This fifth business.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

OK, after reading Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit, I've noted something.

He refers to a narrativist (as it were) GM as Fifth Business after an old theatre term, etc etc...

Here's my point.  The roll of fifth business does not seem to really require one person to take it on.  Fifth business has greatly diminished responsibilities compared to the typical GM. Anyone who is sitting at the table who isn't presently involved can take on the side character rolls or object to a current player's action or whatever fifth business is supposed to do. (The more I say fifth business the less I like it, but I digress)

After all the players are supposed to prepare, to a certain extent, the story they will play, based on their character's goals, premise, etc.  Fifth business  mere provides obsticles for the players (if they haven't done so already) and plays any supporting roles necessary.  The fifth business doesn't need to prepare the game. The players must all do this.  It falls to fifth business to improvise more than prepare.

SOAP doesn't use a GM/fifth business/whatever.
Baron Munchausen doesn't have a GM either.

There are probably quite a few other such games that likewise do not have a GM.

However, IIUC, Sorcerer has a GM.  Elfs has a GM.  Most games still have a GM.

OK.  So what am I missing here? What is it about the role of GM that makes it continue to be necessary to have one person take on that role in a game rather than a shared responsibility amoung the players that sort of floats of the proceedings.  Not to mention give players who's characters are not in the scene something to do besides watch.

I've been trying to puzzle this out and can't seem to figure it out.  But then, I really haven't been able to play a narrativist game session so I obviously don't know what's going on.

What's going on?

[ This Message was edited by: pblock on 2001-07-23 01:49 ]

[Mytholder]

I suspect that BM can get away without having a GM because there's never direct conflict or interaction between player characters. Part of the GM's role is to arbitrate disputes and ensure that everyone is "on the same page", so to speak, that everyone has the same mental picture of what's going on.

I suspect SOAP can do the same because (a) all the players are familiar with the rules and tropes of the genre and(b) it's a broad enough genre to handle lots of conflicts and, um, dissonances* without the story falling apart.

*: I'm using 'dissonance' to describe a situation where two players have different ideas about "what's going on" in a game. For example, the GM mentions there's a small door in the room. If one player thinks the GM means a slightly lower door, say about 5' tall, and the other gets the mental picture of a tiny pixie-sized door a few inches tall, that's a potential dissonance. It only becomes a problem if the misinterpretation starts affecting the characters (if the second player is being chased, for example, and doesn't try the door because he thinks it's too small to escape though...)

[joshua neff]

I like the whole "fifth business" idea (& I like the term--it calls to mind Robertson Davies, who I've never read, but has cool titles for his books, like The Manticore & The Lyre of Orpheus--but I digress).

As for the role of the GM in a Narrativist game, a la "fifth business"--I've been thinking of Ron's band metaphor, with the GM as bass player. It's the bassist's position to keep the rhythm, to keep the rest of the group focused & in the groove. The bassist keeps the rhythm, so that the guitarist, the saxophonist, the keyboardist (that is, the players) can solo.

So, in a Narrativist game, the GM is there to faciliate story-creation. It's the GMs position to keep the rhythm, through pacing & scene-framing, so that the players can solo, through their characters' protagonism.

Plus, just because the main conflicts & issues are generated by the PCs, doesn't mean there's nothing for the GM/fifth business to do, story-wise--there's backstory, NPC creation, relationship maps (if that's the way your doing it). Plus, scene-framing.

That being said, I see nothing wrong with switching off who's the GM ("Tonight, I play the Fifth Business!" she declared dramatically). There's nothing set in stone that says the GM has to be one person & one person only.

[Le Joueur]

There is a really subtle point I'd like to make here.  It is based on my experience with a live-action role-playing game playtest I 'managed' for a while.

pblock wrote:
OK, after reading Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit, I've noted something.

He refers to a narrativist (as it were) GM as Fifth Business after an old theatre term, etc....

Here's my point.  The role of fifth business does not seem to really require one person to take it on.

Actually, I think you are missing something Kubasik suggests indirectly.  Even though he clearly says that the 'fifth business' (his term for gamemaster in his storytelling entertainments) is on equal level to the 'leads' (his term for players in the same), he actually gives the fifth business more (or different) responsibilities.

Fifth business has greatly diminished responsibilities compared to the typical GM. Anyone who is sitting at the table who isn't presently involved can take on the side character rolls or object to a current player's action or whatever fifth business is supposed to do.

