The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?
Started by: timfire
Started on: 2/11/2004
Board: RPG Theory


On 2/11/2004 at 9:10pm, timfire wrote:
GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Does setting up the GM as both an arbitrator of the rules and explicitly as an opponent create a comflict of interest?

I did a search but didn't find anything that specifically addressed my question.

Thanks.

Message 9741#101802

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by timfire
...in which timfire participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/11/2004




On 2/11/2004 at 9:52pm, jdagna wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Taken alone, the roles of arbitrator and opponent do conflict. However, I think the key to good GMing is understanding that they shouldn't be taken alone. GMs should put having fun as a top priority, with arbitration and opposition supporting the fun.

Think of it like a teacher/student dynamic. A teacher's job is to help students learn the information - the teacher wants you to pass the course. A teacher's job is also to grade papers and such, with the potential outcome that they may need to flunk you. Most people don't see this as a conflict in interest because both aspects are subservient to an overall goal (learning).

I'm sure you've had examples of teachers who took this dynamic to one extreme or the other. I knew one (in a senior level college course nonetheless!) who refused to give a lower grade than a C for anything, no matter how bad, late or inappropriate to the assignment. In another class, I almost passed out when my calculus midterm came back with 54%... until I realized that the average was only 42% and I was practically setting the curve (a curve that this teacher adopted partway through the course because the department wouldn't let him fail everyone). The Monty Haul and Killer DM stereotypes fit these two almost perfectly, and the students responded to the teachers the same way the players will respond to GMs who play like that.

However, I'm sure you had teachers who realized that if they're going to teach you effectively, then they must challenge you just enough to find your limits and then help you to exceed them. You may not have liked these teachers quite so much at the time, but I'd bet they're your favorites as you look back on them. I think I learned more about essay writing from one 11th grade English teacher than in the rest of my time in school (college included). She was simultaneously the most and least liked teacher in the school because she'd push so hard. My own reputation for GMing reflects that - I still have people who call me an evil GM even as they ask if we can go to four sessions a month instead of two.

When it comes to GMs, I think the key lies in realizing that the primary goal is to facilitate an enjoyable game. Players want to be challenged, not lavished with undeserved rewards or struck down with unavoidable death. So the roles of opposition and arbitration are not roles unto themselves, but facets of the overall role (having fun). They only conflict when you forget about the having fun put.

Message 9741#101815

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by jdagna
...in which jdagna participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/11/2004




On 2/11/2004 at 9:54pm, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

The motivation topic went off onto a tangent which addressed this idea somewhat.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9631

In my personal opinion, there is always this danger. However, even when the game master
is working cooperatively with both players and player-characters, there is still some
danger. Game masters have been known to develop favorite players and/or favorite
player-characters without even realizing that they are doing so. Game masters are still
only human, so it's possible for a player or a player-character to push the GM's emotional
buttons accidentally.

I think that this is less a matter of the function of the game master in a particular RPG
and more a function of the individual game master in a particular social group playing
an RPG. A game master who is playing as an opponent to the player-characters but who
is genuinely cooperating with the players will try very hard to be fair, giving himself or
herself no unfair advantages. Not an easy thing to do, but it has been done many times.
A game master who is playing as both an opponent to the player-characters and as an
opponent to the players will soon be tagged as a "killer DM".

Copious mechanics might make it easier to avoid unfairness in games in which the
game master is encouraged to work against the player-characters as much as he or she
is able, with The Game Book as the final arbiter rather than the game master much of the
time, but there are still too many situations which authors of rules book can not anticipate.
Some people might argue that rules-lite games actually make it easier to avoid unfairness
because the game master has so much overt authority that all eyes are upon him or her,
with no labyrinthine rules to hide behind. Since I do not enjoy gaming in which the
game master is overtly hostile to or competitive against the player-characters, even when
all the players expect the game master to oppose their player-characters, I have no idea
whether or not rules-lite games actually have that effect.

I wonder if there are players who genuinely enjoy playing under game masters who are
overtly playing under conflict of interest? I have some vague memories of a friend who
enjoyed gaming under a game master who bragged he was out to hurt both players and
player-characters, saw it as a sort of macho thing to survive the game without acknowledging
any feelings hurt by the game master's hostility to both players and their characters, but
I've never met anyone else who enjoyed that kind of gaming.

