, which requires no GM at all. Heck, what about more traditional games with "Drama Points", such as Unisystem? They may not work for everyone, but how can you say it won't work for you if you don't try it?

[DocTaotsu]

I hardly say that the conversation we've been having about GMing and gaming groups is a mess ;p

Unlike certain, to remain unnamed, spittle spewing rules arguments... this actually has some merit in my opinion. Plus I don't think it's devolved into your classic internet screaming match. Speaks highly of DS.

Anyways on with inevitable verbal deathmatch.


In the most general sense I have to agree with Cain. A great game can exist without a great GM but a bad GM can crush good gamers like an <Insert Appropriate Analogy Here. Consider Topical Humor>

My personal experience is that playing with a great GM is like working for a great leader/manager. Great leader/manager/GM make things happen but do it in such a way that the people "working" for them feel like they accomplished it all on their own... which they did. They facilitate rather than simply dictate. The whole group is a team building a story and the GM is simply part of that team. At the same time the role of the GM is that of editor, of standing apart and above all the action to make sure it's all shuffling in more or less the right direction. Of mediating conflicts of all sort and getting people the things they need to accomplish their goal, which in this case is to have fun.

I contend that a single good GM can keep a team of poor/mediocre players "on track" insofar as they continue to have fun as a group despite their individual best efforts to do unfun things like argue about rules for 4 hours. The better the players the less the GM has to do. I game with some fantastic players so I feel like I'm a mediocre GM at best, they drive the game I just make sure we get some gas in the tank every once in awhile.


I think it'd be appropriate to discuss the role of players at this point. What makes a "good" player?

[Method]

Hmmm... this should be an interesting read. Having played with Cain in the past and potentially Doc in the future I'm curious to see where this goes...

[DocTaotsu]

In my idealized gaming world, that exists on the same make believe realm as the platonic ideals, the GM's role is a great deal like puppeters in some forms of puppet theater. The GM is there, sitting at the table and pulling the strings of the universe. The players are both audience and actor as they interact with the world. The GM (who is wearing all black as these puppeters usually do) slowly begins to fade into the background, the drama and action becoming the only thing the players really notice. In the end the GM has played the game just as much as the players but the players see only themselves, as their puppets, moving through the story. Players are the center of their own story and all is right in the world.

That is perhaps not for everyone but I think, for me, it's something to strive for. The less the players focus on me and the more they focus on the story we are collectively telling, the higher their suspension of disbelief comes. When disbelief is properly suspended, that's when I think the magic of tabletop gaming shines through.

In other words I think the highest ideal of any RPG is to have a group that forgets that they are a bunch of grown people sitting at a table eating pizza and rolling colorful dice. In much the same way a good book helps you forget that you're a person reading a book, an RPG helps you forget that your a person rolling some dice.

I dislike antagonistic GM/Player dynamics because more often than not players will focus on the GM and not on the world being generated. Player should never hate a GM, they should fucking hate this world that their colorful and vibrant characters are fighting for their lives in. I've had a couple of GM's who took no uncertain pleasure in killing PC's. Even when done fairly the focus shifted from "Goddamn the world/story killed me!" and into "Goddamn GM X killed my character!". That's not a good place to be.

But like I said, that's just my view. I think it's perfectly acceptable, especially for those who like the crunchy gaming side of RPG's to have that antagonistic relationship. I just think that the mindset is different from the one I'm trying to create. Players are aware that they are controlling pieces on a board against the GM's pieces. It's more like playing chess than playing an RPG. But chess is fun as hell so I can't knock them for enjoying it. Like I said though, I'd prefer to see that line between player/piece eliminated and the awareness of the guy in the black outfit fading into the background.

Wow... that got a little philosophical me thinks. It also bears mentioning that what I've described is my ideal and I'm far away from reaching it. But it's what I'm shooting for. The GM should not be the star of the game, the players should be.

[Cain]

I think it'd be appropriate to discuss the role of players at this point. What makes a "good" player?

Ultimately, what makes a good player are the same things that make a good GM. Willingness to create an atmosphere of shared fun, ability to tell enjoyable stories, desire to contribute so that everyone has a good time, and so on and so forth. Good players also tend to be good GM's.

Bad players and GMs also share traits in common. For example, if a player wants to hog the spotlight, he'll play a character that butts into everything. If a GM has that same issue, he'll produce a GMPC who can do everything the PC's can, only better.

The bottom line here is that both GMs and players are out to have fun. I think that drawing a huge distinction between the two just encourages antagonism. Once you realize you're all on the same side, by deleting some of the more meaningless conventions, you can really have a more fun game.

I played in Method's game, and he didn't pull the "benevolent dictator" line on us. I think he worked with us a lot more than some GM's I've played with.

[DocTaotsu]

It sounds likes we're saying essentially the same thing. The difference is I just feel that you can't categorically say that the GM doesn't bear a dispropotionate burden to the individual players. This isn't true in systems that eliminate or minimize the role of a GM but it is true of most Shadowrun games.

I fully agree with the sentiment that everyone at a gaming table is inherently on "The same team".