Except it comes through quite clearly, the way I read it, that the narrative is the gamemaster's 'character.'  This means the players are separate from the narrative and the gamemaster moderates many of their interactions with it.  He frequently refers to creating non-player characters and situations to help actualize the narrative potential of the player character designs (even though players could, he doesn't describe it).  In his style he seems to drive the narrative from this.  So to me it sounds like, while it might not be his 'plot,' he's the one who 'rides it.'

I feel his suggestion of sharing this duty is token verbiage with a nod towards the greater directorial power for the players in narrativism.  What it does do quite loudly in my ears is frame the narrative (despite it being originated elsewhere and being 'moved forward' by the players) as the fifth business' property (or maybe currency).

After all the players are supposed to prepare, to a certain extent, the story they will play, based on their character's goals, premise, etc.  Fifth business merely provides obstacles for the players (if they haven't done so already) and plays any supporting roles necessary.  The fifth business doesn't need to prepare the game. The players must all do this.  It falls to fifth business to improvise more than prepare.

Which sounds like his take on avoiding railroading.

SOAP doesn't use a GM/fifth business/whatever.
Baron Munchausen doesn't have a GM either.

There are probably quite a few other such games that likewise do not have a GM.

The run we had of Scattershot's live-action mechanics was likewise (but don't tell the players, I had them thoroughly convinced I doing the gamemastering).

Regardless, these examples can be considered far outside the tradition and more exceptions than a movement (yet).

However, IIUC, Sorcerer has a GM.  Elfs has a GM.  Most games still have a GM.

OK.  So what am I missing here?

I have asked myself this question many times, especially after the live-action game I ran.  You see, to test some theories I was working on at the time, I created a gamemasterless live-action game.  It rose out of some obvious problems 1) with not having enough gamemasters around to mitigate disputes and 2) having too many gamemasters around interfering with each others 'plots' (from other live-action role-playing games I have participated in).

The first thing I did was deputize no less than 20% of all participants as spot referees (to prevent having to wait for the gamemaster to mitigate disputes), the side-effect was people kept closer to the mechanics and fewer disputes were had.

The second thing I did was spin-off the 'business end' of things.  Using a naïve corporate business model, I got all the day-to-day issues of running sessions (playing fields, hours, recruitment, notification, and et cetera) out of my hands.  (Trust me keeping an organization as diverse as a live-action role-playing game together is more headache than gamemastering one.)

Third, and unbeknownst to the players, I played upon a rule in Scattershot that states that all players in the live-action role-playing game have to play at least two other personae (as in non-player characters).  The setting, because of what the group had tried previously, stole heavily from 'The World of Darkness' from White Wolf Games and that contained huge amounts of secret dealings and behind-the-back goings on.  What few realized I was actually divesting myself of all of the responsibilities of operating all 'the powers that be' and various movements and conspiracies.  Several players even walked right into it by asking for what they thought was altogether too powerful characters (which they got).  (I also created a set up for players to 'sign out' significant settings or props with a log of when and what state they were left in.)

After a few sessions where people 'got the hang' of the setting from me (which I facilitated with a few seminars and a detailed write-up) I was pretty much free to play the character I had wanted in the previous live-action game.

It was great fun, and I enjoyed the illusion of being responsible for all of it, but strangely, despite my protestations to the contrary, when I was forced to pull out (a newborn was something I needed time to work on), and it all fell apart.  I guess my biggest mistake was letting them think I was still the gamemaster.

Still, it was very much food for thought.

What is it about the role of GM that makes it continue to be necessary to have one person take on that role in a game rather than a shared responsibility among the players that sort of floats of the proceedings?

Outside of the roles of referee, host, and non-player character player?  Unfortunately, the answer is 'it depends.'  In Kubasik's model, I think it would be the person who shepherds the narrative forward, serving the tension and 'keeping it interesting.'  For those who measure their success by the structures in the game system, I would say it comes from orchestrating the appropriate obstacle(s).  For those who don't depend as much on published settings, it has a lot to do with communicating the 'world' to the players and maintaining the atmosphere.  Even for groups who meet primarily for mutual entertainment, the gamemaster can also become the sergeant-at-arms for good gamesmanship.

Ultimately I think it has to do with a couple of things.  Both are related to how a group needs to fill in those areas that an exclusively player-supported game might lack.

The first has a lot to do with things outside of the specifications of characters and settings.  In SOAP, The Extraordinary Adventures Of Baron Munchausen, and the live-action role-playing game I ran, they all depend on fairly strong implicit understructures (the soap opera genre, the fantastic world of the Baron, and the secrecy of 'The World of Darkness') to create what I call the context for inspiration.

