the value or uselessness of a game master

[clehrich]

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?

[Kaare Berg]

Time to butt my crude 2c in:

Contracycle wrote:

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 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:

I 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

[Marco]

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

[Doctor Xero]

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.]

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.

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"
---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

[contracycle]

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.

[Doctor Xero]

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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

[contracycle]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

But 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!

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.

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

[M. J. Young]

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

[Callan S.]

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.

[Doctor Xero]

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.
---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