There is only players in RPG

[Tomas HVM]

I've had this recurring idea on RPG's, a new theoretical stance, and it's a very fruitful one:

There is only players in a roleplaying game. The so called "games master" is nothing but an empowered player.

Fruitful? Well, yes, it's made me think different when writing and thinking RPG's, and it's made a heck of a difference. The ideas I come up with are strange, new, refreshing. It has given me a fresh view on RPG's.

In considering all participants in the game as "players", and trying out the effects of empowering them in various ways, I seem to have stumbled over a whole new set of tools as a games designer.

And it's such a simple idea!

I find it fascinating!

[Minx]

I totally agree with you.

Once you start to think about it that way, some often-made mistake become very clear. Like the overrestictive GM that "bullies" characters and players alike, but also overlethargic players, who only sit there to consume the prepared adventure.

I´ve had an argument with one of my GM/players recently. (Well, not an open argument but there was some agression behind the words.)

I´ve run a Shadowrun game some months ago, with this Player, along with his girlfriend, my girlfriend and my younger brother. This player (And his character) and my brother (and his Character) often clashed in- and outgame, which resulted in a bad climate on the table. As both of them also gave me as GM a hard time I canceled the game after some sessions.
I simply didn´t want to run this game any longer.

And as we recently met again, he upbraided me of being a bad GM, as I 1. hadn´t kicked my brother out of the game and 2. canceled the game "just because I didn´t feel like going on."

So, to come back on topic, if one assumes that the GM is just another, I didn´t act (that) badly. As I was also there to have fun, it was natural for me to quit it because it started to become painfully unpleasant.

As a player, the GM doesn´t have to endure everything happening on the table. It is not his duty to "entertain" the others, as he is also there to have fun.

M

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi Tomas,

Looks like I'm the lucky guy who gets to say "Welcome to the Forge!"

I think you'll find a lot of folks here share your excitement about this idea - I find Universalis (Forge forum here , home page here )  an excellent example of one place this kind of thinking can lead.

But it shows up all over the place here at the Forge, so have fun!

Gordon

EDIT because his name is Tomas, not Thomas.

[MachMoth]

I've always believed in player empowerment.  In most games I run and write, the player has a good deal of control.  Though recently, I found this to be a great deal of conflict between many of my players and I.  It would appear that many of them don't want it.  In a recent survey of some of the people I commonly play with, many of them would rather have defined choices of action, as opposed to free reign over the world (or any element of director's stance in general), and that to much player control leaves them confused.  Even more were opposed to the idea of giving up the GM if favor of an all player run adventure.  Most of them would actually prefer the illusion of choice, instead of actual freedom and control.  It left me rather baffled.  It certainly explains a lot of the difference of opinion we've had.  I'm not sure I know where to take them from here.  I hate preplanned adventures, and get rather bored with them, from either side of the table.

[Marco]

I happen to disagree with this.

Not with the "concept that the GM is an empowered player" but with the stated position that "The so called "games master" is nothing but an empowered player. "

(In traditional games of course, in Universalis or some of the more Narrativist designs this statement is a different animal).

Now, I'm not throwing cold water on the excitement (well, that's not my intention of the post)--if you want to design a game where that's true (Universalis) that's totally cool--but the statement is, I think dangerously misleading.

I think in traditional gaming the GM is seen functionally (that is for most practical purposes--and during functional play) as an elected leader. The GM is the, for lack of a better word, story teller, who sets up situation. In the cases where that leads to play I'm really excited about, that's a big deal. And there is, IME, a fair amount of work associated with that position--and some rewards that other players don't get.

Now, you might say that "The GM in a traditional game is the *most* empowered player--" and hey, maybe that is true in a deep sense--but it's also true that GM's (like elected leaders) can be impeached. Their games can be scuttled. I've seen it happen. It's (IME) quite possible for one player (in a traditional game) to ruin the play for another player (in a traditional game) but it's a) a different type of interaction (IME) and b) often subject to GM intervention and arbitration (IME).

The problem is this. I *think* GNS more or less treats GM's like other players in the essay--and I think that leads to some statements that make sense in theory but are nonsense in practical application.

Often the GM determines how the game played is drifted--players don't. This is more than just directoral power--it's "empowerement" of a higher gradient.

