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!

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

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.

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.

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 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

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.

MachMoth wrote: 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.

MachMoth wrote: 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.

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

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

"MachMoth" wrote on him and his players:

MachMoth wrote: 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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

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

contracycle wrote: 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.

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

Sure, the GM has all these functions and more. But I have often encountered GM and Players alike who believed that it is the GMs duty to entertain the other people around the table, no matter the unpleasantness on the GM side. Sure, it is (IMO partly) the GMs own responsability to have fun.
But look at it this way:

I think everyone will agree with this assumption:

"It is the players responsability the he/she and the other players have fun."

It doesn´t mean that they have to take the other peoples fun higher than their own, it means they just have to keep it in mind when playing.

If now the GM is also assumed to be (just/only/particular/whatever...) a player, then this is also valid for him. (Not much a difference, as most GMs do that already.) But there´s a big change on the players side, or tat least it should be, because it is a players responsablity to keep in mind that the other players also have fun. Which now includes the GM too.

The statement "The GM is also (just/only/whatever) a player." doesn´t HAVE to mean player empowerment or a shift in power over director stance. It just means a change in the players responsabilities.

M

no text

Mr Jack wrote: 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.

Mr Jack wrote: 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.

None of the things you describe here are contrary to the view of you being a player with certain tasks to do, to make the game come through.

Hi Tomas,

You may be missing the fact that you have discovered the choir. We agree with you - even the ones who point up "disagreements." Your phrasing,

I'm tired of gamesmiths and companies churning out RPG's with low standards, leaning heavily not only on the creativity of their players, but also on their ability to create their own method and gametools. No wonder players tend to say:

The "system" is insignificant. All you need is a good GM.

Meaning: the system is generally bad/lacking/uninspiring, but if you have a GM who is a real master of the game, an ingenious gamesmith, a great storyteller on the fly, a strong father and caring as a mother...

- if you got a GM like this, then your game may rise and fly, in spite of the bad job done by some insignificant gamesmith.

Heh, yeah.

Hate to throw cold water on your enthusiasm, Tomas, but alot of this is pretty old news around here.

So no need to prove your point I think. Most of us would agree with the general premise of the GM being another player whose been given an additional level of empowerment by other players. You won't find many "the GM is god and the players are his slaves" types around here.

So if there are some specific aspects and nuances of that idea that you'd like to discuss more specifically, that would be a great topic for a thread (and I think was the point Gordon was trying to make earlier)

Mr Jack wrote:

None of the things you describe here are contrary to the view of you being a player with certain tasks to do, to make the game come through.

You're right of course. But it's not a matter of what can be contained in the view but what is emphasised by the view. I think your view emphasises the wrong aspects. In my experience GMs who's primary goal is to look after their own enjoyment make crummy GMs and thereby fail to enjoy themselves. Good GMing comes from an understanding and awareness of your players needs; and happy players make for a happy GM.

In my experience role-playerswho's primary goal is to look after their own enjoyment make crummy role-players and thereby fail to enjoy themselves. Good roleplaying comes from an understanding and awareness of other players needs; and happy players make for a happy game

Mr Jack wrote: In my experience GMs who's primary goal is to look after their own enjoyment make crummy GMs and thereby fail to enjoy themselves.

John Kim wrote: 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.

Tomas wrote: Yes, and that's why I propose for the gamesmiths to be more wary of the demands a GM will face, and empower her in better ways. We, the gamesmiths, must ensure the fun for GM's.

Pete wrote: Does changing Gm to roleplayer make it any less true? I'm not saying we must eliminate the Gm, or the Gm doesn't have a bigger effect on the game in conventional RPG's than other players, just that any selfish player can ruin a session, not just a gm.

I do like to discuss my ideas, and by discussion I do not necessarily talk about disagreement. I'd rather like to play with the ideas, look at them from different angles, and investigate them. In this discussion I have mainly tried to correct some misconceptions about my stance, and to answer some statements I heartily disaggree in.

If I, in refuting some points, have offended someone here, I regret so. I have been lurking on this forum for a time, and smell it to be a somewhat special forum. People seem to be quite selfconscious here, and eager to point out that arguments have been made here before. I accept that, but it is not necessarily a good way to greet newcomers, or enough for eager gamesmiths with ideas they need to get response to.

To pick on my use of bold types and such is besides the point, and frankly: a bit of nitpicking. I'm only playing around with the interface, nothing more to it.

