In every gaming group, there is always an authority which reinforces the Social Contract and concomitant Creative Agendae, accepted Player Stance(s), game mechanics, etc.

Sometimes that authority is placed primarily in a single individual, generically referred to as a Game Master although many game systems have their own terms for the position, such as Storyteller or Referee or Game Monitor.

Sometimes that authority is delegated piecemeal to different players, with one player the "rules guy" and another player the coordinator and so forth.

Sometimes that authority is the result of group mandate whether by consensus or through ballot vote.

Unless the gaming group has a strong institutionalized game master position, the power of authority usually lies with whichever individual(s) has the greatest charisma and the highest social status.

It seems to me that this is one of the key issues underlying the debate over game-mastered gaming versus game-master-less gaming : the less centralized and institutionalized the authority, the more vulnerable the Social Contract is to manipulation by way of charisma and social status.

We elect representatives so that we don't have to attend to every detail ourselves, and in the same way we elect or conscript game masters. We want input on areas of personal interest, through consensus and election, and in the same way we voice our interests in the gaming group. You can see how the issues of game mastery parallel modern U.S. government tensions between representative and participatory authority.

When we design games, we need to take this into consideration.

A game designed with a game master is a game designed to be played by disparate individuals who find a centralized structure helpful in maintaining the Social Contract. While a highly charismatic player with high status has no need of a game master, we might want to consider less charismatic players as well in our game design.

A game designed without a game master, with authority placed in constant participatory consensus, is a game designed to be played by individuals who already fall into natural accord with each other frequently and/or individuals who enjoy debating any disputes in a free depersonalized egoless freedom. This latter effect neatly avoids the rare but possible situation of a little dictator game master. However, the game designer needs to incorporate methods of consensus which do not shortshrift the less charismatic or less extroverted members of a gaming group, or else the authority will default to whoever has the highest charisma and/or social status.

There are other game master functions, of course, but I suspect that this one is a key issue in the debates over the necessity or uselessness of game masters.

I recall long ago joining a gaming group run by a weak game master, with the gaming circle unintentionally dominated by the more charismatic and more extroverted players. The game master missed playing, so when he found out I enjoy game-mastering, he asked me to take over. The first thing I did was watch the more bashful, more quiet players and make certain their voices were always heard. The louder, more magnetic players deferred to the authority they had given me as game master, so within a few weeks, every player was able to participate in gaming group decisions. A loosely-knit group of people became a genuine circle of friends. I do not think I could have accomplished that with a game-master-less game.

On the other hand, I am currently involved with a gaming group of friends who know each other's strengths and peccadilloes fairly well, and thus a game-master-less game provides a certain freedom. While I am the titular game master of our current campaign, in part because the players all want to share in the fun of exploring mysteries together, we share far more of the game master functions. I can see the advantages of both approaches.

Doctor Xero

Hiya,

That all reads like strong wisdom to me, DX. As you probably know, I think that "game-master-less" play is a chimera. The tasks in question simply have to be performed, and the simplest way is for a certain critical number of them to be placed in the hands of a single individual. And in this case, simplest also means most reliable.

One of the key tasks - if it's not already a given based on the persons overall - is certainly maintaining a "hey, we're all together here" atmosphere.

The risks of centralizing this task are clear: trading anarchy for dictatorship. However, I submit that it's the same phenomenon for role-playing as it is for any group leisure activity, imaginative or not. And spreading some of the tasks around turns out to be quite functional, which tends to surprise people who have, through habit or caution, kept "simple is best" as their GM philosophy.

I think the bulk of the discussions about this issue have taken as a given that the Social Contract is a little iffy, a little at risk, especially if at least one person is "vaguely dissatisfied" with play. Therefore the centralization of this GM-task (that is, the social glue task) is a big deal, and a slightly troublesome one.

However, especially as I've aged and especially as I've branched out among wholly-peer role-playing (friends), full-authority role-playing (faculty advisor at club), and commercial role-playing (promotional demos), I've discovered that establishing a completely non-iffy Social Contract right up front is liberating as hell.

