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?

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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



*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".



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.



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.



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.



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 agree with MaxMahem's post completely.

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 (Yes, if you are reading this, it was your ego, mon) 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 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 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



Well said and I agree.

@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.

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.



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.




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

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.

*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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.


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.


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.

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, 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.


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.


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.


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 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.

Quoted for agreement. We need'em all at the table, and hopefully everyone is there with the same motive - have a fun and exciting session!




Yup, as i also said, that would only ever be in the case where we're dealing with an ackward indivudal who refuses to back down. But rather than stalling the game flow and spending 20 minutes trying to convice one person to do the right thing, I will occassionally retort to overruling. Having said that - its very rarely been an issue.

I think there are probably two types of GM's in terms of being a player or not. There are people who enjoy both being a player and being a GM. Other people find it difficult to make the transition to the other side of the screen (both players trying to be GM's and GM's trying to be players). I'm not saying one of these are more "right" than the other - but I think problems often arise when you got GM's that play but still try and be GM, and you got players that try to GM -if that makes any sense.
IMO GM'ing isn't about ruling the table, but it is a question of having the attention to players and ensuring that everyone are enjoying themselves and having the confidence to move things along when they seem to be running out in the sand.

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.

That's true. A game may break because one player quits. A game will break if the GM quits.


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.

A personnal attack that I won't answer too, as I know myself better as you perceive me under a simple forum answer.

I agree that a GM should enjoy the game as much as the PC. Actually, the enjoyment of the GM is usually asociated to the players fun. Run a few sessions of a political game to a table of dungeon crawlers, and you'll end it soon as the player don't like that (and this even if they don't express their dislike of this style).

But I thought about it when I ran a DD3 campaign. Really I didn't liked the game. For many different reasons (rules-opposition-I went into a road movie gaming style that I feel uncomfortable with). To spend my free time in preparring this when the PC didn't even try to write a background...I stopped the game. My players regretted it. Since then we moved to another games. I do think that we all have to enjoy the game. I would happily play a DD character but I don't feel gamemastering it. When my players ask toplay, my answer is simple: No. The commitment requiered as a GM is too high for the fun I get from this game (what would not be the case if I would be PC, as the comitment is just lower).


Either, one thing has to come in perspective. I'm 29, have a girlfriend, plays basketball and play RPGs roughly 3 sessions of 6 to 8 hours in 3 weeks. Preparing my game session is a REAL strain to my free time. I make stuff for the characters to enjoy their characters more, work on their backgrounds to integrate their fluff into the events of the game, without shifting the focus on a single PC, I do sumaries on our forum so that everyone can reread what happend in the last sessions.

That's why I define the GM NOT as a player among the other. The gamemaster is the one who dedicates himself to the game the most in order to get everyone some fun.


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.

Hey, are you just starting to say you (as the GM) has the final word here? "you should consider if you want to keep playing with him": aren't you just here deciding to waive him off your table?


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.

Something bugs me on this part. When I read this, you sound as if you were in a constant struggle. It's like ypu advocate that the players, banded together, have the same power than the GM. De facto, it's right as one GM and the players are necessary to play the game.


I've never played with a "I'm god" mentality GM. And the worst I've seen, is some railroaded actions that I attribute more to inexperience. However I am inclined, as a player, to let the master have final word. It's a mentality we have among our gaming group. We discuss things (I've discussed for hours and hours about a system problem I had with ED, to make the game enjoyable for the whole group) but if in the end, my GM would say it's black and not white, then it's black. Period. I trust my GMs; I think they do things they think right.


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 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.

That's true. Anyway, a social group creates his own social system and starts to share some common grounds.



You seem to say: A GM hasn't to be dictatory IF things goes right.
And I say: IF things goes wrong, a GM has to be dictatory.



An exemple I have in mind. I don't want the PC to create characters that may end up fighting themselves.

For exemple, let's say my group plays warhammer. I wouldn't like to see a PC slowly moves under the influence of chaos when everyone else wants to play for the Good side. I do think that internal backstabbing, even if undirect, ends with a frustrated side. So I just simply refuse to see traitor situation occur if I play a long campaign, as it tend to derail one day or another.

End of the thema. There won't be much discussion, I am against (unless the game is created for this). That's using some dictatorship. 99% of the time, I don't have too. But it happens, nonetheless.

I've played several narrative-focused games, and my argument stands: Story Points are a good idea, but Shadowrun with Story Points won't be universally better or worse than without them. It'll be different. It'll have a different feeling, just like it'll have a different feeling if you play with a TN4 instead of 5.

What you have to do is ask yourself (you standing for the whole group here) what kind of game you want to play and then use the tweaks that'll lead to it. Story Points might be one of them, as they might be detrimental.

First things first:

Apologies. I genuinely didn't think of it as insulting.


When you've got a good group, everyone participates heavily, if not always equally. Someone's got to arrange the time and place, usually someone brings food and drink, and I'll bet you have a player who helps others update their characters while you're prepping. Everyone has a role to play.

No, that's a group decision. But you might want to start thinking about how you'd vote, and if you want to be the one to bring it up.


Confession time: I used to be like that. I saw nothing wrong with GMPC's, railroading for the sake of a story, and almost everything that a bad GM does. It took live experience with good players to break me of my worst habits. The Harlequin module was also a major influence: Rather than railroad the PC's into the story you planned, it was the first time I realized it was OK to let them go their own way. To this day, I don't consider myself to be a particularly good GM; I consider myself to be a bad one in recovery.