I think the problem is that RPGs (and by extension their players) are primarily the spawn of D&D which is in turn the spawn of Chainmail which in turn traces it's lineage back to the complex war games of yore (sp?). What this means is that RPG's started out with an oppositional GM/Player dynamic. The game was about crushing your enemies armies and the focus of "enemy" shifted from "everyone not me" to "everyone not us (the players)". This made the GM the enemy from the get go. Furthermore war games typically have very complex and rigid rule structures that explicity spell out the various elements in a given game. You wouldn't go to a chess game and say "But don't you think it'd be cooler if the Queen could move like the Knight in addition to her normal movement?". For the most part RPGs have been moving steadily away from these war gaming roots but some of the attitudes persist.

For myself, I started playing RPGs with 2nd ed D&D. Only a couple of generations divorced from it's gaming roots the text still read a great deal like people trying to approximate medieval combat while reconcilling it with an urge to be Legolas from LoTR. The game was very much about hacking dungeons, gaining allies, and hacking bigger dungeons or armies. Good stories came out of that, epic stories even, but I believe that happened in spite of the system not because of it. Which only goes to show, rules are merely there to hang our stories on. If the rules truly prevent you from telling your story change them or ignore them (completely as many of you have chosen to).

Almost two decades from the first time my time traveling mage got smoke checked by a wolf in his first encounter. I find myself gravitating towards the story side of gaming even in a system like SR where combat is a major story element. I find it intensly boring when my players run around like Awakened SWAT teams and take down buildings full of gangers like juiced up Blackwater. I like that they endeavor to find solutions to combat that are often at odds with the rules. Running people down with improvised vehicles, dropping celestial bison on enemies (wait, that wasn't my game... it was still awesome though), stealing their enemies firing pins, smacking flashbangs out of enemies hands, etc etc. Much more interesting than say "I enter the room using X rule because it gives me the most pluses next to my attack roll."

Damnit, rambling again. My bad guys.

[psychophipps]

The bottom line here is that both GMs and players are out to have fun. I think that drawing a huge distinction between the two just encourages antagonism. Once you realize you're all on the same side, by deleting some of the more meaningless conventions, you can really have a more fun game.

I played in Method's game, and he didn't pull the "benevolent dictator" line on us. I think he worked with us a lot more than some GM's I've played with.

The operative term here is "benevolent", I think. Yes, you have to listen to what the players have to say. Yes, you have to clarify the situation so they understand what's going on in the story. Yes, you have to admit when you're wrong.

You also, however, have the final say in the matter. Full Stop. You also have the right to declare certain scenes and situations as being in "cinematic mode" without the players being whiny little bitches about it.

[DocTaotsu]

Ehhh... I know what your saying and there are situations where I'd agree but personal experience says that it is a GM ability that's better thought of than used.

I personally hate when a game goes into "cinematic cutscene mode", I've done it of course but I've also let my player do it too (if they want to describe some particularly awesome event that may or may not require the rolling of dice). My experience is that "cutscene mode" is usually code for "I spent all night typing up this awesome villian monologue so you're all going to shut up and let me read it."
Fucking hate monologues...
My belief is that a player should never feel like they have to "put down their controller" because the GM is running his suck about how pretty the chandeliers are.

[Method]

Well it sounds to me like the two of you (Cain and Doc) are in agreement, and I'm right there with you. I think the having fun and telling a good story are paramount. I have personally played against the not-so-benevolent dictator in the past and it sucks. I think one of my least favorite gaming memories was playing ED with a notoriously "me-vs-the PC's" style GM. We spent about 6 hours just trying to figure out the one and only way he wanted us to get out of our kaer. In the end my character incited a riot (which happens to be incredibly violent within the confines of an underground city) and we never did get out. Come to think of we never played ED again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif) The odd thing, tho is that particular GM was one of the best players in the SR game I GM'd... go figure.

But I digress. I think Doc has done a good job of describing how I see a good GM, and as Cain has said I tend to work with players, not against them. In fact, I think we had a pretty good exchange of ideas. I was (still am?) grappling with the switch to SR4 and was GMing for at least 2 players (Cain and Steve) who knew the new edition better than me. To be honest, it allowed me to comfortably side-step the rules lawyering and settle into a story telling role.

And on the same note: I think one thing that makes a good player is a familiarity with the rules set that allows them keep the game moving mechanics-wise while the GM focuses on story telling. That, and a willingness to immerse themselves in the collective storytelling. Games wherein the entire group relies on the GM to dictate or regurgitate the rules AND drive the plot tend to be the same games that bog down.

[DocTaotsu]

Ah yes that reminds me to comment on the "Good player" thing I brought up.

Good players know the rules for their characters, especially if they are playing something that has rules that no one else will ever deal with (I'm looking at you riggers and hackers). It makes gameplay run so much easier when players can succintly explain exactly what they want to do: I'm going to do X and use Y, Z, and Q to do it. My DP is <large number> are there any modifiers?

The less time I spend squinting at a rulebook or puzzling over a calculator the more time I have to focus on getting on with the damn story. I'm lazy like that. GM's need to know the rules so they can make fair rules improvisations on the fly but it's not vital that they have all the tables in the book tattooed on their eyelids.


