One thing to an idea stated above, that GMs are more valuable because the game ends with them. Sorry, no.


I don't know how many times my Players who were also in other games, or friends of theirs who were gamers talked about a GM/DM/Whatever throwing a fit and leaving and the Players picking it right up from where he left off and going on as though nothing had happened...

... except that usually the prima donna wasn't invited to join in the "new game".

If only the GM owns the core books for a system I can see this. But unless the Players are ALSO fed up and don't want to go on, someone else just grabs the mantel up and ... game on!


Isshia

I agree mostly with Max's position (surprise).

The fundamental driving elements for GM impartiality is that we do indeed preside over a cast of characters and not a single character. This is clutch. When a player has a single role to play they have a clear line of advocacy, they have an agenda and their only responsibility is to see to that agenda's completion (whilst having fun, hopefully). A GM, on the other hand, does not have the luxury of a single point of view. As a GM I have to be responsible for the intelligable and reasonable actions, intentions and reactions of a whole host of characters who range from totally uninvolved with a central plot to the plot's instigators or antagonists. In this way I must cultivate impartiality else my NPCs no longer fall into the realm of the reasonable and the game collapses like a flan in a cupboard due to the failure to suspend disbelief.

While a GM may indeed have a bias towards a given story, so does the player. As a GM I prepare a story with the explicit goal of having that story be entertaining to my players. Likewise, as Max pointed out, my players are giving up certain amounts of power or freedom to be a part of that story. Our roles, however, are not equal, can never be truly equal and would generally suffer from any lies of equality in a game not mechanically set up to support said egalitarian play. Wushu and Capes et. all can get away with their methods because the game itself arbitrates through a cold, unfeeling rules set that determines "yes, you can do that" instead of asigning that responsibility to a player. As to the assinine assumption that players desire this kind of control or responsibility I have only to say that most players that I have known are far more happy to not have to worry about such responsibility but instead just play their characters. Regardless, there is a mechanical method of arbitration in all games as games themselves derive their enjoyment from the resolution of conflict, player or GM driven, and that resolution must have an element of chance and failure in it to wield the sense of fear and elation that we all crave when we play.

The idea that a GM and a player are the same in a conventional RPG is blatantly just an opinion and hardly any measure of fact, regardless of how many posts Cain makes on the subject. No player is expected to have to prestidigitate entire conflicts, whole unwashed masses of NPCs just out of thin air. They do not have players ask, cracking a wry grin, 'what exactly is my contact's phone number?' and then make something up on the spot. Those instances certainly happen as players but they, as per the above comments on singular vs. multiple roles, are dealing with those questions from a monocentric point of view.

Some games allow for a democratic method of play. Others can allow some levels of consensus to be used to determine how rules are handled... All games rely on consensus to suspend disbelief. In this last statement lies the key to why a GM is important, and above all an Arbitor. Take a room of five people and show them a piece of media and ask them to write down what they saw - you will likely as not have five different answers. Apply this same methodology to what players do / want / see in their games. Consensus and deliberation are all well and good but I do not live in a world full of carebares and unicrons (yes, crons). My players do not agree and they do not have to agree all of the time. We don't need to have a little pow wow mid game every time there is a slight disagreement about this or that - instead we have agreed before we started playing that we will give up a certain amount of control, a given amount of agency, for the greater interest of a story. One of the primary driving forces behind a conflict is that a conflict requires antagonists and protagonists - players responsible for the agenda of their characters (even if those same players still want to participate in an overarching story - thus the same goal) are still not garaunteed to produce a believable or interesting conflict. Excellent players can do that and more power to them. As a(n impartial) GM our job is to insert antagonists to drive protagonists towards a climactic moment. How hands on or hands off this process is often left in the questionably capable hands of players. Without an element of chance or unknown your players can just as easily agree to win (the implicit goal at all times, even if 'winning' means 'dying in a badass way') as to lose (not get their way) - in fact they will (almost) always choose to 'win'.

If playing a game where you, just you, always win all of the time is interesting to you then whoopty do. Go check out a game besides Shadowrun if that is the top item on your agenda.

I find the notion of relativism in any form - especially in applied democratic process - to be abhorrent. The inability of players in a game to participate in a meaningful fashion without having to hold hands and sing kum-by-yah together is laughable. I do not feel as though a GM should ever feel shameful or as a failure for enforcing continuity, sometimes by any means necessary. When a player decides 'screw this, im jumping off of a building' or decides to wear a bomb-vest to kill the whole party for no reason, I take issue. When reckless, assinine decisions instead improve the game they are no longer assinine but creative - someone has to make that call. The player making the decision obviously things its a good one - not everyone will agree and I don't think that mid game is the time or place to call a 'time out' and try to share our feelings about what we want out of this encounter. This derails the entire suspension of disbelief - my sworn enemy.

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if I interpret anyone's statements wrong.

From what I've read, I think that the problem isn't whether or not Shadowrun can or should be played collaboratively. I know it can be, because I've done it. Personally, it was a much more satisfying both for my players (I know, because I asked) and myself as a GM. That's not saying that everyone will like playing it that way. It's just my preferred mode of GMing.

I think that most of the arguments here come from the idea that the adventure/run/campaign is set up in a particular way. The normal assumption is that the GM creates a scenario, then the players independently create their characters to play in that scenario. Sometimes the GM sets some conditions - lower BPs, different Availability caps, etc. - and the players create characters within those guidelines.

It is, in my experience, very difficult to run a collaborative game like Cain is advocating under this mode, because you've already created a situation where the GM has a stake in the story.

On the other hand, I get the impression that there's the perception that, if the GM doesn't have absolute control over the story/setting, then you're left with chaos because players are expected to whip up NPCs and conflicts, or they can just declare themselves the "winner" without actually playing the game, and screw all the preparation and time and tears that the GM put into the game, because the players are equally important and have just as much right to influence the setting. I don't think that's what's actually being advocated.

Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. What if your group decides they want to start a new SR campaign, and instead of the GM going, "Okay, go roll up your characters. I'll go work on the plot," everyone sits down and hashes out the details of what's going on in the campaign? What city are you playing in? What factions/organizations/individuals are the major players and what do they want? How do the PC's fit in to the situation? What are their goals and motivations? How do they know eachother? What are their relationships like? What's the power level? What kind of gear is available? How are we going to handle obviously vague rules? Are there any houserules that we want? Once all that's decided, then the players make their characters - preferably together at the table - and the GM starts coming up with NPC's and plots, and hooks and all that good stuff. Now you've got a collaborative situation, with everyone's input equally valued, but you've still got the traditional GM/Player structure.