I usually find that asking a player to not do it is sufficient. For example, in your traitor scenario, you could start by saying: "That really doesn't fit in the campaign I have planned, would you consider doing something different?" Usually, that's all it takes. If they're adamant about things, then make suggestions that may limit the hard feelings that could result, or work it into the roleplay of the character-- the player constantly struggles between the mentality of chaos and order, causing him internal torment, but no stat changes and no actual backstabbing. And as I said, if they're really insistent, you may have a problem player on your hands. Problem players can be addressed in a lot of ways, but heavy-handed GMing isn't a good one. That's just going to reinforce their bad habits. Personally, I think education is key-- you can teach bad players how to become good ones.


SR4 already has narrative elements, in the form of the Critical Success rule. The player gets to create the flourish, not the GM. Expanding on that would not be difficult, and I don't think it'd hurt the Shadowrun elements that we like.

A good players is like a good student. 1) He pays attention and 2) he learns from his mistakes. Everything else that makes a good player is gravy in my opinion.

I disagree on a few counts.

1) I GM online. There are 20 players to every GM (and that's before I actually advertise). My players know that, if they make trouble, there are three more players waiting eagerly to take their places. On the flip side, most of them are only playing in my SR game because of a lack of supply. That makes the GM a good deal more important. The player leaves, he's replaced in short order. The GM leaves, there is no game.

<quote>
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. </quote>

2) The GM is not just 'another player'. The GM defines the world the players live in, plus runs all of the antagonists, who are critical to the story. The GM is required to be the scenery and all the other actors, not just a single actor (which is what the players are).

By virtue of being the background, it falls on him to define the world and the rules that govern them. The ONLY (successful) exception I've seen to this is when a new GM is playing with experienced players in an agreed upon gameworld. In this case, the GM may not know an answer to the question, and the players may direct him to a resource to answer his question. However, it is ultimately his decision as to whether that counts or not, not the player's. The player cannot say 'well, in my other game the GM let me stack a smartlink and a scope, so I'll count both bonuses in this game as well'.

Even with a provided background, the antagonist is so critical, and the antagonist is generally only provided via the GM, that again, the GM's role clearly has more weight. No antagonist means a bunch of players sitting at home, picking their toes.

<quote>
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.</quote>

I have never seen the GM not be the final rules arbiter, even if his answer is deferring to another player. By doing that, he is accepting that player's answer, and expecting everyone else to as well. Does anyone have another example, where a player decided all of the rules, even in cases where the GM disagreed?



I've not played a 'collaborative' system. However, I did a rules lite, diceless game with my wife. In that situation, I was open to changes to the world (and regularly had to be reminded of the rules I already made). However, she allowed me to be the person finally in charge because I was responsible for revealing the world to her in parcels as her character advanced. If we had been truly collaborative, either I would not have known what would be around the next hill, or she would have already known what is there and how her character should best react. As I gave up power, I gave up the ability to create surprise and suspense, and made mechanics more of a topic of concern rather than story.

Right now we are going back and changing the game we already finished into a written book. We both know how it ends and both know the same amount about how we get there. We both know the world. She's responsible for the hero, but can control other characters as necessary. I'm responsible for the other characters, but can control the hero as necessary. Both of us are responsible for defining the rules and background. it is truly collaborative, but it is no longer a game.

I also started GMing online recently. When I started running Shadowrun online, two other games popped up. If I quit GMing, I know that there will be two other GMs willing to take my place.

Really, in an online PbP environment, you have to give the players more control than you do in a tabletop game. You have to let them manipulate the scenery and NPC's a lot more than you would in a "normal" game, in order to keep the action flowing.


Ultimately, the players define the world, even if it's just agreeing with the GM. By selecting the setting as a group, you've all agreed on what kind of world you want to play in; even more so if the players help in building the world and the house rules. The GM should be providing all the bit roles, but he should *not*, under any circumstances, be playing a character that is equal in importance to the PC's. That leads to the GMPC problem, which we all know to avoid.

Additionally, some systems have the players controlling the bit actors, such as henchmen and squads of soldiers. You can restrict this somewhat-- Savage Worlds says they won't act suicidally-- but the players can effectively play more roles than just themselves.


In a recent tabletop game, I disagreed with how Edge was being used by one player. He pointed out that him and another player had been doing things that way in a previous game. The rest of the players either agreed with him, or didn't have any particular opinion. Because of that, I went with their ruling, even though I disagreed and I pointed out that use of Edge was not in the RAW. Later, when we added a new player, I had to defend the ruling even though I still don't agree with it.

Abritrary

God it's all arbitrary and thus useless. I think what Cain means in his entire argument is that the minute the GM makes it about him/herself ultimate failure! This can be done in any session in any way. The GM saying "it's all about what I want so prepare for the railroad of your life" SUCKS. A GM who is unwilling to listen to players SUCKS. A GM who will stop and debate with players for hours, or lets a player be a little bitch and ruin everyone else's fun SUCKS.

If you can find a way to work around this as a GM play style then everything is fine. Sometimes when people put down on their sheet "lawful annoying" then yes you rein them in if they are trampling on other peoples toes.

If you have a group of mature responsible people who can allow for collective story telling then yes that is fine as well. Different strokes for different folks.