@Method: Ah yes... the Pixel Fuck. The least enjoyable games I've played in all reminded me of playing Sierra adventure games prior to GameFAQs. Characters should feel hopelessly fucked from time to time, players should not. I hate seeing players struggle over what the "correct" action should be in a given scenario. It's railroading without the benefit of actually seeing the rails. Generally speaking if I feel there's only one way out of a situation I'll say "Hey guys, the only way out of this is to do X" and I chalk it up as bad GMing because I failed to provide the players with interesting options for overcoming said obstacle.

[MaxMahem]

Doc asked someone to move this to its own thread, so here we go.

I'm going to open this with the same controversial comment that started this whole mess:

THE GM IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PLAYERS!!

The GM is just another player. He had added responsibility, but he ultimately doesn't have any more authority than the other players. If there's a conflict between the GM and a player, he shouldn't be: "I'm god, what I say goes!" Instead, he should be seeking group consensus; and if the consensus goes against him, the GM should bow gracefully to the will of the group, just like any other player.

The GM does not need to be the final rules arbiter. In fact, sometimes it's better when he isn't. Not everyone can memorize rulebooks. Most people just skim through the sections that pertain to their character. It takes a dedicated sort to fully absorb a ruleset, and that skill is really quite low among the qualities that make up a good GM. Being able to create fun, collaborative stories is #1. I'd rather have a GM who can tell good stories but can't remember rules, than one who can quote chapter and verse, but can't tell a good story.

I disagree.

Firstly and most importantly, the GM is not a player in the game and never should be. This is what is crucial to being a good GM, impartiality. A GM should have no stake in the game. At the end of a session there should be no way for a GM to measure his success or failure in the session other than enjoyment he got out of it. This is in starch contrast to players who ultimatly do have quanatative goals (karma, nuyen) they strive for in the game, and which they use to measure their characters 'success' in the game. GM's don't get 'GM point' for killing a player or for saving a crucial NPC. The crucial difference is why the players implicitly or explicitly surrender the authority to the GM to make rulings when they sit down at the game.

Most of the time when we here stories of bad GM's it is because they have violated this 'GM is not a player rule.' And are instead making decisions and rulings that benefit some agenda they have in game. Classic examples of this are GM 'Mary Sues' that can do everything better than the PCs and to whom the rules do not apply.

The second reason GM's are given authority in games is to regulate player conflicts in a game. These can range from the overt (the players turn guns on one another) to the subtle (a PC is constantly hogging the spotlight). These 'PvP' conflicts almost invariably arise because again of the players striving towards 'success' in the game. Which is exactly why a impartial GM who is outside of the game is necessary to resolve the conflicts. The very fact that player bias on the table has grown to the point where these conflicts are happening, should show the necessity of a GM. Someone impartial able to make decisions not for the good of an individual player or character, but upon the basis of what is right/good for the game (depending upon your groups playstyle).

The third reason an impartial GM is necessary is to provide challenge in a game. It is often for a player to provide a challenge for himself. The temptation to skip straight to the 'victory' part is often to sweet. Which is ironic because victories a player wins against himself are often not vary fulfilling. Which is why an impartial GM is needed to create challenges for the players. If the players were allowed to decide all the rules, the temptation to override everything in there way to victory would often be to great. Thus an impartial GM is needed to design and adjudicate them.

The fourth reason GM's are made arbiters is to tell a story. As the creator of the universe the GM has a much larger part role to play in the telling of the story and thus more power and responsibility. When the players ask the GM to create a setting in which to play the game, they are at the same time surrendering some of their authority as to what will occur in the universe. This plays into the third reason as the players surrender the athority in order to have a more impartial (and thus challenging and enjoyable) setting to play in. At the same time GM gives up the athority he might other wise have in telling his story in order to have more enjoyable actors, the players. Which creates for him a more enjoyable story then one he might write on his own.

Which is, in fact, why we do all this!

---

Now could you have a game where no GM was necessary. Where the rules did not require arbitration because players were totally impartial when it came ot their characters. Where interpersonal conflicts never occurred. Where everyone had the discipline to create a challenged environment? And where group discussion was able to arrive a compelling story satisfactory to all parties? Possibly.

But I have found in practice such lofty goals are rarely achievable. Madison put it best when he said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." The same is true for games. People are imperfect. And so the system of rules and arbiters was designed to make things like RPG doable by flawed mortals.

[Cain]

The operative term here is "benevolent", I think. Yes, you have to listen to what the players have to say. Yes, you have to clarify the situation so they understand what's going on in the story. Yes, you have to admit when you're wrong.

You also, however, have the final say in the matter. Full Stop. You also have the right to declare certain scenes and situations as being in "cinematic mode" without the players being whiny little bitches about it.

Sorry, I forgot to add the sarcasm tags. "Benevolent Dictator" is actually an oxymoron. A dictator is all about power; any benevolence is just an attempt to get more power.

I've run in games where the GM did not have final say in the matter. In the game Method and I were in, Steve and I both knew the rules better than he did. If we had questions on a rules call, we made a decision together. Granted, we were all learning the system to an extent; so it works out better that way when you're absorbing a new ruleset.