I'm also of the opinion that, while the GM certainly has more responsibilities, he's not necessarily more important than the players. I view it as everyone at the table's job to make sure that the game is as enjoyable as possible, which puts everyone on equal footing as far as importance goes.

The root of all RPG problems comes from an attitude of opposition or antagonism between the GM and the non-GM players (to sidestep Cain's "the GM is a player" issue). If the Players feel like the GM isn't out to "get them" or that his precious NPCs or plot is more important than them, then they should be accommodating of the GM's rulings. Reciprocally, if the GM truly weaves the story around the PC's and believes they are (in the end) the central catalyst in the plot, he will listen to what they are saying and in turn accommodate them.

Yes communication is a nice thing. For some reason a GM who does not want to listen to their players and make their rulings and tough cookies towards the players it reminds me of the south park episode where a character kept saying "I am above the law!" Neither side is bad, and both can have their follies and pitfalls. Can't we just leave it at that?

Well that was a long read.

The term Benevolent Dictator, I have found that most do not understand the context that Machavelli used it in.
Consequently it's misunderstood when applied to anything else.

As ref is given authority to have final rules call to facillate a good game. A ref creates plots to facillate a good game. A ref is both opporsition and allies to the PC's. he/she is called god because they run the world to facillate a good game..

Benevolent Tyrant is an oxymoron that alludes to the complex state of not being too harsh and not being too lenient for the best result in every long term situation when place in a position of responsiblity.

A vital part of this is working with your friends the players. The term Benevolent Dictator as used by its orginator means non absolutism.

I believe that in part this discussion is based on the perception of the grey area of what defines a ref/GM/DM/ST/director etc responsibilities and so we are actually just discussing different takes on the same truth .

I was going to comment on this last night, but I decided not to. I guess since the discussion has come to this organically I'll throw it out there:

In my experience 9 out of 10 problems in any game boil down to interpersonal friction between the people sitting at the table. Sometimes I think there is a super secret rule hidden in the bowels of the BBB that forbids players to speak openly about how to resolve a given issue in a transparent way. Because the fact is the answer to most (9 out of 10) problems is to just talk to the players involved and come to a consensus. If everyone at the table is there with the goal of having fun, a consensus should be easy. If not, then you should examine the motives of the people you play with because your game is "sick" (to use Cantankerous' very apt term) and you should probably put it down.

Also, I've noticed an interesting theme. I'm curious why so many people automatically assume that the GM is de facto the best person to arbitrate rules disputes. My general impression is that the GM is usually the guy that happens to own the most books. But I've been in a few games where everyone at least has the BBB and sometimes more experience running a game. Lets just assume for a minute that coming to a consensus is beyond the realm of human possibility and you actually need a single authoritative rules arbitrator. Shouldn't that job go to whatever player knows the rule set the best? The one who can best appreciate the implications of the decision to be made and the effects it will have on game balance? I guess the obvious answer would be that a player might be biased and make decisions that unduly benefit his PC. But a GM on the other hand needs the freedom to modify the rules in order to keep the game from derailing, right? I guess thats all good if you happen to trust the guy who happens to own the most books. But if not maybe you should ask your self why the rules should or should not apply equally to the GM...

Most games, and gaming groups, are actually set up for collaborative decision-making. You tend to decide on things as a group-- what game you'll play, when you'll meet, how long the games will be, and so on and so forth. A lot of groups also decide on setting notes together, discuss house rules, and many other things. If you take a look at your group, you may realize that you're more collaborative than you think.

Actually, the GMing duties are shared in both those games. Questions like: "Is there a chandelier I can swing from?" is answered in both games, by either assumption or consensus. Those responsibilities are, in fact, assigned to players. It's traditional games that provide constraining rulesets.

For example, I've GMed Shadowrun Missions at conventions. During those games, I am basically forced into obeying everything that is in the RAW: the setup allows no house rules whatsoever. That's a great deal more constraining than anything a collaborative game could ever produce.


Hardly.

Let me put it to you this way: Do you agree that a GM has the right to enjoy a game he runs?

And then, the counter-question: Do you agree that players have the right to enjoy the same game?

Now, for the kicker: Who has a greater right to fun?

The correct answer is, of course, *No one*. Neither the GM nor player has any more right to have fun than the other. We all know what happens when GMs run games for their personal amusement. And we've all got stories about problem players who hog the spotlight and make things unfun for everyone else. These are actually the same problem: one person is ruining the fun for everyone else. No one, GM or player, deserves to be treated like that.

It is a fact that we all game to have fun. And it is a fact that we all have the exact same right to have fun, otherwise the game begins to break. The players and players who GM are absolutely equal.

You don't play a RPG to "win" or "lose". You play a RPG to have fun.

Your argument basically amounts to: "I need to be an absolute tyrant to prevent bad players from ruining the game." Well, first question: If they're such an irredeemably bad player, why are you still playing with them? Second question: If your players are not irredeemably bad, why aren't you taking the time to educate them? Surely showing them how to be better players is better than smacking them down every time they get out of line.

The bottom line is, you do not need to resort to GM tyranny in order to stop bad players. Most of the time, a few words will suffice. When stronger measures are called for, a group intervention is better than a GM faceoff: they won't see this as the GM-Player antagonism that is the root of so many problems, and they're less likely to continue to view the game that way. I saw this method work not that long ago; a player changed his behavior almost instantly. Isn't it better to handle things through democracy and diplomacy than tyranny, "benevolent" or otherwise?

There is never a period where a game suffers from Player input unless the GM is inflexible, or inflexible enough to be in some manner threatened by the process, if the GM and Player both act in an adult manner. Let me say that again, because I hate the word in almost every context: NEVER!

But for this part of the discussion I would rather ask a question that might throw some light on the whole situation.


MUST THE CHARACTERS ALWAYS (USUALLY OR ALMOST ALWAYS) SUCCEED FOR THE GAME TO BE A SUCCESS?

Let me elaborate on that question a bit. First, note the use of the word CHARCTERS there, not players. Secondly it is important to understand what success is for you as Players or GMs. So maybe a few further questions will help out.

It is important to you GMs out there that the Characters succeed on a given mission? Is that "winning" the game?