I do not recognise all arguments as valid or true, and find it easier to say so. As long as I keep to the issue there is no reason to rebuke me or try to make me change. I am old enough to word my own opinions, and too old to change by the whim of someone I do not know. I would prefer people to be tolerant, and to accept me (or anyone) at face value.

That cleared away:
I've made some bold points here on empowering the players, and on the GM being a player like everyone else. I am quite eager to discuss roleplaying games with this as a premiss, and especially the finer points of what I call empowerment.

I am testing alternative ways of empowering players in two of my new roleplaying games, and expect to make some experience out of it. I would also like to get some general input on the possibilities inherent in such a stance, and post here to sharpen my grip on the challenges facing me in my work as a gamesmith.

To hear many of you have disussed this theme before makes me optimistic. I expect you have some valid and eyeopening points to make...

Mr Jack wrote: The Gm is best served by tools that allow them to perform their role as Gm well, that help create vivid and memorable games and avoid getting bogged down in detail. On those very aspects of a Gms role that aren't being another player.

The choir, indeed...

Tools to help GMs be better GMs is a subject close to my heart. (I have a game in progress that has, for the past several months, been "practically finished" in the eyes of most who have seen it. What it lacks are exactly such GM tools. No one would notice the absence of these tools if I were to publish the game as is. It would look like any other reasonably sound Simulationist game, a really great game as long as you've got a really good GM to run it. The exact thing I have no interest in further burdening the world with, because frankly, and present company excluded, really good GMs are thin on the ground.)

The word "empowering" requires some caution. When used here, it usually refers to giving a participant authority to influence the shared imagined space and/or the outcome. I sense that that's not exactly the kind of empowerment you're talking about. Traditional GMs pretty much have as much of that type of power as they want for the taking. If I'm not mistaken, what you're talking about is ways to empower GMs to be better GMs, which might very well entail curtailing their traditional "empowerment" in particular ways. Kind of like the way the computer chips in a modern family car "empower" drivers to be better drivers, partly by curtailing their power to do tire-screeching accelerations, spin-outs, and sliding turns -- curtailments that a NASCAR driver would certainly see as disempowering.

Like others, I came here with a mixed sense of pride that I'd managed to develop effective play techniques, and annoyance that the game system texts I'd been using had not been helpful, and were often actively obstructive, in developing those techniques. System does matter, system doesn't matter, that depends on one's own experiences. The important thing is, system should matter. That is to say, system should help.

If the ultimate thrust of your assertion that designers should think of GMs as more like players than they generally do is that GMs should be provided with creative tools that are more like the ones they provide players with, I couldn't agree more. Most systems give players lots of help: clear goals, clear choices, clear expectations, clear limits, and clear rewards (though these things are likely to come at the cost of curtailed creative empowerment). GMs don't get these tools; instead, they get advice describing all the things they should be striving to accomplish (with some of those things being, according to prevailing Forge theory, demonstrably impossible), and tools completely inadequate for accomplishing them.

I look forward to discussing your ideas about how this state of affairs can be improved.

- Walt

PS Oh by the way, if I complained about your use of boldface etc., it might be nitpicking. Dude, Ron is the moderator. His enforcement of whatever etiquette rules he chooses to establish is never beside the point. The availability of an option in the interface is not to be interpreted as the guaranteed right to use it.

Mr Jack wrote:
Well, yes. But not in the way I was meaning. A player can ruin a game by being disruptive, uncooperative, stupid and generally a knob. A Gm can end up running a really bad game simply by failing to concentrate on what the players enjoy. A friend of mine is a really bad Gm. Not because he doesn't try, or because he's rude, or uncooperative, but because he concentrates on those bits which interest him. Namely creating a world, and writing a compex plot. Trouble is that walking through an exposition of the details of Dwarven steel mining is excessively dull. And while he might have a twisted and detailed plot; there's no place for the players input in it. In other words he's built the game around aspects that have no interest for the players.
Now I'm not saying that other player/Gm or Gm-less configurations don't have merit, or aren't worth following.

But if you are going to maintain a traditional Gm/player split then treating the Gm as a more powerful player is not the way to go.

Considering the GM as a player with specific responsibilities is an important tool in design, IMO. It's just a perspective, really, but one that allows us to take apart those duties and look at them individually.

This is nothing new, really. I recall reading in, IIRC, Rolemaster's Gamemaster Law that they were of the opinion that the GM should never host a game at his house. And I think there's some merit to that notion. Whether you agree or not, it's looking at these things in their specifics that advances the art of design.

Indeed, it's not because we want to take away the GM's powers, neccessarily- though in some cases reapportionment is the idea (see COTEC threads here). It's very much in order to look at the GM powers and see how we can make them work more effectively, regardless of who wields them.