I keep bringing up Wushu and Capes, but that's only because they prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you can give away large amounts of GM authority and still have a fun game. Heck, in Capes, there is no GM at all. You can have a fun game without a GM, but you can't have a fun game without good players. The important thing to remember here is that the GM is just another player.

[DocTaotsu]

I would say simply that the GM is and should be far from impartial when it comes to moderating a game. Impartial in terms of fair? Yes. But otherwise no.

I've also yet to game with a group of people (individuals? yes) who wanted to skip "straight to winning". The only time I've seen this attitude surface is when the game was running on rails and the sights from the train weren't all that interesting.

Finally I'd say that the GM is not there to tell a story. He's there to help the players tell their story. The best games I've run have been a great deal like shaking a box full of explosives, pointy things, and interesting NPC's into a themetically moderated sandbox. After a brief discussion of what I'd just dumped into their play pen the PC's took over and started picking up pointy things and applying them to my NPC's. In the end all I was really doing was continuing to add interesting things to the box and removing boring (usually dead) game elements when necessary. Were there times when I drove more than the players? Yes. Were those times very interesting for the players? Usually not.

My guiding light is that, for the most part, my players don't really like hearing me talk all day. I'll do it anyways because someone needs to make the screaming sounds when NPCs get shot but it's not exactly like I'm the focus here.

I'll close by saying that I don't game because I get karma or xp. I game because I get to save interesting NPC's, kill other ones, and grow attached to a bit of fiction some friends and I have worked on. As a GM my basic goal of having fun and telling stories is the same as the players.

I think everyone needs to read through this indie game called "Polaris". Very interesting setup, the GM isn't removed so much as hacked into 4 equally sized chunks that the game table shares and rotates. It's not how I'd like to game everyday but it is an interesting exercise in gaming.

[The Exiled V.2.0]

Since a whole new topic was spun off, I'm replying to various things here.

Remind me never to game with you. I wouldn't even consider sitting down at a table for an RPG if the GM thought of it as a 'power structure.' It's a social activity, usually enjoyed by a group of friends, not a military unit. There is absolutely NO NEED for some jerk to decide they have to be the alpha male leader.

*shrugs* YMMV. It may be the tendency of the group that I run with; if you do not lay down the law in an authoritative manner, you will get snarked and your campaign/adventure will likely be derailed. I'm also gaming with a bunch of 40+ people who like to put down alignments in old-skool D&D as "Lawful Anal" and "Chaotic Bastard".

As was stated...in game the GM decides the rules questions and sets the stage, between sessions it is ALL by committee and has worked like a charm for more than two decades without one tenth of the arguing that I see going on in the very calmest and sanest of the dictatorial games.

Ok, granted. So what do you do with the player who insists they are right and re-opens the debate every between-session? If everything is committee between games, how does someone have the fiat to stop an argument from being brought up again for the umpteenth time.

Heck, the other week, I was in a D&D game like that-- no matter how high I rolled, I could not hit the unarmored orcs, because the DM was saving them for a plot device.

Now, this is the type of gaming I have to rail against.
It's fine to set up events for the PCs, to motivate the players, and to be a hellatious bastard as a GM. That's Kool and the Gang.
But unarmored orcs and you can't hit them? SCREW THAT NOISE. While it's the GM's perogative to do so - his game, his world - that's a flat example of DEM and railroading. This is a clear case of the GM forgetting the first rule of gaming - The GM Should Not Flagrantly Disobey The Rules.
If I would never be able to hit the orcs no matter what their status as plot device, fine, so be it.
If I can't hit them BECAUSE of plot device, the GM has failed. If he wanted them as plot device, he should have introduced said orcs as being that much more uber.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: You can have an extremely fun game when the GM isn't The Final Word. In fact, if you think about it, how often do you have to hand down pronouncements from the pulpit in your games? If the answer is "seldom to never", then you don't need that authority, do you?

I would say this is entirely dependent on who you game with.
Me, I game with people who love to indulge in backroom plotting and backstabbing the other players, if it's within plot. Most GMs I've seen would be driven to distraction by this.

When astral combat was joined we both suddenly realized that he had never spent on points on Astral Combat because... he was a newbie, had no idea what that it was for, figured he could just throw spells and be done with it. At the ranges in question and given that he was attacking the guy in his own turf... the PC was going to die more or less instantly. Now if I was just dead set on smoking PCs this would be one of those prime candidates for instant and horrific death. The PC had been stupid to try and antagonize this guy but the player was a newbie who didn't fully grasp the rules.

That's a definite difference in style.
I myself would have woefully and sorrowfully waxed the PC, telling him afterwards why it happened.
UNLESS - everyone in the group does not have the SR rulebook. Important point there.
However, my credo is more or less "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse."

I disagree.

Firstly and most importantly, the GM is not a player in the game and never should be.
*snip*

I agree with MaxMahem's post completely.

