GM is god?

[Christopher Kubasik]

I have to say I'm boggled by some of the arguements on this thread.

First, let's clear the air of something that seems to be causing confusion. The term social contract is a term that defines all aspects of the interaction of the players socailly. It's not written down. (I don't think it could be.)  It's the slow accumulation of understanding of behaviors between the players defined through circumstance and behavior -- whether explicitley stated or not.

Second, the contract is probably never finished.  When there's a disagreement about behavior, it's most likely because the situation has never come up before.  As Simon stated, the contract thus far will probably help resolve the new issue. If someone keeps breaking the contract the contract will need to be re-written to accept the behavior, the person will be encouraged to finally stop the behavior, or the person (or other people who can't stand it) will leave.

Third, I suspect that to some degree, "GM as God" is an acceptable social contract for those who like it (or, in my view, can't imagine anything better.)  In Scripty's group, the backrub was part ofthe social contract. The freakish incident isn't freakish because the "GM was God." It's freakish because the players all accepted it. That was the contract. They stayed because they bought that contract.

Fourth, and this is where the boggling really twists my head -- some people still, after all these years -- seems to be working off of some zero-sum premise of "It's either the GM or the Players in charge, or all hell breaks loose."  John suggests that either the GM's "story" gets tramped or the GM needs to be God.

How is it possible that the idea that "abuse" is just always hovering in the corner, that the people we choose to play with are the Creatures from the Id ready to go roughshod over each other if the GM doesn't step in and whip them into shape still exist?

Excuse me?  In 2004?  At the Forge?  No. No no no no no no.

Look, if people want to set up a tussle between the GM and the players for control of the fun -- fine, go ahead. That's the social contract the group's choosing and that's their business.  But it isn't a given.  There are too many actual play posts on these boards, too many games in print (paper or PDF) these days that break this paradigm.  It's not that this style see-saw play between the GM and the Players doesn't exist. It's that its just not the only game in town anymore.

If there's one truly valuable function the Forge serves right now it's exploding the assumptions about how RPGs "work", what they "are" and how they get played "right." This has nothing to do with the new way being better than the traditional way. It has everything to do with the new way being a whole new option.  And certainly being better for some people frustrated by the limited options that get bandied about about the "right" way to play RPGs.

The group playing an RPG can easily make the GM one player among players, with a different function, but it isn't a power battle.  (See -- oh, lots of threads covering Sorcerer, Primetime Adventures, Mountain Witch, Questing Beast, Dogs in the Vineyard, lots of Heroquest and Riddle of Steel threads, and more I'm forgetting._

Fifth, some might (and have earlier in the thread) jump in and say, "Don't put such a negative spin on the GM as God."

Here's my reply:

Look.  Play the way you want. I don't find that kind of play fun. I think it leads, at its most extreme, to the backrub story. But I get icked out even when it's all happening in-game. When I know I'm just jumping through GM hoops to keep the GM's "story" going (ie; play continues), when I know I'm not allowed to pursue what interests me as a player but subordinate all my interests, desires, passion and creative impulses to the desires of the GM, I just don't want to play.

If there are players that want to play that way, fine. But to assume that this is the price to be payed to keep the game going, that this the way games have to be, that this is the gold standard of good players giveing away their juice is -- in my view -- just another way of standing up and rubbing the GM's back to get the game moving again.

Play with the zero-sum power struggle between the GM and Players if you wish. But for gosh sake's, people, stop phrasing it like its a given.  It's not a matter of the Players run rampant of the GM keeps things moving.  It's not a matter of chaos or the GM as Writer/Cheater of Rolls/Authoritarian Whip Without Recourse.

That's the whole point of discussing the issue of Social Contract. It turns out there are a bazillion ways to negotiate great play among the Players.  And most of them have nothing to do with the Players bowing down before the GM's mysteriously granted authority to make all these decisions about creativity, rules (I'm counting fudging as rule-breaking here), and behavior about what and what cannot be said at the table.

It's strange, I tell you, strange, that people can still think this is normal.  But that's just me. What's objectively strange is that people assume this is the way RPGs are.

Christopher

[Callan S.]

How is it possible that the idea that "abuse" is just always hovering in the corner, that the people we choose to play with are the Creatures from the Id ready to go roughshod over each other if the GM doesn't step in and whip them into shape still exist?

It's basically because many people still play as if the rules of the game are the sum total of the social contract. Certainly I used to think this...when the idea of social contract came up to me originally I was like 'holy shit, I guess there are lots of other arrangements. Just could not see the forrest for the trees all that time!'

Someone playing this way plays like it's chess...if the rules say I can take your queen, I do (if I want). Likewise, if the RPG rules say I can stab my fellow PC (by walking 30 feet and making an attack roll) I can, and I can stab NPC's, and if the rules say I can walk in any direction I can just head off from the action, or sit and be boring and whatever. That's all fine, because the rules are the social contract and everyones agreed...there's nothing else to consider apart from that ink on the sheets of dead tree.