Doctor Xero

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 9631

Message 9741#101816

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/11/2004




On 2/11/2004 at 10:03pm, Loki wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

I agree with what you are saying regarding most GMs balancing the conflict of interest (and the teacher metaphor struck me as particularly apt--could teaching be a form of illusionism?).

However, given that this is The Forge, I can't help thinking "system does matter", and any system that sets up that conflict of interest is bound to fail frequently, GMs being flawed and human. Are there examples of games that take the 'master' out of GM, and make him more of a special-case opposing player? What about games where the GM is truly just an arbitrator, and can't frame the game in such a way to screw/favor players?

Message 9741#101819

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Loki
...in which Loki participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/11/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 3:03am, Noon wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

A post I started awhile ago talks about this, doing the old 'take the opponent hat off the GM and put it on a player'. But its a bit more interesting than that.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8811

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 881

Message 9741#101893

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Noon
...in which Noon participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 3:18am, John Harper wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

The first game that comes to mind is Primetime Adventures. The GM ("Producer") in that game has no adversarial role whatsoever. There's very little "master" either. Being the Producer is very much like being just another player.

The Questing Beast, Dust Devils, My Life with Master, and Trollbabe also do away with a lot of the "master" elements of Game Master.

Message 9741#101894

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Harper
...in which John Harper participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 3:26am, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Noon, I've occasionally had scenarios in which players played villains/monsters/what-have-you
opponents, and they always worked quite well. Because my gaming groups have been more
cooperation-oriented, no one likes to play only opponents, so the opponent was usually played
in addition to playing a valued comrade.

I ~always~ made certain first that this was all right with the players.

Often, a player would play the personal nemesis NPC for another player's PC. In those cases,
I always made certain that the nemesis NPC was played by a player trusted by and friends
with the target PC's player. Usually, I had best friends play each other's nemeses, because
as best friends they could play intensely without any risk of hurting each other's feelings
or wrecking fair play. I also made it very clear to players that a SEVERE penalty would result
if any player misused the privilege of playing a nemesis. I recall one game when two players
were quarrelling and one player used his character to cause considerable problems for the
other player's character even after numerous warnings. I penalized him 15 experience
points in a game system in which the average experience points for a full day's gaming
was 3 experience points.

However, most of the time it worked, and it worked well!

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#101896

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 8:19am, talysman wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Loki wrote: Are there examples of games that take the 'master' out of GM, and make him more of a special-case opposing player? What about games where the GM is truly just an arbitrator, and can't frame the game in such a way to screw/favor players?


my Troubadors of Verticaille attempts this, but I haven't playtested the blasted thing, so heck if I know if the mechanics work. it's meant to be played GMless -- or rather, who gets to GM changes from scene to scene. the GM for the scene only fills in details for the opponent; the player whose character gets "spotlighted" in a given scene also sets the difficulty of the task, so no screwing or favoring is possible. the game is not about whether you succeed or fail, but about what you have to go through to succeed.

I think The Fantasy Trip was the first rpg to suggest seperating the GM and opponent roles by having a "monster player"; however, this was just a suggestion, and I don't know of anyone who played that way. GMs were a little more limited than in a typical rpg, though, because the combat and magic rules were designed as stand-alone one-on-one arena minigames, which puts the GM and other players on a more equal footing.

there is also, of course, Rune as an example of balancing GM as opponent. hmmm... come to think of it, Rune also works by reducing the GM arbitrator role.

Message 9741#101937

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by talysman
...in which talysman participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 4:25pm, timfire wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Noon, that was an interesting thread, thanks for the link.

Rune does seem to have an interesting strategy in dealing with this. From what I gather Rune deals with the GM-as-opponent issue by completely removing the arbitrator role. From the reviews I read, it seemed that GM's can only design encounters off of the power level of the PC's. Challenges are given a rating, and the GM has little authority to modulate that challenge level. What's also interesting with Rune, is that while the GM receive points for PC failure, GM's receive a penalty when a PC dies. I guess this encourages a "challenging but not impossible" mentality.

I bought this up because I'm trying to develop a game with a strong competetive player-vs-dungeon(GM?) aspect. I realize that the goal is "fun," and "fun" for the players is defeating the dungeon. But what about the GM, shouldn't their be a place for the "fun" of defeating the players?