The great GMs are people who can work around anything and can spot trouble over the horizon and be able to fix it or at the very least make it work. A great GM will paint a story that will allow the players to get more involved and therefor both the GM and players energy will feed off of each other. The GM will paint something elaborate, and the players will respond in kind, which can then invigorate the GM to make a more interesting and vibrant story or scene. Suddenly everyone forgets that they are at a table and part of the story. The off topic conversations cease, and everyone is fully paying attention to everything the GM is saying as they can truly get the scope of the scene laid out before them, and be able to picture each action their PC or another PC takes. Maybe the GM throws in an accent here, or a flourish there to make everything seem more believable and suddenly when everything is over and the players blink they realize that 4-6 hours have just gone by in what felt like an hour then yes you are a great GM. No matter how you pull it off, and no matter how your style of play is if you can make this happen then you as a GM have succeeded. If your players leave always wanting more but never satisfied then yes you are a great GM. If your players after every session say "Can't we just play for two more hours?" then yes you are a great GM.

Not everyone will be able to do this, and generally I find when you GM everything is a balancing act. Yet when a GM makes it about them, or only the story then I find there are some pitfalls that can exist there to have a GM slip into being just a mediocre GM or that the only reason why you have a group of people playing with you is because "it's the only game in town." Also if you don't have a great group of players then you as a GM will have to at times rein in a player who likes to act out. A great GM is flexible (one way or the other,) and generally the minute you say NO to any one type of GM play style in my opinion you will never be a great GM.

So in closing, the whole argument on which play style is better is completely Arbitrary and depends on each and every individual group.

I suspect that isn't the case. If my neighbor's game died, I couldn't take that up even if I wanted to (and if I did want another game, why not just start another game?) Now granted, if you have a ton of people advertising to be GMs to the point that there are a lot of games with 1 or 0 players, in that case, the GM becomes less valuable due to supply and demand. And I will also say that in in-person games, generally there are multiple people who volunteer for the role, so it's less of an issue there. But as a hard and fast rule, I think it's wrong, there are plenty of cases where the GM IS more valuable than the players, just because the GM is irreplaceable, but the players are not.



I've not had that experience, but even allowing for it, I'm not sure how it's relevant.

Even "benevolent dictator" GMs allow for some degree of collaboration, otherwise it's just the GM telling a story and the players listening. On the flip side, there's no RPG I know of which doesn't require some 'dictatorship' by the guy organizing the thing (GM, DM or whatever) in the form of, at minimum, saying this NPC is here and his goals are X, otherwise it's just a cooperative world-building, multi-character playing game of some sort (do note that in some cases, the GM can be something other than a person, for instance in the case where scripted adventures that can be run without requiring one person know everything and manage all the NPCs. I suppose in that regard it wouldn't be a dictatorship because a player organizes a game, and all the players can modify the 'gm's' rules at their whim, without the GM's consent or ability to overrule.)

Hypothetically you could have a game where you decide the reactions of all of the NPCs and the laws of physics by a vote, expending tokens, drawing cards or whatever, and the GM doesn't have any particular power over that and his only role is to manage the leftovers the players don't want to deal with, but I've never heard of that. THat would be a full collaborative RPG as well.



Even if you take a pre-defined gameworld, there will be questions, for instance "is there a barrel here? What is inside that dumpster?" that the world cannot possibly define. It is up to the GM to run this by fiat, even if his general method is 'eh, whatever the players want'. If the GM really lets the players find whatever they want in a dumpster and is actually unable to control the game (he does not have the dictatorial power), that is a problem.



Lofwyr is a GMPC and should be avoided? Damien Knight?



Notice the bold. Did you voluntarily go with the ruling? Or did the players say "hey, this is our game, we're the players, if you don't agree with us, you're out"?

There's nothing saying a dictator can't follow the will of the people, even when he personally disagrees with it. In fact, this is specifically what makes him a BENEVOLENT dictator. If he said "eh, frag it, I'm right, you're wrong" and left all the players unhappy, he would just be a dictator. In my own games, I regularly go with player suggestions or based on player votes, however I do so knowing that, if I wanted to, I could also NOT go with the player suggestions. That's why I'm a dictator (and so are you )


I think what masterfm's point is is what I mentioned above, when it comes down to it, there is a balance of the two. The GM does not have 100% control of the PCs, and allows for some degree of collaboration. The PCs require the GM serve as the arbitrator, even if that ruling ends up running contrary to their desires. This means the GM, the dictator, is also collaborating, willingly giving up some degree of power for the greater good (hence, benevolent). Hence, he rides between charybdis and scylla, choosing a course based on the nature and desires of his players, but daring not to stray too far to either extreme.

by the way, and I must say it again: I basically agree with Cain about how a good session should be run.

Where I disagree, it's in the very rare case when it goes into the extrem, where neither a PC or the GM can make a concession.

When it happens to go into this extreme, I think the GM has final word.

(e.g.: when I was younger, I started to play a med-fan game. A friend of mine wanted to be a dark elf. There was none in the setting so it was a no-no. As surrealistic it sounds, we could make a consensus -hey how I could give up on this one?-. So he was waived off. After that, he changed his behavior and made a step forward.

-----------------------------------

The whole subject about beeing one of the many is just rethoric. after al, I guess we all play the same (well not completely). I do think that the one (wether I'm GM or not) who acts as GM does the most of the work, so I do recognize that.

