GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

[Emily Care]

Playing without a specific gm, or with multiple could make the conflict of interest question event stickier.  Suddenly everyone has a conflict of interest.  Partitioning and being able to step out of identification with the role would be even more important.  As would collaboration, or use of very clear mechanical systems to determine who gets to do what when and why.

and a bit OT:

When I've tried to use certain group-as-game-master freeware RPGs, I always have to alter them to
reinstall the game master or they fail our group's interests.  (Sorry, Zak!)

I'd be interested to hear what happened. Maybe in another thread on actual play or rpg theory?

--Emily

[Doctor Xero]

I'm sure you had teachers who realized that if they're going to teach you effectively, then they
must challenge you just enough to find your limits and then help you to exceed them.

I ~like~ your teaching analogy (and I teach university in real life, so I can attest to its accuracy for
certain styles of teaching as well!).

The key factor differentiating challenging teachers from bullying teachers (and challenging game
masters from killer game masters et al.) is the trust issue.  When students believe that their teacher
is demanding out of a desire to help the student, they respect it howevermuch they may grumble
about it.  And it seems to me that when players believe that their game master is challenging out of a
desire to entertain them rather than out of some onanistic power trip, they tend to clamor for him/her
to run campaigns again and again.

Even when I am running games with various challenging obstacles and NPCs who are overtly hostile
to player-characters, I still think of myself as a cooperating with player-characters as well as with
players, cooperating because I genuinely want them to succeed, just as I genuinely want my students
to succeed.  It's not competition because I'm not trying to "win" at their expense in either case -- but
I'll still challenge them as best I can!

I can't help thinking "system does matter", and any system that sets up that conflict of interest is bound
to fail frequently, GMs being flawed and human.

I agree : I think that, to a certain extent, the game system can influence whether a game master
is going to be a bullying opponent or a challenging storyteller.

you mentioned that the GMless encounters you had lacked something: the ability to explore someone
else's imaginary world.

Actually, no I didn't.  I never even mentioned whether we've ever played any GMless encounters.
All I stated was our preference for exploring a specific person's own imaginary world and how that
preference won't work if there's no one specific person to present said world to us.

no one's making any accusations against you, Doctor Xero, so please don't get defense or angry.

You're right.  Having people consistently put words in my mouth in that *Motivation* topic all the while
ignoring my efforts to point out I'd stated something different from the words they ascribed to me has
annoyed me far more than I'd realized.  It's just that, so many of the posts in this forum are so impressive
and learned, I didn't expect that sort of thing to happen repeatedly here.

Sorry for becoming irritated with you, talysman.  I shall try to keep my disappointment with that earlier
thread from tainting my responses to other postings.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

I'd be interested to hear what happened. Maybe in another thread on actual play or rpg theory?

Sorry, Emily, but all that happened was that the other players refused to play unless there was a single
game master running the game, and they wanted me to be that game master.

Reasons given include a preference for the roleplaying consistency of having each NPC played by the
same person each time and for the thematic consistency of having the entire campaign world run by a
single individual.

Also, we enjoy campaign worlds with a lot of exploration roleplay as well as the requisite combat and
puzzles, and it works better to solve the thematic and stylistic mysteries of a world if there is only
one author's vision to investigate and analyze.

So I adapted the game I wanted, and I ran it, and we played in it.

Perhaps I'll try it again someday with a campaign which is more combat-oriented so that such consistency
is not necessary or with a one-shot . . .

Doctor Xero

[Shreyas Sampat]

Xero, if you'll pardon my bluntness, that post is so dripping with assumptions that I cannot help but ask whether you are aware of them.

In your second paragraph you imply that consistency of character and theme require consistency of creatorship. Do you assume that this is true? Is it impossible for consistency to be achieved by multiple creators, or did your group discard it because they decided that there were efforts involved that they did not choose to input? (Examples of such efforts might be: using game mechanics to assist consistency, making sure everyone is aware what is motivating thematic and characterization decisions, etc.)

You go on to conflate exploration with combat and puzzles. I believe that speaks for itself.

[contracycle]

In your second paragraph you imply that consistency of character and theme require consistency of creatorship. Do you assume that this is true? Is it impossible for consistency to be achieved by multiple creators, or did your group discard it because they decided that there were efforts involved that they did not choose to input? (Examples of such efforts might be: using game mechanics to assist consistency, making sure everyone is aware what is motivating thematic and characterization decisions, etc.)