If part of the "fun" for the GM is defeating the players, is the only solution breaking the role of arbitrator away from the GM, whether it's by adding a 2nd GM or by limiting the his power?

Message 9741#102005

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by timfire
...in which timfire participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 4:38pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

I think everyone has the right idea. Systems that do a good job of this "partition" off the GM's responsibilities. That is, he acts as referee on one level, and as a competitor on the other. Yes, there's a potential conflict of interest, but then, the same thing can be said of pickup basketball and calling your own fouls as I'm fond of pointing out. The social contract causes the competition to be honest. This is made more easy by verification of the results. For example, if the GM isrequired to have a written record (as in Rune), then the players can check to see if he's cheating. That is, the GM's authority is partitioned off such that ajudicaiton responsiblities do not apply to that part of the competition.

Thus level playingfields can be created and maintained, even while the GM still retains some arbitrary rights to adjudicate other things. Many designs simply rely purely on the honesty of the GM - and this works in most cases. But there's no reason why not to have a better system in place that makes everyone more comfortable with the competition as it exists.

Mike

Message 9741#102015

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 5:18pm, Loki wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Mike, you make some excellent points and summaries. As I've alluded above, I think that much of the time social contract is sufficient in creating an enjoyable game. It's just that it's not a part of the game, any more than, for instance, faking injury is part of the game of soccer. It happens, and it's part of the social contract for that game (at the professional level in Europe anyway), but it's not part of the rules.

I like the pick-up game of basketball analogy. It's true, the social contract of the game is that you are fair in calling fouls. However even that game has a built-in way of encouraging this: if I call questionable fouls, you can too. So in that sense, the rules encourage fairness.

When a basketball game has a referee to call fouls, and the reffavors one team over the other, there is no in-game recourse to the team getting screwed.

I gotta check out Rune at lunch today.

Message 9741#102029

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Loki
...in which Loki participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 9:08pm, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Personally, in the groups I've been in, RPGs which minimize or eliminate game masters ruin one of our
interests in gaming together.

As players, we see one (of many) pleasures in RPGs as the opportunity to romp through the imagination
and dreamscape of the person we've chosen as game master.

There's an element of "tell me a story" and "show me your dreams" in a lot of our games (not all, of course,
and certainly not most World of Darkness games! <g> On the other hand, one of the best horror games we
played was based off the game master's worst nightmares as a child . . . )

We have no interest in romping through the unliving imagination and stilled dreamscape of a gaming book.

When I've tried to use certain group-as-game-master freeware RPGs, I always have to alter them to
reinstall the game master or they fail our group's interests. (Sorry, Zak!)

I've found a number of groups work this way. I think constructing an RPG with no game master can be
a good idea, and I think constructing an RPG in which game master is out to get the players might work
for some gaming groups, but let's not discount the gaming groups who enjoy adventuring in the
personal fantastica of someone they personally know and game with.

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102088

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 11:19pm, talysman wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Doctor Xero wrote: Personally, in the groups I've been in, RPGs which minimize or eliminate game masters ruin one of our
interests in gaming together.

As players, we see one (of many) pleasures in RPGs as the opportunity to romp through the imagination
and dreamscape of the person we've chosen as game master.


that's why I think good GMless designs require player creativity. you're still romping through someone's imagination -- the imagination of whoever is adding details to the gameworld at the moment.

Message 9741#102129

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by talysman
...in which talysman participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/12/2004 at 11:47pm, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Doctor Xero wrote: let's not discount the gaming groups who enjoy adventuring in the
personal fantastica of someone they personally know and game with.

talysman nevertheless wrote: that's why I think good GMless designs require player creativity.
you're still romping through someone's imagination -- the imagination
of whoever is adding details to the gameworld at the moment.


I never discounted good GMless designs. I pointed out we shouldn't discount those of
us who prefer otherwise.

The groups about which I write are filled with tremendously creative individuals.

But in this situation, they aren't looking for a creative patchwork or montage of the creative ideas
of the entire group. They want to romp through the personal imagination of one specific individual
at that time -- with all the coherence and individual vision and insight into that person that implies.

