The Forge Archives

In every gaming group, there is always an authority which reinforces the Social Contract and concomitant Creative Agendae, accepted Player Stance(s), game mechanics, etc.

Sometimes that authority is placed primarily in a single individual, generically referred to as a Game Master although many game systems have their own terms for the position, such as Storyteller or Referee or Game Monitor.

Sometimes that authority is delegated piecemeal to different players, with one player the "rules guy" and another player the coordinator and so forth.

Sometimes that authority is the result of group mandate whether by consensus or through ballot vote.

Unless the gaming group has a strong institutionalized game master position, the power of authority usually lies with whichever individual(s) has the greatest charisma and the highest social status.

It seems to me that this is one of the key issues underlying the debate over game-mastered gaming versus game-master-less gaming : the less centralized and institutionalized the authority, the more vulnerable the Social Contract is to manipulation by way of charisma and social status.

We elect representatives so that we don't have to attend to every detail ourselves, and in the same way we elect or conscript game masters.  We want input on areas of personal interest, through consensus and election, and in the same way we voice our interests in the gaming group.  You can see how the issues of game mastery parallel modern U.S. government tensions between representative and participatory authority.

When we design games, we need to take this into consideration.

A game designed with a game master is a game designed to be played by disparate individuals who find a centralized structure helpful in maintaining the Social Contract.  While a highly charismatic player with high status has no need of a game master, we might want to consider less charismatic players as well in our game design.

A game designed without a game master, with authority placed in constant participatory consensus, is a game designed to be played by individuals who already fall into natural accord with each other frequently and/or individuals who enjoy debating any disputes in a free depersonalized egoless freedom.  This latter effect neatly avoids the rare but possible situation of a little dictator game master.  However, the game designer needs to incorporate methods of consensus which do not shortshrift the less charismatic or less extroverted members of a gaming group, or else the authority will default to whoever has the highest charisma and/or social status.

There are other game master functions, of course, but I suspect that this one is a key issue in the debates over the necessity or uselessness of game masters.

I recall long ago joining a gaming group run by a weak game master, with the gaming circle unintentionally dominated by the more charismatic and more extroverted players.  The game master missed playing, so when he found out I enjoy game-mastering, he asked me to take over.  The first thing I did was watch the more bashful, more quiet players and make certain their voices were always heard.  The louder, more magnetic players deferred to the authority they had given me as game master, so within a few weeks, every player was able to participate in gaming group decisions.  A loosely-knit group of people became a genuine circle of friends.  I do not think I could have accomplished that with a game-master-less game.

On the other hand, I am currently involved with a gaming group of friends who know each other's strengths and peccadilloes fairly well, and thus a game-master-less game provides a certain freedom.  While I am the titular game master of our current campaign, in part because the players all want to share in the fun of exploring mysteries together, we share far more of the game master functions.  I can see the advantages of both approaches.

Doctor Xero

Hiya,

That all reads like strong wisdom to me, DX. As you probably know, I think that "game-master-less" play is a chimera. The tasks in question simply have to be performed, and the simplest way is for a certain critical number of them to be placed in the hands of a single individual. And in this case, simplest also means most reliable.

One of the key tasks - if it's not already a given based on the persons overall - is certainly maintaining a "hey, we're all together here" atmosphere.

The risks of centralizing this task are clear: trading anarchy for dictatorship. However, I submit that it's the same phenomenon for role-playing as it is for any group leisure activity, imaginative or not. And spreading some of the tasks around turns out to be quite functional, which tends to surprise people who have, through habit or caution, kept "simple is best" as their GM philosophy.

I think the bulk of the discussions about this issue have taken as a given that the Social Contract is a little iffy, a little at risk, especially if at least one person is "vaguely dissatisfied" with play. Therefore the centralization of this GM-task (that is, the social glue task) is a big deal, and a slightly troublesome one.

However, especially as I've aged and especially as I've branched out among wholly-peer role-playing (friends), full-authority role-playing (faculty advisor at club), and commercial role-playing (promotional demos), I've discovered that establishing a completely non-iffy Social Contract right up front is liberating as hell.

A long time ago, I decided that if you want to make X work, it's a real bitch continually to have to convince your partners that X is what they want, along the way. No. Forget it. We're here for X, without one person convincing the others, and once we're all good with that, then making it work is non-problematic - just logistics and details, at most.

It often amazes me that gamer-culture is predicated on, apparently, the opposite - that we only have a decent Social Contract if (and after) the game-experience is somehow satisfying to all of us. The expected causality seems wholly reversed to me.

Best,
Ron

QuoteUnless the gaming group has a strong institutionalized game master position, the power of authority usually lies with whichever individual(s) has the greatest charisma and the highest social status

I have to disagree with this statement.  In my experience, the GM is whoever decided to organize the game and put the work into creating it.  Usually they are also the most familiar with the rules, but not always.  However, this doesn't have to relate to charisma or social status.  I don't see why the GM must be the "alpha" of the group, especially since from game to game the GM could change.  It's like who is driving.  If I'm on a road trip with my friends and we rotate driving positions so that no one gets too tired, it doesn't mean that the new driver suddenly gets +3 Charisma (so to speak).  It just means that he is now in direct control of the car.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when the game session ends, in-game authority doesn't automatically translate into out-of-game social authority.

Hi Henri,

Right - I agree with you, and if I'm not mistaken, so does the Doc.

The point is that someone provides that charisma/social glue, and it's necessary. In some groups it's really necessary that it's highly centralized, and in others it may not be. But it's there.

It seems to me that you're equating "control over outcomes" with the term "GM," and I suggest that no single item or task (of which such control is potentially one) defines or equates with the term.

Best,
Ron

Ok, when you put it that way, I don't disagree.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe point is that someone provides that charisma/social glue, and it's necessary. In some groups it's really necessary that it's highly centralized, and in others it may not be. But it's there.

Quote from: HenriI don't see why the GM must be the "alpha" of the group, especially since from game to game the GM could change.  It's like who is driving.  If I'm on a road trip with my friends and we rotate driving positions so that no one gets too tired, it doesn't mean that the new driver suddenly gets +3 Charisma (so to speak).  It just means that he is now in direct control of the car.

I'd have to mildly disagree with you both a tad, but only mildly.

At the risk of oversimplification, I would suggest that  there are two basic sorts of gaming groups, both of which have had me as a member.