Even so.  It might be doable on a strict rules-based system, but I still harbour doubts.  IME, when I have seen characters taken over by other players, the result has always be jarring; for all the nominal identity of the character, each player necessarily interprets these things and what they mean rather differently.  I think it is much more reasonable and for me effective to have a single character controlled by a single creative mind.  tHe qauntity of data I would need to reproduce qualitatively similar decisions to another player is, I feel, prohibitive.  Rather tlike the command of a ship, a single node which takes inputs from multiple sources, creates a single understanding of the problem and articulates a single solution to that problem, is a better way IMO.

I don't think it is possible for the GM to truly be in competition with the players except in a mode of play so dependant on Pawn stance that it likely weould not be considered RPG at all but rather an RPG-inspired wargame.  Fundamentally, the GM is dependant on not "playing to win" against the players, for victory would be self defeating and result in the end of play.  Equally, it is impossible for the players to compete against the GM, becuase the GM usually has god-like powers and is simply not an equal.

What we have in RPG is IMO a kind of faux-competition, nominal competition always against an externalised other.  The GM can be set-dresser for this other, but cannot be partisan for it.  All of which suggests either that Gamist GM's do not exist, or that Gamist GM'sd do not address their CA during the play of the game, both of which conclusions I reject.  It seems to me the whole problem dissapears if Gamism is seen and discussed as challenge-based rather than competition-based.

[Nuadha]

I wrote this a while back on my feelings about the GM's role.   Since it applies here, I'm posting it.

I've found my standard way of explaining to non-gamers what roleplaying games are and I think it helps describe my thoughts on what the relationship between the GM and the players is. "Roleplaying games are a form of cooperative storytelling where people gather together to tell interesting stories. Some players take the roles of certain characters and other players, called gamemasters, take on the job of giving the story structure. The gamemaster gives the player a basic plot, a setting and other characters to interact with. Together, they tell the story."

The GM is a host, an adversary and an enabler. It is the GM's duty to complete the story. The PCs will come with a certain amount of characters, plotlines and theme. They will come to the game with all their stuff in tow, but even with all of the characters and story they bring, the world is far from complete. They may have parents and siblings, friends and enemies but they probably won't come to the game with the friendly shopkeeper who sells love potions down the street or the loyal lackey of their chief adversary who always seems to be a thorn in their side. No, they will bring only a certain amount of the world with them. The rest is up to the GM.

As a host, the GM sets the scene and introduces the players (and characters) to the world that the GM has created. The very presence of the PCs immediately begins to change the world and like a gracious host the GM should accept the fact that these PCs are going to make themselves comfortable and move things around a little. The GM and his or her world should be ready to adapt to these changes rather than fight them and force the PCs to conform to his or her vision. The story is not just about the world. It is about these characters as well and for them to fit into the world, the world must give a little. The GM may help the player design a character that fits in to the "big plot" they have in mind for the game but once the player character has that character, it's all their's. Even when playing a pregenerated character (a character the GM supplies to the player) the GM must be ready to let that player "create" their own version of the character and for that version of your character to somehow change the world.

As an adversary, the GM creates and plays the antagonists of the story. The GM must make them interesting and complete characters. Ideally, the GM gets in to their head a little and understands how they think. Then the GM can have these non-player characters act as real characters making decisions that are consistent and as intelligent as the antagonist would make. The antagonists want to win and they usually want to win as bad as the player's characters do. To that end they must work against the characters, resisting them and generally making their live's difficult.

As the enabler, the GM ensures that the players are able to be succesful. The players should be able to overcome all (or almost all) challenges and come out the victorious heroes (or anti-heroes). The GM also should enable the players and characters to have some influence on the story. Give them tools and abilities to change the face of the world or at least the oucome of the story. Give them oppurtunities to explore the depths of the character and become the fully realized person that great fictional characters are; not just two dimensional plot-devices but characters with hopes, fear, etc.

The GM is as much a player as the players who play the protaganists, the "player characters." The GM just has a much broader part and set of reponsibilities but these responsibilities are much a game as the game the others play. The GM must stretch his or her imagination and throw themselves into the imaginary world. Together with the players, it becomes a story. Together, with the players, the GM should feel free to have fun and remember that, in the end, it's a game. Everyone is playing to have fun. It just becomes a larger part of the GM's duty to make sure that fun happens. Encourage the players to throw themselves into their character's and let loose those creative energies. That, if you want my humble opinion, is the whole point of gaming. I have heard people try to make roleplaying into more than that and it can be. If we walk away knowing something more about the human condition or finding some deep insight in to our own personalities, its a nice bonus. The true magic of gaming comes in the creative flow between players and GM and the willingness to "just create."