[BullZeye]

I used to GM in NWN in a realm where all the GMs were "gods". The avatar name was always [insert name here] God. I found this to be mostly on the ego of the admin (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) (Yes, if you are reading this, it was your ego, mon) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) I never did like to be called a god as I hardly feel like one. GM is above players on some aspects, but still usually just a human (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif) It's of course bit different on an online game as one doesn't really know the people one is GMing to compared to normal PnP games. One can be a total arsehole towards people and laugh hiding in one's own place where people around the world are not happy campers.

GM has either best or worst of both worlds, the players side and leaders side. One gets to roleplay countless number of characters (NPCs) and make the events just to fit one's own imagination. Also he/she is the arbiter of rules (either alone or in group) who has to keep things up and running. In most games GM is important as without one, there is no game. Then again, without players there's no game either. Would be interesting to try one of the systems mentioned, that use no GM at all, but for SR that wouldn't work. I doubt it would work in my group to play without GM but never tried so never know.

I agree that a game master's main task isn't about telling a story but to help players to tell one. Sometimes, when the story is interesting enough and one can move inside the train to look around, it's ok to have such a story. But when the train is on a constant movement and the players get only choose do they want to take nuts or have to take nuts from the waitress, then it's no longer interesting to me. For some that would work, I guess. On that NWN server that I mentioned, two of the GMs were railroaders. One was 95% railroad & 5% forum searching for info and the other was 101% railroad. But as one did get some virtual reward for sitting, back then it wasn't all bad.

Maybe that is why some GMs like to tell a story as they want to tell one and enjoy it. Players are there to either assist on telling the story or just sitting on their behinds and rolling dice. I've witnessed both styles (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) I think it is also depending on the game system how well storytelling works on a RPG. On Call of Cthulhu it is good to have a story on the bottom and then give the players some kind of "plot" to follow. The few times I had a plot going on on the background on SR, the players ignored it 95% of it. When they did eventually learn that they were used and were responsible on the deaths of millions, the looks were priceless (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

I'll close by saying that I don't game because I get karma or xp. I game because I get to save interesting NPC's, kill other ones, and grow attached to a bit of fiction some friends and I have worked on. As a GM my basic goal of having fun and telling stories is the same as the players.

Well said and I agree.

[DocTaotsu]

@The Exiled V.2.0: The player didn't have easy access to the books and was new to RPG's in general. Killing him in this case, in my opinion, who have been an object lesson in "Being punished for bad GM guidance is lame." not a lesson in making sure you know all the rules.

Even then I don't think it's a GM's job to find situation where he can exploit a players lack of knowledge to kill his PC. And if he stumbles into such a situation he should work with the player to decide if the character would know better.

Good players are usually willing to admit when it's time for a PC to die. I've actually had players demand I kill their PC's before. I imagine you'll find few antagonistic tables where that is true.

[Cantankerous]

The second reason GM's are given authority in games is to regulate player conflicts in a game. These can range from the overt (the players turn guns on one another) to the subtle (a PC is constantly hogging the spotlight). These 'PvP' conflicts almost invariably arise because again of the players striving towards 'success' in the game. Which is exactly why a impartial GM who is outside of the game is necessary to resolve the conflicts. The very fact that player bias on the table has grown to the point where these conflicts are happening, should show the necessity of a GM. Someone impartial able to make decisions not for the good of an individual player or character, but upon the basis of what is right/good for the game (depending upon your groups playstyle).

First, of course the GM is the rules arbiter... in session. Between sessions why in the name of god would he have to be the only voice on the conduct of a undertaking that he is only one more part of?

As to the quoted section above, Player conflicts? You mean character conflicts I hope? PvP conflicts are a sure sign of a sick game. Character v Character conflicts on the other hand can be a valuable part of a great game. If the GM is having to make decisions though about what is right/good for the game because these conflicts are harming the game, THEN it IS a PvP conflict and the game is just bloody sick (as in ill, as in not operating in a optimal manner).

These PvP conflicts grow out of the "daddy knows best" style of GMing where the GM "has to" make decisions on what is right/good for the game, because he is sure that the Players can't. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and a self enforcing one. In my experience it doesn't stop such things from happening, it causes them!

We have CvC conflicts in our game at times. My Players are a strongly opinionated bunch and it shows up in their characters. When there arise situations where the characters don't see eye to eye, well hell, conflict happens. But it does not become PvP among adults who act like adults (likely in no small part because they are being treated like adults, not like wayward children who need daddy's supervision to play nice) nor does it harm the game.

It is when the GM feels that he HAS TO control the situation for the good of the game that this all falls apart. The mission might not be successfully completed because the PCs are suddenly galvanized against one another by a situation, sure. So what? In what way does THAT harm the game? Why not just include it as a part of the game?

If it goes on far enough, long enough, the PCs might split.

Again, so what? It happens. The characters either find a commonality strong enough to continue to work together on other things in spite of their differences...or they don't and some or several or even all of the characters are replaced with new ones. The Players also keep those other characters on tap and because sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend even he used to be MY enemy too.

As long as the Players are adult enough to not over identify with their characters and the GM treats them like adults instead of assuming they are wayward children and treating them that way there is really almost never a problem…and when they do crop up they get resolved between the Players foremost.

