GM is god?

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm with Marco. 100%.

Can someone please provide a specific, definite, descriptive explanation of the phenomenon we're supposed to be discussing?

I'll take a whack at it.  

GM Is God: The notion that, for a given System and instance of play, absolute authority over all GMing Tasks is given to one person, with no room for negotiation or compromise.

[Marco]

I'd asked for a definition and Mortaneus gave a pretty good one (a concrete one). I was going to analyze them point by point but it all came down to the last one: I think ultimately the most a player can do in a game is leave (I mean, the player can deck the GM and cow him into doing what the player wants but I'm going to stick with best-practices functional behavior here).

The idea that a GM can ostracize you for fraternizing with the enemy seems pretty ... well ... high school to me. It doesn't sound like adult behavior and if that's the reigning mentality then I think that's got some severe problems.

But I do believe in (under traditional gaming and for me specifically) having a very empowered facilitator (i.e. a very powerful GM). This is because I think it very much facilitates immersion (Actor Stance) which is something I value.

So having the GM "act all powerfully over the rules and the game world" is fine by me so long as that power is used in a way that directly serves me.

-Marco

[Darksmith]

So... GM is god... as long as it's beneficial to all involved?

So it's more of a Social contract that gives the GM the control he has in a game enviroment. The GM's 'powers' are directly tied to what the players will put up with?

I've always seen the GM as more of an abitrator or judge. The system gives us the 'physics' of our world. The GM gives us the situations or story that we, as players, drive or interact with. The decisions in game lay with the players, for good or ill, with the consiquences enforced by the GM.

Now that I think about it it seems that we're creating a hiearchy with in the SIS between the judge and players.

[Marco]

So... GM is god... as long as it's beneficial to all involved?

Well, for me, in practice: if the GM breaks the rules and it doesn't serve me then I'm not going to accept that. If the GM has something happen that I don't like or don't understand I'd question it and the answer needs to satisfy me ("it's all I could think of, man, things are gettin' complex!" is an alright answer in terms of social contract for me once in a while--but if it's a recurring explanation then we have a problem).

Since the GM's power has to serve me his or her decisions need to pass my judgement each time and that's okay: we have a set of rules. I expect the GM to rule on gray areas. I don't expect the GM to simply override them.

Unless it serves me (we're playing a combat, everyone wants to finish up that night, it's takin' time, the GM says "we're moving to quick kill rules.")

So: the GM can act as 'god'--until I don't want him to--and I regain my power.

What that really means is: I don't have an absolute position on what a GM can or cannot do and I'm willing to be flexible and work with the GM and within that framework just about anything the GM did could be okay (GM says "Don't argue with me on this one ... trust me!" And trust him I do--unless I have reason not to).

That's not, when it gets down to it, a very godly role. But it means I'm not limiting the GM to simply being a gray-area rules adjudicator.

's a complex issue :)

-Marco

[John Uckele]

As one of the more recent mentioners of said tendency, the 'GM is God' mentality usually consists of some combination of the following:

1. The Rules Say what the GM says they do.
2. The GM has the right to override anything you say or do, under all circumstances.
3. If it doesn't happen with the GM as a witness, it didn't happen.
4. Do not question the GM on why something happened the way it did.  The GM has everything under control.
5. The GM has absolute mediatorial control over all discussion, in and out of character, including the right to say 'SHUT UP'.
6. Any rights and priveliges not mentioned above are to be relegated/denied as the GM sees fit.
7. Players posess only one right, to leave the game. And often, if they do so, they are no longer welcome to game with the group in any future games, lest the GM punish those who did stay for fraternizing with an insubordinate player.

I've seen this mindset more than a few times in my gaming career, and frankly, it drives me nuts. I simply cannot play in a game that acts under these suppositions.  I can understand how it might work for some groups, and how for some groups it might be necessary.  Not for me.

Yes. That is God... Almost.