I bring this up because the more I read these responses and others on the board that are tangential to this question, it seems to be the consensus of opinion that if the characters fail at a mission that the session (at least) was unsuccessful. Is that an accurate perception? Is it the way most of you view the situation?


Isshia

One other thing here, and I think this one is huge.

There are NO FACTS when it comes to any part of this discussion except what we have each perceived...and those are only facts for the person who perceived them.

Outside of that there are ONLY OPINIONS. There is no right or wrong way to GM. Some ways may work better than others, ATLEAST TO THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE GIVEN PERSON, but even that is only, EVER, opinion.


Isshia

Good stuff here, Cain. Thanks for posting it for the rest of us to digest and see where we fit into this scenario.

My only issue with this post is the caveat that "GM has final say and it should be dropped unless it's very important to the whole group right at that very instant." I'm sorry, but taking that last shot at the Big Bad (or not) shouldn't be such an overwhelming game issue that the group devolves into a snarling mess. Of course, this is the type of situations where players who think that they're so close to "winning" (and after a long run against this guy it's hard not to take it a bit personal if you're really into the game like my players and I tend to be) that they forget the rules of RPGs (namely, you can't really "win") and start a shouting match while shoving books at the GM with fingers pointed direct-like at page X, paragraph Y, and sentence Z.

I think Pendaric hit the nail on the head. Some people (specifically Cain and the Gothfather) seem to feel that "benevolent dictator" means you as the GM always demand you get precisely what you want. That isn't what it means at all. Benevolent dictator means you have the POWER to demand whatever it is you want (within the context of the game, obviously), but that you choose to only wield that power when necessary. There is nothing preventing a benevolent dictator from being collaborative (and in fact, generally the benevolent dictator will be very collaborative; taking the opinions of those he is in charge of, adding in his own education and background knowledge, drawing on what those people don't know, to make a fair decision, even if the decision is contrary to his personal desires or even his opinion as to what is the 'best' option).

The only thing I think Cain has been saying is that the whole idea of the GM as a "benevolent dictator" is somewhat flawed. Where most players have had their problems with games is where a GM abuses their power because they are viewed in such a light and the game is run in such a way that the players do not have any fun. The GM just ends up being a little bitch and everyone just really wants to go home after an hour and a half of pain. What I think he is saying is that when he has sat down and done a consensus based game and everyone is on board with that then it has never gone wrong for him. So based on his experience consensus based games work better whereas he has had problems before with GMs who got too power hungry and went from the image of the "benevolent dictator" to just a plain dictator. For my experience in gaming all the "benevolent dictator" GMs I have had sucked and now that I am in a consensus based game it's the most fun I have ever had. My experience tells me that consensus games might suck, but hell for what our table has been doing it is ten times better then anything I have ever had before.

Again since I feel like I am flogging a three month old rotten baby horse with maggots bursting out of every orifice every time I take a swing at it. This whole damn thing is arbitrary and since neither side will budge this topic I fear will not bear any more fruit.

That's exactly what "Benevolent dictator" means, though. It means you always demand that you get precicely what you want; it's just that what you want is usually, in your opinion, what's best for the game.

You actually don't need that authority. Instead of demanding, you can ask. Just say something like: "This is how I'd like the story to go, is everyone willing to play along?" Most of the time, players will say yes. If one or two say no, then you can warn them that they might get left in the cold. If a lot of players say no, you know you're on the wrong track, and should probably change up your game.

Asking the players and taking a vote uses up less than 30 seconds of gaming time. It's also a more fair way of handling disputes that leads to less hard feelings. And it gives the GM valuable feedback about their game. Much, much better than: "I'm the GM, it goes my way!"

The point is, Cain, if your doing your job right as a Benevolent Tyrant, you have already asked.

The problem here is that a lot of bad ref (power hungry or misguided) people use a term that means one thing to justify something else entirely.

That's not exactly my position. I think that a happy medium can be achieved by frontloading the complexity of the game's storyline before the first session of actual play, thus preserving the traditional role of rules arbitration and primary narration of the GM, while simultaneously allowing a measure of player/GM collaboration, which then promotes player buy-in and cohesion.

Even if you've already asked, do you need to dictate the results and set them in stone?

If you're a tyrant, benevolent or otherwise, you're demanding final say. My point is that tyranny isn't needed at all. A more fair and democratic process works better, and also teaches the players better gaming habits.

Far better gaming habits. When you treat the Players like children that you have to ride herd on, it encourages them to act that way, to see how much they can get away with. If you treat them like adults and make THEM responsible for the way their characters act and how they as Players act you loose that "what can I get away with" attitude that leads to rules lawyering and trying to bend the rules to benefit themselves. Instead THEY try to suggest fixes for rules that need help or clarification and simply don't exploit the ones that are still in place.


Isshia

If you really want to go with Cain's understanding and not Machiavelli's, go ahead. It would appear you're not alone, so I won't argue. But understand, when talking to people who have actually read and studied Machiavelli, you're coming off as a little naive.



A benevolent dictator can and should do that, when appropriate. I consider myself a "benevolent dictator" GM and I do that - when the game allows. However, sometimes I don't. For instance, when talking about an NPCs reaction, or whether a shot hits or not. This is especially true in regards to story-related things, since the players don't know the plot or what other NPC players are involved, and I do. If I say "sorry, the truck already left", or "the matrix host suddenly goes on lock-down", I say that for a reason, and I'm not open to a vote on it. If the players decide they'd like to vote on the plot, they're welcome to - in their own game.

I've never dumped a player, and I've never had anyone complain about my GMing style (except insofar that sometimes I focus too much on the technical side, or too much action vs. social stuff, etc., none of which is related to whether I take votes or not, I think. I do adjust my games to meet the goals of my players, but also try to advertise beforehand what sort of game *I* like to play, so they know what they're getting into and I don't have to sacrifice my fun because of what is simply different preferences.)

I don't presume, or even desire to teach my players anything. I'm there as a GM to run the game.

That is kind of sad. I learn from my Players all the time. I would hope that they can likewise learn from me.


Isshia

You are quite right here. All my games involve a collaborative character creation process between myself as the GM and my players. I encourage players to collaborate between themselves to avoid obvious group cohesion processes (such as two racist dwarves who hate elves in a group 40% made of of elves...) but I do not demand it. Regardless, this level of collaboration is to enforce continuity and gameplay more than anything else.

