Players, players, I can't stand it anymore

[Steve Dustin]

Everyone knows what a GM does. And everyone knows who the Players are (everyone but the GM). But then everyone also knows the GM is a player. But stopping to explain that the GM is a player not a Player is frustrating as all get out, and just inviting a confusion meltdown.

Now, this is pretty trivial, but I think its time to give Players an acronym (like GM) so everyone knows who we're talking about. I've come up with some, and they are all atrociously bad. But I'm throwing them out there anyway.

Character Players (CP)
Game Players (GP)
Not the GM (NGM)
Game Slaves (GS--the opposite of Game Master)
Role Players (RP)

Now, this kind of fluff piece might do better on RPGnet, but I thought I'd give the 'think-tank' of the Forge first crack. I'm partial to CP but I think its ridiculous that the game alter ego of a CP is a PC (maybe now its CPC? Now it looks like a hallucinogen).

Steve

[Zak Arntson]

At the very beginning of my games, I tend to state outright that there is the GM and Players (if that's the split for the game). They're both capitalized words. Anytime I talk about all the players it's not capitalized, and I usually provide a note like "... all players (including the GM) ...".

[Steve Dustin]

At the very beginning of my games, I tend to state outright that there is the GM and Players (if that's the split for the game). They're both capitalized words.

But you don't talk in capitals. This isn't a huge issue (like you know, defining Dramatism or Illusionism), just wouldn't our lives be easier if we could say there's GMs and then there's the NGMs so that nobody gets confused?

My problem is I can't think of an acronym that is remotely respectable. I mean, if someone out there can coin GMCs (Game Moderator Characters) then why can't we coin one for capital P Players? (CPP? Or is that too close to OPP?)

Or maybe the acronym should be for all players in the game -- PIGM (players including the GM). Hmmm. Sounds like Dig'em.

Steve
whose not losing sleep over this, but thinks somebody should be

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I tend to say "people" or "participants" when referring to the humans who are involved in role-playing. I somewhat less carefully to say "GM" and "player" when referring to the traditional roles. I can't think of any reason to add jargon to the mix, when people/participants is what we mean, so perhaps it's just a matter of being careful about it. In other words, instead of "tend," I ought to use these terms exactly and no others.

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

My penny:  I use GM and PC without worrying about the kinds of RPGs where the latter term's precision undoubtedly falls short.

Best,

Blake

[Walt Freitag]

Partly from my time spent in Interactive Storytelling I use "participants" almost exclusively when including players and GMs. ("Player" is not appreciated in IS circles because what, you think we're talking about mere games here? Tut tut. Fortunately, there's absolutely no useful verb for what all those participants are doing except "play" so sooner or later a spade gets called a spade, even when inordinate amounts of artistic pretension and/or grant funding are involved.)  <--- utterly irrelevant comment, must need sleep.

- Walt

[Brian Hose]

Hi there,

Ah, it seems to me, that everyone is using the the same terms with different meanings.

This is very common in the english language, why?

1) many words HAVE multiple meanings.  The exact definition is decided by the context in which the word appears.  and...

2) many people are criminally casual in their understanding of words and their use in context.  I'm very definately NOT accusing anyone just highlighting a problem.  People use words according to what they believe the word means...whether they are right is another matter.

Ok...what do I use?
I hate to draw on a sporting term...I really do...but:

I am the referee.

Other people particpating are the players.

Characters are roles played by the players (where do you think the word comes from).

Characters under my control are just plain old Non-Player Characters(anyone out there who asks for an explaination of that one is just intellectually lazy so don't explain, make them work for it - raise their standards)

I think these break it up into broadly defined and easily understood categories.  After all, players and referees are part of the same game just with widely separated points of view and objectives.

Just thought I'd run that one past you all and wait for any screaming or whatnot.

Be cool, be happy, good gaming to y'all,
Brian.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Brian,

I think you may be missing the point at issue. The problem isn't the precise meaning of "player-character," or the differences among GM vs. Narrator vs. Referee vs. Whatever. It's the distinction between the fictional situation and the real one, especially when we want to talk about the real people's concerns.

Even in absolutely classical role-playing, the player-GM distinction can really trip up a conversation when we're trying to talk about GNS priorities. People have often fallen into the trap of thinking that GNS-talk must be about what "the players want" in some way that's opposed to the activity of the GM, or conversely, what the GM is laying down for the players to swallow. They are so used to the GM-player distinction being fundamental that considering "the people" in play, as a unit, is not immediately apparent.

That's what Steve was squinting about - should we use "Player," capitalized, to mean "person involved in the role-playing regardless of GM status?" And "player," lower-case, to mean "person who is not the GM?" Or what?

Even more funky, what about some systems and modes of play which are definitely role-playing games, but move outside the traditional roles? In Soap or Pantheon, is everyone a player, or is everyone a GM? Should those terms simply be abandoned for such a game? How about in Universalis, in which the existence of any player-characters at all is wholly optional? Other problems crop up even for apparently more "normal" games: in L5R, the GM literally plays the characters' internal consciences (their Honor, which players have no control over whatsoever).

These aren't trivial issues that can be resolved with a wave and a "that's obvious" comment.

Best,
Ron

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Even in absolutely classical role-playing, the player-GM distinction can really trip up a conversation when we're trying to talk about GNS priorities. People have often fallen into the trap of thinking that GNS-talk must be about what "the players want" in some way that's opposed to the activity of the GM, or conversely, what the GM is laying down for the players to swallow. They are so used to the GM-player distinction being fundamental that considering "the people" in play, as a unit, is not immediately apparent.

Whoa...light-bulb-over-head time.

If GNS preferences apply to the GM as much as to the Players, then...that completely changes my thinking about my own gaming. I'm not a Simulationist GM/Narrativist Player--I'm a Narrativist who is used to GMing for Simulationist Players, because the alternative is being a Narrativist Player in a game run by a Simulationist GM, which is not very satisfying.

(I'm capitalizing Player to emphasize that I am using it as an antonym for GM.)

So in that light...everything that I do to cater to my Players' Simulationist preferences is potentially detracting from my Narrativist enjoyment.

Is that what you're saying, Ron?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Seth,

Potentially, yes. It might be the case, however, that you have arrived at a means of GMing that is enjoyable enough, in itself, that your Narrativist leanings are at least kept from starving to death. As I've said a number of times, certain compromises between any two of the GNS priorities are perfectly functional.

As for GNS applying in full to "persons involved in role-playing," with no specific reference to GM or player status until we focus onto a particular situation, then yes - you are right on target with the above post.

Best,
Ron