You place value judgements into this style. I myself go by the notion that the GM is god. The GM can do anything in the game. The GM can create portals where your detect magic just failed, and they can smite characters. They can over rule actions, and they can ignore or create whatever rules they like. The have the final word on everything in game, and if it's their house, everything out of game too. The GM can kick out the entire group (I've done it, kicked an entire group minus one player out of my game). Now, that being said:

If you kick everyone out, you aren't really a GM anymore. If you rule with such tryranny that no one plays in your games, you aren't really a GM anymore. If you act like a jackass and change rules so fast that players can't keep up, you aren't a GM for much longer. So while the GM has absolute power, PCs still have free will assuming they don't piss off god. Players can still ask, question, and object. The GM gets to choose how to react to that. I have (if occasionaly) in the past changed my mind for objections. I also kicked a player out who was unwilling to stop objecting. ("You fall down the pit, take 4 points of damage.", "Do not!", "Yes you do.", "No I don't.", "Chris, you fell down the pit, take four points of damage.", "No.", "Fine, OUT! SMITE!")

I personally find it only natural that the GM has final say. The GM is the person running the story, it's their creative work, and as a player you are participating in what they are doing (even if they want you in, you are still in THEIR work). The GM can if they so choose run the game without you (assuming that other players are accesible to them), so in effect if you insist on not playing as the GM likes to, they just leave your playing and play with others.

[TonyLB]

Hmmm... provocative.  Was that all an expression of personal taste, or a topic you want to raise for discussion?

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I've been chewin' a lot on this kind of problem of late, myself. Here's what I've observed, with opinions thrown in to make it sound like I know what I'm talking about.

- If you're playing GURPS, Cyberpunk, Call of Cthulhu, or something like that, it's pretty much assumed that the GM has absolute power and responsibility. The odds say that PCs should be more powerful in the world, but also more often dead, than they really are. This is because everyone wants a good story. The GM, in games like this, want the players to see all the cool plot sHe's worked out, and they can't do that if they're out of the plot (because, for instance, they're dead, or they follow a red herring lead). Similarly, the PCs want to circumvent as much plot as possible because it's dangerous, so they do everything in their power to avoid the bad guys and, when they get to the villain at the end, they burn his corpse, sanctify the ashes, then send him into the sun, then blow up the sun, because they don't want that guy coming back. It's therefore the GM's job to make sure that the bad guys actually do find the heroes while they're sneaking around, and then find the loophole through which the villain can return in a future episode.

- If you're playing Prime Time Adventures, though, you want the villains to find you and you want the bad guy to come back in a future episode because they're good for your character, which is the closest thing to character advancement in the game. Similarly, with Dogs in the Vineyard, battle wounds, lost loves, and moustache-twisting arch-villains all add to your efficacy, so the player's on the same side as the GM (though the player characters are necessarily opposed to the GM-played antagonists).

In the first example, the GM is God in the sense that He makes everything happen despite the actions of the heroes. Sorta like a Babylonian god.

In the second example, the GM is there to drive your conflicts and make life hard for the characters (read: fun for the players) so that they can grow and change, more like, say, a Greek god. Like a Greek hero wants glory, and so charges into battle on the beach without reading the number on the mailbox, your character charges into conflict with the player knowing that it will serve to enrich the character's interest, even if the character thinks this is a dumb idea, and it's gonna get us all killed.

My take is that the GM is the facilitator for the story. You can call that "god" if you want, but if I'm GM, I'll have to respectfully ask you to call me by name, instead. "God, would you pass the Cheet-Os" doesn't work for me.

[Callan S.]

I'd asked for a definition and Mortaneus gave a pretty good one (a concrete one). I was going to analyze them point by point but it all came down to the last one: I think ultimately the most a player can do in a game is leave.

Not really. They can make the GM leave to some or a full extent. If you don't grant any credibility to someones input, their input isn't there...they may as well not be there themselves. "Well then, rocks fall and everybody dies!" "Yeah, yeah, whatever...so who's gunna GM next?"

It depends on what each individual decides, as to where that cred goes. And its quite possible for all of it to go to any player. Plenty of games have died when one person walked out (or left even on good terms).

[John Kim]

I was going to analyze them point by point but it all came down to the last one: I think ultimately the most a player can do in a game is leave.

Not really. They can make the GM leave to some or a full extent. If you don't grant any credibility to someones input, their input isn't there...they may as well not be there themselves. "Well then, rocks fall and everybody dies!" "Yeah, yeah, whatever...so who's gunna GM next?"

It's an interesting point.  In principle, it should be possible for someone to take over GMing.  However, my experience is that in practice this almost never happens.  i.e. It is pretty much a given that a GM "owns" a campaign.  So a player can leave and the campaign continues, but the campaign can't continue if the GM leaves.  