I have been in gaming groups which are friendship groups which happen to enjoy gaming as one of the many things they do together.  We game together, but we also watch movies together, go to concerts together, picnic and barbeque together, loan each other money on occasion, even group date.  This is the sort of gaming group I prefer, in part because by its very nature it militates against gaming addiction, and I prefer to game with people who have full lives independent of their gaming.

I have been in gaming groups which involve people who really have little in common besides a shared love of roleplaying games (and perhaps of war games and collectible card games as well).  They may not really like each other that much beyond their shared gaming interest.  However, their other friends may not enjoy gaming, or they may be looking to form new friendships with fellow gamers.  Some people have nothing in common but baseball or model airplanes or the weekly bowling league : these people game together.

Like Ron, as I've gotten older, I find I have little interest in such games.  I don't think that such gaming is any less mature, and I am annoyed when I read posters who react to such gamers condescendingly or disparagingly.  However, I simply have less time to spend with friends and less time to spend gaming, so gaming only with friends is a better use of my time.

Now, in roleplaying games, the role of game master is an acknowledged authority, just as we tend to defer to our professors in the classroom even if we know them outside the classroom and treat them as just "one of the guys/girls" outside the classroom.

In such cases, when a person has "direct control of the" game, he or she has a level of authority which can often trump even charisma.  This is particularly strong in those gaming systems which encourage the game master to dock experience points to players who are cruel to other players or otherwise disrupt the harmony of the gaming environment.  In a gaming-only group, in a game-mastered game, the game master can even determine who speaks when.

In friendship groups who game, the role of game master has only minor bearing on the group sociality, because it's usually been set (as much as such things are ever set) independently of the game, and more importantly because the feel of friendship and shared affection renders moot the need for a game master to lead socially.

In a gaming-only group, the game master has far more responsibility for the maintenance of the Social Contract than he or she does in a friendship group which games.

Thus, in a gaming-only group, a really good game master is someone who uses whatever authority he or she has to ensure that everyone has fun and that the Social Contract remains intact -- as well as trying to run a fun game.  A really poor game master will abuse the authority given to him or her, but unless there is only one gamer who is willing to game master, most gaming-only groups will oust a dictatorial game master.

In a gaming-only group, a game-master-less game therefore lacks any position to support the Social Contract and to stand up for the less charismatic and less extroverted players.  A game-master-less game can be a problem in such groups, it seems to me.

In a friendship group which games, a really good game master is someone who can run the game well in a way which everyone enjoys, with the authority only necessary to run the game smoothly.  A really poor game master will try to abuse authority he or she doesn't have, and the friendship group will seldom stand for that (or humor/indulge him or her out of pity, on occasion).

Quote from: HenriIn my experience, the GM is whoever decided to organize the game and put the work into creating it.  Usually they are also the most familiar with the rules, but not always.

Actually, in my experience with both types of gaming groups, the game master more often is conscripted or commissioned.  I have been in gaming groups in which the players have purchased me a game book and then asked me to learn the system and run them in it.  I have had several groups tell me, "We want to game, and we want you to run the game -- we don't care what the system is or what the genre is, as long as you feel we would enjoy it and you feel you would enjoy running us in it, because if you enjoy running us in it, we know we will enjoy playing in it."

I have found that to happen far more often than the reverse.

Doctor Xero

Hiya,

I totally agree with that, Doctor X.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Doctor XeroIt seems to me that this is one of the key issues underlying the debate over game-mastered gaming versus game-master-less gaming : the less centralized and institutionalized the authority, the more vulnerable the Social Contract is to manipulation by way of charisma and social status.

So, how ought we take this into consideration in game design?

Quote from: Doctor XeroIn friendship groups who game, the role of game master has only minor bearing on the group sociality, because it's usually been set (as much as such things are ever set) independently of the game, and more importantly because the feel of friendship and shared affection renders moot the need for a game master to lead socially.
In a gaming-only group, the game master has far more responsibility for the maintenance of the Social Contract than he or she does in a friendship group which games.

And how ought we take into consideration in game design the differences between gaming-only groups and groups of friends who game?

It seems to me that those game systems which advocate a heavy degree of game master control over even Social Contract issues are those which assume a gaming-only group rather than a group of friends who game.

(I also wonder whether this varies along the G/N/S lines . . . )

Doctor Xero

On a side note question thingie: Would a friends only group sort of group force down the amount of social contract policing the GM is allowed to do. I mean, in a group of people rounded up for a game with no links and with a GM one can never see again if one don't want to, I can imagine giving over more policing power. But when its a friend its like 'Nah, I know you, don't expect to be able to take up the authority figure with me'. Basically you already have a certain contract between you as friends in RL, and some of this is applied to the gaming social contract. Which means the GM friend can't police it any particular way...he's under the same RL contract that the game social contract is mostly comprised of.

Hello,

A lot of this stuff got discussed in the Infamous Five series of threads, especially the Social Context material. Have you seen those, Doctor Xero? Check out the sticky post near the top of the Site Discussion forum.

Best,
Ron

So, back to the topic: value & uselessness of GM

One of my favourite words about roleplaying is ADVENTURE, which simply means CHALLENGE for me.

(How ) can we rescue the princess from the claws of the dragon?
(How) can we reach the planet in time to prevent the destruction of a culture?
(How) can we find the book to build a magic castle?
(How) can we ...?

As far as I can tell, the only solution for this is to have a GM. Without a GM, players know most of the secrets of the game world, and the thrill of succes-or-failure is gone. A GM knows what qualities the dragon has, what qualities hyperspace has, where the book is, etc.; BUT THE PLAYERS DON'T!!!

So I propose that one of the values of the GM is to provide this excitement for the players, who can then face the CHALLENGE through their characters.

This does not mean, of course, that challenge is important for every player and, therefore, 'Because of Challenge, a GM is crucial'. It only means that to have an exciting adventure, the group needs a GM.

Quote from: dewey
So I propose that one of the values of the GM is to provide this excitement for the players, who can then face the CHALLENGE through their characters.

I would restate: "To alienate and thus objectify the shared imaginary space".

Edit: this IMO is the purpose of dice too.

Sorry, I'm new, and this forum is enormous.
What are you talking about?

What I mean is this: if you relinquish possession of something you are said (in certain contexts) to ALIENATE it from yourself.

Hence, inalienable rights - rights than cannot be alienated from you under any circumstances whatsoever, even your own consent.