[Loki]

Some players take the roles of certain characters and other players, called gamemasters, take on the job of giving the story structure. The gamemaster gives the player a basic plot, a setting and other characters to interact with. Together, they tell the story.

Nuada, you sum up the traditional role of the GM, and the traditional structure of a roleplaying game (eg D&D) quite well.

Do you ever feel that the dual roles of the traditional GM (arbitrator and opponent) are a conflict of interest? If you (and others) do, what do you think about rules that address this conflict of interest? I think that because the rules determine so much of how a game is actually played, that to ignore such a big conflict of interest in the rules is to ignore how the game is likely to be played.

Also, I'd like to point out something about the 'traditional' roleplaying game you describe: it's often not supported by the rules. For instance, it's perfectly possible to play D&D in such a way that the GM is responsible for everything not on a PC's character sheet. In that sense, the player is not contributing to the story as much as playing a role in the story written  by the GM. Add to this the GM's unlimited power, and you practically guarantee that many, many games will play out that way, since the player has virtually no power to "tell" the story, compared to the GMs ability to change just about anything until his story is told. Or the players leave and the game breaks.

In the example I've just described, the game is less a collaboration, and more a performance by the GM--albeit a performance that tries to follow the desires of its audience as closely as possible. I'm interested in rules and other structure that specifically address that conflict of interest.

[Rich Forest]

[Edited to note crossposted with Loki]

Nuadha, in case no one has said it before, welcome to the Forge! I think you might want to do some reading in the articles section if you haven't been yet, because I think you're post is predicated on a lot of assumptions that may not be true for all styles of play. Furthermore, a lot of discussion and even game application there is out there that has broken up the issue of what the GM does/is versus what the Player does/is, which your post mostly seems to address. John (Feng) mentions some games fairly early in this thread that break up the set of "GM" jobs in different ways, and I think it's worth remembering that traditionally assigned GM responsibilities can be distributed in a variety of ways. They don't have to be, but they can be.

Or, ok, in this case, maybe they should be, or could be. Or rather, that's the question: Should they be broken up differently? Timfire isn't asking what the role of the GM is. He's got a very focused question here: Given that he wants to "develop a game with a strong competitive player-vs-dungeon(GM?) aspect," what is the role of the GM? Is it feasible to put the GM into the role of both arbitrator and opponent, or is that a conflict of interest.

Now, some games have explicitly dealt with this from the early days of the hobby. The traditional idea that a dungeon should be designed before the game (here's where the GM gets to be the opponent), but it should not be altered if the players are clever enough to break it in play and the GM should always be "fair" (here's the arbitrator). That was one approach. Mike has also addressed the social contract issue really well. (Why haven't I heard that analogy before? It's a good one.)

And of course, coming back to the issue of breaking apart the roles among different people instead of just at different times, there's a range of possibilities here. "GM-less" versus "traditional GM" isn't a simple dichotomy with no middle range.

Actually, I'm interested in what Gareth is arguing. That the GM and the players, perhaps, can't all be really playing gamist without it looking more and more like a board game or strategy game. Or entirely like one. I'm not sure I'm convinced of that, but I'm open to convincing. I think that it should be possible to get everyone, GM and players, involved in the challenge and the competition. But maybe it hasn't been supported as well in system terms as it could be. Who is the "rules arbitrator" in a board game? The rule book, first and foremost. But that doesn't always work (although in really well designed games, it does). But when there is a genuine ambiguity, I think that it goes back to social contract. The person with the strongest social power, or maybe a random "high/low" roll, maybe a vote in some cases. If it's not in the rules, board and strategy games tend not to even address the issue of arbitration.

I do think (regarding whether the GM and players can all be playing competitively) that there's a much greater range to victory and defeat than just "stopping the opponent cold." Why does victory have to mean the annihilation of your opponent? Why couldn't other victory conditions be established? Rune uses a scoring system that makes it explicitly not about fully destroying the PCs (you'd better not—you're one of them). It's still very dependent on the set-up versus play distinction, though, to the extent that the set-up phase is fairly involved and is so for all the players. We've played it a couple times in my group but only as Player versus player scoring because I was the only person really committed to set-up enough to be the GM. I wasn't able to "play" the game in the same way. It was still fun, and I suppose providing challenge was part of that.