A long time ago, I decided that if you want to make X work, it's a real bitch continually to have to convince your partners that X is what they want, along the way. No. Forget it. We're here for X, without one person convincing the others, and once we're all good with that, then making it work is non-problematic - just logistics and details, at most.

It often amazes me that gamer-culture is predicated on, apparently, the opposite - that we only have a decent Social Contract if (and after) the game-experience is somehow satisfying to all of us. The expected causality seems wholly reversed to me.

Best,
Ron

Unless the gaming group has a strong institutionalized game master position, the power of authority usually lies with whichever individual(s) has the greatest charisma and the highest social status

Hi Henri,

Right - I agree with you, and if I'm not mistaken, so does the Doc.

The point is that someone provides that charisma/social glue, and it's necessary. In some groups it's really necessary that it's highly centralized, and in others it may not be. But it's there.

It seems to me that you're equating "control over outcomes" with the term "GM," and I suggest that no single item or task (of which such control is potentially one) defines or equates with the term.

Best,
Ron

Ok, when you put it that way, I don't disagree.

Ron Edwards wrote: The point is that someone provides that charisma/social glue, and it's necessary. In some groups it's really necessary that it's highly centralized, and in others it may not be. But it's there.

Henri wrote: I don't see why the GM must be the "alpha" of the group, especially since from game to game the GM could change. It's like who is driving. If I'm on a road trip with my friends and we rotate driving positions so that no one gets too tired, it doesn't mean that the new driver suddenly gets +3 Charisma (so to speak). It just means that he is now in direct control of the car.

Henri wrote: In my experience, the GM is whoever decided to organize the game and put the work into creating it. Usually they are also the most familiar with the rules, but not always.

Hiya,

I totally agree with that, Doctor X.

Best,
Ron

Doctor Xero wrote: It seems to me that this is one of the key issues underlying the debate over game-mastered gaming versus game-master-less gaming : the less centralized and institutionalized the authority, the more vulnerable the Social Contract is to manipulation by way of charisma and social status.

Doctor Xero wrote: In friendship groups who game, the role of game master has only minor bearing on the group sociality, because it's usually been set (as much as such things are ever set) independently of the game, and more importantly because the feel of friendship and shared affection renders moot the need for a game master to lead socially.
In a gaming-only group, the game master has far more responsibility for the maintenance of the Social Contract than he or she does in a friendship group which games.

On a side note question thingie: Would a friends only group sort of group force down the amount of social contract policing the GM is allowed to do. I mean, in a group of people rounded up for a game with no links and with a GM one can never see again if one don't want to, I can imagine giving over more policing power. But when its a friend its like 'Nah, I know you, don't expect to be able to take up the authority figure with me'. Basically you already have a certain contract between you as friends in RL, and some of this is applied to the gaming social contract. Which means the GM friend can't police it any particular way...he's under the same RL contract that the game social contract is mostly comprised of.

Hello,

A lot of this stuff got discussed in the Infamous Five series of threads, especially the Social Context material. Have you seen those, Doctor Xero? Check out the sticky post near the top of the Site Discussion forum.

Best,
Ron

So, back to the topic: value & uselessness of GM

One of my favourite words about roleplaying is ADVENTURE, which simply means CHALLENGE for me.

(How ) can we rescue the princess from the claws of the dragon?
(How) can we reach the planet in time to prevent the destruction of a culture?
(How) can we find the book to build a magic castle?
(How) can we ...?

As far as I can tell, the only solution for this is to have a GM. Without a GM, players know most of the secrets of the game world, and the thrill of succes-or-failure is gone. A GM knows what qualities the dragon has, what qualities hyperspace has, where the book is, etc.; BUT THE PLAYERS DON'T!!!

So I propose that one of the values of the GM is to provide this excitement for the players, who can then face the CHALLENGE through their characters.

This does not mean, of course, that challenge is important for every player and, therefore, 'Because of Challenge, a GM is crucial'. It only means that to have an exciting adventure, the group needs a GM.

dewey wrote:
So I propose that one of the values of the GM is to provide this excitement for the players, who can then face the CHALLENGE through their characters.

Sorry, I'm new, and this forum is enormous.
What are you talking about?

What I mean is this: if you relinquish possession of something you are said (in certain contexts) to ALIENATE it from yourself.