Similarly, property held in fief from a lord was often 'inalienable', the nominal posessor had no rights to alienate the property to anyone else.

--

Thus my argument is that by relinquishing control over the imaginary space - alienating it into the property of the GM - the player then experiences the imaginary space as objective in relation to their character.  It does not conform to their wishes and expectations.  IMO, only under those conditions can Challenge exist.

That, to me, implies several things that I'm fairly sure I don't agree with, mainly through playing Universalis, where many traditional GM roles are granted to the players. I can guarantee you, conflict with self created elements of the SiS is entirely possible.

You could argue that the dicing of the conflict resolution is an alienating factor, but the posts so far are all still predicated on a high identification between player and character with an assumption of identification between Gm and all non-PC elements in the world: given that set up, which includes a natural "My guy vs your world" element in it's construction, the play tends towards the confrontational attitude inherent in the idea of RPG's as a series of challenges ot the PC's.

Now that's not a bad way to play, by any means, but it's by no means the only way.

Dewey, have a look through the actual play reports of Universalis, or for that matter, Sorceror or other games that break with the traditional "party of adventurers" model.

If you feel like it, have a look through the GNS essays: it sounds to me like you're describing a very common form of gamist play, but it's by no means the only way to play. Consider that it's quite functional for players, even in a conventional game, to contribute elements to the shared imaginary space that may hinder their ability to face a challenge, in order to up the risk deliberately, or to add depth to the SiS (dependent NPC's, frex). Or consider gaming where the PC's have no common goals, or are rivals, providing challenge to each other. Challenge need not come from the GM, PC's need not face challenge together.

Gareth: Back to alienation... would you say that Universalis alienates the SiS as a group controlled entity outside of the individual players? and shouldn't this be a new thread?

Hmm, to me its not a new thread, but I'm not prone to new threads anyway.

I think that challenge is not meaningful, is not really challenge, if I can choose to succeed.  What verifies a challenge as real is my inability to control all aspects of the situation.  My argument is that in the case of dice, we are voluntarily relinquishing control of the game world to randomness IN ORDER to create a genuinely alienated challenge.  In the case of the GM, we are relinquishing control of the SIS in order that the GM can represent the worlds impositions upon us.

Yes, in Universalis, the game space is alienated by group ownership (he says, sight unseen).  For the individual player, the game space is still external, objective, even if it is in flux or subject to change.  The point is it is not only subject to that players chosen changes.

The reason I do not think this is a separate issue requiring a new thread is that, IMO the role of alienating the game space has been carried out by the presence of the GM.  That is, in fact, one of the central purposes of having a GM role, and Dewey is right to see it that way (as well as the coordinating funciton Ron mentions).  What Universalis demonstrates is another mechanism by which that alienation can be achieved.  IMO, it is correct to say that the usefullness of a GM is to alienate the game space from the players, but it is not correct to say that only a GM can do this.  If nothing else, dice and to a lesser extent system do this too.

QuoteThus my argument is that by relinquishing control over the imaginary space - alienating it into the property of the GM - the player then experiences the imaginary space as objective in relation to their character. It does not conform to their wishes and expectations. IMO, only under those conditions can Challenge exist.

I disagree entirely. If we are using the GNS definition of "Challenge", then we are dealing with "adversity or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind" (taken from the Provisional Glossary (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html)). I cannot see any logical causal relation between a player's knowledge and the Challenge to a character. A Character may face seemingly insurmountable difficulty, whilst the player of that character knows full well that the challenge will be met. How many games do you play when the difficulties placed in front of a character actually seem as difficult to the player as they would to the character? What about the converse of that? I'd posit "not many".

Now, if we are talking about challenge as being "some difficulty faced by the player in playing their character", then we are basically talking Step On Up. As I think my game, Scarlet Wake (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11750) (and numerous other games) clearly shows, is that Step On Up can still exist without a GM, and even when the players themselves are, for all intents and purposes, GMs.

Which brings me to another point. If the only way for challenge to exist is to alienate control over the SIS to the GM, does this mean that the GM faces no challenge? As a GM myself, this proposition sounds ludicrous.

If we are talking about some other form of challenge which I have not covered, I think it should be defined clearly.

But with currently accepted definitions of what challenge, I say that a GM is in no way necessary, nor is alienation of SIS control away from the players. They are completely independant, and a GM and alienation are merely methods of achieving challenge.

But what I'm seeing, with the words: "the player then experiences the imaginary space as objective in relation to their character. It does not conform to their wishes and expectations.", is that you aren't really talking about challenge at all, but rather the creation of verisimilitude, and a seperation of character from setting. To the later, I'd argue that this is agian unecessary for challenge to exist, and to the former I'd argue that verisimilitude is not a correlate of challenge, but rather a completely independant measure, upon which challenge can be achieved at any level.

So to reiterate, GM's are in no way necessary for challenge, adventure, or fun. We find these things in pursuits where a GM cannot exist, and in RPGs where GMs do not exist.

-Ben

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: dewey
So I propose that one of the values of the GM is to provide this excitement for the players, who can then face the CHALLENGE through their characters.

I would restate: "To alienate and thus objectify the shared imaginary space".

Edit: this IMO is the purpose of dice too.

Err, doesn't something like the GM'less warhammer quest board game do this as well? The randomization and number of factors involved imbed plenty of secrecy in it. You don't need a GM for that.

It sounds like what your both talking about is having a person who can interpret far more game world interactions than the board game can (which has a fairly short list of actions you can do, relatively). This isn't anything to do with alienation or objectivity, its just using the GM as an UBER interface system. Yes, as he's handling the interface he needs to do the alienation and objectivity thing too, but that's not because you need a GM to have A and O. It's just that what ever or who ever takes up the interface job has to do it.

Indeed I'd suggest that a system can do A and O far better than most GM's, with some good writing. But the UBER interface thing is completely out of reach of a system. By UBER interface I mean you don't just have options like 'hit them' or 'pick up potion', but you can do stuff like stunting or peeling off the label of a potion carefully to see if there was any previous label. The fiddly stuff you need a sentient for.

QuoteI disagree entirely. If we are using the GNS definition of "Challenge", then we are dealing with "adversity or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind"

As a matter of fact, I was not using the GNS definition of Challenge. That's because this definition does not involve the PLAYERS. I said "challenge for the players through their characters", and I meant it.

However, I'll have a look at the Scarlet Wake thread and react to that in some time.