In game terms, it makes no difference. I agree that players tries to help out. I do think that MORE THAN THE SCENARIO OR THE GM, the players group make a game fun or not.

A bunch of friends, enjoying the time spend around the table can make a poor and railroaded scenario an enjoying moment. A group with real-life tensions can make the best scenarios unfun.

In every group I've GM'd for, there was always someone else waiting to take up the reins if I needed a break. But at any event, I can say that on that board, there are two other GMs who can and will take up my players if i quit GMing the game.


That's part of the added responsibility of a GM. However, oddly enough, Wushu has the Veto-- any player at the table, including the GM, can Veto a particular detail if he or she feels it doesn't add to the game. The GM cannot override a Veto.

Being unable to control the game does not mean you need to be a dictator. Usually, it means the opposite-- the players are actively rebelling against what you want to do. A softer touch could work wonders.

Lowfyr as a player in the shadows, or an elemental force that only comes out once in a while is fine. But, choosing a random example from my list of scary stories: Harlequin as "Steve", the one-eared elf who drives a convertible and can outdo the PCs at everything they try. "Steve" was more important than the PC's, thus he was a problem.

I did not go voluntarily with the ruling. I accepted the majority decision as what the players wanted. I could have thrown a hissy-fit, and pushed my will through; but why?

To use a current example: it's like voting for President. Even though your candidate might not win, you're not going to start an armed rebellion to protest. Instead, you're going to accept the majority decision, and go with it-- but not voluntarily.

Here's the catch-- I've played in low-GM impact games, and had a blast. I've played one no-GM game, and I had a lot of fun. All these things you say a GM needs, for a fun game? They're not really necessary. Is there a barrel here? You can let the player narrate that in, without destroying a game. In fact, I can think of maybe half-a-dozen games that allow that sort of thing, most of which are mainstream.

For the 4 reasons I mentioned in my orginal post. The GM is an impartial voice because he is not a player, and has no stake in the game. Because he has no stake, he can be impartial in settling player disputes. Because it is his duty to provide challanges for the players and make decisions that ensure the game remains fun and challenging. And because it is his duty to set the setting which means he brings a lot more to the table and should have the power to make the rulings necessary to sustain the setting.


I think the basic problem with these assumptions is that it seems to assume that the players are united in their desires in what they want from the game. I find this to seldom be the case. Player A may want a game where he finds the bad guys, kills them, and gets the loot. Player B may want a game full of diplomacy and intrigue, but little gun play. Player C may want a game where he can just get attention by doing crazy stuff. When the players desires are incompatible, conflict among them naturally arises. Which is why the players implicetly or explicity appoint a GM who should try and find a happy medium between what they all want. This will mean going against a players desires from time to time. But far from a 'daddy knows best' attitude, this is simply part of the argreement the players enter into when playing a game for their mutual enjoyment.


The GM unquestionably brings a lot more to the table then the players. In Shadowrun when a player want to know what lies inside Fuchi's super-secret research facility, they don't discuss it amongst themselves, they ask the GM. It's his job to make these sorts of decisions, which is what many players want. Creating the setting is without question a more demanding task then simply reacting to it. I myself put several hours a week into designing the setting, a commitment not expect of any of the players.


You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. The relationship between players and GM's I describe is not adversarial, but consensual. Players give up athority to the GM not because they have to, but becaues they want to. Consensual storytelling of the type Cain describes is not for everyone or for every group. Many players and GM prefer a relationship where the players exchange some of their power in the game for the privilege of interacting in the setting he creates. Just as the GM gives up control of the players actions in exchange for more realistic actors in his setting.

The same is true in organised sports. Players agree to surrender athority to a refere or judge because he can be relied upon to be impartial. Because he can be relied upon to fairly settle their disputes. And because a game with a fair judge is more challenging and entertaining then one with out. They don't look at the Ref (who is also virtually God in the game) as an adversary, but as any ally in their enjoyment of sport. The relationship is similar in RPGs.


I don't disgree, but I think this missis a crucial point. Players are (in general) not unified as a group. There desires differ from situation to situation and are often in conflict with one another. And while the GM is no more important than the players, as a group, he is more important than any one player individually. Which is why he is give the power he is. But again, far from being an 'adversarial' relationship, its a consensual one that the players enter into.

Put another way, asking someone to be the create a game for you and be the judge also implies that you will follow his rules. It's as simple as that.


I agree with this. In a perfect world arbiters wouldn't be necessary. We wouldn't need refs in football, and players could be called upon to make the correct decision even when it goes against their interest. In practice this is not the case. How about this for a soundbite:

"Because the players are imperfect, a GM is necessary."

Does this mean the GM is perfect? Far from it! But because of our imperfections we have come up with various systems of government to deal with this. In sports its a ref. In Shadowrun this system of government is embodied in the GM. Maybe you can find a better way. But for many many groups a so called 'dictatorial' GM works best.

A GM most definitely has a stake in the game. Because he's put in so much time and effort into the game, it can be harder for a GM to stand back and be impartial. They'll tend to rule in favor of the story they cooked up, not what the players want to do. This is only human, after all: after working so hard to cook up the adventure, it's easy to bloody well want them to go through it! But that way lies the railroad tracks, which we all know to avoid. Bottom line: a GM is not impartial, he has a stake in the game as well.

You don't need any actual authority to be a facilitator. And yes, this is part of the added responsibility of being a GM. But ultimately, it lies with the players to be adaptable and help give everyone what they want. The GM is just another player in this regard-- he needs to be adaptable as well.