And so people running off this assumption do stupid stuff because why wouldn't you if it's okay (and it's okay if its in the rules). In comes the principle of 'GM is god' to police this, to stop this. You can't have this crap going on, so the GM is supposedly granted the power by the book to stop this and whip them players into shape.

In other words; instead of getting the players to be more responsible for themselves (ie, adopt discussed SC outside of the book rules), they are still left to essentially be irresponsible but with someone to stand over them with a wipping stick. This is like treating an alcoholic not by teaching him to look after himself, but by just grabbing the bottle off him whenever you notice it.

Of course you seem pretty damn nessersary if by not grabbing the bottle off him, the alcoholic will wreck himself. But while your there...he doesn't need to look after himself. Your perpetuating the problem!

This is what you'll find with many GM's who complain about their problem players. Often, like myself at one point, these guys haven't thought outside the rules box and that meta game SC can be created amongst them.

Other GM's insist on 'GM is god' when their players are the equivalent of reformed alcholoics. These GM's might insist they are snatching the bottle away because they have the power to do so, but if you look at actual play accounts you can see the player taking a reasonable sip then handing it over quite happily himself. Many of these players, even when given the chance to keep the 'bottle', will consider it then engage SC outside the rules and think 'nah, that'll just stuff up things'. So often these godly GM's have players who are policing themselves even without the GM noticing.

[John Kim]

Fifth, some might (and have earlier in the thread) jump in and say, "Don't put such a negative spin on the GM as God."

Here's my reply:

Look.  Play the way you want. I don't find that kind of play fun. I think it leads, at its most extreme, to the backrub story. But I get icked out even when it's all happening in-game. When I know I'm just jumping through GM hoops to keep the GM's "story" going (ie; play continues), when I know I'm not allowed to pursue what interests me as a player but subordinate all my interests, desires, passion and creative impulses to the desires of the GM, I just don't want to play.

I think this is a clash of definitions.  You are implying here that "GM as God" necessarily means the GM has to ignore player desires and prevent the player from pursuing whta interests them.  I'm pretty sure that those who are defending "GM as God" don't have that in mind.  This is made worse when you lump together traditional GM-power games (like Sorcerer and Over the Edge) with distributed GM-power games (like Universalis).  

In general, I'm fine with saying that you have slightly narrower interests in RPGs and don't like certain styles.  However, I disagree with reductionism of taking an example like the backrub and using that to say that all GM authority is bad.  That's same thing as taking a game which dissolves into "Did so! Did not!", and saying that is where lack of GM authority leads to.  Many Narrativist techniques here on the Forge are based on increased GM authority.  For example, plenty of traditional RPG players will balk at aggressive scene framing, where the GM suddenly cuts ahead to a situation which the PC has gotten himself into.  

So I think it's deceptive to associate increased GM authority with abuse.  There's no linear scale of either authority or creativity which leads to abuse.  For example, a film can have a director who has absolute authority and yet who actively promotes creative input from the actors.  As another example, it is acceptable to pay money to see a play where people perform and you have no control over the performance.  It's even generally acceptable that those who pay more may get better seats.  Yet in this thread, many people have implied that any surrender of authority or creative control in role-playing is abusive.  

Now, I know that a common answer to this is "Well, those are films/plays, and they are different than RPGs.  RPGs are all about player authority and creative control."  Well, to borrow a term from Ron, that just seems like synecdoche.  To give a personal example: In one of my two gaming groups, I have been GMing a James Bond 007 campaign.  While I'm more commonly in favor of PC proactivity, this game not only has a traditional GM authority over resolution, it also has had fairly linear plots (i.e. Participationist).  It has also been extremely popular compared to prior campaigns.  Now I've wrapped up that campaign, and another member of the group (Jim) will be GMing a HarnMaster campaign.  

I would accept that JB007 was more dominantly my creative input, while the HarnMaster campaign was more dominantly Jim's creative input, and the prior Lord of the Rings RPG campaign was primarily the GM David's creative input.  Now, I had some real complaints about David's LotR campaign -- but ultimately I think they boiled down to my dislike of David's input.  I think increasing his input as a player but decreasing it as a GM would just shuffle the dissatisfaction around.  

In other words; instead of getting the players to be more responsible for themselves (ie, adopt discussed SC outside of the book rules), they are still left to essentially be irresponsible but with someone to stand over them with a wipping stick. This is like treating an alcoholic not by teaching him to look after himself, but by just grabbing the bottle off him whenever you notice it.

Er, there are an awful lot of social groups which use the concept of an officer/leader in order to keep things under control or reign in abuse.  For example, the Forge uses an empowered moderator model to control abuse.  This is basic division of labor.  It's perfectly workable and often more efficient for some group members to have different responsibilities and powers than others.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi John,

I never said all GM authority is bad.