Hence, inalienable rights - rights than cannot be alienated from you under any circumstances whatsoever, even your own consent.

Similarly, property held in fief from a lord was often 'inalienable', the nominal posessor had no rights to alienate the property to anyone else.

--

Thus my argument is that by relinquishing control over the imaginary space - alienating it into the property of the GM - the player then experiences the imaginary space as objective in relation to their character. It does not conform to their wishes and expectations. IMO, only under those conditions can Challenge exist.

That, to me, implies several things that I'm fairly sure I don't agree with, mainly through playing Universalis, where many traditional GM roles are granted to the players. I can guarantee you, conflict with self created elements of the SiS is entirely possible.

You could argue that the dicing of the conflict resolution is an alienating factor, but the posts so far are all still predicated on a high identification between player and character with an assumption of identification between Gm and all non-PC elements in the world: given that set up, which includes a natural "My guy vs your world" element in it's construction, the play tends towards the confrontational attitude inherent in the idea of RPG's as a series of challenges ot the PC's.

Now that's not a bad way to play, by any means, but it's by no means the only way.

Dewey, have a look through the actual play reports of Universalis, or for that matter, Sorceror or other games that break with the traditional "party of adventurers" model.

If you feel like it, have a look through the GNS essays: it sounds to me like you're describing a very common form of gamist play, but it's by no means the only way to play. Consider that it's quite functional for players, even in a conventional game, to contribute elements to the shared imaginary space that may hinder their ability to face a challenge, in order to up the risk deliberately, or to add depth to the SiS (dependent NPC's, frex). Or consider gaming where the PC's have no common goals, or are rivals, providing challenge to each other. Challenge need not come from the GM, PC's need not face challenge together.

Gareth: Back to alienation... would you say that Universalis alienates the SiS as a group controlled entity outside of the individual players? and shouldn't this be a new thread?

Hmm, to me its not a new thread, but I'm not prone to new threads anyway.

I think that challenge is not meaningful, is not really challenge, if I can choose to succeed. What verifies a challenge as real is my inability to control all aspects of the situation. My argument is that in the case of dice, we are voluntarily relinquishing control of the game world to randomness IN ORDER to create a genuinely alienated challenge. In the case of the GM, we are relinquishing control of the SIS in order that the GM can represent the worlds impositions upon us.

Yes, in Universalis, the game space is alienated by group ownership (he says, sight unseen). For the individual player, the game space is still external, objective, even if it is in flux or subject to change. The point is it is not only subject to that players chosen changes.

The reason I do not think this is a separate issue requiring a new thread is that, IMO the role of alienating the game space has been carried out by the presence of the GM. That is, in fact, one of the central purposes of having a GM role, and Dewey is right to see it that way (as well as the coordinating funciton Ron mentions). What Universalis demonstrates is another mechanism by which that alienation can be achieved. IMO, it is correct to say that the usefullness of a GM is to alienate the game space from the players, but it is not correct to say that only a GM can do this. If nothing else, dice and to a lesser extent system do this too.

Thus my argument is that by relinquishing control over the imaginary space - alienating it into the property of the GM - the player then experiences the imaginary space as objective in relation to their character. It does not conform to their wishes and expectations. IMO, only under those conditions can Challenge exist.

contracycle wrote:

dewey wrote:
So I propose that one of the values of the GM is to provide this excitement for the players, who can then face the CHALLENGE through their characters.

I would restate: "To alienate and thus objectify the shared imaginary space".

Edit: this IMO is the purpose of dice too.

I disagree entirely. If we are using the GNS definition of "Challenge", then we are dealing with "adversity or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind"

Now, if we are talking about challenge as being "some difficulty faced by the player in playing their character"

I agree with Contracycle insofar as I understand him. If I have Universalis right, the conflict when it exists is always competition with another player and never against an objective "can-I?" in the terms of a typical AD&D game (the GM gives you an orc--can you kill it?).

Since competition isn't my favorite form of challenge (in fact, far from it, usually) and the form of it is "will I outbid the person" rather than any SiS-based solution (I beat the orc because I have a +5 Holy Avenger) then I don't see these as being the same thing. I don't see it as objectifying the same way (an Immersion issue for me).