QuoteNow, if we are talking about challenge as being "some difficulty faced by the player in playing their character"

No, I was not talking about that, either.
I was talking about finding a (creative) solution by the PLAYER, for a problem faced by the CHARACTER. This usually means that the original problem should be explored, viewed from different angles, and then solving the problem becomes easier. That's called planning, and thinking.
This, of course, does not mean that other factors are extinct (role playing, storytelling, etc.), and I strongly despise theories that build on the assumption that a players has ONE goal among a category list (for example the GNS division). I mean, GNS is a category list, not that it wants to assume that players belong only to one.

So, solving a character problem through role play, storytelling, dice, logic, whatever. This, I think, requires that there is GM who knows a lot of things about the world that the players don't.

I agree with Contracycle insofar as I understand him. If I have Universalis right, the conflict when it exists is always competition with another player and never against an objective "can-I?" in the terms of a typical AD&D game (the GM gives you an orc--can you kill it?).

Since competition isn't my favorite form of challenge (in fact, far from it, usually) and the form of it is "will I outbid the person" rather than any SiS-based solution (I beat the orc because I have a +5 Holy Avenger) then I don't see these as being the same thing. I don't see it as objectifying the same way (an Immersion issue for me).

I also think that the value of a game master is in the Intellectual Properity (IP) the game master brings to the table.

I am interested in the GM's situation the same way I'm interested in one of my favorite author's next books--if the GM can't provide that level of IP then I'm less enthauistaic about the game.

In that sense I think it is reasonable to metaphorically liken a GM to an author or story teller completely divorced from the issues of story-control or 'plotting.'

-Marco

QuoteIn that sense I think it is reasonable to metaphorically liken a GM to an author or story teller completely divorced from the issues of story-control or 'plotting.'

QuoteI was talking about finding a (creative) solution by the PLAYER, for a problem faced by the CHARACTER. This usually means that the original problem should be explored, viewed from different angles, and then solving the problem becomes easier. That's called planning, and thinking.

Ooh, so close and yet so far. So we have a problem faced by the character, which also becomes a problem faced by the player, in deciding what to do for the character. This is GNS Challenge and Step On Up through and through. But is a GM necessary for such a multi-level challenge to exist? No. I give you, exhibit A: Authors. They know their character's story. They know they will make it out of any challenge alive. And yet every challenge that the character faces, is a challenge for both author and character. The character must face the challenge, and overcome it, and it could be a bloody difficult one at that (as is necessary in great stories). And on another level, the author is faced with the challenge as to how they are going to actually get their character through this particular challenge. Once they have figured it out, then sure, the challenge is beaten. But it is still there until they figure it out. No GM can exist, and yet both author and character can face perfectly legitimate challenges, of any difficulty.

As I've said before, you don't need a GM to challenge you. You don't even need to have other non-GM people present difficulties to you for them to be challenges. Try this: write a story, right now, about a character who faces a seemingly insurmountable difficulty, and yet overcomes it, describing how they overcome it. It isn't easy. If the solution is obvious to you, then the challenge is easy to the character. If it is hard for you, then it is probably hard for the character. No GM or alientation of control required.

QuoteI also think that the value of a game master is in the Intellectual Properity (IP) the game master brings to the table.

I think this is a valid point and one reason why a GM is often seen as a valuable asset despite being unecessary. It's easier to solve problems that others give you than it is to solve problems that you come up with yourself, because if they can solve it, then you know a solution exists. If you came up with the problem, and you think it is actually a problem, then you probably don't have an answer. Otherwise you wouldn't think it was a real problem.

It really just boils down to having someone else do all the hard work IMHO. If you have a GM, you don't have to worry about anything except your own character. Everything else is being taken care of. They introduce all the new ideas, they make all the big decisions, they keep everything in order. It's easy to be a player with a GM, and that's why it's much harder being a GM than a player.

QuoteI am interested in the GM's situation the same way I'm interested in one of my favorite author's next books--if the GM can't provide that level of IP then I'm less enthauistaic about the game.

Yeah, this hits the nail on the head IMHO. People just like having things given to them, for them to explore blindly (in the sense that they don't know anything beyond the current page). This isn't about challenge, it's about exploration, and specifically, one particular form of exploration. Namely, exploring someone else's ideas. This has no impact on the level of challenge inherent in the exploration. I think this might even tie in with the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, in that people (players) want to express their own ideas for their characters, and yet actually, at a deeper level, want their characters to be explored for them. Likewise, GMs want their players to explore their characters, and yet, at a deeper level, actually want to explore their own ideas for story. Psychologically, this probably has something to do with deference of power to another person to absolve responsibility for the quality of the story, and conversely, for GMs, a desire to prove oneself as a competant and quality leader. This is probably why GMs are nearly always the ones congratulated for a good campaign, because deep down, the players know they have deferred power and responsibility, and that includes responsibility for the good qualities as well.

I'm probably rambling a bit. I've been drinking. End of uni party. Sue me.

-Ben

Quote from: Ravien. I give you, exhibit A: Authors. They know their character's story. They know they will make it out of any challenge alive. And yet every challenge that the character faces, is a challenge for both author and character. The character must face the challenge, and overcome it, and it could be a bloody difficult one at that (as is necessary in great stories).

This is a good point--but if I can overcome a challenge by inventing someone to show up and solve it for me then I think it's a substantially different situation than if I have to work it from the in-character perspective.

Put another way, I can run myself through a dungeon--and have (we used a random dungeon gen system and essentially ran a GM-less AD&D game once). There's challenge that doesn't come from another person (although as Contra says, the dice did provide some objectifying randomness).

I can't speak to theory there--but I can say the experience was *substantially* different than having a GM.

Playing chess against oneself is possible but, again, different than playing against another person (and, for me, even different than playing against a computer).

Quote

QuoteI am interested in the GM's situation the same way I'm interested in one of my favorite author's next books--if the GM can't provide that level of IP then I'm less enthauistaic about the game.

Yeah, this hits the nail on the head IMHO. People just like having things given to them, for them to explore blindly (in the sense that they don't know anything beyond the current page). This isn't about challenge, it's about exploration, and specifically, one particular form of exploration. Namely, exploring someone else's ideas. This has no impact on the level of challenge inherent in the exploration. I think this might even tie in with the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, in that people (players) want to express their own ideas for their characters, and yet actually, at a deeper level, want their characters to be explored for them. Likewise, GMs want their players to explore their characters, and yet, at a deeper level, actually want to explore their own ideas for story. Psychologically, this probably has something to do with deference of power to another person to absolve responsibility for the quality of the story, and conversely, for GMs, a desire to prove oneself as a competant and quality leader. This is probably why GMs are nearly always the ones congratulated for a good campaign, because deep down, the players know they have deferred power and responsibility, and that includes responsibility for the good qualities as well.