The fourth reason GM's are made arbiters is to tell a story. As the creator of the universe the GM has a much larger part role to play in the telling of the story and thus more power and responsibility. When the players ask the GM to create a setting in which to play the game, they are at the same time surrendering some of their authority as to what will occur in the universe. This plays into the third reason as the players surrender the athority in order to have a more impartial (and thus challenging and enjoyable) setting to play in. At the same time GM gives up the athority he might other wise have in telling his story in order to have more enjoyable actors, the players. Which creates for him a more enjoyable story then one he might write on his own.

Why is the GM the universe creator? If he is using even a large part of the published background he is NOT creating that universe. He is simply the one using the created universe to present situations that he has (possibly) created for the PCs to interact with. Just as they CREATE their own responses to said situations. Why is his creation more valid?

Plyaers need not surrender anything. Here you go make it adversarial again, right from the get go. The Players have to not only compete, but SURRENDER, right from the start, to the GM. And this isn’t GM power tripping?

When the GM is presenting his situations and the Players are presenting their responses to those situations, instead of giving up authority to the universe creator (aka: God) the adversarial relationship gets taken out and, in my looooong experience at this, everyone has more fun.

Now could you have a game where no GM was necessary. Where the rules did not require arbitration because players were totally impartial when it came ot their characters. Where interpersonal conflicts never occurred. Where everyone had the discipline to create a challenged environment? And where group discussion was able to arrive a compelling story satisfactory to all parties? Possibly.

But I have found in practice such lofty goals are rarely achievable. Madison put it best when he said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." The same is true for games. People are imperfect. And so the system of rules and arbiters was designed to make things like RPG doable by flawed mortals.

The GM is as necessary as the Players. Not more so, not superior in any manner, but he IS necessary. But not to ENFORCE rules or create the universe. He is their to interpret the rules, in session, and to present his situations for the Players to interact with. Nothing more.



Isshia

[Blade]

I think everyone needs to read through this indie game called "Polaris". Very interesting setup, the GM isn't removed so much as hacked into 4 equally sized chunks that the game table shares and rotates. It's not how I'd like to game everyday but it is an interesting exercise in gaming.

Hey it's not indie! It used to be quite popular in France. Or maybe you're talking about another RPG named Polaris? The one I'm talking about was some kind of underwater space opera.

Back on topic, I think the GM is more important than any of the player, but about as important as all the players. It's very simple: you can play without a player, but you can't play without a GM (except for GM-less games but I'll handle that later) or without players (except if you've got good imaginary friends). If a GM sucks, the game will suck. If one player sucks, the game won't suck. If all the players suck, the game will suck. Simple.

Usually the GM has a lot more work and responsibilities too. He has, among other things, to come up with the story, deal with the reactions of a lot of NPCs and has the final say on rules application. He also has to be fair in all situations and is often (though not always) considered as the one who should deal with difficult players and the difficulties some players face.

Some games change these roles. They give some powers and responsibilities to the players. There are a lot of different ways to do it. Some have "cheating points", some let the players handle the descriptions, some let the group vote for how the plot will continue... While it's interesting, I don't think it's better and I don't think it's the way to go for all games.

Just like there isn't any universally better ruleset, there isn't any universally better GMing way. They all have their pros and their cons. The thing is: they impact the way the game is, they're intimately linked to the feeling of the game. Just like rules must fit the game, these GMing tweaks must fit. For example, letting players add details to a description will be perfect for a cinematographic game, but it won't fit an Orwellian game where PC are nearly powerless against the system.
And just like everyone should know what rules they're using, they should also know what GMing style they will have. If the GM thinks he's supposed to be a benevolent dictatorship but the players are expecting a democratic game, the game won't work.

[sunnyside]

*sigh* This is showing up on my "I doesn't matter what you say in this thread people who know each other are arguing with each other and everyone else left" radar but oh well.

Anyway in regards to other systems. Those systems are made to have those kind of GM styles. This is Shadowrun which has a fairly established understanding of what a GM does and I think it works very well.

In regards to Shadowrun GM "power" and "importance" I agree that the GM is about equal to the sum of the players. Obviously consensus building is important. But ultimately for the GM to be able to tell their stories they need a measure of at least editorial control.

Also I think it's the GMs job to reign in people abusing the rules and/or doing various things that ruin the fun for other players. I'm keeping it abstract, but you'll know it when you see it. And a lot of time other players don't want to be the guy that says "but you can't do that" to another player. Or they can be badgered into going along with a dominant player. In these cases the GM should be the one taking point.

[DocTaotsu]

As always YMMV.

The Polaris I speak of is uh... very hard for me to describe succinctly.
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12354.phtml

It's not a game for everyone but I like what it's trying to do and I think it does it well. I can't say that about virtually anything else in gaming.

[Blade]

Ok, so it's not the Polaris I know. The one I know is the 1997 one

[sk8bcn]

Doc asked someone to move this to its own thread, so here we go.

I'm going to open this with the same controversial comment that started this whole mess:

THE GM IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PLAYERS!!

The GM is just another player. He had added responsibility, but he ultimately doesn't have any more authority than the other players. If there's a conflict between the GM and a player, he shouldn't be: "I'm god, what I say goes!" Instead, he should be seeking group consensus; and if the consensus goes against him, the GM should bow gracefully to the will of the group, just like any other player.