But I wonder if there isn't another way. Actually, I'm also trying to work on a design that includes explicit player versus GM competition. I'm most intrigued by the possibilities of a "give 'em enough rope" approach. That is, if the rule system can be set up as a fairly concentrated core that is applied consistently to all situations, and the players are allowed to choose their own level of risk... the GM is in the situation of providing lots of opportunities for them to take risks for appropriate rewards. And to encourage it, perhaps through NPCs, descriptions, etc. But if the GM and the players have identical system resources for a single session, the GM can't cheat and doesn't need to arbitrate (yes, the game has to be well designed). The GM then can just focus on tempting the players to overextend their own resources and push it too far. The consequences of the players "losing" do not necessarily have to be lethal or game ending, however (maybe session ending, but who knows).

My group has tended to focus our Step On Up on risk taking. Here's an actual play thread that discusses some of that.

Rich

[Doctor Xero]

In your second paragraph you imply that consistency of character and theme require consistency
of creatorship. Do you assume that this is true?

Yes, in certain cases it is true (no, Shreyas, I have never implied such a thing is ~always~ true and I still
don't imply it).  I will explain by example.

In a mystery scenario, in which all four NPCs are murder suspects and both the PCs and their players are
trying to discover who is guilty of what, the person who plays the NPC needs to know just what it is that
PC is guilty of, or it is impossible to have the delight of a battle of wits between PC and NPC.  The only way
that every player can play every NPC is if every player knows every NPC's secrets and -- viola! -- the mystery
is ruined!

When part of the fun of a campaign is exploring the NPCs in that world (as said in the wonderful film Jeffrey,
"Don't you just love this part?  When everything about the other person is new . . . is sexy?"), then knowing
enough about the NPCs to play them ruins that part of the fun.

Not every gaming group wants that, of course, and therefore not every gaming group needs that particular
type of consistency, Shreyas, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise.  However, for groups which ~do~ want that,
that particular type of consistency can best  be provided when only one person plays the NPCs in question.

The same is true when part of the joy of that campaign is epiphany -- discovering the underlying themes or,
as Professor Tolkien might phrase it, the ~Story~, of that campaign world.
In fantasy, one very powerful theme is the discovery of the underlying Story of the world.  The PCs and their
players can not enjoy discovering the underlying Story if they all already know it because they all game master.

If your own interests differ, Shreyas, that's fine.  I'm describing what we do -- not proscribing what you must do.

It seems to me the whole problem dissapears if Gamism is seen and discussed as challenge-based rather
than competition-based.

I LIKE THAT WAY OF EXPRESSING IT!

The GM is a host, an adversary and an enabler.

An excellent way of describing a certain style of gaming, Nuada!

Do you ever feel that the dual roles of the traditional GM (arbitrator and opponent) are a conflict of interest?

I think that happens when the game master is better at being adversary than at being host and enabler.
The host role and enabler role together mediate that conflict of interest.  A lot of people can't do this in
gaming or in real life, and thus in gaming we have Killer DMs and in real life we have scientists who falsify
their findings and politicans who misread the data they have to support the conclusions they already
intend to make.

An insight-provoking discussion on the Forge -- as usually happens. ^_^

Doctor Xero

[Loki]

Xero, I think the enabler/host role can be taken too far as well. I think that's what's called Illusionism (though the jargon on the forge is tough for me to keep up with or understand still).

As an example from actual play, a friend and I were players in a game of V:tM. While the GM was in the bathroom, we were discussing what to do about a challenge and were both stumped. Then we realized that if we did nothing, the GM would present us with either an NPC with a hint (usually by cell phone), or a fight that we could beat. Realizing that it made little difference whether we investigated the plot or prepared for conflicts--because the plot would always come to us and conflicts were tailored to be beaten--meant that suddenly the game became more like an amusement ride, and less like a game. Still a hell of a lot of fun, but different.

Ever experienced what I'm talking about?

[Doctor Xero]

Xero, I think the enabler/host role can be taken too far as well. I think that's what's called Illusionism (though the jargon on the forge is tough for me to keep up with or understand still).

