GM is god?

[TonyLB]

It was just a cynical ploy to garner favor from another human being.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

To my eyes you're describing a functional social contract which you happened to not want to participate in.  If backrubs and favors-for-XP between consenting adults are exchanges where both people value what they get more than what they give then how is that anything but good?

If the GM feels it's dramatically appropriate, he or she can alter any die roll or ignore any rule.

That's one minor facet of the larger fact that there are no rules to govern and constrain the behavior of most GMs.  This is a problem for the GMs more often than for the players.

Imagine you go to play a game.  You say "Okay, what sort of character should I make?  What are the rules about how powerful they can be?", and the answer is "Oh, make any type of character you want, as powerful as you like.  We don't want to constrain you with rules.  But if it's not exactly right to be a fair and interesting balance with the other characters then all the players are going to glare at you and whine and moan about what a bad player you are."

That would be annoying.  You'd have just "graduated" from being able to play the game and try to have fun to being nanny to everyone else around the table.    When I participate in a game I want to be able to prioritize having my own selfish fun, within the rules, without ruining everyone elses good time.

[Scripty]

If backrubs and favors-for-XP between consenting adults are exchanges where both people value what they get more than what they give then how is that anything but good?

Interesting. So outright bribery is on the table? Doesn't that, by the bare statement of it, eliminate any possible validity of regarding the role of GM as a fair and impartial referee? Isn't that part of the "first among equals" mindset we're discussing? That the players must abide by the rules but the GM is a special player that can ignore, adapt or amend the rules to his whim? How does that not fit into "GM is God?"

As for it being a good/bad thing, there are swamps of relativism to get lost in there. Sure, it's good for the GM. Very good for him. It's good for the player (from a game perspective) although I won't go into to the less-than-altruistic manner in which he acquired the ticket.

It's not so good for the players who can't afford to buy the GM's favors. Personally, I abhor politics. Understanding that humans are political beings (as much or even more than social beings), I am resigned to being caught in the sleazy intricacies of quid pro quo likely until the day I die. However, isn't this a subversion of the Social Contract, rather than a reinforcement of it? Is "I run this game, what I say goes. Contributions are accepted...." really a workable (even a valid) Social Contract?

Sure, Third World countries (and some Wal-Marts) are run that way. But is it really the type of organization we're willing to devote one-night a week towards? (I hear a reference to going to church coming along...)

That's one minor facet of the larger fact that there are no rules to govern and constrain the behavior of most GMs.  This is a problem for the GMs more often than for the players.

I agree that it's a problem for the GMs. I think it's often a problem for the players. I've personally never had a GM have to serve as my "nanny". Sometimes I've felt like a few players' nanny though. Still, isn't this just a side effect of the GM taking on too authoritative a role in play?

And if it is truly a problem of creative input or free will (even dignity) for the players...

And it is truly a problem of having to "be everything to everybody" for the GM...

why don't we do something about it? Why do people keep sitting in the Big Chair?

Is it really just that these individuals are exceptional people who want to lead the flock?

Or is it a matter of control over others?

Or is it a matter of having been screwed over so mightily (and so often) that one individual would rather take the reins and either (A) do the screwing himself or (B) try and prevent anybody getting screwed?

Scott

[Tomas HVM]

Hi Scott,

a lot of thoughts there. I'll stick to one point, relating to what I wrote:

GMs fugding their rolls. Yes, it happens. In some games or with some GMs it happens all the time. A friend of mine told me a funny story the other day, about him and his game group giving the Gm a new die in a session. They new he was fudging, and having given him a D3 without his knowledge, the whole session was trqansformed into a bizarre show of how much he fudged. He did it all the time. At the end of the session he discovered the ruse, and exclaimed: "This f... die has no sixes"! They all laughed and he reddened.

I maintain that IF you are to have a God in roleplaying games, it must be the die. The GM is but a mediator of heavenly messages. Like any other priest he may corrupt the message, and that is alright with me, as long as the "priest" in question makes it to improve the lot of his herd (not to enrich himself or, in this instance; to make his NPCs the winners). I believe that the welfare of humans should be first and foremost in  our mind, not the welfare of some remote God, or his church.

The same is true for games: let the gamers and their drama be your first priority, and let the system play second violin. A GM fudging rolls to keep the drama alive is following a sound principle in my view; using his free will to be a true mediator for the game.

So you may conclude that the game is God, but then this whole "God"-idea becomes so far fetched it's not worth discussing.

I sincerely believe we need to lay it aside for more nuanced notions about what the GM is, and is not.

By the way: GM is God!

[Vaxalon]

I maintain that IF you are to have a God in roleplaying games, it must be the die. The GM is but a mediator of heavenly messages.  

Amber, Nobilis, etc. etc. etc.

[Tomas HVM]

Amber Godless roleplaying :-)

[TonyLB]

Interesting. So outright bribery is on the table?

Anything that players do is part of Social Contract.  So yes, if they're bribing each other and most people seem fine with that then it's part of your Social Contract.  Indeed, it's part of your system, according to the Lumpley Principle.

