Filing Edges: GM as Author

[lumpley]

Noon: he or she can say so.

-Vincent

[Asrogoth]

Wow.  The GM perspectives break down into very "ecclesiological" distinctions.

Views:

Pontifical:  This view states that the GM has complete authority over all things within the game and his final word is the law, regardless of anyone else's feelings or opinions.


Episcopal:  This view would be that the GM has a role as an overseer or presiding judge/arbiter/guide/shepherd.  He provides all the information to the characters that is necessary to make the game run effectively. While his word is law within the game, he generally is seen as taking a somewhat "passive" role while encouraging Player interaction/development.


Presbyterian:  This view would be the view that a few chosen and recognized individuals within the gaming group have the authority to tell the GM exactly where the game should be going.  This usually ends up in a political battle between the GM and "special" Players in an attempt to make "their" positions/ideas primary.  (My apologies to any Presbyterians out there.  This is not meant as an attack against any denomination, just a reflection of political/GMing views.)


Baptistic:  Here the GM has little authority outside of what the Players allow.  They DO tell him what he's allowed to do and what's not within play.  If he disagrees and tries to go his own route, the Players generally rebel and might even "throw him out" and get a more appropriate GM. ;)


Free:  Even more radical, these groups do not function with a specified GM, or if they do, the role of GM is shared amongst the various Players at different times or even split up at one time amongst all the Players.  Whoever is the GM at any given time does not have the last word over the complete game, but must work within the bounds of the game and Social Contract in order to promote play for the other Players and encourage them to be good GMs too when it's their turn.
[/list:u]

Anyway, that's just what occurred to me while reading the post.

We have various approaches to our gaming "religion".  Whose is "right"???  Hmmm....  Good question.

:)

Later.

[Mike Holmes]

Xero, you have a point about the attitude taken here to game mastering. That is, a lot of negative implications are being thrown that way. And it might help a lot to clear the air about it, because what's happening is that you're reacting to a MacGuffin. That is, it's not really "evil GM's" that Jonathan is talking about here, if I don't miss my mark.

Let me see if I can restate his point in a more neutral way:

One potential way to change RPGs going forward (one way amongst many), is to alter the GM player balance of power.

The reason that I think that the negative stuff is just rhetoric is because, in fact in the original post, he asks if, indeed going away from traditional GMing is at all something to be sought. That is, he admits that it may be potentially a blind alley. So I don't think that he has any real prejudice here, at least not insamuch as it affects the discussion (he may have his own preferences, but that's not salient to anyone's argument).

I think that going forward, we can, at least for the sake of argument assume that playing in a traditional way is just fine. But it misses the point. Even if playing the traditional way is just as good a way as any other, in it's own right, does changing that split represent at all a way to create "progress" in terms of expanding what RPGs are?


Another point, Jonathan knows Universalis well. Here's a review he wrote for it on RPG.net. http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9425.phtml


Now, to Jonathan's points from the thread above. I'm going to go line by line only as a way to organize my thoughts - each of your statmemts has evoked a lot of thought.

Mike, you're saying all this as if it's uncontroversial and written in stone.

No, just uncontroversial. That is, I've never seen anyone see the Ball metaphor and not say, "Ah, yeah, cool." Perhaps until now. Nothing is written in stone, ever, AFAICT.

Honestly, I don't think it's obvious that the "ball" metaphor is any more accurate or complete than my "valve" metaphor.

It's more complete in my opinion because it covers all possible sorts of play. I think the valve metaphor fails to describe some sorts of play. To me, Valve would be a subset of Ball, wherin players were harboring powers based on assignments in the rules. But, it was my original point that we're all basically talking about the same things from different perspectives. So I have no problem with the Valve metaphor. I'm just pointing out that it's not really new, we've discussed this a lot before.

Part of the reason I wanted to address Mike Mearls comments it that he thinks roleplaying hasn't really changed much, which makes me wonder whether it's possible for roleplaying to change much, and, if so, how we can make those changes happen.

This seems to be the real problem. Have you read Mike's response to people questioning what he meant? I think that the problem here is just a matter of perspective on what different people think constitutes change.