Whenever the actions of characters or their interactions with setting reach a 'gray area' these structures create a dazzling backdrop purely by causing the player's imaginations to run amok along familiar lines.  Confronted with the wide-ranging possibilities, these genre conventions 'channel' the creativity within the game.  Without them, the overwhelming possibilities are frequently regarded simply as empty space.

The other thing I see a gamemaster doing is (more or less merely by virtue of existence) creating a unity of dynamic context.  All games I have seen are set in dynamic worlds.  Something 'big' is always going on in the background.  Without a gamemaster, this can tend to hemorrhage out into territory that isn't relative to anything of value to the players.  What the group values may vary, but a relative consistency seems to be important.

My theory for why this tends to happen is, in the absence of a gamemaster, and because the players usually look at everything in the context of their characters, the 'focus,' if you will, is lost.  The gamemaster (in part because they orchestrate so many more characters) does not fall into this as easily, allowing them more opportunity to do things explicitly in favor of this 'focus.'

What's going on?

After wondering the same thing for some time, I came to a rather unusual (I think) conclusion.  Foremost, I suggest that gamemasters are primarily the players of non-player characters (and operators of their belongings).  (As a game designer, I leave most of the arrangement of the 'hosting' duties to the social conventions of the people involved.  Likewise, while I also expect them to frequently act as referee, my personal design preference is to create a mechanic that supports all members serving this role when necessary.)

It is what the gamemaster does outside of this role that seems to be what you are looking for.  I think it is not so much anything that the gamemaster does other than this, but what they do with it.  Any of the models of gaming can talk about the goals of what the gamemaster does (and to a lesser degree how to do them), but I think that ultimately it becomes a matter of consistency.  Consistency to genre, to mechanics, to literary style, to fun, to stance, to whatever, I see it is about a compelling game that brings the participant back, and that spells some kind of consistency to me.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-07-23 14:14 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Since my name was pronounced, I shall pop into existence on this thread with my ears sticking out straight from my head.

(They don't, really.)

The role of GM in this mode play is as Josh paraphrased, but also - and this is important - to present scenes.

"At the warehouse ..." says the GM. The players have made it clear that they want to go to the warehouse. The GM mixes, matches, and figures out what's up at the warehouse. It could be something he's worked up months before playing, so this is a big creative payoff for him. It could be something he's improvised into existence a moment ago (which turns out to be BETTER than the notion he worked up months ago).

But it's the GM who says it's there. It's the GM who not only PLAYS the NPCs, but has full-time Director's Stance regarding them.

Yes, the players can point the camera, and even include stuff that wasn't previously designated ("realized") to be there. But it's the GM who arranged the location of the whole shoot, and continues to arrange this during play.

No, this isn't a power rant. I'm claiming that having a place for a buck to stop is a really good idea, when we're dealing with the larger scope of the story. It's especially good when you consider story structure ("climactic confrontation," which is NOT a throwaway fight scene) and the logistic shared-belief reality ("gotta ride like hell to stop Sue-Bob from getting hanged!").

This is why I keep claiming that attention to setting and even to location-details is not necessarily Simulationist. A Narrativist GM must still care and work with the physical and temporal reality within which the player-characters do their stuff. The ongoing question is, "Man, if they did THAT, then the best confrontation or information to deal with next would be THIS, HERE."

Such a GM thus is not railroading the players - in a way, they are railroading HIM. Yet he has a great deal of oingoing shot-location and timing-power with which to respond to their needs.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Just wanted to make a couple of quick notes on this about what I said above.

Ron Edwards wrote:
The role of GM in this mode play is as Josh paraphrased, but also - and this is important - to present scenes.

"At the warehouse ..." says the GM. The players have made it clear that they want to go to the warehouse. The GM mixes, matches, and figures out what's up at the warehouse. It could be something he's worked up months before playing, so this is a big creative payoff for him. It could be something he's improvised into existence a moment ago (which turns out to be BETTER than the notion he worked up months ago).

As I over-generalized earlier, this is purely a result of the non-player characters (and sometimes, player characters).  The warehouse has to belong to someone.  The contents both physical and narrative are a product of the plans, the goals, the hopes and dreams of the non-player characters (and sometimes influenced by the players).  This is why I generalize it to non-player character 'arrangement' (there's your band reference?).

But what if the player characters own the structure?

But it's the GM who says it's there.

Not necessarily.  The players may have characters of resource, who own said warehouse and it could be the non-player characters who "want to go to the warehouse."  I think it is presumptuous to say that the gamemaster presents all the scenes.