I said, "The GM is God" is bad. For me. I'm the one who finds it icky.  Because of the fun I want to have.  And I'm not saying the people who don't find "GM is God" is icky are fools. There are plenty of behaviors that I might get no pleasure from that I know others do.  I tried to be as clear about this as possible in my last post. I'm sorry I failed.

By the way, a game like Sorcerer clearly does not have traditional distrubution of GM-power.  Kickers alone shift the GM distribution of power to what is, for some people, an unprecendented degree.  (That's Kickers as defined in the rules.  Not the "Kickers are just plot hooks that get the players into the GM's story" rigamoral some people twisting themselves up into.)  I specifially did not mention Universalis because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about in my last post.

Finally, I never said "all GM authority is bad." The GM has a specific role -- even in all the games I mentioned -- that invovles authority. In your examples of the JB/Harn/LotR games you seem to be suggesting I think a GM doesn't have creative input.  This is absurd, and I would never suggest such a thing.  Frankly, it is this very binary ways of seeing RPG options that I railed against in my last post.

I'm glad your players enjoyed your game.  Really. I clearly stated the issue is not whether or not such play exists. Nor whether it is by definition bad for all.  (It clearly isn't.)  I stated as clearly as I could why I think it's bad for me and why.  We can spin around forever about whether or not I'm allowed my taste and opinion, but I don't think that's going to get us anywhere.  I've learned I'm going to piss people off my stating my preferences. I accept that.

Instead, my concern is whether or not people can broaden the definition of what can work.  A Sorcerer GM shares authority with other players in a way that apparently is off the radar for a lot of people.  He doesn't give all his power away. He doesn't vanish from the creative input. He has a lot of authority. But it's very different than most people are used to -- as far as I can tell, from posts about RPG techniques I've read around the internet.

Christopher[/i]

[Callan S.]

Er, there are an awful lot of social groups which use the concept of an officer/leader in order to keep things under control or reign in abuse. For example, the Forge uses an empowered moderator model to control abuse. This is basic division of labor. It's perfectly workable and often more efficient for some group members to have different responsibilities and powers than others.

A small but important distinction to make. On the forge, do I just type whatever I like, trusting in Ron to stop me if I go too far? Or does Ron remind people of their personal responsibilities on the forge when he see's a need to remind? In fact, you can see these types of reminders in posts by other people, here and there as well. Meaning anyone is capable of these polite reminders really. Making any requirement that just one guy has to do it, moot.

It's reminding someone to self police, which isn't the same as policing them. Now, Ron can just ban someone or such. But that involves a whole different level of interaction, escalating to a different type of exchange entirely.

[Scripty]

It's reminding someone to self police, which isn't the same as policing them. Now, Ron can just ban someone or such. But that involves a whole different level of interaction, escalating to a different type of exchange entirely.

I think that's an important distinction as well, Noon. However, I'm not looking to question whether or not a GM should have any/all authority over players. That's not my intent. I think that's been clear. I agree that a moderator is necessary (for most groups/games). But there are gradations to the policing that's going on in an average RPG session.

I think it's clear, though. that the extreme I'm addressing on this thread is closer to the policing-end of GM authority.

I'd like to examine (if anyone will join me) whether or not it would be beneficial for the GM's authority to remain unlimited/unchecked within the game and also the effect that various rulesets codifying, in actual text, that "GM is God" has on our pasttime. The last (and one of the most egregious) instances of me encountering this was the Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game, where an entire 1/4 of a page was devoted to explaining in explicit terms that the GM was "God" (using that word) and his word was unquestionable law.

I understand division-of-labor/need-for-mediator in RPGs. The question I'm looking at is: do we really need a mediator with this kind of explicit authority? When a game designer says a "GM is God" or "All rules apply to players, no rules apply to GM" do you think he/she turning off an entire subset of individuals who aren't interested in subjugating their creative interests to the whims of another? (Paranoia given an obvious exclusion to this, of course.) Isn't this opening the table up to some serious abuse (as I pointed towards in an earlier post)? If players are going by what they see in the book, and what they see is "The GM is God!", then could that be a factor when the GM says he wants them to insert a foreign object in their rectum and they go ahead and do it? (Note: I've never witnessed that. Praise Thed...)

Further, what doors are we closing by setting up such an authoritarian play experience. For example, I know my wife won't play RPGs because she sees them as (a) unwinnable and (b) rigged. She simply doesn't want anyone telling her what her character is doing/feeling (that's her "playing piece" as it were) and certainly won't stand for another person getting their jollies off of psychodramatic abuse at her expense (which very nearly occurred in one of the few, very few times she tried to roleplay). It's my hunch that she's not alone.

Do you agree that placing absolute authority in the hands of one participant may be pushing people away from the experience? And, even more, what kind of individuals are attracted to this kind of experience, both as GM and players?