I also think that the value of a game master is in the Intellectual Properity (IP) the game master brings to the table.

I am interested in the GM's situation the same way I'm interested in one of my favorite author's next books--if the GM can't provide that level of IP then I'm less enthauistaic about the game.

In that sense I think it is reasonable to metaphorically liken a GM to an author or story teller completely divorced from the issues of story-control or 'plotting.'

-Marco

In that sense I think it is reasonable to metaphorically liken a GM to an author or story teller completely divorced from the issues of story-control or 'plotting.'

I was talking about finding a (creative) solution by the PLAYER, for a problem faced by the CHARACTER. This usually means that the original problem should be explored, viewed from different angles, and then solving the problem becomes easier. That's called planning, and thinking.

I also think that the value of a game master is in the Intellectual Properity (IP) the game master brings to the table.

I am interested in the GM's situation the same way I'm interested in one of my favorite author's next books--if the GM can't provide that level of IP then I'm less enthauistaic about the game.

Ravien wrote: . I give you, exhibit A: Authors. They know their character's story. They know they will make it out of any challenge alive. And yet every challenge that the character faces, is a challenge for both author and character. The character must face the challenge, and overcome it, and it could be a bloody difficult one at that (as is necessary in great stories).

I am interested in the GM's situation the same way I'm interested in one of my favorite author's next books--if the GM can't provide that level of IP then I'm less enthauistaic about the game.

Yeah, this hits the nail on the head IMHO. People just like having things given to them, for them to explore blindly (in the sense that they don't know anything beyond the current page). This isn't about challenge, it's about exploration, and specifically, one particular form of exploration. Namely, exploring someone else's ideas. This has no impact on the level of challenge inherent in the exploration. I think this might even tie in with the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, in that people (players) want to express their own ideas for their characters, and yet actually, at a deeper level, want their characters to be explored for them. Likewise, GMs want their players to explore their characters, and yet, at a deeper level, actually want to explore their own ideas for story. Psychologically, this probably has something to do with deference of power to another person to absolve responsibility for the quality of the story, and conversely, for GMs, a desire to prove oneself as a competant and quality leader. This is probably why GMs are nearly always the ones congratulated for a good campaign, because deep down, the players know they have deferred power and responsibility, and that includes responsibility for the good qualities as well.

I'm probably rambling a bit. I've been drinking. End of uni party. Sue me.

-Ben

I also wanted to say that part of "objectifying the challenge" means that not everything will be known about it (the GM knows the layout of the enemy base, for example and the player does not). An author writing his way out of an insoluable problem doesn't have this issue.

The author might not make things up until they come up--and it's true that an idea *can* be surprising to the person who has it--but I maintain that as the term "objectifying the challenge" implies the difference is significant.

-Marco

Marco:
Well said.

This is a good point--but if I can overcome a challenge by inventing someone to show up and solve it for me then I think it's a substantially different situation than if I have to work it from the in-character perspective.

Playing chess against oneself is possible but, again, different than playing against another person (and, for me, even different than playing against a computer).

This is a good point--but if I can overcome a challenge by inventing someone to show up and solve it for me then I think it's a substantially different situation than if I have to work it from the in-character perspective.

I don't like your use of the term 'blindly'--and I don't see the interplay of GM and player as having the exploration done for them. I think that sounds to me like a rather grim take on it: like saying reading a book is lazy compared to writing one. In terms of some sort of timed work-effort per page it might have merrit but it's using a poor unit of measure, IMO.

The author might not make things up until they come up--and it's true that an idea *can* be surprising to the person who has it--but I maintain that as the term "objectifying the challenge" implies the difference is significant.

Doctor Xero wrote:

Doctor Xero wrote: It seems to me that this is one of the key issues underlying the debate over game-mastered gaming versus game-master-less gaming : the less centralized and institutionalized the authority, the more vulnerable the Social Contract is to manipulation by way of charisma and social status.

So, how ought we take this into consideration in game design?