I'm not discounting your love of GMless designs, talysman. Please do not discount those of us
whose personal enjoyment moves more towards campaigns run by a single individual game master
with his own singular creative vision with which we interact and go wild. Our players are creative,
our interests involve creativity -- and this is how we enjoy expressing our creativity and imagination.

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102137

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/12/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 12:12am, talysman wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

no one's making any accusations against you, Doctor Xero, so please don't get defense or angry. I did not say that everyone should play GMless, or that playing with a GM isn't fun, or that I myself would never play with a GM. you mentioned that the GMless encounters you had lacked something: the ability to explore someone else's imaginary world. I suggested that this could be added to a good GMless design.

that's not a criticism of you. if anything, it's a criticism of the state of GMless game design. that's what the Forge is for: to look critically at the state of game design and game play, to spot problems, to share solutions. it's not a forum for me to criticize how you play, so I don't.

Message 9741#102140

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by talysman
...in which talysman participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 2:20am, Emily Care wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Playing without a specific gm, or with multiple could make the conflict of interest question event stickier. Suddenly everyone has a conflict of interest. Partitioning and being able to step out of identification with the role would be even more important. As would collaboration, or use of very clear mechanical systems to determine who gets to do what when and why.

and a bit OT:

Doctor Xero wrote: When I've tried to use certain group-as-game-master freeware RPGs, I always have to alter them to
reinstall the game master or they fail our group's interests. (Sorry, Zak!)


I'd be interested to hear what happened. Maybe in another thread on actual play or rpg theory?

--Emily

Message 9741#102160

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Emily Care
...in which Emily Care participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 2:37am, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

jdagna wrote: I'm sure you had teachers who realized that if they're going to teach you effectively, then they
must challenge you just enough to find your limits and then help you to exceed them.

I ~like~ your teaching analogy (and I teach university in real life, so I can attest to its accuracy for
certain styles of teaching as well!).

The key factor differentiating challenging teachers from bullying teachers (and challenging game
masters from killer game masters et al.) is the trust issue. When students believe that their teacher
is demanding out of a desire to help the student, they respect it howevermuch they may grumble
about it. And it seems to me that when players believe that their game master is challenging out of a
desire to entertain them rather than out of some onanistic power trip, they tend to clamor for him/her
to run campaigns again and again.

Even when I am running games with various challenging obstacles and NPCs who are overtly hostile
to player-characters, I still think of myself as a cooperating with player-characters as well as with
players, cooperating because I genuinely want them to succeed, just as I genuinely want my students
to succeed. It's not competition because I'm not trying to "win" at their expense in either case -- but
I'll still challenge them as best I can!

Loki wrote: I can't help thinking "system does matter", and any system that sets up that conflict of interest is bound
to fail frequently, GMs being flawed and human.

I agree : I think that, to a certain extent, the game system can influence whether a game master
is going to be a bullying opponent or a challenging storyteller.

talysman wrote: you mentioned that the GMless encounters you had lacked something: the ability to explore someone
else's imaginary world.

Actually, no I didn't. I never even mentioned whether we've ever played any GMless encounters.
All I stated was our preference for exploring a specific person's own imaginary world and how that
preference won't work if there's no one specific person to present said world to us.

talysman wrote: no one's making any accusations against you, Doctor Xero, so please don't get defense or angry.


You're right. Having people consistently put words in my mouth in that *Motivation* topic all the while
ignoring my efforts to point out I'd stated something different from the words they ascribed to me has
annoyed me far more than I'd realized. It's just that, so many of the posts in this forum are so impressive
and learned, I didn't expect that sort of thing to happen repeatedly here.

Sorry for becoming irritated with you, talysman. I shall try to keep my disappointment with that earlier
thread from tainting my responses to other postings.

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102164

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 2:48am, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Emily Care wrote: I'd be interested to hear what happened. Maybe in another thread on actual play or rpg theory?


Sorry, Emily, but all that happened was that the other players refused to play unless there was a single
game master running the game, and they wanted me to be that game master.

Reasons given include a preference for the roleplaying consistency of having each NPC played by the
same person each time and for the thematic consistency of having the entire campaign world run by a
single individual.

Also, we enjoy campaign worlds with a lot of exploration roleplay as well as the requisite combat and
puzzles, and it works better to solve the thematic and stylistic mysteries of a world if there is only
one author's vision to investigate and analyze.

So I adapted the game I wanted, and I ran it, and we played in it.