I'm probably rambling a bit. I've been drinking. End of uni party. Sue me.

-Ben

I think this is a good point as well (my latter point was not related to challenge at all--no. It was related to the original topic). Your point is on the money in one respect: yes, I've often congratulated a GM on what I thought was an amazing idea that I doubt would've come to me. That's one big reasons for having other people. But I've been congratulated by players for good ideas as a player myself too and I've had seen other players come up with something stunning.

I don't like your use of the term 'blindly'--and I don't see the interplay of GM and player as having the exploration done for them. I think that sounds to me like a rather grim take on it: like saying reading a book is lazy compared to writing one. In terms of some sort of timed work-effort per page it might have merrit but it's using a poor unit of measure, IMO.

-Marco

I also wanted to say that part of "objectifying the challenge" means that not everything will be known about it (the GM knows the layout of the enemy base, for example and the player does not). An author writing his way out of an insoluable problem doesn't have this issue.

The author might not make things up until they come up--and it's true that an idea *can* be surprising to the person who has it--but I maintain that as the term "objectifying the challenge" implies the difference is significant.

-Marco

Marco:
Well said.

QuoteThis is a good point--but if I can overcome a challenge by inventing someone to show up and solve it for me then I think it's a substantially different situation than if I have to work it from the in-character perspective.

I think the step on up here is that you can't just invent someone to show up. If a balrog is in a fantasy story, the writer can't have space aliens defeat it. The writer himself is working with game like resources, in this case its how much suspension of disbelief he has stored...the space aliens would depleat that...there must be a more efficient method to do what I want. This is gamism, or easily drifted to it (perhaps easy to drift to the other CA's as well).

And on the other side, I don't know how often players, with only their character perspective, go and get someone/something in the game world that never previously existed except that the game world foreshadows such things. Say they can solve something if they have a blacksmith 'Well, this is a fantasy world with horses with horseshoes...that nearby town was pretty big and had many horses...thus we can get a blacksmith there'. No black smith was ever mentioned by the GM. Are they just inventing an answer?

I would actually say the player here is also working with a suspension of disbelief resource, just like the author. The author estimates how much suspension he has left, while for the player the GM judges it. Kind of different, kind of the same as the author is going to be judged by readers at some point.

In the end, both of them have pre established facts and are trying to use them to achieve a result, because anything else uses up too much supsension of disbelief resource.

I'd say the GM is providing something else, really, as I said previously.

QuotePlaying chess against oneself is possible but, again, different than playing against another person (and, for me, even different than playing against a computer).

Of course. But the key word here is "different". Playing against oneself can be equally challenging, depending on one's goals. Sure, it isn't the same challenge, that of anticipating and countering another's moves, but it is a challenge nonetheless (try not picking a favourite side and biasing your moves. That's hard).

QuoteThis is a good point--but if I can overcome a challenge by inventing someone to show up and solve it for me then I think it's a substantially different situation than if I have to work it from the in-character perspective.

Some GMed games let you do just this. Such rules are independant of the existance of a GM. Also, if the GM introduces a deus ex machina, then there is no challenge there either. It doesn't matter who brings in the easy solution, only that an easy solution was brought in.

But why can't "thinking from an in-character perspective" be a challenge in and of itself? In many games, the rules require the players ignore all meta-game knowledge, even to the detriment of your character. This has nothing at all to do with a GM. Consider LARPS. If you play a GM-less game that says "you must approach everything in-character, using only knowledge available to them", then you are still facing the same challenge, but now the onus on you is even greater, because there is no GM to slap you on the wrist for using metagame knowledge. I posit that for many of the really great authors, the fact that they know the exact layout of the enemy base only enables them to explore that base from the perspective of the protagonist. IOW, they are thinking "in-character", and they are objectifying the challenge. Even though the author is the God of the world, we don't ever get the impression that the character has any share in that knowledge (again, I'm only talking about good authors). The only way this can work is if the author denies the character access to that knowledge, and solves the problem in-character. This is a GM-less challenge, with an added layer of challengy goodness, namely: internally objectifying the challenge. Having a GM actually makes thinking in-character easier.

QuoteI don't like your use of the term 'blindly'--and I don't see the interplay of GM and player as having the exploration done for them. I think that sounds to me like a rather grim take on it: like saying reading a book is lazy compared to writing one. In terms of some sort of timed work-effort per page it might have merrit but it's using a poor unit of measure, IMO.

Sorry if my words implied some sort of elitist bias that having no GM is somehow more worthy than having one, because I hold no such belief. I tried to search for a better word at the time, but couldn't find one. I'm merely trying to point out that challenge is perfectly attainable and identifyable in the absence of a GM and/or alienation of control over the SIS. However, in relative terms, I would definately agree that reading a book is lazy compared to writing one. This doesn't mean I think reading is not worthwhile, or that everyone should write, far from it. I'm certainly no author myself. But comparatively speaking, writing a book sure is more challenging on every single level possible (not just time-investment).

QuoteThe author might not make things up until they come up--and it's true that an idea *can* be surprising to the person who has it--but I maintain that as the term "objectifying the challenge" implies the difference is significant.

Objectifying what challenge? The challenge of creating a good story? The challenge of creating a believable character? The challenge of making your character succeed at the task at hand? The challenge of exploring the situation/setting? The challenge of dealing with a complex emotional issue? The challenge of discovering oneself? The challenge of getting inside the mind of a serial killer? The challenge of impressing your gaming peers? The challenge of thinking in-character?

In my mind, not all of those examples are best served by having a GM. In fact, some would be hindered by it. Not made impossible, just less optimal. Conversely, some of those would be hindered by not having a GM, and again, not made impossible, just less optimal. And to throw another layer on top of all that, isn't having your task "hindered" a way of increasing the overall challenge?