Further, I don't call my gamers and say "Hey, ya know that villain? You guys really pissed him off and he is likely going to try and kill you. Is that ok? How do you feel about that? Would you rather have a pie eating contest with him? Discuss!" I will ask them what they want to accomplish before and even during the game, but I ask in broad strokes. If my players say "I want a really big sword, a ham sammich and to fuck the queen!" how entertaining is it when they get what they want in its entirety, for no reason. If you want to run a game based around ham sammiches, or whatever the fancy of your players is regardless of other people's desires, interests or the overall feelings of continuity in the game world, then that is your perrogative. I honestly have no idea what you do with your games and you should probably try not to presume what I do with my own.



I have had this issue with you in the past. You just re-wrote what I said. The game system itself is built to arbitrate those decisions which normally are assigned to the GM - if the game assigns them into portions to other players or offers a situation where they can weigh in that responsibility is not abdicated, it is delegated.



Your reliance on straw-men is insulting to your intelligence. First and foremost, I do not believe in out and out tyrrany. I do, however, believe that most games rely on a dynamic wherein one person is vested with the responsibility to maintain a certain trajectory, feel and dramatic tension - all of which dissipate when too many hands touch the core inner workings of the game. Asking players for input in between sessions, factoring in their goals etc. is a certain amount of collaboration but ultimately I make the shit up and put it out there for them to work with. Even in the most sand-box orriented games, which Shadowrun often is, the tools and features bepopulate of that sandbox are there for a reason - I saw a need, a purpose or a neccessary reason for them and placed them there to be used by my players. To a certain extent is an awful lot like being a producer-director: you gather the necessary elements of talent, drama, story etc. and put them in a fish bowl of your own making and sometimes you go hands off and let it all boil over. Other times you have to go hands on and do your job. A good day is when the result is an interesting story wherein the players enjoy themselves. Most games do not achieve this through 100% democratic process and associating collaboration on elements of the game with collaborating on running the game is in pretty grevious error.

This is definitely not the culture in my gaming groups. I would not pick up the slack of my gamemaster and continue what he was doing.

I would start a new bunch of characters and start something anew.

Ahhh interesting!

I do think that beeing succesfull makes the game fun. Better said, a failure is neither a pleasure for the GM nor the players. And if it is, it denotes that something is wrong.

However, I do think that, failures should happen if the players does things wrong. So that, if they succeed, they know they succeeded because they were good. Railroaded successes sucks.


Of course, by failure, I really think of a scenario where they couldn't solve it. Not the kind of they were supposed to fail (for a dramatic arc)

But if you think you're arguing with a bunch of GM that acts this way, you are wrong.

I really do believe we think the same about GMing. The point of disagreement is what to do when we reach an extreme case.

There's also another thing I'd like to point out:

Gamemastering styles SHOULD BE dependent to the game you play.

For exemple: the bad guy is shot and falls of the cliff, a thing you can't survive:
-doesn't fit well for SR as I would GM this game harshly, it's a survival of the fittest gamemastering, so I would have to be fair (if a PC would die here, then my NPC too)
-fits perfectly for PULPS! that's what pulp is about! I would that quite a few time there, that's how their story arcs works well.

If I play, Call of Cthulu, the game is orienteed not on the characters, but the story. So the idea would be: to survive, you gotta be cautious and wise. Death would happen often.
What I wouldn't do in DD for exemple.

If the gamestyle is heroic (exemple Earthdawn) I wouldn't have the PC to struggle all game long as it is an heroic game. If it was dying earth, they shouldn't be expecting have many gloring moments.


Cain, you take often Wushu as an exemple. It's certainly a good game. But his mechanics aren't adaptable everywhere I guess.


IMO, you can GM differently depending on the game you play.

(exemple: Midnight: to make the feeling of despair more "real" why not act more as a dictator GM, not going into arguings about rules. IMO, if you have confidence in your players and in yourself, you can start to think about how actually increase the feeling of the setting through outside factors.

***Currently, I run a chronicle campaign so I do make sumary of each act, use ellipses, make a recall of precedent episodes like TV-series does. At the end of each episode, I do announce the title of the next one, enough to hint what might happen. I also already announced the length: 24 episodes! When this will be over, I will switch to something else.***

The issue comes up when you're pushing for something. For example, let's say you have a pornomancer who tries to seduce an NPC. Now, you may or may not have a way of evading his abilities; but when the player says: "I rolled 25 successes", you're going to need a damn good reason to tell him why he failed. You can pass the player a note that says: "It's a story point. Play along." and hopefully your players have enough trust in you to go with what you have planned.

You're still being collaborative. You still get to make up stuff as you see fit. What you give up is the unnecessary tyranny so many GMs are used to.


It sort-of does, actually. You said you ask players what kind of games they prefer. That's a shorthand way of taking a vote, adding your opinion in as well, and producing something you hope will be pleasing to everyone. If everyone else's perfect game is opposed to yours, you can either give in, or tell them: "I don't think I can help you", and go looking for another group.

Such a system could be imported into Shadowrun without much effort. Just rewrite Edge to be "story points" as well as a dice mechanic, and bump up the refresh rate some. At any event, the GM does have a role, but now he's got more reason to include player input into the narrative.

I agree with Cantankerous. I learn from my players constantly. I don't consider myself to be a great GM, or even that good of one, so I take my lessons whenever I can. I also try to share what I've learned about being a good player with the newer players I encounter, both when I'm running and playing a game.

As I've said many times, more responsibility != more authority.


What you're not mentioning is that it's never a 100% dictatorial process, either. In fact, it's usually a more collaborative decision than you might realize.

Nice try, but that's not at all what I said, as I am sure you (and Cain) are well aware.

It is not my role or job to be a 'teacher of elite gaming skillz' to my players. That doesn't mean we don't learn things from each other. Everyone is always learning, or at least should be. Hell, I learn stuff from all kinds of strange sources, as I am sure most people do. And of course I help those players new to a particular system, or who are having trouble with some part of the rules or a particular concept. That still does not change the fact that it is not my place, nor do I want it to be my place, to serve as tutor or mentor or instructor of gaming habits to the players in my game.

Your call Fortune (shrug). You seem a bit perdantic recently, everything alright?

This is probably a can of worms I shouldn't step into, but alas my fingers have the better of me.