Honestly, I find it a refreshing break from most GM-is-God behavior I've seen.  The guy is outright saying "I'm human, I'm arbitrary, I don't attribute myself any special judgment or wisdom... I'm just the guy at whom the buck stops.  Gimme a backrub!"  That's ever so much nicer than "I am all-wise and all-knowing!  My decisions are made with superhuman judgment!"

It's a game.  The goal is to have fun.  If this is fun for them, what's wrong with that?



On "Amber Godless Roleplaying" (heh), I think that Tomas's statement about the GM as arbiter of the rules, borrowing upon their agreed-upon authority, translates perfectly well to non-Fortune mechanics.  The general principle is that the rules can provide a mediating layer between players who want different things:  They can both try to achieve what they want, and the rules "tell" who succeeds.  That mediating layer does not need to be vested in an individual.

[Scripty]

Anything that players do is part of Social Contract.

Implicitly, I agree. But rarely have I known groups that set out the rules of the Social Contract and explicitly included bribery as being an acceptable form of interaction, outside of items such as a particular type of chips or candies. IME, most groups would cringe at the notion of explicitly allowing high-dollar purchases or psuedo-sexual favors at the gaming table to garner favor. Hence, I've been surprised at how often I've seen these cards played in the last 10 years or so.

So yes, if they're bribing each other and most people seem fine with that then it's part of your Social Contract.

And that's the sticker. Most people weren't fine with it. In fact, no one was fine with it (except the GM). I thought you were referring to the ticket-buying player (different player-different GM-same college) but I see that you're more focused on the backrub...

which is truly one of the most disgusting social interactions I ever witnessed. After that game, I wanted to quit roleplaying. Forever. It really was watching a human being relish in the abject subjugation of another group of human beings.

I guess you had to be there. The girl's character was about to die. She didn't want that to happen. Whether or not the GM fudged the die roll to "force" the issue is something I've never cared to contemplate, but I wouldn't have put it past him.

She sorta looked at him with a "what now?" kind of expression to which he replied: "You know what to do..." She got up and started rubbing his shoulders. If this were an in-joke or comical, I would've laughed. If it were group policy, I would've laughed and probably given the guy a good kneading when it was my turn. But it wasn't a joke. And it wasn't funny.

The effect of sitting there, in silence, watching this slob get his pimply back rubbed by a girl while he stared down every other guy at the table like some kind of freckly, silver-backed gorilla is not an image that has been easy to burn from my mind.

Make no mistake, this wasn't a joke. It was one member of a group saying: "Hey, see, I can get this hot chick to rub my back, even while her boyfriend just sits there and watches. I own her. I own you."

And, really, that was this guy's attitude. I left his game for good shortly after this incident and actively avoided any game that I knew he would be running. He played in a few of my games but overall wasn't keen on being a player, just running (wonder why?).

I didn't (and don't) understand why everyone else didn't leave as soon as I did. His game lasted maybe the first semester of school and then, finally, most of the players had enough of his BS to find something better to do. He dropped out of college by the second semester. Haven't heard from or seen him since. Not real interested in it either.

Honestly, I find it a refreshing break from most GM-is-God behavior I've seen.  The guy is outright saying "I'm human, I'm arbitrary, I don't attribute myself any special judgment or wisdom... I'm just the guy at whom the buck stops.  Gimme a backrub!"  That's ever so much nicer than "I am all-wise and all-knowing!  My decisions are made with superhuman judgment!"

Like I said, I would be totally behind you if this were the case. But it wasn't. He did put on the airs that his rulings were objective and authoritative. That he was fair and competent.

I think your impression of the event and what actually happened are two very different things. This wasn't Monty Python. This was more like ab3 meets American Psycho. You see it in a comical light and, sure, that element can be added after the fact. But no one there was laughing. And it was incredibly unfunny while it was happening. It wasn't a GM just being level with everybody, making light of his authority. It was a GM using his authority to force his dominance over the players in a manner that I'm, to this day, puzzled as to why they (the players) followed suit. I'd liken it more to "marking his territory" than anything else.

Hence, this question (GMs placing themselves "above the herd" and the effect it has on players, games and (ultimately) the hobby) has some gravity to me, if only because I've seen what I consider the darkside.

[Vaxalon]

Amber Godless roleplaying :-)

That is funny in SO many ways.

[Tomas HVM]

On "Amber Godless Roleplaying" (heh), I think that Tomas's statement about the GM as arbiter of the rules, borrowing upon their agreed-upon authority, translates perfectly well to non-Fortune mechanics.  The general principle is that the rules can provide a mediating layer between players who want different things:  They can both try to achieve what they want, and the rules "tell" who succeeds.  That mediating layer does not need to be vested in an individual.

Thanks Tony; you said it as good as I could say it.

As for your "fascination" with the backrub-bribery: any social contract between the players is actually broken if one of them find the actions of the other players reproachful. The backrub is a corruption of the game if ever I saw one. I'm a moneylacking middleaged baldhead with bad social carisma, so a game with blackmail as one of the ruling principles would leave me way behind. I'm like most people in this respect: I'd like my games to give equal oportunities to the players (I know they seldom do so anyway, but I do not like to have unfairness and social darwinism glaring me in the face).