I think the problem here is that I'm arguing that for a broad, universally applicable definition of challenge, no GM, alienation of control, or "objectification" is necessary in order for a challenge to exist. And you are aguing for a specific type of challenge, probably exploration of setting/situation (GM locus of knowledge and control) or succeeding at a task (objectified by dice mechanics). I dunno though, maybe we are both talking about the same overall concept of challenge, and I'm just having difficulty seeing your point of view. Can you identify for me exactly what concept of "challenge" you are using, and in which situations it is applicable?

Finally though, I do think that the idea of the GM doing the exploration for the players at a fundamental level has merit. Not as a universal truth, of course, but as a very real phenomena. In a sense, it is very close to Illusionist techniques, Force, and Railroading, but also, IMHO, can apply in a non-dysfunctional way to many other GMed gaming styles. But that discussion is probably best left for another thread.

Thanks,
-Ben

Quote from: Doctor Xero

Quote from: Doctor XeroIt seems to me that this is one of the key issues underlying the debate over game-mastered gaming versus game-master-less gaming : the less centralized and institutionalized the authority, the more vulnerable the Social Contract is to manipulation by way of charisma and social status.

So, how ought we take this into consideration in game design?

I have enjoyed the discussion thus far, but I have nothing to add to the current subtopic even though I started this thread.  <laughter>

However, I did start this thread on the topic of the use or non-use of the game master position as a tool in game design for addressing considerations of Social Contract and unfair use of charisma among the players in the game's target audience.  I'm not sure how issues of challenge and such pertain to that query.

Doctor Xero

Quote from: Doctor Xero
However, I did start this thread on the topic of the use or non-use of the game master position as a tool in game design for addressing considerations of Social Contract and unfair use of charisma among the players in the game's target audience.  I'm not sure how issues of challenge and such pertain to that query.

Well, the thrust of my response was that the GM has a particularised role to fulfill that IMO has nothing to do with negotiation of social status and similar.

I don;t think there is any real mechanism by which conflicts on this level between the participants can be addressed.  Prior to the event that is an RPG game, some elements of charisma and personal suasion will likely have been deployed just to select this as a worthwhile activity.

But even more than that, I'm not sure we have an interest in this matter much, or any mandate to deal with it.  Were this a legal process, eliminating partiality through charisma might be a part of the goals of the process; but unless we make a didactic claim for our RPG, we have no business overuling personal charisma in favour of some systematic device.

Quote from: contracycle...unless we make a didactic claim for our RPG, we have no business overuling personal charisma in favour of some systematic device.

I find this fascinating, because twenty-some years ago I did exactly that: I created a systematic device (called Leadership (http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/leader.html)) for use in OAD&D which overruled player charisma in favor of in-game character characteristics, and it worked quite well in play.

If one of the player objectives is to have the experience of being viewed as a dynamic leader, when the player has no such qualities, such a system can make that experience possible. That's a viable simulationist goal, from what I can tell.

Certainly such devices aren't necessary nor even desirable in all games; but to say that it shouldn't be attempted strikes me as quite odd.

--M. J. Young

Attempting to draw this around in a circle, it seems to me that we've got a process that happens in several stages.

The participants want a challenge, and they think (rightly or wrongly) that this can only come if they themselves do not have total control over the situation.  Thus they have already objectified "challenge" as something outside themselves, and in that very process have been alienated from a situation of their own making.  The logic of this process entails an association between "challenge" and "outside," i.e. between the challenge and the fact that it does not come from the players themselves.  The greater the alienation, it seems, the greater the challenge.  And the most exterior, most "other" element of the situation would be another person; we always feel we can master a set of rules or structures, but not another person.  This leads, in the traditional cycle of objectification and alienation, to fetishism: overvaluation of some object because it is held to represent fully the dialectic in question, in this case that between challenge and exteriority.  In other words, contracycle's description of this process as one of alienation and objectification does suggest a tendency to fetishize the special status of the gamemaster—something which accords pretty well with experience of martinet-GMs.

[Incidentally, for those of you following at home, this terminology of alienation, objectification, fetishism, dialectic, and whatnot is all coming from Marxist criticism.]

To put it a little more clearly, without the jargon:

If you think you can only be challenged when you don't have total control, you start to value not having control because you think it will create challenges.  That's illogical, but quite natural.  Because the GM is the guy who best represents your not being in control, the desire for challenge may well lead to setting up the GM on a pedestal.  That's a simplistic version of what contracycle is talking about, of course.

At any rate, the question is really whether it's true that you can't have challenge and total control.  In addition, it's not clear that not having total control requires that someone else have it.  In a game I'm in now, for example, we really do have almost total control, but since we share that control we're actually blocked by each other continuously.  Challenge happens essentially without a GM simply because this isn't solitaire.

As to how this affects the whole Social Contract issue, I think you've already built an awful lot of that Contract when you assert, usually implicitly, that challenge and control don't go together.  Ron's right that this sort of thing could well be made explicit, which would help.  And I'd go on to say that if you make it all explicit, you end up with what he calls "GM-ful" gaming, because everyone is alienated from the situation consciously and deliberately, and thus manipulation of that situation as an exterior object is available to all on an equal basis.

Did that make any sense?

Time to butt my crude 2c in:

Contracycle wrote:

QuoteWell, the thrust of my response was that the GM has a particularised role to fulfill that IMO has nothing to do with negotiation of social status and similar.

I would disagree with this statement to some extent. Running the gamut between Playing among Friends to the Playing for Commersialism the Gm has a role to play besides the role of challenger (given this is needed).

In a group with domineering players (aka high charisma) the GM also serves the role of distributing the spotlight. In this aspect the GM then serves to curtail the impact of the domineering player on the groups "fun time" which IMO is why we game.

In a game with more than one domineering player, such as my Playing among Friends group, by defining the Gm as the spotlight distributor in SC, he not only allows the other players to shine, he curtails "alpha-male" conflict between the dom. players.

Contracycle again:

QuoteI don;t think there is any real mechanism by which conflicts on this level between the participants can be addressed.

Here I am in agreement though. This type of conflict becomes a SC issue, and I do not see how any mechanism can enforce a negative charisma modifier on said dom. players.

Any leadership stats, social stat or in game status will not curtail a dom. player from hogging the spotlight, as he will gravitate towards it (I know because this is a character flaw in myself).

You could in theory create a sort of token system, and tied this up to character leadership or status, where a token would give the player certain narrative rights and let him grab the spotlight in this manner, allowing for less domineering players to play characters who would be e.g. dynamic leaders.