As an example from actual play, a friend and I were players in a game of V:tM. While the GM was in the bathroom, we were discussing what to do about a challenge and were both stumped. Then we realized that if we did nothing, the GM would present us with either an NPC with a hint (usually by cell phone), or a fight that we could beat. Realizing that it made little difference whether we investigated the plot or prepared for conflicts--because the plot would always come to us and conflicts were tailored to be beaten--meant that suddenly the game became more like an amusement ride, and less like a game. Still a hell of a lot of fun, but different.

Ever experienced what I'm talking about?

Yes!  We absolutely loathed it!

Except . . . what you call illusionism is precisely what we fear would happen in a GMless game!

One of the reasons we prefer having a single game master is that our game masters have always been people who are very good at reading other people by their body language and therefore can discern when to be which role.  (Another reason we wish to avoid GMless play -- it puts power in the hands of those who lack such sensitivity towards others, and they prefer to avoid game mastering authority because they recognize their lacks.)

Game mastering involves a complex juggling act . . .

Doctor Xero

[Bill Cook]

This topic's a bit of a pickle.  I've learned that it's more important to decide "what we're going to agree to" than it is to determine "what's the right way of doing things," though I do indulge investigations of the latter in private, for my own satisfaction.  A rules text is a good reference point for this debate.  I like to confront conflicting views that are disrupting play or causing negative undercurrents.  Arguing the merits of your position can be as fun as playing the game.

To me, the role of arbitrator is the more divisive of the two, and is more suitable for player distribution.  Some players set themselves up as technical references (guilty).  As with any other enterprise, agency can be good or bad.  Pro: they can bullet point the issue and lower handling time.  Con: they may color advisement with bias.

As for being an opponent, using a second GM as a Monster Runner ends up being a clerical post (IME).  Were the role to hold play impact value, the antagonist principals would have to be given their turn to make Exploration (IMO).  As for dysfunctional trends, I would first decry overly polite opposition.  Christ, I'm not made of glass! is what I want to shout sometimes.  I find it hard to forgive boring opposition.

[Bill Cook]

I think it is much more reasonable and for me effective to have a single character controlled by a single creative mind. tHe qauntity of data I would need to reproduce qualitatively similar decisions to another player is, I feel, prohibitive.

This is convincing.  And poses a dilemma for me.  I've always thought that it sucks that the GM should have to come up with all the ideas.  Especially when there are three or more brilliant minds at the table, languishing in impotence.  I'm currently making some experiments with improvized situation and had the thought of passing the hat for GM duties.  I would like to preserve player-to-character unity, but it's like you can't have both.

Just thinking out loud, I guess.

. . . either Gamist GM's do not exist, or Gamist GM'sd do not address their CA during the play of the game, both of which conclusions I reject. It seems to me the whole problem dissapears if Gamism is seen and discussed as challenge-based rather than competition-based.

This makes great sense to me.

[Doctor Xero]

As for dysfunctional trends, I would first decry overly polite opposition.  Christ, I'm not made of glass! is what I want to shout sometimes.  I find it hard to forgive boring opposition.

< laughter > I would probably enjoy discussing things with you in public, then.  I've found that it's safer to be cautious on line, however; people assume a growl so often when reading what was written with a fascinated smile.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

Consider this :

As a host (for the campaign setting), it's best to have one person as the game master if the other gamers want to focus on exploring a single individual's specific vision.  The gaming group may prefer multiple visions, such as having alternating game masters each with his/her own city, or having each player as the authority for a specific culture with the game master as the final word only when conflicts occur.

As an adversary, it's best to have one person as the game master for crucial or nexus NPCs if the other gamers want an over-arcing storyline (that they must discover, such as a mystery or hidden history) so that said NPCs contribute to this storyline.  If the opponent is a random monster or not a crucial or nexus NPC, and if the gamers all understand the over-arcing mood and theme of the campaign, there is no reason that various gamers could not play these other NPCs.  Gamers might also prefer hidden storylines they construct as they go along rather than ones they discover, in which case there would be no such thing as a nexus NPC for a specific singular storyline.

As an enabler, it's best to have one person as the game master if there is a concern in the gaming group that it's too difficult or too inconvenient (or too disruptive to the pleasures of gaming) for more than one person to have to maintain the objectivity necessary to adjudicate fairly yet mercifully the rules questions and adversary NCP-PC conflicts (or even PC-PC conflicts!).

If the above is true, then it becomes critical in any written game book to make it clear what might be the roles and responsibilities of the game master (or of cooperative players in a GMless game system) and how he or she or they might best delegate said roles and responsibilities within the mechanics and themes of that specific gaming system.

Doctor Xero