Again, Universalis is played by only a tiny fraction of people. So from that POV, it doesn't represent a change in how people role-play. OTOH, some people play, and it may affect other designs (if I might be allowed a conciet), and, as such, RPGs change all the time with every design - some more than others, but change just the same.

I don't want to wait until I come up with a game concept that requires the GM to "give up the ball." I want to come up with options NOW, and then build experimental games around those options to familiarize myself with the possibilities.

I'm not sure what the problem is. If you want a game that makes the GM less of a valve, or whatever, just design it.

Universalis does do this. Now, before you say that you played or heard of some game where it happened in which one player dominated play - well, that's inevitable. Because when the system isn't to blame, it's the fact that we're social beings. That is, especially amongst males (perhaps less with women), there's always a social pecking order. In other situations, it might just be a matter of who has the greatest enthusiasm. Or any factor might cause someone to dominate a game when, in fact, it's not the system that's promoting it.

This is not something that you can affect, nor do I think it's something that you want to affect.

As such, I agree with other posters as to why you dominated the MLWM game. For social reasons, and likely good ones at that. You want equality in play, play with peers. No surprise there.

Further, who ever said that MLWM shares game mastering at all? I mean it remains mostly silent on the subject. That is, I don't think that it's really the design of the game to share all that much - I don't when I play. Sure I ask players for scenes, but no more so than I do in Hero Quest.

Is that the traditionalist in me coming out? Or the dominant player? Or is it the system?

I don't know, and frankly don't care. Because what makes MLWM go isn't a sharing of power, AFAICT.

Personally, I'm not worried about Mearls statement. If we're not changing wholesale, fine, we're changing enough. Enough for me at least. You want it to change more? Fine, then change it. I'll probably play.

That is, I don't see change as problematic at all -it's just hard work.

Finally, I've always thought that comments like "the only imperative is to think about how to distribute control for your game to make it the best game that it can be" are EXTREMELY unhelpful. How are we to know what's "best" for a given design? That's like saying there's only one person in the world that you could marry and be happy. Bullshit.

You'll never know what's best. Design is an imperfect art. You just pick something and get it as close to best as you are able. All I've said here is that looked at as a whole each game design is composed of parts that work together to make it good or bad. Power distribution is one of those parts, and has to fit in just like any other cog does. As best you're able to accomplish.

Yes, this is obvious, and (IMO) uncontroversial. And possibly unhelpful. But I think that nobody can do better. That is, you're essentially asking, it seems to me, if the power split should go away from traditional, and my feeling is that it's an aesthetic choice that can't be measured in "should" or "should not". It's just a matter of choice and what you think makes for a better game. It's as if you've asked what color to make the cover of the game - all you'll get is opinions.

That's to say that I personally do not believe that any particular power split is inherently superior to another. Universalis says only, "Here's another way." Not, "Here's an inherently better way." It's up to individuals to decide that by how much they enjoy play. And opinions differ.  

Mike

[John Kim]

I was just hoping that people could come up with other ways of making it happen.  I was looking for positive ways mostly: not restrictions that would keep the GM from hogging the ball, but game goals that would make it unlikely that anyone would ever WANT to hog the ball.  For example, what if you could gain benefits (?) whenever other players used elements you created during play?  Torchbearer does something similar to this with its Torch mechanics, and it might keep people from hogging narrative control.  

OK, bear with me for a moment, because I am going to approach this from a totally different angle.  The issue here is that the tabletop GM is free to introduce arbitrary elements or influences within the game.  So he can throw in an unbeatable monster just around the corner if he doesn't want the PCs to go that way.  

However, you attribute this to traditional GM narrative power, but I don't think that it is inherent in the basic mechanics.  Let me offer as a counter-example a D&D GM who is running an old-style published dungeon module, where he agrees to follow it as written.  In this game, the GM has extremely little power and in some ways is a glorified accountant.  He reads off descriptions of the areas that the PCs go to, and handles the monsters.  But as long as he follows the module as written, he doesn't have much narrative control at all.  

A similar case is a LARP event which has its own resolution rules (like boffer combat or Mind's Eye Theater's rules), where there are no NPCs.  With everyone wandering around the area and interacting on their own, the organizers may have very control over what happens.  This is especially true if players are allowed to create their own characters.  