Remember, a mediator doesn't need to have authority over the parties involved.

Again, no. There are several mainstream games that allow the players to decide those sort of details. There's a lot more indie games that do the same thing. It's hard to say what players want, but these sort of games are extremely popular.

My roommates watch American college football. I can safely say that the ref gets sworn at at least as often as the opposing team. And a lot of sports teams view the ref as an adversary.

I'll also add that the relationship in RPGs is completely different, because we're not playing RPG's to "win". We're playing to have a good time. Notice how most people playing on the weekend don't have a ref? They don't need one to enjoy themselves. *That* is comparable to the relationship in RPGs.


Actually, as Capes shows up, a GM is not necessary.

Here's what I find amusing. A lot of the posters here have, in the past, said they do not suffer fools. They'd eject problem players from the game without hesitation. But here, the same people say that they need tyrannical power... in case they have a bad player. Is it just me, or is there a little contradiction there?

Contradictions on a forum? That is crazy talk! No one ever contradicts themselves especially if they need to do it to support their argument. Not now and not ever. I mean what is this some kind of forum where people put in their opinions?

And so, in closing - everyone who posts on this forum that has a different idea then what mine is is wrong. This is because I'm perfict and I naver make mistakes ever.

The end no backsies unerasies triple stamped times infinity squared! Ha ha I win.

While GMs may struggle with their impartiality, the impetus is there. There is at least the pretense that they should be impartial. Because after all there are no 'GM Points' for them to win. Players on the other hand are not expected to be impartial. They are expected to be advocates for their character and not the game at large. They have quantifiable measures of their success in the game. To restate, perpahse most importantly it is the GMs job to be impartial, it is a restraint imposed upon them in exchange for the powers they wield. A GM may fail at this duty, just as any player might fail in his role. But in concept at least, the GM is expected to be fair, while the players are not.


Authority is needed if the mediation is to have any weight. If the players are free to reject the terms of mediation, then the entire act is meaningless. In an ideal world yes, players might be expected to reach agrement on play-style and abide by them. But seldom live in such a world. In the end since players only have power over the actions of their characters, ultimate power to arbitrate these disputes must lie with the GM, who has power over the entire setting.


We are not playing these 'indie' RPGs, we are playing Shadowrun. Which is not set up to facilitate this sort of gaming. In fact may players do not WANT to play in such a collaborative setting. They may find a world in which they are responsible for defining elements of plot and setting unfufilling. Many players actually enjoy the limitations a GM imposes as it creates a more challenging and engrossing atmosphere. They find it easier to fully roleplay a character when they are not able to directly influence the rules and setting of the game. They may find that limiting there perspective and power to that which there character posses leads to more enging play.

You seem to be of the opinion that collaborative role play is fundamental superior to role play where a GM provides a more structured alternative. While some groups may enjoy the former, it is by no means universally the case. Which is why games like D&D and Shadowrun which are focused upon GM structured play have remained popular for so long.


Professional sports teams may at times have issues with the refs, and the calls they make. They may at times even feel that the ref is out to get them. This should be expected as the players and refs are both human and imperfect. They do not, however, have a problem with the *concept* of an arbiter like a ref. Indeed I do not expect many serious teams would play games without one, where important rulings were determined by consensus between the two teams.

Do not kid yourself, virtually all RPG (including Capes which you love some much) are set up with quantifiable measures of victory. Karma, story points, XP, nuyen, ect. Of course like in organized sports, they are only playing to have fun. But the score card exists in RPG just the same. Indeed, if anything the points in RPGs are more important to players then the scoreboard is to casual sports players.

Given that the setting and rules in RPG are so much more complex then in organized sport (yes even more so than baseball), it should be no surprise that disputes of rules and rulings is that much greater, and consensus is that much harder to archive. Which is why a GM is even more necessary in RPG then they are in sport.


I don't know. When you are setting up strawmen, I suppose its pretty easy to find all the contradictions you want.

The most important job of the GM is to help everybody have a good time. Oddly enough, this tops the list for players as well. And it is just as incumbent upon the player to be fair as the GM. You don't want players who cheat, after all.


In the United States, you seldom see mediators who have actual authority. They have respect, but no actual ability to enforce the provisions of an agreement. Also, players can have actions over more than just the actions of their characters, even in mainstream games. For example, Savage Worlds gives control of allied squads to the players, and Savage Worlds is a very popular, very mainstream product.


I've yet to meet such a player who truly had a bad time with a good collaborative game. Where are you getting your numbers from?

At any event, I don't need to talk about indie games to show you that games with extended narrative control are very popular. The entire Buffy and Angel lines had "Story points" in them, and they sold quite well. White Wolf has produced several games with "Dramatic Editing" mechanics, which allow the player to dictate certain elements of a scene. Cortex, the system behind the Serenity and Battlestar Galatica games, also has story points. Even Shadowrun has a narrative control mechanic in the form of the Critical Success rule. Extending narrative control to the players is not only becoming very popular, it's becoming trendy as well.


The "scorecard" is not the only reason people play RPG's, nor is it even a major component of it. Tabletop in particular, what draws people is the chance to be interactive with one another. Otherwise, freeform LARPs like the kind that are extremely popular in Denmark, wouldn't exist. It is that social interaction that makes gaming truly fun.