Earlier, a poster had mentioned a "Veto" for players akin to a "Safeword". In my "backrub" example, I would've been blurting out safewords left and right. They weren't available at the time, however, and I doubt they would've done much good. Do you think safewords should be available to players and should they be codified in the rules, especially considering your explanation of players self-policing themselves only within the context of the written rules (as opposed to group mores), as a check to the GM's omni-authority?

Not intending to get too terribly verbose (I had a coherent post when I started, I really did), but I think a good example is White Wolf's Mind's Eye Theater which starts their "Laws of the Night" with a two-page-we're-not-kidding-around section that was written to basically keep their LARP players from getting arrested. The obvious inference from that is that a section such as that wouldn't have been necessary and would not have warranted such prominence if some dumba__ hadn't been busted/beaten up/injured someone for doing that kind of stuff in the first place.

Having formerly run a LARP, I can honestly say that their wording was not strong enough. As Storyteller, I was consistently in a position to remind players such-and-such was not cool, essentially the "nanny" role you'd mentioned earlier.

Should rules also contain similar stern guidelines for "what's not cool" for GMs to do? Do you think limits to a GM's absolute power should be codified in the system?

Given that what we are (technically) doing in RPGs is fiddling around in the bowels of each other's subconscious, don't you think that games should take some responsibility for things like GM abuse?

They already take responsibility for stupid players. Ron even does so in Sorcerer where he explicitly points out that people who take the game too seriously or too far are whackos (paraphrase mine). Why don't games take a similar responsibility for stupid GMs?

If we're telling the players not to light up a ball of gasoline-soaked linens and chucking it at other players during a game, how come we're not telling GM's that pushing one's agenda over on other people for a power trip or using the position of GM for quasi-sexual favors isn't cool either?

On one hand, it seems we're telling players "you can't do this/you can't do that" and we're telling GMs "You're God. If you have any questions, buy another one of our books..."

If we have a section telling the players, "Don't be a dipsh*t", how come we don't have a section telling the GMs, "Don't be an a**hole"?

Great discussion.

Scott

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Scott,

Good points about the game text.

I'd like to (as usual) broaden the God issue beyond concerns of actual violence and creepy sexual powergames and discuss creative power issues as well.

Game Texts often say to the GM: "You are the author of the story." Or, "You need to be colorful with the descriptions."  Or, "Do whatever you have to do to make the story work."

And players are told -- in text, and very often by tradition -- "You are responsible for playing your character." "Add voices! They're fun!" "You're job is to make a character who has a reason to be on the mission [as defined by the GM]."

Again, there's nothing objectively wrong with any of this.

But notice how all issues of authority are assumed and distributed between players and the GM.  The Player has power and creative input over the acarage of his character sheet -- the GM's got everything else. I think this is where the GM as God comes in.  It isn't just a metaphore for policing the game.  There is is this sense that the players are players charcters adrift in a universe not of their making, controlled by a force beyond their comprehension.  (Hence, fudged die rolls and the whatnot.)  Most game texts set up the relationship between Player's PC in the midst of the GM's World/Story.  To make sure you "stay in character," don't think "out of charcter," don't tap "out of character knowledge" are all ways of avoiding having the knowledge of the gods.

And, again, I say, great, if that's what you want.  But certainly successful games are being run where the players are allowed to use OCC knowledge to collude with the GM to make a more dramatic scene, where the players add their own color and descriptions to inform and enhance the game for everyone at the table, where the rules of the game are constructed so one need not depend on the GM to make sure the game doesn't derail into no-fun with a lousy die roll, and everyone finds the story as the dice fall and they move forward with tale with the specific authority granted by the game, creative agenda and social contract.

It's the assumptions of these texts that the the players are like fallen mortals cut off from the understanding of the Creator's intentions that I often have found so stullifying in the past.  

Ultimately, my point is, then, that in terms of creative authority, some groups make the GM God.  But others don't. . And the examples all over this site suggest there's no reason to think a game won't work well if he or she isn't.

Christopher

[John Kim]

On one hand, it seems we're telling players "you can't do this/you can't do that" and we're telling GMs "You're God. If you have any questions, buy another one of our books..."

If we have a section telling the players, "Don't be a dipsh*t", how come we don't have a section telling the GMs, "Don't be an a**hole"?