But this would not counter the dom. player should he choose to step on up, or god forbid create such a character himself.
Here a GM, in his granted postion of authority, can "disarm" the dom. player by controlling his screen time, and thus becomes useful.

Do I make sense?

K

Ben,

I don't think I can find a point where we disgree (although reading your post it sure sounds like it). "Objectifying a challenge" in-game by having stuff appear that you didn't think of and behave as guided by a human intelligence that isn't yours is one possible value of a GM (that's my story anyway).

I also, for example, find that an elected GM as a mediator and referee (interperting the rule book) is a value of a GM.

I agree that reading a book is less work (in a sense) than writing it (I think I had more problems reading Faulkner than he did writing it--but it's the exception that probes the rule, eh?). I just think it's a very poor measure of anything and doesn't contribute much to the discussion in most cases. Especially if you use the term "lazy" (which is why I addressed your use of the term "blind").

When the player creates a guy to solve the problem he's using GM-style power and I maintain that the experience is different.

I'm not arguing that a GM is the only way or the best way to have challenge or whatever--just that if you want your challenge in that particular fashion a GM is a good solution to it.

-Marco

Quote from: clehrichIn other words, contracycle?s description of this process as one of alienation and objectification does suggest a tendency to fetishize the special status of the gamemaster?something which accords pretty well with experience of martinet-GMs.

[Incidentally, for those of you following at home, this terminology of alienation, objectification, fetishism, dialectic, and whatnot is all coming from Marxist criticism.]

Much as I rejoice at reading an application of Marxist criticism, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you overall on this one, Chris.  I don't think the cycle you describe applies to game mastering in general specifically because it focuses overmuch on only one of the many functions or roles traditionally allocated to the game master.

That said, I think your analysis does a wonderful job of explaining the why of martinet-GMs in certain types of gaming groups.  If I might extend possible implications of your analysis further, I would suggest that the fetishized position which enables martinet-GMs is a danger specific to those gaming groups in which the game master's primary if not exclusive function is to present opposition, such as those gaming groups in which the game master is expected to be a competitive opponent -- even enemy! -- to the players rather than a cooperative member of the gaming group.  You will notice that martinet-GMs appear most often in the sort of hack-n-slash RPG groups satirized in Knights of the Dinner Table and Dork Towers.  However, I think you will also agree that such is but one type of gaming group and not even the most common type.

Quote from: NegilentIn a group with domineering players (aka high charisma) the GM also serves the role of distributing the spotlight. In this aspect the GM then serves to curtail the impact of the domineering player on the groups "fun time"
---snip!--
In a game with more than one domineering player, such as my Playing among Friends group, by defining the Gm as the spotlight distributor in SC, he not only allows the other players to shine, he curtails "alpha-male" conflict between the dom. players.

This has been my experience both personally and in my readings about gaming groups.

A section which outlines for the game master her or his specific functions or duties, including the duty of allocating the spotlight to every player equally, would help a lot towards avoiding having a game become the plaything of a single charismatic player.

Doctor Xero

Quote from: Doctor Xero
Much as I rejoice at reading an application of Marxist criticism, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you overall on this one, Chris.  I don't think the cycle you describe applies to game mastering in general specifically because it focuses overmuch on only one of the many functions or roles traditionally allocated to the game master.

Well, Chris took the analysis a little further than I had, but along the lines of some thoughts I'd had before, so I'd like to respond to this directly.  As I see it, its not just the GM's in game role that I'm thinking of, but also the way the language of GMing often seems to carry tones of moral criticism.

What I'm thinking of is GMing from the perspective that the GM's view is qualitatively superior; that the GM knows whats right and is empowered to dictate it to the players.  This approach allows for no opinion, no conflict of interpretation or fact; contradicting the GM is inherently wrong, almost immoral.  I think this is *mostly* an adolescent phenomenon (in RPG), but it has appeared in every RPG-related forum I've ever seen.

Now that behaviour, when the GM appears to be setting out to school the players - and not in a useful or premise addressing way or anything - and uses game events to pass personal criticism of the player (of the you are stupid and will now pay the price variety), seems to me to be exactly the fetishization of the status and role of GM as Chris mentioned.  In fact its so common I think its the stereotypical "bad GM".

Anyway, ther point is I don't think its 1:1 related to the GM being an opponent.  An opponent can be your equal; the martinet-GM has adopted or imposed a Parent-to-Child relationship with the players legitimised through the status accorded their GMship.

Quote from: contracycleAnyway, ther point is I don't think its 1:1 related to the GM being an opponent.  An opponent can be your equal; the martinet-GM has adopted or imposed a Parent-to-Child relationship with the players legitimised through the status accorded their GMship.

Good point!  I don't recall reading about that sort of thing per se, but it parallels some of the descriptions of alpha male game masters in research by people such as Gary Alan Fine.

Quote from: contracycleWhat I'm thinking of is GMing from the perspective that the GM's view is qualitatively superior; that the GM knows whats right and is empowered to dictate it to the players.  This approach allows for no opinion, no conflict of interpretation or fact; contradicting the GM is inherently wrong, almost immoral.

I think that's an unfair way of describing the game master's duties.

In a game, to avoid a painfully boring cacophony, we conscript one fellow gamer to the duty of sole arbiter and interpreter of The Rules.  Just as in a church, to enable structure in our busy modern world, we conscript and train one or more fellow believers to the duty of pastor and theological/institutional resource.  Just as in a hospital, for efficiency's sake, we conscript and train one or more fellow adults to the duty of physician and place one in charge of a specific operation.  Just as in a court of law, to avoid people screaming all at once, we conscript and train one fellow citizen to the duty of prosecutor, one fellow citizen to the duty of defender, and one fellow citizen to the duty of judge.

How can these individuals perform their assigned duties if they have no authority to uphold said duties?

I know it would be wonderful if some day all players had the time and money and innate talent to be equally knowledgeable and equally objective about the game, if all believers had the time and opportunity to be equally knowledgeable and sanctioned about the religion, if all adults had the intellectual and economic wherewithal to be equally talented at medicine, and if all citizens were able to be equally savvy and accredited about the law.  But that time has yet to come.  (How could that saying be amended?  "A woman who is her own lawyer has a fool for a client, and a man who is his own game master has a fool for a player?" <grin>)

Until that time, I prefer gaming groups in which we elect one individual to forgo his or her character-playing opportunities, as a service to the group, and to serve as culpable and responsible arbiter and interpreter of the game system and the social contract.  We compensate that individual in part by allowing him or her to express creativity in incarnating the setting, background figures, plot or premise or challenge, etc.