Pssh. Consensus is often easy to achieve; it's a consensus that gives us everything we want that's difficult. In RPG's, however, most of the conflict ends up being between the GM and a player. If the GM has a tight grasp on the game, consensus is hard to achieve. But if the GM is willing to compromise, to not demand the final authority, it's easy to reach a middle ground.

You are completely missing my point here. The point is that GMs are expected to be impartial while players are not. This is a crucial difference in how the two parties approach the game. Players approach it from the point of view of an advocate. They have a role which they are expected to play and support. GMs approach the game from the point of view of an arbitrator. They are expected to judge the players actions and react accordingly but should have no specific role that they advocate.


Again you are missing my point. Your getting pretty good at throwing up strawmen as well. In Shadowrun the players control but one character at a time. Games in which a players control multiple points of view are thus very different and not entirely relevant to this discussion, I suspect such games would have their own sets of problems and solutions, but they aren't Shadowrun or even Shadowrunish.

As I said: in an ideal world yes, players might be expected to reach agreement on play-style and abide by them. But we seldom live in such a world. When players are unable to come to agreement through simple mediation, an arbiter is necessary. GMs play this role. Indeed, you appear to be guilty of circular reasoning, stating that arbitration is not necessary because mediation is always successful.


Personal experience, same as you. The very fact that we are having this argument, and that other people support this point of view would suggest that not everyone favors collaborative gaming over GM absolutism. I obviously personally prefer absolutism. Though of course the scale between absolutisim and collaboration isn't black and white, there are a number of shades of preference. Its perfectly possible to enjoy collaborative gaming, but to enjoy a absolutist game more.


Now your putting words in my mouth. I never said collaborative gaming wasn't popular, I said it wasn't Shadowrun. And I said not all players and GMs prefer it, because in my experience not all do.


More things I didn't say. I did not say that the 'scorecard' was the only reason to play RPGs, I simply said it would be foolish to discount it among a players motivation. How much it matters to a player will differ from player to player. Some care for it only very slightly, while others consider it very very important and social interaction only mildly so. Whats important is that players have a scorecard, and GMs don't. Which is a very important difference in motivation for them. The existence of freeform LARPs in Denmark is rather irrelevant to a players enjoyment of Shadowrun. If the players were interested in doing that they would be playing that instead of Shadowrun. Since they are playing Shadowrun, its probably reasonable to assume that the 'scorecard' and advancment of their character is of some important to some of them.


You obviously look at things from that point of view. But one could just as easily turn it around. If the players are willing to compromise, to relinquishing final authority, it's easy to reach a middle ground. Either way of looking at could be seen as valid. If a decision has to be reached by compromise, some party is going to have to give up ground. Which party should do the majority of that giving is often a matter of taste.

I just have one thing to say. Authority or not, a good GM can compensate for crappy players, but if you have a crappy GM then your game is well and truly fucked no matter how good the players are (games that are intentionally GMless notwithstanding).

Hardly. GM's approach the game the exact same way the players do: to favor the stories they'd like to tell. Sure, they might act impartially for conflicts between player characters, but I've seen too many GMs get overprotective of their story.

I told this story once before, but it bears repeating. Just a few weeks ago, I was playing in a D&D 3.5 game. I had an 8th level cleric with a greatsword, and a cumulative +5 bonus to strength. (Clerics of Kord are fun like that.) I could not hit an unarmored ork, no matter what I rolled, because the GM was saving them as a plot device. You would have laughed at the contrived countermeasures he came up with. And you mean to tell me he's impartial?


It need not be that way, however. Shadowrun used to have gangs and tribes, who could work just like squads in Savage Worlds. You could let the players take control of their side in a gang war, reducing the amount of rolling you have to do.


I have no energy to draw the fine line between arbitration and mediation; for the purposes of this argument, assume I'm using the terms interchangeably. With that in mind, mediation is not a courtroom, and the GM is not the judge. If the players all agree that a 19 should have hit an unarmored ork, then the GM can be overruled.


You're quite right. However, I intend to show that even the hard-core "absolutists" are more collaborative than they think.


But it *is* in Shadowrun. That's basically what the Critical Success rule is-- a way to give the players narrative control. I don't see anyone else complaining that it doesn't work, so I assume adding a little narrative control to the game has worked for most players. Why not add a little more, and see how it goes?


Except some of the freeform LARPers *are* playing Shadowrun. I had pictures somewhere, but I can't find them.

Consensus....ok, consensus.

Why do we game?
There is something in each of us that drives us (slave like?) to sit down with a group of acquaintances and chain our egos to a set of (as Master of M puts it) arbitrary guidelines for the hope of achieving a lasting and fictional glory. And now, we are driven to argue over who does it better.
We might as well ask ourselves "but, is it art?"

It is art. And it is arbitrary. and it is not arbitrary. and it just is.

Everybody is giving examples and pointing out repetitions and sharing their on experiences on what is good. The question that started this threat was about whether or not the GM is more important than any of the other players. The answer: it depends. To Cantankerous, the GM is not more important. To some many other, the Gm is. Why? Who is right? You may already know my answer. Both are right, because the authority of the GM comes from other players desire for their to be someone calling the shots. This is true for the protagonist as well as the antagonist.