Um, we do.  Or, at least, such sections seem pretty common from my reading of games.  For example, here's the advice from the gamemastering chapter of the HERO System Rulebook (page 343):

As a GM, you'll find it all too easy to get caught up in your story, the great story you've got planned out, and to make sure you tell that story -- no matter how many improbable plot twists you have to throw in or player actions you have to ignore to make sure that your story takes place. But the player characters are the focus of your story, and therefore they and their players are the most important elements in your story. You should slant the story to suit them, not the other way around. Learning how to do this, and do it well, is one of the hardest things about good GMing.
...
Second, learn to adapt your stories to the players' cool and interesting ideas. Many a GM rejects ideas that the players come up with in the middle of a story, simply because the players' idea is different from what he has in mind. It doesn't matter if the players' solution to the mystery or combat situation is as good as, or better than, his own; he's determined to follow through with his story, and damn the consequences. This is wrong. Remember, your story focuses on the players and their characters. If they come up with an idea which is as good as (or better than) what you had planned or thought they would do, and you can adapt the story to conform to their ideas without ruining other parts of it or making major changes to the campaign world, do it. The players will gain a great sense of accomplishment and heap praise upon you for your excellent GMing -- and you didn't have to do a thing but listen to them and react accordingly.

Now, I'm not trying to make this out to be more than it is.  But as far as I see, the majority of games and gamers see railroading and GM absolutism as a problem.  It is an extremely common complaint.  In my experience, the above text represents a very common position -- the GM has final authority to resolve any disagreements, but that the GM also should be flexible and accepting of player input.  

Several people here seem to equate "GM is final authority" with "GM controls the entire game, and the players might as well not be there".  These are very different positions.  Having a final authority is a useful distribution of workload.  Someone can "abuse" that authority, but they can then be removed -- i.e. the players quit because the GM sucks.  Having the final authority doesn't necessarily mean that the GM cuts out all player input to the game.  There are some games and gamers which support sole GM authorship, but I'd say they are at least a minority and it's pretty common for gamers to dump on them.

[Scripty]

The Player has power and creative input over the acarage of his character sheet -- the GM's got everything else.

And often times not even that... I believe Sorcerer was the first game I read that made a point to admonish GMs not to tell players how their characters felt about something. When I first read it, I didn't get the connection. "What's wrong with telling the players, "You feel angry"?" I wondered.

Then I came to the realization of the stark trespass at work in that question. The character is the player's only real connection to what's going on. The only thing in rpgs (as they are traditionally played) that's theirs. Telling them not only what they see but enforcing upon them how they feel about it is, IMO, the GM hopscotching over one of the only lines left in roleplaying. That's something that Ron caught on to that I don't think a lot of GMs realize.

But, again, the GM can jump over this line whenever he/she feels like it in most games. We're beginning to see a prevalence of meta-game mechanics (such as Drama Points and Hero Points) I think as a reaction to this. Such mechanics often allow the players to "jump" over the fence and do something (like find an item or introduce an NPC) that heretofore was the sole responsibility of the GM.

Something to ponder, if GMs have always been able to jump the fence (and, IME, most do and/or have), and now we're getting players jumping over the fence, is it really that great of a fence? What's the difference between a player and a GM in a post-DramaPoint world if all it really amounts to is the players get 5 drama points and the GM has an infinite amount?

It's the assumptions of these texts that the the players are like fallen mortals cut off from the understanding of the Creator's intentions that I often have found so stullifying in the past.

I've found it stultifying too, which is why I wanted to examine it. I think a lot of players have hit their heads on the glass ceiling of the GM's puppet show from time-to-time. The true test of a GM, then, seems to be more one of hiding the strings (Illusionism?) than anything else, if we are to accept Marco's utilitarian vision of what makes a GM a fair arbiter vs. an autocrat.

I also agree that there are a lot of groups out there playing in this style and having a heck of a good time (primarily off the good sense/ethics/personality of the guy in the Big Chair). But I also see this heirarchical model as inherently limiting. Results will vary with it wildly from group-to-group. I wonder if that's really necessary or if something really qualifies as a "game" if such is the case.

For example, I can play Monopoly or Settlers of Catan in Birmingham or Seattle and it's pretty much going to be a similar experience. There may be a couple of rules changes. Maybe Free Parking wins me a lot of cash, maybe not.

But, in the end, my like/dislike of Monopoly will be based off of my experience with the game.

In RPGs, what I'm hearing, is that the rules really aren't all that important. What's important is the Big Chair, or rather the person in it. If we accept the heirarchical model of roleplaying as the One Way, then I question whether the act of playing an RPG is a game at all.

Because I can play D&D in Birmingham and hate it. Or play D&D in Seattle and love it. And this is just off the strength of the personality/fair-mindedness of the person running the event.

With such a wide variance based upon nothing explicitly stated in any rulebooks (i.e. personality), are rpgs really games? Or just wish-fulfillment psychodramas?

In which case, should we still be so haphazard about who GMs, considering we are likely giving them the same power over us as a therapist?

Maybe GM licensing is in order...

Um, we do.  Or, at least, such sections seem pretty common from my reading of games.  For example, here's the advice from the gamemastering chapter of the HERO System Rulebook (page 343):

...

Thanks for that snippet, John. I've never played or run Hero, so I hadn't read that before. I think it's a good thing that something like that popped up in a rulebook. I wish I could see more of it honestly. Do you think it goes far enough? Or do you think mechanics such as Buffy's "when you mess over a player give them a Drama Point" (essentially one step further) would be more effective?