Doctor Xero wrote:
However, I did start this thread on the topic of the use or non-use of the game master position as a tool in game design for addressing considerations of Social Contract and unfair use of charisma among the players in the game's target audience. I'm not sure how issues of challenge and such pertain to that query.

contracycle wrote: ...unless we make a didactic claim for our RPG, we have no business overuling personal charisma in favour of some systematic device.

Attempting to draw this around in a circle, it seems to me that we’ve got a process that happens in several stages.

The participants want a challenge, and they think (rightly or wrongly) that this can only come if they themselves do not have total control over the situation. Thus they have already objectified “challenge” as something outside themselves, and in that very process have been alienated from a situation of their own making. The logic of this process entails an association between “challenge” and “outside,” i.e. between the challenge and the fact that it does not come from the players themselves. The greater the alienation, it seems, the greater the challenge. And the most exterior, most “other” element of the situation would be another person; we always feel we can master a set of rules or structures, but not another person. This leads, in the traditional cycle of objectification and alienation, to fetishism: overvaluation of some object because it is held to represent fully the dialectic in question, in this case that between challenge and exteriority. In other words, contracycle’s description of this process as one of alienation and objectification does suggest a tendency to fetishize the special status of the gamemaster—something which accords pretty well with experience of martinet-GMs.

[Incidentally, for those of you following at home, this terminology of alienation, objectification, fetishism, dialectic, and whatnot is all coming from Marxist criticism.]

To put it a little more clearly, without the jargon:

If you think you can only be challenged when you don’t have total control, you start to value not having control because you think it will create challenges. That’s illogical, but quite natural. Because the GM is the guy who best represents your not being in control, the desire for challenge may well lead to setting up the GM on a pedestal. That’s a simplistic version of what contracycle is talking about, of course.

At any rate, the question is really whether it’s true that you can’t have challenge and total control. In addition, it’s not clear that not having total control requires that someone else have it. In a game I’m in now, for example, we really do have almost total control, but since we share that control we’re actually blocked by each other continuously. Challenge happens essentially without a GM simply because this isn’t solitaire.

As to how this affects the whole Social Contract issue, I think you’ve already built an awful lot of that Contract when you assert, usually implicitly, that challenge and control don’t go together. Ron’s right that this sort of thing could well be made explicit, which would help. And I’d go on to say that if you make it all explicit, you end up with what he calls “GM-ful” gaming, because everyone is alienated from the situation consciously and deliberately, and thus manipulation of that situation as an exterior object is available to all on an equal basis.

Did that make any sense?

Time to butt my crude 2c in:

Contracycle wrote:

Well, the thrust of my response was that the GM has a particularised role to fulfill that IMO has nothing to do with negotiation of social status and similar.

I don;t think there is any real mechanism by which conflicts on this level between the participants can be addressed.

Ben,

I don't think I can find a point where we disgree (although reading your post it sure sounds like it). "Objectifying a challenge" in-game by having stuff appear that you didn't think of and behave as guided by a human intelligence that isn't yours is one possible value of a GM (that's my story anyway).

I also, for example, find that an elected GM as a mediator and referee (interperting the rule book) is a value of a GM.

I agree that reading a book is less work (in a sense) than writing it (I think I had more problems reading Faulkner than he did writing it--but it's the exception that probes the rule, eh?). I just think it's a very poor measure of anything and doesn't contribute much to the discussion in most cases. Especially if you use the term "lazy" (which is why I addressed your use of the term "blind").

When the player creates a guy to solve the problem he's using GM-style power and I maintain that the experience is different.

I'm not arguing that a GM is the only way or the best way to have challenge or whatever--just that if you want your challenge in that particular fashion a GM is a good solution to it.

-Marco

clehrich wrote: In other words, contracycle?s description of this process as one of alienation and objectification does suggest a tendency to fetishize the special status of the gamemaster?something which accords pretty well with experience of martinet-GMs.

[Incidentally, for those of you following at home, this terminology of alienation, objectification, fetishism, dialectic, and whatnot is all coming from Marxist criticism.]

Negilent wrote: In a group with domineering players (aka high charisma) the GM also serves the role of distributing the spotlight. In this aspect the GM then serves to curtail the impact of the domineering player on the groups "fun time"
---snip!--
In a game with more than one domineering player, such as my Playing among Friends group, by defining the Gm as the spotlight distributor in SC, he not only allows the other players to shine, he curtails "alpha-male" conflict between the dom. players.