And it is the other player's expectations that make the GM a good one or a bad one. The GM job is simple, but not easy. The GM puts forth a scenario that is meant to entertain. And that is all that is required of Them. The backbone of the "narrative" is the GM's responsibility. With in this narrative, a system of shared concepts are explored by the rest of the group, and are applied to the original scenario. Whether or not the other members of this collective are enjoying themselves are the sole responsibility of those individuals. If the Gm does as the player wishes(for good or ill of the player), then the player deems the GM "good". If the Gm does not fulfill the expectations the player had originally hoped for, the GM is thus judged "bad". The masochistic player whose GM doesn't punish enough will walk away unsatisfied. The hapless loser whose ego is not stroked hard enough by the GM will be let down. The realist who has to put up with too much fantasy will cry foul. And the dramatist unable to sharpen his claws against a tyrannous foe ....you get the idea.

I've played in games where I was given free reign (starwarsD20), and games where enslaved and railroaded(WOD), and games that were glorified board games(D&D) and games of the freest storytelling (Changling) and games in between(shadowrun), and game of pure tyranny(Paranoia). And I loved each one, and hated each one in their own right. Sometimes the collection and agreement made them good. Sometimes the quarreling and rule-slinging was the high point. And it depended on my mood, and no one else's.

It's like this forum. I feel that a new thread was unnecessary, the conversation had progressed beyond the original post,yes, but it still pertained. The argument that Master of M was(and still is) a valid one. What happens when you, as a player, disagree with your GM? That is what it boils down to. I have not heard the GM's side, but I assume that, due to Master's furver, the GM in his game stands by the system and mythos. That the game is balanced enough. Which opposes the OP's opinion.

What happens in any disagreement. One of two things:
1)the agreement of disagreement with or without the continuation of the game, with each GM have a slightly different continuity in their respective stories.
2)one side relents and a single pervasive view remains.

If you don't like it, change it.
If you can't change it, live with it.
If you can't live with it, walk away.

No body wins, no body loses, chock it up to experience and move along.

When the famous gambler was asked why he plays in such a fixed and crooked game, he shrugged and replied: "It's the only game in town."

An interesting question, and one I'll answer by going back to the roots of gaming.

While you usually can't have a game without a GM, you also can't have a game without players. So what is a game? The game is a collaboration between various players, one of which usually acts as the GM. Until that point, there's no difference between players. By becoming the GM, you get respect and responsibility. Players are more willing to listen to you, because of this. But you don't actually have any more authority than you did before-- you still can't force a player to game the way you like.

But still, your fun is not more important than the other players. Nor should you be asked to sacrifice your fun in their name. You have *exactly* the same rights as they do.

So, what happens when a player and GM cannot agree on something? You go back to the root of the game: the collaboration. You cannot have a game without a group, so it is the group as a whole who has final authority.

What if you goal is not collaboration? What if you game to compete? What if you gather at the table to compete? I could see a game where everybody agrees to rip each others lungs out, but what if your not that hungry?

My GMs, of which I am one like to have a set of rules that we can all use and stick to. When we make a house rule we collectively make a house rule. The one that I have so far put on the table is one addressing skill softs and know softs as an act of balance in our game. Needless to say I was a little pissed on how they can be used and abused and said some stuff that I have now apologized for as it was a little over the top, but needless to say after I have made my point guess what? It is now up for the group to decide on how we want to move on with the issue. It is based on consensus and it has so far worked at our group. I have up until recently been fairly silent on my side of the table as to what I would like to achieve as I am still not sure what exactly I want out of the game that we play. Oddly enough though the GM we have had for quite a few months is now stepping down and we are reverting to another GM to pick up the story where it left off. However all the house rules we have made still stand and those that we feel needs addressing have changed based on what we feel like is best for the game. House rules are not set in stone however and the GM is not god almighty. Having it down to consensus has allowed our group to function and allowed for some really good story to transpire. People bring what they would like to see more of too which is refreshing. Recently my bid was that I would like to see my character have more screen time and use (as spotlight time was very limited for quite a few months.) One player has made a bid for our game to be more "white hat" while another just wants to start playing again (the GM that stepped down.) Since the GM wanted to step down and take a break we sped up a lot of the story and tied up quite a few loose ends as quickly as we possibly could (2 sessions as there was a lot to tie up.) Our groups story has become more white hat, and soon hopefully I will actually be able to get a better RP grasp of my character. This is collective gaming, and for us it works.

It does not work with everyone and most games I have played after the game is over the GM gets up and leaves w/o asking the players what they want to do next in the story. In the end it is all arbitrary because everyone will have a different view as to what makes it good, or what makes it bad.

You seem to think one example makes the rule. My truck can drive over curbs and small children without suffering any damage. Does that mean that all cars can drive over curbs and small children without suffering damage? Of course not. It may be that in your particular case, the GM is not more important than the players because of adequate supply. Fair enough. But that isn't the case where I play. One exception is not enough to prove a rule, but it is enough to disprove a rule. So clearly, a GM is NOT always of only equal importance to the players.

Another point you seem to keep ignoring is that there's a difference between "the players" and "a player". Unless the players have unionized since I last GMed (yesterday), "the players" are made up of a bunch of individuals, none of whom are of equal importance as the GM (excepting in 1 on 1 games, when "the players" and "a player" are equal). Yes, if all of your players and all of your potential players got together, they would definitely be of equal or greater importance than the GM. However, that rarely comes up. A single player is NOT of equal importance. They have conflicting goals and desires, and losing one player rarely kills a game (while killing the GM almost always does).