Thanks again for the discussion.

Scott

[Tomas HVM]

Sorry, lost the answer I was giving to "Scripty" when trying to edit the d... thing.

[John Kim]

I also agree that there are a lot of groups out there playing in this style and having a heck of a good time (primarily off the good sense/ethics/personality of the guy in the Big Chair). But I also see this heirarchical model as inherently limiting. Results will vary with it wildly from group-to-group. I wonder if that's really necessary or if something really qualifies as a "game" if such is the case.
...
In RPGs, what I'm hearing, is that the rules really aren't all that important. What's important is the Big Chair, or rather the person in it. If we accept the heirarchical model of roleplaying as the One Way, then I question whether the act of playing an RPG is a game at all.

While I agree that RPG experience depends on the players, I'm not sure how much this has to do with the hierarchical model.  In my experience, playing a GMless game like Soap or Baron Munchausen will also vary wildly depending the people whom you are playing it with.  A good group can be great fun, but a group of people who you don't like or have differences with can make it dull or worse.  Personally, this is true for me even in the hierarchical model where the GM has heightened authority.  Playing with a good GM doesn't make up for having jerks or dullards as fellow players.  

Um, we do.  Or, at least, such sections seem pretty common from my reading of games.  For example, here's the advice from the gamemastering chapter of the HERO System Rulebook (page 343):

Thanks for that snippet, John. I've never played or run Hero, so I hadn't read that before. I think it's a good thing that something like that popped up in a rulebook. I wish I could see more of it honestly. Do you think it goes far enough? Or do you think mechanics such as Buffy's "when you mess over a player give them a Drama Point" (essentially one step further) would be more effective?

Well, since I thoroughly enjoyed HERO/Champions play for many many years, I have to say yes, I do think it goes far enough.  Out of curiousity, what is your play experience?  To me, advice like that quote isn't uncommon, though it is better than average.  At the time when it first came out, HERO/Champions was revolutionary in terms of the player power which it granted, in particular player-mandated opposition using relationship disadvantages (Hunted and DNPC), plus the high degree of player-designed and player-controlled powers.  However, there are a lot of games since the early 80s which imitated these features, although not always effectively.  

Many early games, like early D&D, were highly player-directed.  For example, a D&D DM using a typical published module had extremely little power over the story, and was something of a glorified accountant.  However, the story possibilities of the keyed-location format are very limited.  GM-as-plot-director comes more from later games, starting around the mid-80s, and it strongly influenced AD&D2 as well as the Storyteller games and others.  

The Player has power and creative input over the acarage of his character sheet -- the GM's got everything else. I think this is where the GM as God comes in.  It isn't just a metaphore for policing the game.  There is is this sense that the players are players charcters adrift in a universe not of their making, controlled by a force beyond their comprehension.  (Hence, fudged die rolls and the whatnot.)  Most game texts set up the relationship between Player's PC in the midst of the GM's World/Story.  To make sure you "stay in character," don't think "out of charcter," don't tap "out of character knowledge" are all ways of avoiding having the knowledge of the gods.

And, again, I say, great, if that's what you want.  But certainly successful games are being run where the players are allowed to use OOC knowledge to collude with the GM to make a more dramatic scene,...

There are other choices of games beyond these two, though.  Even if the players stay in-character and the GM has absolute authority over the external world, the story can still be dominated by the players.  This is true if PC choices have real consequences -- i.e. the PCs are empowered to be affected by their choices rather than being adrift and powerless to make choices that affect them.  This is a frequent preference of mine, because I want the story to be about the main characters and their in-character thoughts anyway -- not about the world.

[Rob Carriere]

Scripty,
You argue that your enjoyment of an RPG is dependent on the players present, especially the GM, and that this is different from other games. I would argue that's a difference of degree. Any game that has a strong skill component is going to show a big dependence on the players. You might play Go in Birmingham and be bored out of your skull and you might play Go in Seatle and be driven to the most beautiful game you ever played.

Any game that has a strong social component is going to depend on the players even more. This is why Western movies like to show fights breaking out over games of Poker.

A role playing game has both a strong skill and a strong social component and is thus at the ragged upper edge of player dependence, but that's `merely' an extreme version of a phenomenon that affects every game out there.

So, yes, I do think we need GM certification, and we have it already. It's the old advice that you should game because you are friends, not be friends because you game.

SR
--

[komradebob]

A bit of tangent, but:

GM Heavy-handedness strikes me as good when you are playing a relatively closed ended one-shot or short campaign with a definite story arc. I believe this relates to Participationist play. Some games make this almost a core style of play. Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia come to mind.