So one way to take away the GM control valve is to take away the GM control by limiting the scope of what is acceptable.  This means setting your game such that it is not possible for arbitrary events to happen, or arbitrary NPCs to show up.  The trick, then, is how to make play interesting under these restrictions.  If the GM can't just throw in arbitrary new material, then you have to make sure that the pre-defined material is sufficient for fun play.

[Doctor Xero]

Without game master authority, authority always defaults to the most charismatic or the most aggressive.  Having either a cult of charisma or a tyranny of the most aggressive is almost impossible to avoid unless there is an empowered game master to counter either one.  (Or a particularly strong Social Contract, but that's not something a game system can address.)

In a group of equals, when one of them percieves something has gone wrong, what can he/she do as an equal?

Noon: he or she can say so.

No offense, but while a clever reply, I think this one is ultimately facile.

If he or she says so, and there is no game master nor any other mechanism by which to support him or her (if legitimate) or call him or her on the error (if erroneous or petty), then whether anyone else cares about what he or she says will be determined by his or her charisma, social position, and sheer aggressiveness.  Nowhere in that equation do fun, courtesy, or doing-what's-right come into effect.

Now, in friendship groups which game, the above is circumvented by the bonds of friendship.  But in hobby groups which meet only to game, if everyone is a de jure equal, factors of de facto inequality come into play, and in an activity of imagination and social interaction such as RPGing, those factors revolve around charisma and social aggressiveness.

I do not think anyone wants to advocate charismatic dictatorships out of a fear of institutionalized-and-restricted game masters.

-- How can we get away from this style of play, with its dependence on the GM, his choices, and his instincts.  Good play would seem to require a good GM who is in-synch with the game he's running and is sensative to the interests and input of his players.  Even games that claim to be doing something besides this model may be guilty of buying into it.  Are they really doing anything besides telling the GMs to be more sensative and in-synch?  Do they players REALLY have any direct input?  Even if the rules say that they do, will people just drift it back to the GM-author model?

-- Is is worth it (or even possible) to ever really break with this model?  Universalis does, but it accomplished this by ditching any pretense at the Golden Rule and bringing the system in to be a new valve, saying what goes in and what doesn't.  Can roleplaying happen without a "valve" of some point?  Isn't that the Lumpley Principle in action?  Is what the Principle calls "system" really just my "valve"?

I think we need a "valve" of some sort or meaningless chaos is the only possible result.  The question becomes then not whether there ought be a valve but rather what should be subject to which valve and who should have which valve duty.

For one thing, perhaps they might consider specifying from the start which functions the gaming group wishes to assign to the game master (e.g. adjudicating player-player issues, interpretation of the rules, running the NPCs, creating a plot for the players if they wish a plot-driven campaign, creating opportunities for bangs, etc.) and which functions they wish to assign to other players and/or to group consensus vis-a-vis the Social Contract.

In terms of game design, this could actually be incorporated into the design itself.  Imagine a game with no game master which advises that one player volunteer to be player advocate, one player volunteer to be rules adjudicator, one player volunteer to be the setting/NPC coordinator, etc.

Does this scratch the itch, Jonathan?

Doctor Xero

[lumpley]

Hey Doc.

Nowhere in that equation do fun, courtesy, or doing-what's-right come into effect.

If you can't trust the group of people you're playing with to take your interests seriously, for no reason other than because you're a fellow player, why are you playing with them?  They suck.

There are two situations where charisma and social aggressiveness dominate a group: 1) your group hasn't developed a functional dynamic, but could; 2) your group's broken.

If 1), there are some games whose rules help a group learn how to function.  The rules don't substitute for mutual respect, they show you what mutual respect looks like so you can learn it.  I'd start with Universalis, myself.  Look out for games whose rules reinforce your bad dynamics; they'll nudge your group toward 2).

If 2), find a new group.  Doesn't matter what game you play, the charismatic and socially aggressive will use the rules to maintain their domination.

A group where you raise concerns and your fellow players don't pay attention unless you've got the GM or the rules on your side - that's a fuckin' lame group.  It's not a group of equals.  You should ditch.