The GM is required for a game to continue more so than other players (in tradtional play--even those with a good deal of, say, rules empowerment).

I don't think anyone *really* disagrees with this (if someone does, hey, we can argue it--but remember, I'm talking about traditional play--I've had games switch off GM's and continue--but in the vast majority of cases no GM means the game is dead in the water).

Finally there's the expectation of the GM as, as I said, as a leader. "Come on, I'm going foraging over here--let's all go look at what I've found (situation, setting, color, a lot of 'meat' for play, etc.)". So saying that the GM is nothing[/u] but an empowered player is, I think, using a wider definition of the world "empowered" than is *commonly* used here (here, I think it gets used as 'protagonized' or maybe 'wields directoral power' or 'engaged in Narrativist play'--rather than a considerably more global meaning that I think you have to adopt to say "nothing more" correctly.

-Marco

[John Kim]

As I see it, games divide responsibility and control.  All of the players agree to this.  Thus, no participant is inherently more empowered than any of other.  It's not like the GM ever has any magical powers -- she has exactly as much power as the other players collectively decide to give her.  

One way of reading the statement is that no participant should have different responsibilities than any other.  This I totally disagree with.  It is very functional to assign responsibility, and there is no inherent need that it has to be equal.  For example, if one participant wants to host all of the games at his house, then that is totally reasonable.  As long as he is OK with it, there is no reason to force that responsibility to be split.  It is just as restrictive to force responsibility to be split in any particular way.  

I've always believed in player empowerment.  In most games I run and write, the player has a good deal of control.  Though recently, I found this to be a great deal of conflict between many of my players and I.  It would appear that many of them don't want it.  In a recent survey of some of the people I commonly play with, many of them would rather have defined choices of action, as opposed to free reign over the world (or any element of director's stance in general), and that to much player control leaves them confused.  Even more were opposed to the idea of giving up the GM if favor of an all player run adventure.  Most of them would actually prefer the illusion of choice, instead of actual freedom and control.  It left me rather baffled.  

Could you clarify what they want here?  I guess I would compare to myself.  As a player, I usually prefer to have only in-character choices: i.e. I have control over my character, but not over other elements.  Is this what you mean by 'defined choices'?  Or do you mean that your players would prefer to have limits beyond what their character is capable of?  (i.e. You are only allowed to attempt X, Y, or Z -- where the GM picks what the PCs should attempt.)  

As a player, I generally find that just controlling my character is plenty empowering.  I guess it may depend partly on one's interest.  For me, story is all about character development -- thus control of my PC's thoughts, reactions, and attempts gives me the lion's share of story control.

[Mark Johnson]

I've always believed in player empowerment.  In most games I run and write, the player has a good deal of control.  Though recently, I found this to be a great deal of conflict between many of my players and I.  It would appear that many of them don't want it.  In a recent survey of some of the people I commonly play with, many of them would rather have defined choices of action, as opposed to free reign over the world (or any element of director's stance in general), and that to much player control leaves them confused.  Even more were opposed to the idea of giving up the GM if favor of an all player run adventure.  Most of them would actually prefer the illusion of choice, instead of actual freedom and control.  It left me rather baffled.  It certainly explains a lot of the difference of opinion we've had.  I'm not sure I know where to take them from here.  I hate preplanned adventures, and get rather bored with them, from either side of the table.

Some of my players over the years have objected to directors stance for various reasons.  One of my long term players said they enjoyed playing in "realistic" worlds (simulationist) because they enjoyed the "challenge" (gamist???) of exploring the (fantasy) world as a person in that imaginary world would.  Their emphasis was as much on the challenge as it was on the exploration.  Director stance, metagame, and rules disallowing character death were regarded as "cheating" by them.   Is this gamism driving simulationism?  Or just sim couched in different terms.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I like to say "The GM is a player with a particular role in the goals of play."

1. One of the implications of this outlook is that "Game Master" can be tremendously different things from group to group, and from game system to game system. Social arbiter, scene-framer, buck-stops-here, resolution authority, owner of assertive Director Stance, reward authority ... all of these are different things!

I've found in playing Universalis, for instance, that one player typically ends up being the resolution authority, even though most of the other "roles" are spread about the table. Is this player "The GM" after all?