The key thing that seems to seperate this from unhappy things (Railroading, Illusionist play), is when the GM is upfront about these issues, and the character players agree to it. In these cases, there is something of a social contract issue involved on the players' part as well, in that they have agreed to follow the story through and trust that unexplained events and fudged rolls somehow relate to the event at hand. Theoretically, the GM should also be offering insight into appropriate character types and so forth as well, prior to the start of the scenario/short campaign.

GM heavy-handedness seems to be the bane of more open type settings. In situations such as setting up an open ended world ( fantasy type settings come to mind, but so does Lakefront City from Gangbusters), GMs really(IMO) needs to set back and riff off player ideas, only throwing in potential plot hooks when player ideas seems to slack off. Fudged die-rolls strike me as being really out of place in this sort of campaign environment. Similarly, the GM introducing a BigBad type plot hook here is certainly acceptable, but players ignoring it out or defeating it unexpectedly should not be that big of a deal.

The times I've seen a problem are when there seems to be a confusion over which general type of play people are looking for.

Closed ended stuff seems to go to hell in a handbasket if the players are unaware that the GM is looking for that, or haven't agreed to it. It's my experience that such things are absolutely miserable to be the GM for at those times. OTOH, players that thought they were coming up with quirky, personalized characters that could do whatever they wanted chafe like hell under overbearing storyline.

I guess what I am saying is that the whole gaming group really needs to be aware of which general mindset people are in prior to starting off. Both can be really fun. Both require some commitment and agreement by everyone involved.

As a GM, I don't think it is wrong to ask your potential players if they are willing to be in a Participationist style scenario. I have found that it is miserable to try to sneak in a linear scenario on players that don't want it.

K-Bob
PS- As always, this post is composed solely of my opinion, not set-in-stone facts.

[Scripty]

While I agree that RPG experience depends on the players, I'm not sure how much this has to do with the hierarchical model.  In my experience, playing a GMless game like Soap or Baron Munchausen will also vary wildly depending the people whom you are playing it with.  A good group can be great fun, but a group of people who you don't like or have differences with can make it dull or worse.  Personally, this is true for me even in the hierarchical model where the GM has heightened authority.  Playing with a good GM doesn't make up for having jerks or dullards as fellow players.

I agree with that. But the statement you were commenting on was a questioning of a correlation between placing so much authority/responsibility in the GM's role and a games success hinging on that GM's performance or attitude. Whereas I totally agree that bad players can make a bad game, I'm not sure that's always the case. However, because the GM plays such a pivotal role in this model, does that necessarily mean that a bad GM makes bad play? Is there a correlation there?

Most all the heirarchical/GM-is-God games I've played in have broken down when the GM was a jerk. Even when I subscribed to that as the One True Way, I noticed that if a GM was a complete meanie-pants then the game was going to blow. That's one of the reasons I gravitate towards the Big Chair in groups that I think may be questionable. I may not be the best GM, but at least I know I'll be fair and won't abuse my power.

Contrasting that, I've been in lots of games where a player was acting out for any number of reasons and abusing their role in the game. However, I've rarely seen an entire game suffer for it. It's happened, sure. But my experience has shown me far less correlation between "jerk player = bad play" than I've found between "jerk GM = bad play". Again, that's just my experience.

Do you think this correlation has anything to do with the GM's heightened authority? If we levelled the playing field in a game, do you think we'd see more instances of players bringing everything to a screeching halt? Or do you think we'd see less of it?

Out of curiousity, what is your play experience?

Yikes. It's easier for me to list what I haven't played than what I have. I started on all this with the D&D Red Basic set in 1981. Since then I've played every incarnation of D&D. I also played Gamma World, Gangbusters, Chill, Marvel Super Heroes, MURPG, Vampire, Call of Cthulhu, WEG Star Wars, Aftermath, Paranoia, d20, d20, d20, MURPG, HeroQuest, Donjon, the Window, Kobolds Ate My Baby, Shadowrun, RIFTS, various homebrews, Kirt's Unsung game... etc. etc. (I know I'm forgetting a bunch, but those are the ones on the top of my head)

I don't know if that measures up. But it's a pretty long list. Also take into consideration that I've read more games than I've had the opportunity to play, including Sorcerer, inSpectres, C&C, WHFRP, etc. etc.

I haven't played Hero/Champions but that was because I was never around anyone that did. I like that blurb though. I wish more games had that as a centerpiece of GM advice. I've read that the new WoD game has something similar. But I'm wondering if even that's enough...if the GM's actual role should be hard-wired into a system to see any real/uniform change across the spectrum. You say it does work, based on your experience. I respect that. But my experience with similar rules (as in MET's behavior rules for players) is that it isn't. But then again, I'm considering every case among 30 some odd players and not taking them as a whole entity, which likely isn't fair. If a new game came out that gave practical, "how not to be a jerk" advice in their GM section and the instances of GM's abusing their authority dropped from 40% to 15-20%, That would be a success, no question.