What is a GM and what is a player? Where does the distinction lie? In many games it has been set up and described in a way where the GM creates a story and then the players play through it making choices along the way. However, in all of those years many GMs have taken that to mean that it is their right and responsibility to force the players to act a certain way. They tell players what they can or can't play in the name of world building and campaign settings. They force players to their will in the name of story. Not all GMs are like this mind you. There are many who do not give into the temptations that the screen brings.

However, I digress. The Gamemaster is a person first and foremost. He is not a god, nor a demon. He is not there to subjugate or to entertain. He is there to play a game just like everyone else. So far he doesn't differ at all from the players who are there to enjoy the game. So where does the GM differ? Well he creates a story right? But here is the question. Why does he create the story? Does he do it so that the players can enjoy the game and so he can enjoy the game? If so then why do so many GMs say that it is their right to limit enjoyment of the game to the players?

Perhaps it is the GMs job to be the rules arbiter. However, should his enjoyment go against that of the players? After all is it not their game as well? Do they not put hours into the game? Some will say they don't, that they just show up to the game. That's a fair thing to say in a lot of cases actually. The problem is that the RPG culture has created a societal system where the player is not supposed to show up with story arcs and ideas. The player should take on more responsibility in this hobby. That's what this is after all, a hobby. Something that we all pay money to enjoy. Something that one would suspect you could give up a few hours a week for.

So, you may ask, if the GM does not tell the story and does not make all the rules then what does he do? Well he makes a story and helps with the rules. No I'm not crazy and going back on myself. In reality the GM does create a story. He does so because there needs to be mystery and surprises for a good story. He makes some of the rules to keep balance and order between the players. So what was I talking about before!? Why am I crazy?!

Here's the thing. If a GM doesn't allow you to play a dark elf what is going on? Perhaps he created a story where there are no dark elves. Perhaps he doesn't think they are balanced. Perhaps he feels that they will go against the mood of the campaign. Or maybe he just doesn't like them. Many of us agree that the player should consider this. However, what is not usually agreed on is the idea that a GM should never say no. A GM should strive to say "Yes and here's how..." or "Yes, but we need to come up with..." A GM should give the players a chance to make stories and to create. It is their game too after all.

Now you may be ready to tell me that it isn't fair. After all a GM doesn't have a character. That's not true. The GM has hundreds of characters. He always had. The difference is that they are not the protagonist. Of course this isn't always true either. Some GMs have made GMPCs that are well made and balanced and don't overshadow the group. The GM can have a protagonist especially if the players are helping make the story. Perhaps my web is starting to come into focus. The GM is able to be surprised by the players stories and the players are able to create. It should be starting to sound like a communal game, because that's partially what it is. The difference is that in this scenario there is one main story-teller and multiple main protagonists, but each one is a minor of the other.

As a final thought, many people have said that without a GM the game will die. This is no more true than without a player the game will die. Why could a player not take up the mantle of GMing when a GM leaves. It has happened before. Players and GMs are both there for a game. The game should be fun no matter what and the GM should know this. He should always understand that the players are just as much the creators, the heroes and the imagination behind the game as he is and that an RPG is not a book or a movie.

Nothing wrong that bitching about will help.

Seriously though, I really don't feel that players need to learn better gaming skills than what they already bring to the table. If, in the course of time they do get 'better', then all's good, but it sure isn't a goal, let alone a priority. Players definitely don't come to my games for role-playing lessons, but to have a good time.

Simple question, then. Whose place *is* it to teach new players how to roleplay?

I am positive that at one time, you were a beginner. And you looked to someone to demonstrate what was expected of you. Rather or not someone actively taught you what you know, or if you passively absorbed everything through observation, doesn't really matter. You were taught how to roleplay-- you did not develop your skills instantly.

I'll also bet money that at some point in your roleplaying career, some newish player or three looked to you as a kind of role model in how to game. It could be because you were a good GM, or a good player they thought would be worth emulating. Or it could just be someone new to Shadowrun, who decided to follow your lead. In that manner, like it or not, you became a teacher.

It is everyone's place to be a teacher, just like it is everyone's place to be a student. This is not just a GM thing. While GM's have a position of influence, and can teach many things (good and bad) to a player, other players can be a stronger influence. I know where my bad habits came from, and I know that my early GMs didn't help matters.

Like it or not, you *are* a teacher. The only question is: what kind of teacher do you want to be?

The main problem I have with the GM as teh dictator is that games tend to follow the principle of least awesome and the GM has to drag things up from there. Even games that attempt to give players 'story power' are usually only giving them to ability for there to always be a chandelier to swing on.

Consider the following situation:
The PCs are confronting an army. What is going to happen? neither the players nor the GM really know, so the story tends to follow the principle of least awesome. If they defeat the army (even when they shouldn't have been able to) it's because they stood and fought and the GM didn't want a TPK. If they ran away from the army (even if they characters could have defeated it) they it is all up to the GM how to get the players convinced that they are cool enough to beat the army.

Consider instead the following:
(before the game gets started)
GM: OK guys, you are facing an army. What do you think would be cool? I think if would be cool if you guys stood and fought the army until you each stand atop mountains of the dead, and the following waves of the army have to climb over their dead comrades to get to attack you. You will win and everyone will see how awesome you guys are.

Player 1:
I dunno about that. I think my PC would be pretty depressed at having built a mountain of the dead. Can we instead have a duel with the general and/or officers of the army; after we beat them in an awesome display of kung-fu, the soldiers of the army all turn and run.

Player 2:
I don't really want to kill the whole army either. I think it would be much cooler if, after beating the general, the army falls to its knees and pledges to follow us instead since an army would come in handy later.

Player 3:
We've been mighty kung-fu heroes in this land for years, and we are still solving all of our problems by kicking some guy in the head. I want us to actually see benefit from some of the good will we've undoubtedly generated. What about having the general of the army be that guy whose fort we came to the rescue of way back in the first adventure? you said he was promoted, after all. So the general of the army is all ready to fight us; but then he realizes that we were the guys who saved him before and decides to just give it up.

Player 1:
Hahaha! ok, sounds good.

Player 2:
As long as we get the army, I'll be happy.

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

And then the game goes on from there and the principle of least awesome if left beaten in an alley somewhere.

This is a great example of something that can happen in a free-form game. Now with a set of rules you add another layer onto that. You can get the army, if you have the points/level/hyperbolic chambers to have one otherwise. You can stop the general that way by making a charisma check. Etcetera. The GM in this case should set the skill/attribute/point/whatever usage, but shouldn't discount it outright IMO. The GM and the players should all work within the rule to make the stories that they want to.