In playing Criminal Element with a new player at the table, I found myself in the role of social arbiter, as he was an incessant interrupter. My solution, after a couple of immensely aggravating scenes, was to enlist the rest of the table in keeping him muffled, so that I wasn't the sole arbiter of behavior. Did I renounce some of my "GM-ship" in doing so?

2. Saying "particular" gets rid of the unnecessary "nothing but" phrasing. I agree with Marco that this phrasing creates all sorts of problems for the concept, but I also acknowledge that people who've come to an insight have a tendency to phrase it in ways that put down the viewpoint they carried themselves until the moment of insight. (Marco might point to a couple of places in my writing that demonstrate this ... might, hell! ... wait, I'm digressing.) I'll basically chalk this one up to convert's enthusiasm.

3. Now, what's gained by including "GM" within the larger category of "player"? Most people at the Forge have seen me make this claim dozens if not hundreds of times, but what's the point? In my view, the point is that "player" carries some important connotations.

a) A player participates in the imaginative communication going on at the table. Emphasize "participates," not manages or directs or permits.

b) A player can expect entertainment-rewards from play. The procedures and interactions have, at their base, the requirement that they are fun.

c) A player can expect courtesy and attention from the other people involved, in a mutualistic fashion. That latter is very important to me.

So by stating that the GM is "another player" (specifically excluding "only" or "just"), the GM is now entitled to receive (a-c) along with everyone else. I consider this an immense improvement over expectations that the GM has a unique role in terms of entertaining everyone else. Different roles in the process of mutual entertainment, yes; entertainment in a constant one-way stream, no.

4. You can see that "empowerment" is not in my statement. That's because I think that functional play means everyone is empowered to do something. The term "GM" may be employed to designate how a particular person is empowered in a different fashion from the other players. So it's not "empowerment vs. not," but "empowerment type x" coordinated with "empowerment(s) type y."

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts on the matter, among others. Let's see what other folks say first.

Best,
Ron

[Tomas HVM]

Empowerment
- is a central word in the stance I'm talking about.

"MachMoth" wrote on him and his players:

I've always believed in player empowerment.
...
Most of them would actually prefer the illusion of choice, instead of actual freedom and control. It left me rather baffled.

I'm not baffled. This is exactly what I would expect. However fascinated I am by my own idea, I'm also realistic in terms of what to expect of players, and especially so in dealing with players used to a traditional way of playing the game.

I do two kinds of games; roleplaying games close to the traditional, and roleplaying games way beyond. My idea of all participants being players pertains first and foremost to the first kind. It helps me look at the traditional games in another way, and to think differently in ways of player participation/responsibility and GM enjoyment/empowerment. I'm not eradicating the GM from the game, but I am taking a radical stance towards her powers in, and enjoyment of, the game.

In making an actual game though, this stance has to modulated. It's first and foremost a stance, not a rule on design. My first goal as a gamesmith, is to enable my players to create great drama. And I do not expect drama to bloom in democratic environments...

Ron Edwards seems to have seen this point, although I find his modulation of my intial phrase quite lame:

I like to say "The GM is a player with a particular role in the goals of play."
...
Now, what's gained by including "GM" within the larger category of "player"? Most people at the Forge have seen me make this claim dozens if not

a) A player participates in the imaginative communication going on at the table. Emphasize "participates," not manages or directs or permits.

b) A player can expect entertainment-rewards from play. The procedures and interactions have, at their base, the requirement that they are fun.

c) A player can expect courtesy and attention from the other people involved, in a mutualistic fashion. That latter is very important to me.

I quote this list by Ron Edwards, as I find it a nice list of the possible rewards hidden in my stance, for the GM. I totally aggree with him in this, adn it is a very important point to look at the GM in this way, especially if you, as a games designer, are going to give the GM tons of tools to wield. It is necessary to ask:

- Will the GM master the tools I am giving her?

- Will the GM be comfortable with the work load?

- Will the GM enjoy my game?

- Is there anything I (the designer) can do to make it easier, more fun, a better game?

- Is it possible to empower the GM in ways that make her "do the same things", but with greater ease and more fun?