To me, advice like that quote isn't uncommon, though it is better than average.  At the time when it first came out, HERO/Champions was revolutionary in terms of the player power which it granted, in particular player-mandated opposition using relationship disadvantages (Hunted and DNPC), plus the high degree of player-designed and player-controlled powers.  However, there are a lot of games since the early 80s which imitated these features, although not always effectively.

Also please consider that I'm talking about more traditional models of games where players control the PCs and the GM controls all else. In my thinking that eliminates games such as Donjon or HeroQuest from consideration as, again to my thinking, they're more structured towards player input (which inherently, IMO, lessens the omnipotence of the GM). I think Hero is definitely in the vein of the model I'm looking towards. I think Shadowrun, RIFTS, D&D, CoC are other games that follow the traditional model of GM--Players. There are more, doubtless, but again those are the ones on the top of my brainpan.

IME, these games haven't had GM advice of the ilk that you describe from Hero. In its defense, MURPG does have a brief blurb about not being a complete jerk to the players. But it never brings the absolute authority of the GM into question. It follows the line of "The GM is God. His word is Law. That said, try not to be too mean to the players..." To my recollection, I found that section to be just as offensive as the "GM is God" section.

Many early games, like early D&D, were highly player-directed.  For example, a D&D DM using a typical published module had extremely little power over the story, and was something of a glorified accountant.  However, the story possibilities of the keyed-location format are very limited.  GM-as-plot-director comes more from later games, starting around the mid-80s, and it strongly influenced AD&D2 as well as the Storyteller games and others.

Oh, totally agreed. I mentioned earlier how my beginnings in RPGs pretty much spoiled me to having the GM take the bag with all the beans in it. Like I said, the GM used to be something, IME, that nobody wanted to be. It's also interesting, at least to me, that my experiences with roleplaying started encountering more abusive and autocratic GMing close to the time you mention the "GM-as-plot-director" role evolving. My first encounter with a pig-headed GM was in a D&D in 1992 in Monterey, California.

I'd never seen a GM actually be "in control" of the game before. My early experiences, however, did spoil me. And my first group did have to teach ourselves how to roleplay. We didn't have any older players to show us how it was done. So, we played a bit more with it and skipped the heirarchical model or any major control structures. Our group was smaller too. Two, maybe three, players and a GM. Nowadays, IME, groups of that size die out. GMs, again IME, seem to value their skill as a GM by the number of players they can draw to a table. And players seem to flock to that idea too, again IME.

Maybe I'm just flogging a horse here. Or being overly nostalgic.

Do you think I'm grating on the "GM-as-plot-director" as opposed to the heirarchy of GM vs. Player? Certainly, that was the time period where I first had any (and I mean any) problems at the table with my fellow roleplayers...

[Scripty]

Scripty,
You argue that your enjoyment of an RPG is dependent on the players present, especially the GM, and that this is different from other games. I would argue that's a difference of degree. Any game that has a strong skill component is going to show a big dependence on the players. You might play Go in Birmingham and be bored out of your skull and you might play Go in Seatle and be driven to the most beautiful game you ever played.

Hi Rob,
I get your point. But what I was trying to get at was that, as we were working through this model, I was questioning whether or not the "game" part of the experience even mattered if everything revolved around amicable GM fiat anyway. I don't much agree on the "Go" analogy, though. Go is Go, wherever you go. Whereas, you could play D&D with a group on one corner that measured out combats with pocket-rulers and with a group on another corner that just sat around and rolled maybe one die the whole evening. The kicker is that these two groups would nominally be playing the same game. I don't think many other games do that. Most games play according to the rules with only minor variations. Hence a more uniform experience. It was seeming to me that many people were saying that "GM as ultmate authority" was a good thing or bad thing based upon the personality/good judgment of the GM. I don't know of many other games that give a "referee" that sort of power over the experience.

So, in short (if I can ever presume to type that with a straight face), I was wondering how much of a role the players did have in a traditional RPG heirarchy, if so much rested on the GM's performance? I think John engaged that question quite well by pointing out that a bad player (or group of players) can abuse the Social Contract just as much as an abusive GM. I think that's true. But it led me to wonder what effect moderating the GM's role might have on the game as well. If we make the GM less powerful, would it lead to less abuse? But would we also, then, see an increase in players acting abusively?

I guess it boils down to some people are nice and some people are not. Which leads to your next point...

So, yes, I do think we need GM certification, and we have it already. It's the old advice that you should game because you are friends, not be friends because you game.

In a perfect world, I would do this, would have done this and would be doing this. However, I haven't found it always feasible to game with friends. Most of my friends either don't have time, aren't interested or have their own horror stories that drove them away from the hobby. I've generally met people through RPGs who then either remain friends or don't. Is this approach wrong?

Despite agreeing that it is good advice, I'm not sure I'd ever get to play RPGs if I took that statement to heart.