But very few games give characters the ability to dictate outcomes to such a degree that the players would be willing to risk trying to talk the army out of attacking without some winks from the GM ahead of time.

Consider an unspoken rule in SR:
You can get away with it. Your characters carry out all their crimes because the players and the GM all buy into the 'you can get away with it rule'.

Now consider the following:
THE GM thinks it would be awesome for the PCs to get into a big Heat style gunfight with the cops. But he doesn't tell them this. Instead he just arranges for everything to go wrong in the PCs escape plan so that they get into a big gunfight with the cops. But a lot of players are upset by the GM screwing with them and railroading them into a gunfight with the cops, so don't really enjoy it. Everyone leaves the table unhappy.

Instead, there is the above table discussion before the game. Everyone agrees that a big gunfight with the cops would be cool.Everyone conspires to get things there. The players aren't upset with the GM bending the rules a bit to get them where they wanted to go in the first place. A big gunfight with the cops happens. Everyone leaves the table happy.

The exact same set of actions could have happened at the table in both games, but in one, everyone leaves unhappy; in the other everyone is happy. But the exact same rules events occurred at both tables!

I agree with you to a point. As I said above, I am a huge proponent of the GM as player relationship. However, I do think that there needs to be surprises and suspense. If you allow the players to always choose things like this or if the GM always talks to the players about what to do then it is not as much a game as it is a round robin story.

However, I think its important to get players in on the story-telling action, especially on the more general level. Let's say the GM is introducing a new villain, a toxic shaman. Now in a normal game the villain will be a toxic shaman, perhaps with some interesting twist or two. However, what should be able to happen is a player should be able to come up to the GM and say, "hey look, I want this guy to be my estranged dad." The GM then can look over his notes and say, hey that's a cool idea and run with it.

The thing is, this doesn't happen enough. It's not the GMs fault and its not the players fault. The problem is the combined society we have where players and GMs feel like there is this wall that neither can cross and both get upset about it. I've seen hundreds of threads about GMs wanting to use GMPCs and I've seen hundreds about players upset that their GM isn't allowing some options. There shouldn't be any reason that this wall should be here. Yes there should be the main storyteller, but that doesn't mean everyone can't be in on it.

Using your example of the army. The players could come up to the GM and ask if there is a way that out of all the people who they have saved this general could be one of them. I say ask because the GM is the main storyteller and knows certain things that the players don't. The GM in turn should not dismiss this outright, like many GMs tend to do. He should look over his notes and decide if it would work. He then should figure out how it will effect the balance of the game.

I'm going to bring up a different story point game. It's mainstream, it's just that Faery's Tale is aimed at a slightly different audience than the typical Dumpshocker.

However, Faery's Tale has a story point mechanic with a unique twist. At any point, if the player thinks something else would be more interesting, he can suggest it as a complication. As a result, he's given more story points for making life harder. So, the players are directly rewarded for complicating their characters' lives.

So, asking the players to come up with their own complications can and does work. Faery's Tale is the only game I know of that gives a mechanical reward for doing so, but I'm sure the concept will catch on. In other words, running a collaborative game doesn't mean they players will choose to win every conflict.

Now, I know someone's going to say: "I have a player who's not mature enough for this!" And, my response has got to me: "Dude, it worked for a ten year old girl; if your player is less mature than that, you've got worse issues than GM style."

I wish I could stab this thread in the face. I also wonder who's with me in this.

While I think that stabbing this thread in the face would totally not be awesome and in line with what I've come to expect from Dumpshock. I'd have to vote no.

I've decided to stop responding in this thread because I don't think we are making any progress, as it is hard for people on one side to understand the others arguments. But this post provides a good place to point out where and why collaborative and absolutist games might differ.

This may come as a surprise to some collaborationist players, not everyone would like to have the plot/fate of a story decided in this manner. Some players prerfer to have the fates of their characters decided by powers partially outside their control. Players that focus on role-play may object to this style of play because their character isn't able to manipulate their fate to this degree, and so feel that giving them this level of control disrupts their role-play. Players that focus on the mechanical/hack&slash side of play may object because it both assumes their victory and thus takes the challenge out of the game. Loonies dislike it because planning out their fate disrupts their ability to do unusual things.

But basically it boils down to players disliking collaborative gaming because it puts knowledge and control of their fates in there hand to a degree beyond what their character should have. In essence a crucial difference is that many players are actually more interested in 'playing a game' then they are in 'telling a story'. That is to say, while they enjoy acting out and playing their part within the story, but do not actually want to be responsible for how the story goes beyond the ability their character has in this process.

How would I as an absolutist aproach this situation? Simple. The key as GM is to recognize you don't control the players fates either, and thus make no assumptions about what they should do in this situation. As a GM its your role to set the stage and then let the actors (they players) dance upon it. So if the PCs want to fight the army, good! Let them. Their strategies, luck, and respective powers of the sides will decide their fate. If they want to try and dual the officers that is cool as well. If plausible for the personality and setting, go with it. If the players come up with crazy plan C that you didn't think of, also cool. React to the situation as the setting demands it.

The key here it is the GM's job to set the stage. He creates a setting and NPCs. He doesn't determine the fate of the characters, but has the setting react as is plausible to their setting. In fact no fate is determined in advance, the actions of the PCs, the setting, and the roll of the dice determine what happens. By giving up the assumption that either party (GM or PCs) can fully control the fate of the story, many groups find that a more satisfying and organic game can evolve, then if the rules, settings, and plot are determined by consensus.

Put another way, by dividing the powers of creating a story up between the GM and PCs, neither side actually having full control, a more organic story can result then one originates if the whole group shares these powers.

Maybe not in that exact fashion, but I've yet to hear of a player who didn't like more control over the narrative. Usually this comes in the form of "Story points". Those are essentially a pool of narrative control, allowing you to affect the story on a more direct level. For example, for one story point, there's a chandelier where you want it to be.

Players who focus on role play love this, because everything is where they want it to be. Players who focus on mechanical benefits know how to use this to their advantage. And loonies love it because it enhances their ability to do unusual things. You can also, as I said before, tangibly reward players with story points for coming up with their own complications.