There have been two alternatives to this.  One is troupe style play, such as suggested by Ars Magica or Theatrix.  Each session has a GM, but the GM task rotates among members of the group from session to session.  However, it seems like later games have not adopted this.  On the other hand, there are true GMless games like Soap, where the GM tasks are always spread among the players.  However, my limited impression is that GMless games tend to be short-term (i.e. no long campaigns).  

Going back to the initial question:

There have been a couple of refences to the whole, "GM is god" mindset. What are the general views on this type of mentality? Is is accepted and expected? Do you try and avoid such mindset and gaming groups that bye into it? How do you deal with it one way or another. Is it as prevalent as it appears?

Personally, my answer depends on which of two subtypes it is. (1) "GM is God" in some cases means that the GM has absolute authority over what happens outside of the PC's heads.  That's generally fine with me, though I often don't follow it.  However, (2) "GM is God" means that the GM has absolute social authority -- i.e. absolute authority over when and where the game is played, who gets to play, and so forth.  This I react pretty negatively to.  I'd say it's pretty prevalent at least as an influence, and I usually deal with it by not playing with such groups.

[Mark Johnson]

THE VETO

One way to deal with a lot of the negative ramifications of the "GM is God" paradigm is to institute the idea of player veto.  If any player disagrees with anything the GM does in the game, they could instantly call for a vote of the players to "veto" the action.  This can be, but is not limited, to rule interpretation.  If a majority of the other players agree, the GM would then have to renarrate or readjudicate the action according to the will of the player who called for the veto.  

EXAMPLES

-- "I know the rules are kind of unclear... but my familiar should have gotten my Dex bonus to the saving throw...  I call for a veto!"

-- "It makes no sense that the Princess who sent us on the quest was actually the polymorphed Lich Necromancer who we have been fighting the whole time.  I call for a veto!"

-- "There is no way that a first level party should have to encounter an Elder Red Dragon!  I call for a veto!"

MY EXPERIENCE

This was a house rule in a D&D campaign I played in.  The veto was never invoked so it is hard to say if it worked or didn't.  But it certainly might be the answer for campaigns mired in the negative consequences of the "GM is God" mindset.  If anything, I find it a bit more agreeable to my sense of fair play than the the "Rule Zeroes" (GM may overrule anything in the rules) and "Golden Rules" (The GM is Golden, he rules) of many games.

I don't think this type of rule is necessarily appropriate to games that already reflect collaborative tendencies (what is called narrativism around here as well collaborative storytelling games).  But rather it is a good set of check and balances to systems that are based on the notion that the GM is God.  Instead, the revised system could be stated as "The GM is God except when he isn't."  (I think this rule would work best in White Wolf style games, but that is just my opinion.  Feel free to disagree).

Has anyone else had experience with veto systems?  Did they sufficiently address the problems caused by the GM is God mentality?  What were its downfalls?

[TonyLB]

The Veto sounds very much like a Safeword, in that it is most effective indirectly.  You don't want to use it, you want to encourage certain behavior (in this case the GM being respectful of the player's concerns for fairness and consistency) through the threat of using it.

Walt Freitag had a great discussion of this dynamic in this post, embedded within the Safewords in Gaming thread.

[M. J. Young]

In principle, it should be possible for someone to take over GMing.  However, my experience is that in practice this almost never happens.  i.e. It is pretty much a given that a GM "owns" a campaign.  So a player can leave and the campaign continues, but the campaign can't continue if the GM leaves.

There have been two alternatives to this.  One is troupe style play, such as suggested by Ars Magica or Theatrix.  Each session has a GM, but the GM task rotates among members of the group from session to session....On the other hand, there are true GMless games like Soap, where the GM tasks are always spread among the players.  However, my limited impression is that GMless games tend to be short-term (i.e. no long campaigns).

Add a third.

In Multiverser, play revolves around the characters as individuals. When the guy who was refereeing for me was no longer available, I took my character to a common friend and let him pick up the story where we left off. In the forum game, it's becoming almost common for us to decide that one referee is running for too many people, and needs to pass someone to someone else, or that it would be good to bring these two players together in the same world so we have to pass one to the referee running the game for the other, or someone is going to be away for a while and rather than disrupt the game (which is played daily) they'd like someone else to take over.