I think the argument of what the best apportionment of power is a moot point. I think lots of games can be made with all sorts of different ways of doing it, each as valid as the last. But I do think it's important to think in terms of the individual powers themselves lest they be ignored. Too often designers just say, "Oh, and one player is the GM who plays everything else." It's precisely because this is worded as the player being an especially empowered player, but not having the powers enumerated well, that problems arise from that description.

So, I think that the argument as a whole is moot. If somebody needs to see the GM as another player in some way I don't see much harm per se. Nor help particularly, other than it may help them to think about the powers in question. Like Walt said, what we all want in the end is participants who have well defined roles with well defined powers that lead to good play. The rest just seems to be perspective.

And I don't think it's a harmful perspective in any way. Everyone who espouses that perspective also espouses the idea that all participants are responsible to use their powers to entertain the group, and not just themsleves. So that's a non-argument.

Mike

Minx wrote:

But if you are going to maintain a traditional Gm/player split then treating the Gm as a more powerful player is not the way to go.

Simply put: Why? What should happen? Would the players revolt because of this sudden relevation? Would they quit acting in a mutual and respectfull manner towards the GM? Would his word count less because of it?
IMO not.

M

Three great posts from Walt Freitag, "Minx" and Mike Holmes. Thank you!

Mike is writing on the powers we need to debate, and I have the feeling he has discussed these powers before. His talk of reapportionment of these powers is exactly what I'm aiming at. Maybe he has some general list over these powers, or know somewhere this is to be found? It would greatly help my thinking on the subject to have some overview.

Once again; it's nice to read other peoples wordings on concepts I'm playing with.

Tomas HVM wrote: Mike is writing on the powers we need to debate, and I have the feeling he has discussed these powers before. His talk of reapportionment of these powers is exactly what I'm aiming at. Maybe he has some general list over these powers, or know somewhere this is to be found? It would greatly help my thinking on the subject to have some overview.

Okay - all persons who sit down to roleplay in the traditional manner are players in the same game. However, my role as a GM primarily deals with the overview of the game, while my players are primarily concerned with their own narrow (not the best word, sorry) outlook.

One thing that I would like to improve on is the amount of descriptive detail I provide the players. The truth is that I am too busy (keeping the appropriate pace and action to the tone while also keeping an eye on everyone's enjoyment and evening-out the participation) to be as effective at creating relevant details on the fly as I'd like.

That unintentionally came off a bit negative about my players, but the point really is that I think that the player who is the GM has a wildly different form of play than the players. What I think most GMs need is techniques that assist in their overview sort of play, as opposed to the vague advice usually given.

As a previous poster noted, non-GM players are usually given specific, concrete methods, tools and goals. Why is the GM left to flounder and figure it all out on his own? Is it just because most game designers are also usually the GMs in their groups?

Sparky

Tomas HVM wrote: 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...

M. J. Young wrote: please show us the courtesy of becoming familiar with what has already been said here.

Actually Tomas, I think you'll find we have a fundamental difference in oppinion about public moderation here. At the Forge it is common and considered prudent to do as much moderation as possible in the open and not in private. Please don't think of it as being chastised or publically mocked. But there are many good reasons to do this above board rather than in secret and in weighing between the two, by and large moderation issues are done pretty openly here.

Pretty much everyone on this list has been moderated at some point. I don't think you can go down the memberlist of top posters and find anyone who hasn't had the guiding hand of the moderator decend on them at some point.

It'll take some getting used to perhaps but its a system that's helped build a real solid community here.

If it's a question of proportion, I'm certainly one of the most moderated people on the site. :-)

To get back to the topic, however, I agree Sparky that in some cases GMs are left "to flounder". But it's a case-by-case basis. There are many games that do have a lot of advice at the very least.

But, yes, I think that tools in terms of mechanics aren't often forthcoming. I think that one of the benefits of disecting the GM role is that, if you want an empowered GM, looking at the parts of his authority is the place to start in creating new tools. For example, I'm a stickler for definitions of just how a GM's final authority can and should be used. Vague "GM option" ideas annoy me - it's like the author thinks they need to tell me to think. Thinking I can do on my own. What I'd like is tools to make the thought I put into the game more potent. One of the best ways is to eliminate ambiguity and present the rules as functionally as possible.

People seem to fear this. But, again, we're just presenting one way that works. GMs will, by their nature, modify rules to suit if they don't as presented (and don't have to be told to do so).

Mike