the value or uselessness of a game master

[contracycle]

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.

[Ben O'Neal]

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.

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). 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 (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

[Callan S.]

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.

[dewey]

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"

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.

[dewey]

Now, 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.

[Marco]

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

[Ben O'Neal]

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.'

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.

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.

I 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.

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.

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

[Marco]

. 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).

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.

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

[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

[dewey]

Marco:
Well said.

[Callan S.]

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.

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.

[Ben O'Neal]

Playing 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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

[Doctor Xero]

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.

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

[contracycle]

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.

[M. J. Young]

...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) 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