[TonyLB]

Oh come on folks.  I'm not even focussed on the backrub.  I just thought "Gimme a backrub!" was a funny phrase.  And I was talking, explicitly, about consensual acts.  You say it was non-consensual, I'll believe you, in which case I find it repellant.  Enough so that, frankly, I wish you hadn't shared the image quite so graphically.

But now I'm all curious about a statement by Tomas:  Are you serious in saying that any time a player is ticked off Social Contract has been violated?

I don't see how that can be the case.  If you think bribery's reprehensible, and Joe thinks it's standard operating procedure, and you've never talked about it then what you have (IMHO) is not a violation of Social Contract.  It is simply a lack of communication.  Am I missing your point?

[Tomas HVM]

Are you serious in saying that any time a player is ticked off Social Contract has been violated?

That's not what I'm saying, and I am serious about it.

The socalled "social contract" is an agreement on what to do and how to do it. When someone shouts out about injustice or malpractise the social contract is broken. Whether it is rebuilt or not depends on both parties' ability to communicate, and any necessary will to change.

[Callan S.]

Has it been established yet that the person who is called GM by the rest of the group has whatever powers they give to him? There seems to be a line of thought through this thread along the lines of 'If your GM, you get this and this. You just get it because your GM'. I think it's a bit of a learning hiccup. For example, a policeman doesn't get to arrest you because he's a policeman and they just get to do that. He arrests you because you are accept the structure he's from and grant him the power to do that (and follow up by not resisting).

There really seems a reflex that if someone is GM, then they get powers over you even though you conciously didn't give them. Or that by consenting to calling them GM, your also consenting to their being able to do things you didn't know might happen but can't withdraw your consent over.

Scripty: That was an abuse of trust. Just had to just validate you on it, the guy was a wanna be nazi.

[Scripty]

Sorry to share so graphically, but it honestly seemed I wouldn't get my point across without being explicit. This was, without a doubt, one of the most disturbing abuses of GM "authority" that I've witnessed. It was difficult for me to accept that it was just a GM picking fun at his own power over others. I was there. This wasn't the case.

Had I not been a part of this game, I likely would share Marco's view of GM power (i.e. as long as it doesn't screw me over too hard and too often, I really wouldn't care)

There really seems a reflex that if someone is GM, then they get powers over you even though you conciously didn't give them. Or that by consenting to calling them GM, your also consenting to their being able to do things you didn't know might happen but can't withdraw your consent over.

This is precisely what I was hoping our discussion would examine.

How many groups explicitly state, up front and with no ambiguity, what powers the GM has and what powers the GM doesn't? IME, most of the "authority" of the GM is assumed, not given.

I still haven't come to terms with the rest of the group going along with the above incident. Nor have I come to terms with other groups that caved in to similarly abusive or otherwise authoritarian GMs. I wouldn't assume that most GMs out there are of this vein. But I've run into no fewer than three in the last 10 years that took this attitude towards their players, to varying degrees.

Scripty: That was an abuse of trust. Just had to just validate you on it, the guy was a wanna be nazi.

Thanks for the validation, Noon. I felt so too. Perhaps that experience gives some degree of clarity on why I would be so vehement on this issue.  

Scott

[simon_hibbs]

The socalled "social contract" is an agreement on what to do and how to do it. When someone shouts out about injustice or malpractise the social contract is broken.

I'd prefer to say it's being challenged, perhaps initiating a debate and resolution procedure that may be an established part of the social contract. It all depends how the 'contract' is constructed.

Any social contract will include mechanisms for resolving disputes. Also activities will often take place that are not covered by the social contract. In fact social contracts are generaly developed through a process of gradual accretion as new situations occur and the social contract is extended to cover them. Managing this process is one of the primary functions of the contract and probably the first function that needs to be agreed upon in most cases.


Simon Hibbs

[John Uckele]

Okay... That backrub deal is a seriously disturbing story. That being said, I think this leaves us with a statement that GMs usually have considerable power in-game. Is this a bad thing then? Sometimes.

My players (at least those who are present for more than 1-2 games), enjoy playing in my games (at least, I presume so given that they bug me to run more). At the same time, I expect and wield absolute GM God-Power. I can and do skip rolls, or fudge rolls on occasion (the prelude adventure I ran a few days ago for a new game was a diceless game because I needed very explicit things to happen and had little room for compensation in certain places).

I have also heard about abuses to GM God-Power. I guess backrubs among them. I don't think this is a problem so much with GM God-Power as it is with 1) players who take abuse, 2) GMs who give abuse. If you remove the GM God-Power you now increase your precense of 1) players who give abuse, and 2) GMs who take abuse. You'll still have abuse of some kind in the group (like the poor GM who now gets any attempt he has at running a story mauled). At the same time, by toning down the power of the GM, you remove fudging to save characters.

So given that perspective, I think "GM is God" is alright. I think that bad GMs can and do exist, and social contracts are rarely if ever written out before hand. GMs get at much power as their players let them. If the GM is strong arm enough (apparently you need to get pretty bad sometimes), they loose the game (like no one plays in a game they run anymore).