The use of the word "empower" in this context focus on my role as a games designer. Designers often empowers the GM without giving her the support she needs, thus rendering her powers impotent. Many GM's and players react to this in a very sound way, finding their own "style", and as a consequence choosing to disregard the designers role as creator of the premises of play.

Heck; often the designers themselves even disregard their own role in this. I've often enough tried to discuss designer-problems related to this in desginers forums, and been told this har nothing to do with tehm, it should be addressed in open GM/player fora.

Back to the point;
Empowerment
- is a central word in the stance I'm talking about.
By empowering the GM and the players,
and by empowering them in clear, but different ways,
you give them the tools to make powerful drama.
You have to trust in their abilities,
and see their limitations.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Just a quick check - there's no real controversy here, is there?  I see the discussion getting into (quite interesting) nuances of exactly what purpose the GM serves, exactly how that can (or can't) be divided, and what exact phrasing works for people.  But esentially - de-mystifying the role of GM can be a useful thing, even if you still want to keep one (or more) around.

No real objections, right?  Some tinkering with details - possibilty quite important ones, for certain tastes or styles of play - but nothing fundamental.

Gordon

[Tomas HVM]

Is Gordon C. Landis trying to make a rhetorical point?

A discussion may focus on different levels of disagreement. The participants may agree on some levels, disagreeing on others. In fact; the participants don't have to disagree at all. A discussion may be made to unearth the finer points of some mutual understanding.

We will see if this discussion leads to any kind of "revolution", but I feel compelled to say that a revolutionary stance is not mandatory. Please feel free to toy with the concepts of this discussion in your own way, and to communicate whatever you consider to be relevant.

[contracycle]

There have actually been sallies in this direction before - threads on GM as participant, on GM as particularly empowered player.  But I'm against this idea - I think the GM function is vital and necessary even when it is NOT incarnated in a specific player.  I don;t see any utility in discussing the GM as if a player; this fails to address the particular functions carried out by the GM and seems to me to obscure rather than enlighten.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Tomas,

I'm just seeing a lot of agreement on the basics, and didn't want any issues with the details to obsure that.  Marco says he disagrees with your statement, but his point (a valid one, in my opinion) is only over the word "only."  You say Ron's phrasing is "lame" to you, but you basically agree with his conclusions.  Those kinds of things can dominate a discussion, and I don't see much value in letting that happen.

As you say, a discussion can focus on many different levels - I'm just checking to see if this one is, in fact, focusing where it can be most valuable.  To me, that's in shaking up the way the GM is conventionally thought about - not because the role can't still be useful, but because it need not be constrained in the ways it traditionally has been.

If there's another place you think it would be valuable to focus, go right ahead!  I'll read with great interest,

Gordon

[Tomas HVM]

I don;t see any utility in discussing the GM as if a player; this fails to address the particular functions carried out by the GM and seems to me to obscure rather than enlighten.

I've already seen the utility in discussing the GM as a player, and certainly I've seen the utility in developing such a stance as a gamesmith. I do not see why a discussion based on this principle should be a hindrance to discussions on GM-functions. We don't have to cower it all in one go, and we don't have to forget everything else, even if we do not mention it in this discussion.

And I'm certain there have been discussions like this one before, in this forum. There's bound to have been. The GM is quite central to RPG's as we know them.

The referral to earlier discussions is one comment very often given in this forum. I for one find it more interesting to discuss the theme myself, than to read discussions made by some eldritch guys (now dead, presumably) in some distant past...

[Jack Aidley]

There is only players in a roleplaying game. The so called "games master" is nothing but an empowered player.

Today, I shall be taking the role of dissenting voice.

My role as GM isn't 'only a player', I am organiser, host, rules-writer and arbiter, world-builder and social architect. None of my players can invite someone to my sessions, nor throw someone out. I set the tone, maintain the social niceties, keep the game on track and keep the story moving.

It seems to be me that you are denying that part of the GM's role which is important, for the small gain that you realise the GM has to have fun too. Quite right, but that's entirely my responsibility, I have the control to make it fun for me or not. And my major source of enjoyment is not whether I have fun but whether my players do.

I think it is better to think of the GM as equivalent to the organiser and referee at a football tournament, then a player-on-steroids. In their traditional role anyway.