Usually we make the pass at a moment when someone is changing universes, as this is easier for the new referee, who does not have to come to grips with all the known and as yet unrevealed details of an unfamiliar setting; but it has happened more than once that someone has been passed to another referee in the middle of an adventure, and the new referee has attempted to fill in the blanks from there.

So it seems to me that in Multiverser the campaign belongs the character player, and it is very possible for the referee to change.

That's undoubtedly different from traditional games because in most games the referee has all the information that matters, while in Multiverser all the information that really matters over the long term is on the character paper--worlds come and go, but characters are forever.

There are still many ways in which the referee exercises god-like power over the worlds visited by the characters, but that's not the same thing. As far as who gets to play, that's more often determined by who hosts the game and who everyone else is willing to accept at the table. However, I've heard horror stories in which a difficult player was also the host of the game, and the other players didn't know how to handle him because they'd lose their gaming room if they didn't accommodate his sometimes unreasonable expectations in play. (This was D&D.)

--M. J. Young

[beingfrank]

It's an interesting point.  In principle, it should be possible for someone to take over GMing.  However, my experience is that in practice this almost never happens.  i.e. It is pretty much a given that a GM "owns" a campaign.  So a player can leave and the campaign continues, but the campaign can't continue if the GM leaves.

One situation where I have seen campaigns continue after the GM leaves with moderate success and reasonable frequency is in Amber PBeMs.  Perhaps because such a high proportion of PBeM games fail, players are prepared to do more to keep them going, particularly if they've invested a lot of time in it.  And also, maybe because the PBeM format leads to players feeling more ownership?  Perhaps because they're more inclined to write from Director Stance occassionally? Or the format encourages a lot of player-player interaction with minimal GM involvement, so that they end up feeling that significant parts of the game and the plot can exist independant of the GM?

Also, it may be helped by the fact that the GM can ignore the fact that the game continues on without them.  It's not like the former GM is trying to arrange when to play with the rest of the group and they go "dude, no we can't play that day, we're playing that campaign you started, then ditched and Bob took over."  It's not as visible, and it doesn't overtly take players away from whatever the GM might be planning next.

Just thought I'd mention it as a situation where someone does take over from a GM and the campaigne continues, even in an altered form.

[ffilz]

Hmm, this thread is really wandering, but to get back to Darksmith's question:

So... GM is god... as long as it's beneficial to all involved?

So it's more of a Social contract that gives the GM the control he has in a game enviroment. The GM's 'powers' are directly tied to what the players will put up with?

I've always seen the GM as more of an abitrator or judge. The system gives us the 'physics' of our world. The GM gives us the situations or story that we, as players, drive or interact with. The decisions in game lay with the players, for good or ill, with the consiquences enforced by the GM.

Now that I think about it it seems that we're creating a hiearchy with in the SIS between the judge and players.

I have seen far more cases of the former type of GM than the second. In fact, I think it's really hard to be the second type, since the GM is more than just a referee, he is also presenting situations that he is involved in. You are definitely right that the power of the GM is totally part of social contract. I'm not sure everyone realizes this. GMs serve at the whim of the other players, but the game doesn't exist without the GM either.

There definitely is a hierarchy between the GM and the other players in most games I've participated in. If the GM is creating situation, then he has more control over the SIS than the rest of the group.

The only way to get a  truly neutral, referee, GM would be to have someone who isn't a player. I actually volunteered to do this the very first time I had an opportunity to play D&D, but I actually didn't really do anything because that isn't how D&D is usually played. In such a set up, there could be a "GM" who creates the setting and situations, while "players" experience the setting, but the referee would handle rules questions, not the GM. A referee could also have a role in a gmless game. In Universalis, one could have a referee that made sure the IIEE proceedures were being followed. The referee could also be the recorder and make sure the proper coin payments would be made. I suspect this wouldn't be a very enjoyable role for most folks though (for Universalis - for other games it could be quite enjoyable).

Frank

[Halzebier]

One way to deal with a lot of the negative ramifications of the "GM is God" paradigm is to institute the idea of player veto.

As far as I am concerned, a player always has a veto -- it's an inalienable right and not something which can be instituted or taken away.

But then, that's just the problem: many players and GMs fail to realize this.

When a group agrees to give players the right to veto, that is probably a useful first step towards this realization, but it still feels strange to explicity establish a right everyone already has.

Sort of like generously allowing people to breathe.

Regards,

Hal