To a certain degree, just about everyone loves a more collaborative game, even if it just comes in the form of Story Points. Wushu and Capes might not be everyone's cup of tea, but even SR4 has a narrative mechanic, in the form of the Critical Success rules. I've yet to hear a player complain about getting critical successes!

I don't think I was that unclear. If I didn't know better, I would think that you are just looking for an argument. Note that I did say ...





Actually, no! Back when I first started playing RPGs, there were no people with 'elite role-playing skills'. There was just our small group and the Basic D&D Box Set. We read the rules and then played the game. We didn't look for teachers to tell us how to have fun. We didn't look for tutors to show us the proper way to roll dice or speak in funny voices. We didn't search for mentors to show us the preferred way to use our imagination. We just played the game.

Most people that I know learned how to role-play when they were little children playing make-believe. They didn't need remedial education on how to use their imagination.



Sure, but it isn't my job. People can learn from all kinds of sources, but as I said earlier, it is not my stated goal as a GM to teach anyone anything (except, as I earlier said, rules and game concepts). Especially something as hard to define or subjective as 'better role-playing skills'.



No, it is everyone's place to be a student. There is no onus on anyone to be a teacher.



I never said I wasn't a teacher. I stated, quite clearly, that it isn't my 'role' as a GM.

Likewise, you as well are no doubt able to see the same in your own statement. No one is talking about teaching "elite gaming skillz" to anyone. When you act in a certain way as a GM you teach your Players what YOU value. Teaching them that, as they teach you the same, is a simple method of communication...and perhaps the most effective one... do as I do, not as I say.

I doubt that anyone who does NOT support the idea of Benevolent Dictatorship (which mind set greatly increases the likelihood of such nonsense) imposes their POV on the Players, which is what presuming to "teach elite gaming skillz" so obviously IS. So, as you said, nice try, but it seems to be trying to miss the point entirely, or cloud it.


Isshia


Edit: New Players are being taught, albeit non pedantically if you are a good GM, every session. And in exactly the manner I cited. If THEY ask questions, answering them fully, and honestly is also any good GMs job.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm trolling or being insulting, but you are posing a contradiction here. Namely, if it's not your job to be a teacher, and it's not anyone else's job to be a teacher.... then whose job is it?


Then you learned to game from each other. Each of you was a student, and each of you was a teacher. You might not have had formal lesson plans, but you taught each other just the same.

I'll bet you also teach players what kind of behaviors you expect at the table. Like appropriate power levels, how not to be a munchkin, things like that. Basic manners at the gaming table. It might not be your stated job, but I'll bet you do it anyway, deliberately or otherwise. When you are around other people, you cannot help but teach by example.

I think you said you've got kids? Then I think you know what I'm talking about. Even when you're not officially teaching them, they're learning from your example.

And again I say: Whose 'role" is it, then?

I think to continue this much more would be just arguing on semantics. That being said, I'll try one more time.

I don't deny that we all learn from each other, and also consequently teach each other all the time. My point of contention is that I do not set out with that goal specifically in mind when I sit down to GM a game. If if comes to pass that someone (myself included) learns something, then that is a bonus, but that is not my purpose, even peripherally, nor even my intent. It would merely be a lucky byproduct of our social and/or gaming interaction, and not the reason behind it.

If a player with (what I consider) mediocre gaming skills sits down at my table and plays, consistently has a good time, and yet never actually improves those skills, that's fine. It is not my job to make him learn better role-playing skills, but merely to provide the game for him and the other players to have fun playing. If he does actually want to improve those skills, then he has a lot of options between myself and the other players, but it isn't anyone's 'job' to teach him as much as it is his 'job' to learn (if he so chooses). That being said, my game isn't school, and he isn't being graded on Role-Playing 101.

Sure it would be. It would also be something I've never, EVER seen in more than three decades of gaming with, by now, literally a couple of hundred other people.

And THAT is the point. I think very few GMs worth their salt set themselves to improve the quality of gaming in their group as even a secondary motivation, much less a primary one. BUT... we (both GMs and Players who give a damn about what they are doing) DO improve the skills of anyone involved who isn't so utterly set AGAINST the concept of learning from someone else that that they CAN NOT do so. And this happens continuously, in small increments for the most part, but sometimes dramatically.



Has anyone argued this point?



Isshia

As several people have already said, I might be closer to the benevolent dictator to the fully collaborative GM, but it doesn't mean that I railroad or that I get always what I expect or even want.

I define a world with its locations and NPCs and events. Players are free to add to existing elements or add new elements of their own through their characters (contacts, friends, places he likes, things that have happened to him and things he wants to have, and so on.). Once everything is set into motion, it's neither I nor the players who'll choose the way things will go but the world itself. The players can have an impact through their character, and I can have an impact through the NPCs. I'll let a player describe his own elements, but I will play them, even if I'll let the player give me his idea on how his contact is likely to react to something or how crowded his favorite bar is likely to be.
But just like the players' ability to impact the world will be limited by the abilities of their PCs and the rules, my ability to decide what will happen is limited by the abilities of the NPCs (including their way of thinking) and the rules.

Of course, I will try to make the story evolve in the most interesting way for the PCs: for example, if the NPC have the choice between two teams for a job, they're more likely to choose the PCs. If I think the PC's infiltration would be better if it went wrong, a NPC guard is more likely to disrupt his normal patrol to go to the toilets, or the checkpoint guard will be more suspicious than usual (though I won't make him unrealistically suspicious, or unrealistically good at spotting the PCs). On the opposite, if I don't want to spend too long on that part of the scenario, everything will go as planned (though I won't make it easier than it can realistically be).
In order to make sure my offer meets the players expectations I'll ask them from time to time what they think ok the campaign, if they want more fighting, more investigation, more Matrix, more Magic, if they want to delve deeper into a specific part of their character and so on. This will have an impact on some of the choices I'll make.

What I won't do, however, is to ask the players "would you like the infiltration to go smoothly, or do you want it to go awfully wrong?". I might ask them if they want to play the whole thing or if they're ok if we deal with it quickly, but only if I decided that there's no special risk at that point. I won't let the players decide how a major NPC will react to something, I won't let the players decide who will get elected or who they'll suddenly meet in the subway (except if he's a minor NPC with little to no impact on the scenario) and so on. Not in Shadowrun.

What you have described sure doesn't seem to be in any manner what might be termed a being a "benevolent dictator", but is almost spot on precisely what is being called a fully collaborative GM.