For some time now, I have been experimenting with just the opposite.  When I gamemaster in a game I usually think of as "whatever television show my players are enamored with this week," since I do not watch a lot of television, I prompt them to present the setting for the scene.  Often the rest of the scene comes with it, and it becomes an exercise for me to take the genre convention and make it interesting.  But in essence, the players present the scenes.  I think to say otherwise subtracts from the potential directorial power of the players.

It's the GM who not only PLAYS the NPCs, but has full-time Director's Stance regarding them.

Again, I think this is a little too much traditional predisposition.  I have found that my most compelling and 'deep' non-player characters come from setting aside the directorial stance and 'just playing them.'  While you might say that I still keep the director light on in my head while I do this, I think that is too strict of a dualism to say either I am director or I am actor.

[Uh oh, here comes a rant...]

In a lot of forums I frequent on the internet, I see this time and again.  Everything is broken down into orderly systems.  You're either A or B, never both.  Some people disagree, but I have never seen them explain their points at all well.  To this I say 'what about sophistication?'

Take a moment and think about the immersive stance.  Do these types of player totally forgo dice?  Do they flout rules when it interrupts their immersion?  Sometimes maybe, but more often then not I suggest they practice a sophisticated immersion.  People relentlessly trapped in dualistic thought will insist that these 'sophisticates' are rapidly switching back and forth.  I don't think so.

Having practiced several types of gaming over my career, I have to say there are times you do both, simultaneously.  The human mind is an amazing thing, if people can coherently practice a double standard, why is it so hard to believe that an immersive player might 'section off' the part of her that deals with dice and rules and be able to do both at once?

Whew, sorry about the rant, but it is something that has needed to be said for some time.  Anyway, as I was saying, I don't believe that the gamemaster necessarily has to have a director-only stance.  But, yes, by and large that is what its like.

Yes, the players can point the camera, and even include stuff that wasn't previously designated ("realized") to be there. But it's the GM who arranged the location of the whole shoot, and continues to arrange this during play.

Traditionally this is true, but I hardly think that it must be restricted to this.  As a matter of fact, whenever I am called upon to run 'high power' campaigns, instead of throwing even higher power problems at the players, I reverse the above.

Since the players usually have not designed their castles, or bases, or encampments, or whatever in great detail, and since I choose not to 'step on their toes' by creating those myself (I may have studied architecture, but only enough to know I cannot do it as well as a couple of my friends), I more often than not have to have them set the scene.

Like in the "television..." campaign, it usually follows that they know more about the goings on within their holdings than I do; so I get them to "present the scene" more often than not.  (In these campaigns, most often, I present a theme stolen from a couple of truisms; "any sufficiently absolute power is indistinguishable from corruption absolutely."  This turns the genre on its head and makes the player characters the 'defenders.')

And if you wish I could put it into the 'found art' terms of player directorial stance, they just happen to 'realize' the scene that is presented by them.  They 'found' the location; they 'found' the point of contention ("what's up at the warehouse"), it can and is easily done.  In fact, one of our best games was all about a series of scenes presented entirely by one player (though me, but he did all the work, I just said the words) for his character's death scene.  Everyone thought we had conspired greatly, but in fact I was nothing more than a mere referee for that one.

No, this isn't a power rant. I'm claiming that having a place for a buck to stop is a really good idea, when we're dealing with the larger scope of the story.

I am right with you on the Harry Trusim.  While I believe anything is possible in terms of player directorial stance, I still see it falling mostly to the gamemaster, when all else fails.  (Did I mention it was because they run the most characters who own most of the stuff?)  This, by the way, is what I point to as the most obvious difference between "let's pretend" and role-playing games.

The real problem I have, considering what I believe about the above, is how to write it into the 'how to' gamemaster section for Scattershot (which is also supposed to be for beginners).  Any ideas or examples?

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-07-23 18:22 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Fang,

We agree entirely. My post concerned only this issue: WHEN a GM does any creating or control, WHAT this consists of. When he does not, well, then your examples and concepts apply.

Good GMing of the sort we're talking about is of course a combination of the two.

I'd like to get this very clear because a lot of people mistakenly think Narrativism and non-railroaded play means "utterly improvised play," which is incorrect.

Best,
Ron

[Damocles]

I really, really think there should be another term for this. 'Sophisticated' seems to imply superiority.

[Le Joueur]

Damocles wrote:
I really, really think there should be another term for this. 'Sophisticated' seems to imply superiority.

Me too.  But I cannot think of any...I had considered cosmopolitan, but then there is that magazine....

Pretty much all the synonyms are the same.

Fang Langford