-Vincent

[Doctor Xero]

If you can't trust the group of people you're playing with to take your interests seriously, for no reason other than because you're a fellow player, why are you playing with them?  They suck.

I agree, but I have to accept the fact that hobby groups are more common than friendship groups.  If nothing else, people who have no emotional/social bond are the predominant players one encounters at conventions.

I don't enjoy such gaming groups, which is why I have almost always restricted myself to friendship groups that game rather than hobby groups.  In the few hobby groups of which I have been a member, as one of the more charismatic members, I have tried to make sure everyone gets to play, and when it was my turn to game master, I went out of my way to focus more on the shy players, waiving aside the impatient interruptions of the other charismatic members so that the shy players had time to think and then speak, until it was no longer necessary.  I've had several people tell me that my patience and respect for them were major forces in helping them overcome their shyness and develop the strength to assert themselves.  But such techniques can not be incorporated into game design beyond perhaps a "How to Game Master" section.

On the other hand, if I read your post a-right, you are suggesting that such problems are strictly social contract problems and not really a concern of game design?  Yes?  No?

Doctor Xero

[Ben Lehman]

So, yeah, in a sense, that's more like what I'm getting at.  I was just hoping that people could come up with other ways of making it happen.  I was looking for positive ways mostly: not restrictions that would keep the GM from hogging the ball, but game goals that would make it unlikely that anyone would ever WANT to hog the ball.  For example, what if you could gain benefits (?) whenever other players used elements you created during play?  Torchbearer does something similar to this with its Torch mechanics, and it might keep people from hogging narrative control.

I'm not necessarily just looking for GM-less play concepts.  I'm also interested in GMs that aren't ball-hogs and how that works in practice.

BL>  Well, as far as GMs who aren't ball-hogs, I hope you have some personal experience with that.  Otherwise, why the hell are you a gamer?

Now I'm going to ramble about valve mechanisms in my own game:

In the second edition of Over the Bar that I am working on somewhere in the background, there is a very simple shared narration mechanic which prevents the GM from becoming a ball-hog -- anyone can take a drink and become the GM (note, this isn't GMless play, its pass the ball.)  So the GMing is inherently tied into the step-on-up in the gaming system.

Further, you can stick people with GMing by just not drinking for it.  In my experience, it is much more likely that people don't want to GM than that they want to so much that they hog the ball.  So there's a balance of sorts there.

I don't consider OtB2 to be GMless in the same manner as, say, Universalis, because there still is a GM figure, there is just a systematic means of appointing and disposing of him.

How does this fit into your idea?

yrs--
--Ben

[lumpley]

Doc X: It's a problem for game design for certain (as well as for the social contract).  In fact, that's what a game's rules are: a structure, a framework, that the group takes up to guide their interactions.  A tool whose sole purpose is the creation of a social dynamic.

As a game designer, I'm not going to take on entrenched dysfunction.  But a group of strangers at a con?  Absolutely.

Have you played Universalis?  You gotta.  In Universalis, if you embrace your fellow players' contributions to the game, you get more dice.  Your input into the game is based on how effectively you engage with everyone else's input.  This in concrete, objective terms: no judge or referee required.  It's genius - that game blows me away.

-Vincent

[Christopher Weeks]

If you can't trust the group of people you're playing with to take your interests seriously, for no reason other than because you're a fellow player, why are you playing with them?  They suck.

I agree, but I have to accept the fact that hobby groups are more common than friendship groups.  If nothing else, people who have no emotional/social bond are the predominant players one encounters at conventions.

I'm not sure Vincent was just talking about "friendship groups."  I don't actually buy your distinction between the two kinds of groups as particularly valid.  I mean, I could classify each of my gaming experiences as predominantly one or the other, but I haven't found all the stuff you think about them to be true.  And when I'm at a con and the players suck, I gather my stuff, stand up and take off.  No problem.  The same rules apply.  I expect people to be as interested in what I'm contributing to the game as I am in their contributions.  

It doesn't take any particular level of emotional/social bonds to be interested and respectful.

edit: And it seems like a perfectly reasonable domain for game design to me.  If you, as a designer, think that gregarious players hogging the ball (the other one) is a big problem, slap a mechanic that rewards using the contributions of other players into your design.

Chris