Doctor Xero wrote:
Much as I rejoice at reading an application of Marxist criticism, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you overall on this one, Chris. I don't think the cycle you describe applies to game mastering in general specifically because it focuses overmuch on only one of the many functions or roles traditionally allocated to the game master.

contracycle wrote: Anyway, ther point is I don't think its 1:1 related to the GM being an opponent. An opponent can be your equal; the martinet-GM has adopted or imposed a Parent-to-Child relationship with the players legitimised through the status accorded their GMship.

contracycle wrote: What I'm thinking of is GMing from the perspective that the GM's view is qualitatively superior; that the GM knows whats right and is empowered to dictate it to the players. This approach allows for no opinion, no conflict of interpretation or fact; contradicting the GM is inherently wrong, almost immoral.

contracycle wrote: As I see it, its not just the GM's in game role that I'm thinking of, but also the way the language of GMing often seems to carry tones of moral criticism.

Doctor Xero wrote:
I think that's an unfair way of describing the game master's duties.

Tangential speculation : Do you think this might be one more example of the Anglo-American motif of the father-led nuclear family? We refer to priests as 'Father', we use parent-child language in fraternities and lodges, and we often rely upon parent-child language in pedagogy. Perhaps it is inevitable that we would use the same language in gaming, particularly since gaming began with adolescents in their teens and twenties. What do you think?

What do you think we might do to make clear the necessity of the game master's authority and credibility while avoiding such language?

contracycle wrote:

Doctor Xero wrote:
I think that's an unfair way of describing the game master's duties.

Of course it is; it is descriptive of the fetishized GM. I'm not suggesting this is what I think the GM role *IS*; it is what I think some people, counter-productively, make it.

contracycle wrote: But in the broader sense, I actually blame Calvinism for its patriarchy and doctrine of 'manifest morality' through material success.

contracycle wrote: Identifying the game structure as a manifestation of social contract allows a more meaningful discussion of the part the GM plays IMO. Conversations like this and others have gone a long way to exploding the GM into constituent parts that can be reassembled in different proportions or combinations, leading to the concept we now have of 'GM-full' games. We now recognise the GMship as A methodology for achieveing certain results rather than an absolute requirement.

The thread is too long for me to know whether this has already been said, but since the question has been asked--Universalis points to resource-based distribution of credibility as an alternative to centralized referee control.

If you have to have and spend an in-game resource to steer the game, it equalizes player interaction to a significant degree.

I think that social contract solutions are possible, particularly if the player with the strongest charisma/positional authority uses that to enforce an equality in play; that's hard to write, though.

--M. J. Young

Before we avoid 'cult of charisma' like the plague, have we thought about whether that's a 'bad thing'.

I mean, it seems to assume no one will agree to this sort of thing. Why not?

The only reason I can think of is 'Someone may be so charismatic and with it have so much group support they can overwhelm the interests of someone else, either during the social contract process (forcing them to agree to something they'd rather not) or after social contract forming, thus not forfilling the requirements of that persons social contract.'

Probably the best thing you can do to break up 'cults of charisma' is to identify the idea of a social contract in your game and show people how to identify when its been broken, for themselves or others. Also mention the 5 geek falacies and how you don't have to play with everyone.

In other words, don't make more system, remind them of the RL currency they already have and the RL system that's already there.

Inside the game, you can try and break up cults of charism with rules. But if they can over run other players interests with their charisma, exactly what chance do rules stand? Zero. In fact their only purpose is to give other players some chance of saying 'no, and here's why'. In other words, the same thing I just mentioned above.

Noon wrote: Probably the best thing you can do to break up 'cults of charisma' is to identify the idea of a social contract in your game and show people how to identify when its been broken, for themselves or others.
---snip!--
Inside the game, you can try and break up cults of charism with rules. But if they can over run other players interests with their charisma, exactly what chance do rules stand? Zero. In fact their only purpose is to give other players some chance of saying 'no, and here's why'. In other words, the same thing I just mentioned above.