The GM does not need to be the final rules arbiter. In fact, sometimes it's better when he isn't. Not everyone can memorize rulebooks. Most people just skim through the sections that pertain to their character. It takes a dedicated sort to fully absorb a ruleset, and that skill is really quite low among the qualities that make up a good GM. Being able to create fun, collaborative stories is #1. I'd rather have a GM who can tell good stories but can't remember rules, than one who can quote chapter and verse, but can't tell a good story.

First of:
Doc's comment are quite good, but of topic IMO. He describes a good GM, what everybody should agree with, but what isn't the main topic and start of the debate.

The points are:
-Is a GM more important than players?
-Is a GM just another PC?
-Does he have more authority than the other players?
-Does he have to be final rule arbiter?

That are the real points. A GM, always fair, always making the right decisions, knowing rules and able to change some appropriately to the situation doesn't answer those questions, as every player will agree to him anyway.

But to those questions:
->Yes the GM is more important than the player for the simple reason that without him, the game is over. Period. Start a campaign, then the GM tells he stops in the middle, and it's nearly over.

->He's not another PC. I worship the hard work a GM has done to make his multiple storys and to ready his game. To think that I, who only come at the table, with a pen, my PC sheet and a few dices have dedicated myself as much as the GM would be delusional. That's also why I wouldn't try to destroy a scenario just because I don't like it.

->De facto, he has more authority. Making a consensus doesn't mean to have less. It's just to have more wits or social abilities. If the PC just bought that overpowered weapon from this book. If you think that it's destroying the game fun and wish to tone it down. Let's say your PC calls you unfair for reducing their perfectly valid munchkin strategy... What's next?

A consensus goes in either ways. So what if the players refuse any deal? In the end the GM decides, that's how it ends.

->Is he the final rule arbiter? Of course! It remembers me playing a game, COPS. As I have many many games (25 or so) and thus have read many rulebooks, I am confortable with rules. In this game, there was a kind of karma system, divided in two aspects. Some kind of Action Points and Veteran Points. You shared 2 points between those stats at the start. As the GM explained us their use, I came to the conclusion the Vet' points had no advantage over Action points, so I checked the index and then rule. I did read it to the GM telling that he was wrong on this one. We argued a bit, but I failed to convince him (tough I'm sure I was right). However, I ended quiet as he made his decision.


For me, Cain, you mistake: "Having the final word" with "Beeing unable to discuss".

A GM HAS and MUST HAVE, the final word. A good GM MUST be able to discuss and admit when he is wrong.

[overchord]

As a GM i've always tried to follow my own rules of:

- I'm there to have a good time, but equally important to help others having a good time by shaping a story that the players enjoy.

- A table of players will almost invariably have quite different personalities, some likes to ride the rules hard, others are completely into stats, some only wants to Role Play and does not care about rule, and a mix of anything in between. Part of the GM's "job" is to strike a balance for the different play styles to get an amount of satisfaction from a game for all without hogging all the attention.

- Rules are there to help the story along, not the other way around. If someone want to do something that isn't covered by rules, but it fits with the moment, is really funny, or really hits that time when a heroic moment is called for - I let them do it - even if it means fudging dice.

- Most of the time, there is absolutely no railroading from my part. Sure i'll have a run prepared, with a nice story (hardly ever much monologue) but sometimes gameplay will go off on a tangent on what seemed like a small part of the original run, but as long as the story is not stalling (people are getting bored) - that's ok if it lends itself to good roleplaying and challenges for the players.

- I rarely overrule players, but if they are wanting do do something completely idiotic that will stop the run dead in its tracks i can at time be necessary to introduce elements that will overpower the players - this mostly applies when its a single individual in a group that is not backing down. It rarely requires actually pounding the players with an assault cannon, but more explanation of the potential repercussions.

- If players start riding the rules too hard and stepping out of character to optimise i will typically try and throw obstacles in the road te nudges them back in character rather than going into some great argument about it.

- I don't know if this makes me a dictatorial GM or not, i play as a GM because i enjoy the challenge of evolving a story while coping with whatever the players throw at you, and i hope this makes it enjoyable for the players as well since that is really my ultimate gauge of how successfull a session has been.

But to quickly answer sk8bcn's reiteration of the questions based on the above:

-Is a GM more important than players?
In practical terms a GM is needed to run the game, which does lend some practical degree of importance. In terms of the importance of evolving a campaign, players and GM are equally important.

-Is a GM just another PC?
Nope - he/she is not a PC but an orator and many NPC's and in my view quite a different entity at the table altogether.

-Does he have more authority than the other players?
Most of the time no. But he/she does have the discretion to step in a save the story if it is needed. I think it is often a question of how often a GM uses this discretion that defines if it is a problem or not. In my opinion it should be used as rarely as possible. And it can be used both to reward and punish.

-Does he have to be final rule arbiter?
Yes. There's nothing worse that spending half the night rooting through sourcebooks to determine if confliciting interpretations of rules should apply to the specific situation. That's not my preference of a good game, and everyone i've ever played with seems to share that idea.