Fair enough, but we're discussing this in the Shadowrun subforum, not the General Games subforum, so I'd have to assume when we're talking about GMs and players, we're talking about them in the context of a Shadowrun game. You can't very well start a discussion about whether Shadowrun GMs should have more or less power, than complain that when people disagree with you, they're ignoring how successful Wushu GMs are. We aren't playing Wushu, we aren't discussing Wushu, we're discussing Shadowrun. Hypothetically you could make some sort of game which is 100% collaborative without the GM having any special power over the players, I've already conceded that. But that game isn't Shadowrun.



I don't think you've studied a lot of dictators Having the power does not require you wield it. It only means you have it available. That's what makes a dictator. A dictator who has the power but chooses not to wield it, preferring methods more favorable to the people being governed is a benevolent dictator. So it would seem that you are agreeing with the idea of GMs being benevolent dictators, you just don't know what the word means.



True, a GM should not abuse his power. But if he abused his power, he wouldn't be a benevolent dictator, would he? Has anyone suggested that GMs should be tyrannical dictators?

Steve is an abuse of power. Harlequin or Lofwyr, as critical NPCs, are not. However, Harlequin and Lofwyr are both more critical to the story than any individual PC.



You did NOT go voluntarily? They had to force you? They said "if you do not agree, we're going elsewhere"? You have some hard core players. If my players told me to stuff it, I don't think I'd want to GM for a group like that.

Oh wait, you said you accepted it. That you could have pushed your will through. But you didn't. I guess it was voluntary. You had the choice of accepting their preference, or exerting your own, and you (voluntarily) conceded to theirs, even though you had the power to do elsewise. That makes you a benevolent dictator.



I don't think that's similar at all, unless you're saying if you had pushed your will on the players they would have left (or put you in jail). If the other guy wins, I really don't have any option to change that. An armed rebellion won't change things, it'll just be me standing in my front yard shooting at cops until one of them puts me down. That is why it's not voluntary, because I do not have the option of changing who is president, I am accepting it through coercion.

Now if you had pushed your will, the players all stood up and walked out, then sat outside and made their own game, where they voted on the plot, on the rules, on whether shots hit, etc., that would be pure collaboration (although I can't imagine it would have been a lot of fun).

First, Max, if I seemed offensive in my first reply post, I apologize for that. That wasn't my intent. But reading back over it, it sounded "hot" even to me. So, let me start by backtracking that. Ok, now to the ideas presented.

Within the individual session I absolutely agree with the above. Outside of it I’ve never seen that attitude do anything but ultimately, at one point or another, cause hard feelings and dissension.



No, it doesn’t. It does absolutely NOT depend on the above. It actually assumes the opposite. It assumes that people, whether they are Players or GMs, will always have their own agendas. And the Players are no more likely to coincide with one another than they are with the GM.



When conflicts arise though that are between the Players, not their characters, and the GM tries to use game effects to mediate, he is CAUSING an escalation within that conflict. Instead, the Players, if they are adults who are treated like adults and act like adults, work out between themselves the solution and do not need GM input AT ALL, to settle things.

When the GM ham hands his way into the conflict he imbalances it further than it was and provides a fulcrum from which to upset the whole system. Two Players conflicting personality wise with one another need a third input about like fire and oil need a container to exist in together. (ie: explosion time)



Expect that commitment? No. Do I get it though. In spades. I average three to four hours a week in prep for sessions. My Players have, on average, spent about an hour person, per session, in prep time. Some spend none at all, some spend as much or even more than I do. Why? Because they know that I’ll use parts of their notes, bits here, pieces there, mixed around, not what was submitted, but it will get in there. My job is a piece of cake because I support the Players, empower them, and in return get MASSIVE support on a level that I have NEVER heard another GM equal and few, none of which run “benevolent dictatorship� style games, even come close to matching.

I see so often GMs talking about running out of ideas. I always have to remind myself it is because it is only they who come up with the ideas in the first place.

I ran a Forgotten Realms campaign that spanned more than a decade of real time, more than 1100 sessions (averaging four to six hours) and that spanned four plus generations in game, over a century of in game time. At the end of this run I had notes enough for three to five times as many sessions as had been run to that point, probably half of it almost directly running from submitted scenario ideas and backdrops. Literally thousands, I’ll say that word again, thousands, of detailed NPCs involved with fifteen towns and villages and two small cities so detailed that I could tell you the backgrounds of some of the families living in services villages and give you THEIR genealogies.

All of this from letting the Players have their heads and making them know that I valued THEIR creative abilities.



No. First, RPGs are NOT organized sports. They are not COMPETITIONS. If they are, they are missing half (or more) of the point of RPGs in the first place. The relationship in sports games is not only not similar; it is the absolute polar opposite of the one in RPGs. It couldn’t be much more different. The only real similarity is that the word referee can be used in both contexts.




But GMs do NOT create the game. They adjudicate the rules in session and present their side of the situations (they do so more often than the Player, except in one to one games), but only really for THAT reason, if they are doing their job correctly. They have to interact more as there is only one of them and usually several Players.




It doesn’t work, EXCEPT as arbiter of the rules IN SESSION. And YOU hit on why, because the GM is no more (or less) imperfect than the Player is, over all.

I would argue that it has never been necessary in any of the several thousands of games I’ve seen over the years, run by myself, or any of the other people I’ve known. This is not to say that dictatorial games weren’t MORE common, simply that they were NEVER, to my perceptions, a necessary evil.

Isshia