That said, every gaming group I know of has informal means for holding game masters accountable for their behavior, just as we have formalized mechanisms for defrocking errant priests or ministers, for suing inept physicians for malpractice and otherwise revoking medical licenses, and for debarring bad lawyers.

Perhaps we need not only game master sections on how to run a game but playing group sections on how to enforce (courteously) game master accountability?

Quote from: contracycleAs I see it, its not just the GM's in game role that I'm thinking of, but also the way the language of GMing often seems to carry tones of moral criticism.

On the one hand, I can see why the language gets that way sometimes -- I've noticed the tendency in the United States to emphasize authority not through appeals to logic but to "the fear of God!"

Tangential speculation : Do you think this might be one more example of the Anglo-American motif of the father-led nuclear family?  We refer to priests as 'Father', we use parent-child language in fraternities and lodges, and we often rely upon parent-child language in pedagogy.  Perhaps it is inevitable that we would use the same language in gaming, particularly since gaming began with adolescents in their teens and twenties.  What do you think?

On the other hand, I agree with you that such language isn't really necessary for most people past adolescent jockeying.

What do you think we might do to make clear the necessity of the game master's authority and credibility while avoiding such language?

Doctor Xero

Quote from: Doctor Xero
I think that's an unfair way of describing the game master's duties.

Of course it is; it is descriptive of the fetishized GM.  I'm not suggesting this is what I think the GM role *IS*; it is what I think some people, counter-productively, make it.

Quote
Tangential speculation : Do you think this might be one more example of the Anglo-American motif of the father-led nuclear family?  We refer to priests as 'Father', we use parent-child language in fraternities and lodges, and we often rely upon parent-child language in pedagogy.  Perhaps it is inevitable that we would use the same language in gaming, particularly since gaming began with adolescents in their teens and twenties.  What do you think?

Yes, it may be that adolescents duplicate their dominant experience of authority structures, mostly parental or educational, which are in no sense voluntary or negotiated.  Perhaps for them the only meaningful authority is absolute.  But in the broader sense, I actually blame Calvinism for its patriarchy and doctrine of 'manifest morality' through material success.

Quote
What do you think we might do to make clear the necessity of the game master's authority and credibility while avoiding such language?

Well in large part I think that this has already been achieved.  Identifying the game structure as a manifestation of social contract allows a more meaningful discussion of the part the GM plays IMO.  Conversations like this and others have gone a long way to exploding the GM into constituent parts that can be reassembled in different proportions or combinations, leading to the concept we now have of 'GM-full' games.  We now recognise the GMship as A methodology for achieveing certain results rather than an absolute requirement.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Doctor Xero
I think that's an unfair way of describing the game master's duties.

Of course it is; it is descriptive of the fetishized GM.  I'm not suggesting this is what I think the GM role *IS*; it is what I think some people, counter-productively, make it.

Ah, I had misunderstood.  My apologies.

Quote from: contracycleBut in the broader sense, I actually blame Calvinism for its patriarchy and doctrine of 'manifest morality' through material success.

Although this is off-topic : <grin> AYE!

Quote from: contracycleIdentifying the game structure as a manifestation of social contract allows a more meaningful discussion of the part the GM plays IMO.  Conversations like this and others have gone a long way to exploding the GM into constituent parts that can be reassembled in different proportions or combinations, leading to the concept we now have of 'GM-full' games.  We now recognise the GMship as A methodology for achieveing certain results rather than an absolute requirement.

Good points, and I can think of nothing to add nor dispute.

With this understanding of game-mastered, game-master-ful, and game-master-less gaming, let's connect it into the original thought --

how does one install a mechanism by which the game avoids devolving from a communal activity of shared imagination into a cult of charisma dominated by the most charismatic/aggressive player (remember : charismatic players are just as prone to fetishization as are game masters, perhaps even more so since their lack of an official title renders their fetishization less obvious)?

Thus far, a strong game master has been the most (traditionally) effective way of doing so.  What other ways are there to avoid cults of charisma?

Doctor Xero

The thread is too long for me to know whether this has already been said, but since the question has been asked--Universalis points to resource-based distribution of credibility as an alternative to centralized referee control.

If you have to have and spend an in-game resource to steer the game, it equalizes player interaction to a significant degree.

I think that social contract solutions are possible, particularly if the player with the strongest charisma/positional authority uses that to enforce an equality in play; that's hard to write, though.

--M. J. Young

Before we avoid 'cult of charisma' like the plague, have we thought about whether that's a 'bad thing'.

I mean, it seems to assume no one will agree to this sort of thing. Why not?

The only reason I can think of is 'Someone may be so charismatic and with it have so much group support they can overwhelm the interests of someone else, either during the social contract process (forcing them to agree to something they'd rather not) or after social contract forming, thus not forfilling the requirements of that persons social contract.'

Probably the best thing you can do to break up 'cults of charisma' is to identify the idea of a social contract in your game and show people how to identify when its been broken, for themselves or others. Also mention the 5 geek falacies and how you don't have to play with everyone.

In other words, don't make more system, remind them of the RL currency they already have and the RL system that's already there.

Inside the game, you can try and break up cults of charism with rules. But if they can over run other players interests with their charisma, exactly what chance do rules stand? Zero. In fact their only purpose is to give other players some chance of saying 'no, and here's why'. In other words, the same thing I just mentioned above.

Quote from: NoonProbably the best thing you can do to break up 'cults of charisma' is to identify the idea of a social contract in your game and show people how to identify when its been broken, for themselves or others.
---snip!--
Inside the game, you can try and break up cults of charism with rules. But if they can over run other players interests with their charisma, exactly what chance do rules stand? Zero. In fact their only purpose is to give other players some chance of saying 'no, and here's why'. In other words, the same thing I just mentioned above.

Good points, one and all, except . . .

there is a means by which rules can break up cults of charisma : by the institution of a game master.

A game system which includes a game master who is given the specific duty of ensuring fun for all the players is a game system which has institutionalized within its rules a mechanism by which cults of charisma might be broken up if they should interfere with the fun of even one player.  (This assumes the game master is skillful enough not to fall under the spell of the charisma itself, admittedly, and not all game masters are up to that.)

The discussion of this (and other issues) is why the question of the value of the game master is in the title of this thread.

Doctor Xero