No GM I've ever heard of asks his Players HOW they want things to go in a game like Shadowrun, in the way that you put it. Asking "would you like the infiltration to go smoothly, or do you want it to go awfully wrong?" seems utterly bizarre and misses the point of collaboration entirely.

The term "dictator" (whether that person believes himself to be benevolent or otherwise) conjures a certain image...and it's an extremely common one in gaming circles, of the "it's my world and welcome to it" style of GM who almost would never allow Players "to add to existing elements or add new elements of their own through their characters (contacts, friends, places he likes, things that have happened to him and things he wants to have, and so on.)" because this does not allow them enough of the control that dictation of scene and setting requires. These guys, and they are probably even today still the most common types of GM by FAR, would need to see a cold WEEK in hell pass before considering asking them (his Players) "if they want to play the whole thing or if they're ok if we deal with it quickly, but only if I decided that there's no special risk at that point" because, likewise, this is completely counter the idea and intent of "dictating" the terms of the world to the Players.


Isshia

I was comparing to the collaborative games out here where the GM is supposed to ask the players how they want the scenario to continue ("do you want the bad guy to survive or do you want him to be dead for good?") or where the players can decide (sometimes spending special points to do so) that the mysterious serial killer happens to be exactly in the neighborhood they decided to investigate that night. My game might be more collaborative than other, but I don't go that far.

CrusherBob, frankly, I'd hate to play in a game like that, as GM or player. I'd find it completely unchallenging, and when I beat the army, it's like "meh, why'd I need those other guys? There was nothing risked, and so really nothing won. We were just sitting around, making up cool scenes to see who could make up the coolest scene. It has no value." I may as well just go play with myself, unless my problem is I'm particularly uncreative. That is also not the sort of game that the Shadowrun mechanics are made to support. The shadowrun rules say quite clearly, "the attacker rolls this many dice, the defender rolls this many, and that" (not a group vote) "determines who wins".

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong (although you are ;P ). If you like that style of play, go for it. There is nothing stopping you from doing a freeform game in a Shadowrun setting. But it isn't using almost all of the Shadowrun book and frankly, as an RPG, it sort of falls on its face for me. At that point, it sounds a lot more like collaborative fan fic than an RPG (since as a player, I'm not just playing MY character, but I'm determining the course of the entire world, the army, the other peoples' players, the NPCs, etc.)

And since we seem to be arguing the worst of dictator GMs vs. the best of collaborative games, I may as well point out I have played in a few freeform games. Generally, without a strong GM, it comes down to "I hit you with my arrow!" "No you didn't, you missed!" "Uh-huh!" "Uh-uh!" Which, I daresay, is just as much of a gamekiller as the GM saying "oh, sorry, 25 successes you umm... fail." Without someone (or something) to say "alright, you're right, you're wrong", purely collaborative games are just as vulnerable to crashing and burning, if not moreso, than any other sort.




Okay, why did DS dro nested quotes? This is stupid. I'll try to put what you're responding to back in the quotes.

In the situation you create, the benevolent dictator has basically written himself into a hole. If he made everything come down to NOT seducing an NPC, and the PC who is great at seducing NPCs anyway successfuly seduces her, the GM made a bad boo-boo (admitedly, one that is more inherent to one GM than to more collaborative gaming).

The GM does have several options, but we'll assume this GM, who has already proven himself not to be especially bright, only feels he has the two available to you, plus one more I think you'd approve of;
1) Say "um... No. It doesn't work." This wouldn't work because the GM is violating the rules he set down. It isn't "benevolent" to violate the rules at your convenience. So this isn't really an option.
2) Say "um... I screwed up. Imagine you got a 0 on that so I could move on with the plot." This is "benevolent" since it's 'asking' for the indulgence of the players (it isn't really. If they don't indulge the GM, the game probably grinds to a halt, so if they want to enjoy the game, they have to allow for it to continue.) Still not the best choice, but an option. It is collaborative, however, but does not mean the GM is not a benevolent dictator.
3) Opens up the floor to suggestions. "Guys, I screwed up. This NPC needs to keep this information secret, but Bob (damn you, Bob!) seduced her. If I share the information, the game is done for. How do you want to proceed?" And the players perhaps say "go with the dice, let Bob seduce her", "Wait, my character Joe will keep them separate, since Bob keeps having sex with everything on two legs, including some bar stools", "I shoot Bob". The GM knows it's a good plot and says "okay guys, I don't want to shoot Bob, and I don't want to kill the plot, so let's go with option 2. Bob, are you cool with that?" Bob doesn't agree and the GM relents saying "Okay, we'll just go with the dice as they lay."

Is the GM being collaborative? Definitely. Is he being benevolent? Definitely. Is he still a dictator? YES. Why? Because, even though he gathered information, he had the option of saying "okay Bob, you gotta trust me on this. Joe, I'll let you pre-empt Bob by asking him to hang out in the car on this one." And within that game, that decision continues (if the players leave, the game ends). He basically had the option of choosing between 1, 2 and 3 and he himself chose based on the information he gathered (even if the one he chose was the one most of the people voted for, the point is, he chose it).



However, I'm still the dictator in that game. Gathering information via polls does not make Castro not a dictator. He's just using the tools available to him. This is what I'm saying, you CAN collaborate and be a benevolent dictator. Sometimes you should collaborate ("do you like more puzzles in future games?") and sometimes you shouldn't ("Joe, you just got shot in the head." "Nuh-uh!")



I don't know what is this "Edge" you speak of. It sounds communist, and therefore wrong.

You touch on an interesting point though. Is a benevolent dictator restricted by the rules? This is a discussion in itself, but I would argue he is restricted insofar as he is observed. If I miss hitting the bad guy in the final scene, and I use karma pool to reroll and get 8 successes, the GM can, behind his screen, reroll his dodge test saying "he'll use karma pool too" (without specifying how much he has) and nod, "he made it, but barely", even if in reality he didn't. As long as I don't suspect the GM is cheating and bending the rules, this is acceptable. The moment I do, his choice was the wrong one and his actions are no longer benevolent. If he said "bite me, you miss", that would not have been benevolent at all.

I would argue that, since the GM and the players generally all come to the table agreeing to be bound by the rules, that appearance is desirable, and any violation on the part of the GM is no longer benevolent. If the rules give the PCs more power, the GM has to work around those rules. However, it would take a pretty significant shift in dynamics to overthrow the GM as the guy who is ultimately the dictator in charge of the game.