[Cain]

Here's the thing: the people so far who have said they need a harsh GMing style basically say it's because they can't trust their players. That's a player issue, though, and not a GM style one. Like any other player, perhaps you'd be happier in another group. I know it's easier said than done, but it's a time and patience issue. Heck, since I couldn't find one, I'm GMing so I can build a group of good players.

If you've got a group of bad players, you're not going to have fun, regardless of your GM style. If you've got a group of good players, or even a mixed bag, you don't need to be a dictator; the natural tendencies of the group will assert themselves, and the bad player(s) will start to come along. So, there's really no circumstance in which you need to be a dictator in order to have fun.

I would say this is entirely dependent on who you game with.
Me, I game with people who love to indulge in backroom plotting and backstabbing the other players, if it's within plot. Most GMs I've seen would be driven to distraction by this.

I used to play MET LARPs, so I sure as hell know about backroom plotting and backstabbing, both in and out of character. But again, you highlight an important point: they're backstabbing the *players*, not the characters. But LARPs also prove my point: in a NERO-style LARP, frequently Plot and Rules are separate teams. Neither is the final arbiter over each other, they have to work together.

Some games change these roles. They give some powers and responsibilities to the players. There are a lot of different ways to do it. Some have "cheating points", some let the players handle the descriptions, some let the group vote for how the plot will continue... While it's interesting, I don't think it's better and I don't think it's the way to go for all games.

I think you can definitely learn from more narrative-focused games, though. For example, "cheating points" is directly analogous to Edge in SR4, and shares a similar role. "Story points" on the other hand, allow players to add directly to the narrative. They work in a similar fashion, so adding them to a game like Shadowrun could be highly effective.

Anyway in regards to other systems. Those systems are made to have those kind of GM styles. This is Shadowrun which has a fairly established understanding of what a GM does and I think it works very well.

I've only played the one game of Capes, so I don't know how it'd work with the Shadowrun setting. I'd imagine that you could swap powers out for cyberware and magic without too much difficulty, though. In Wushu, there's entire supplements dedicated to both magic and cyberpunk, so creating Shadowrun in that setting wouldn't be difficult. In fact, that's an experiment I've been meaning to try for a while now. When I get done running all my games on Rpol.net, I might try that here, just to see what happens.

[Cain]

->Yes the GM is more important than the player for the simple reason that without him, the game is over. Period. Start a campaign, then the GM tells he stops in the middle, and it's nearly over.

You can't have a game without players, either. And a particularly charismatic and dynamic player can bring more to the table than a mediocre GM can. I've seen games break up because one player, who held the game together, quit. Also, I'll point yet again to Capes. You can have a fun roleplaying game without any GM at all.

->He's not another PC. I worship the hard work a GM has done to make his multiple storys and to ready his game. To think that I, who only come at the table, with a pen, my PC sheet and a few dices have dedicated myself as much as the GM would be delusional. That's also why I wouldn't try to destroy a scenario just because I don't like it.

He's not another PC, he's another *player*. With the same right to have fun as anybody else. Just because he prepped the story doesn't mean he gets to enjoy it more than everyone else. You're showing the "GM as god, player as supplicant" attitude that so many people thought was necessary for so many years, but it's just not true.

->De facto, he has more authority. Making a consensus doesn't mean to have less. It's just to have more wits or social abilities. If the PC just bought that overpowered weapon from this book. If you think that it's destroying the game fun and wish to tone it down. Let's say your PC calls you unfair for reducing their perfectly valid munchkin strategy... What's next?

Instead of "slapping down the player" with a pronouncement from the pulpit, you could just ask him to tone it down. If they're a decent player, they'll tone it down for you. If not, then you have a potential problem player, and you should consider if you want to keep playing with him.

->Is he the final rule arbiter? Of course!

Ultimately, it is the group that is the final rules arbiter. If the bulk of the players agree on one reading of a rule, and the GM decides on another, you risk splitting the group if feelings are strong enough. I've seen it happen in LARPs. Basically, even the GM needs to bow to the will of the group. If the GM wants to run one rule system, and everybody else wants to play another, a GM needs to gracefully go with the group consensus, or risk not having any players at all.

- A table of players will almost invariably have quite different personalities, some likes to ride the rules hard, others are completely into stats, some only wants to Role Play and does not care about rule, and a mix of anything in between. Part of the GM's "job" is to strike a balance for the different play styles to get an amount of satisfaction from a game for all without hogging all the attention.

That's also part of the player's responsibilities. Getting everyone on the same page is a group task, not an individual one. Player responsibilities are very real, if often overlooked. For example, good players will help newer ones create their characters, especially if the GM is busy elsewhere.

- I rarely overrule players, but if they are wanting do do something completely idiotic that will stop the run dead in its tracks i can at time be necessary to introduce elements that will overpower the players - this mostly applies when its a single individual in a group that is not backing down. It rarely requires actually pounding the players with an assault cannon, but more explanation of the potential repercussions.

I usually find that talking directly to the player works for me. Most players are reasonable about this sort of thing, and simply discussing the consequences of their action will prevent game-breakers.