Perhaps I'll try it again someday with a campaign which is more combat-oriented so that such consistency
is not necessary or with a one-shot . . .

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102166

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 4:52am, Shreyas Sampat wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Xero, if you'll pardon my bluntness, that post is so dripping with assumptions that I cannot help but ask whether you are aware of them.

In your second paragraph you imply that consistency of character and theme require consistency of creatorship. Do you assume that this is true? Is it impossible for consistency to be achieved by multiple creators, or did your group discard it because they decided that there were efforts involved that they did not choose to input? (Examples of such efforts might be: using game mechanics to assist consistency, making sure everyone is aware what is motivating thematic and characterization decisions, etc.)

You go on to conflate exploration with combat and puzzles. I believe that speaks for itself.

Message 9741#102190

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Shreyas Sampat
...in which Shreyas Sampat participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 12:54pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Shreyas Sampat wrote: In your second paragraph you imply that consistency of character and theme require consistency of creatorship. Do you assume that this is true? Is it impossible for consistency to be achieved by multiple creators, or did your group discard it because they decided that there were efforts involved that they did not choose to input? (Examples of such efforts might be: using game mechanics to assist consistency, making sure everyone is aware what is motivating thematic and characterization decisions, etc.)


Even so. It might be doable on a strict rules-based system, but I still harbour doubts. IME, when I have seen characters taken over by other players, the result has always be jarring; for all the nominal identity of the character, each player necessarily interprets these things and what they mean rather differently. I think it is much more reasonable and for me effective to have a single character controlled by a single creative mind. tHe qauntity of data I would need to reproduce qualitatively similar decisions to another player is, I feel, prohibitive. Rather tlike the command of a ship, a single node which takes inputs from multiple sources, creates a single understanding of the problem and articulates a single solution to that problem, is a better way IMO.

I don't think it is possible for the GM to truly be in competition with the players except in a mode of play so dependant on Pawn stance that it likely weould not be considered RPG at all but rather an RPG-inspired wargame. Fundamentally, the GM is dependant on not "playing to win" against the players, for victory would be self defeating and result in the end of play. Equally, it is impossible for the players to compete against the GM, becuase the GM usually has god-like powers and is simply not an equal.

What we have in RPG is IMO a kind of faux-competition, nominal competition always against an externalised other. The GM can be set-dresser for this other, but cannot be partisan for it. All of which suggests either that Gamist GM's do not exist, or that Gamist GM'sd do not address their CA during the play of the game, both of which conclusions I reject. It seems to me the whole problem dissapears if Gamism is seen and discussed as challenge-based rather than competition-based.

Message 9741#102240

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 1:46pm, Nuadha wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

I wrote this a while back on my feelings about the GM's role. Since it applies here, I'm posting it.

I've found my standard way of explaining to non-gamers what roleplaying games are and I think it helps describe my thoughts on what the relationship between the GM and the players is. "Roleplaying games are a form of cooperative storytelling where people gather together to tell interesting stories. Some players take the roles of certain characters and other players, called gamemasters, take on the job of giving the story structure. The gamemaster gives the player a basic plot, a setting and other characters to interact with. Together, they tell the story."

The GM is a host, an adversary and an enabler. It is the GM's duty to complete the story. The PCs will come with a certain amount of characters, plotlines and theme. They will come to the game with all their stuff in tow, but even with all of the characters and story they bring, the world is far from complete. They may have parents and siblings, friends and enemies but they probably won't come to the game with the friendly shopkeeper who sells love potions down the street or the loyal lackey of their chief adversary who always seems to be a thorn in their side. No, they will bring only a certain amount of the world with them. The rest is up to the GM.

As a host, the GM sets the scene and introduces the players (and characters) to the world that the GM has created. The very presence of the PCs immediately begins to change the world and like a gracious host the GM should accept the fact that these PCs are going to make themselves comfortable and move things around a little. The GM and his or her world should be ready to adapt to these changes rather than fight them and force the PCs to conform to his or her vision. The story is not just about the world. It is about these characters as well and for them to fit into the world, the world must give a little. The GM may help the player design a character that fits in to the "big plot" they have in mind for the game but once the player character has that character, it's all their's. Even when playing a pregenerated character (a character the GM supplies to the player) the GM must be ready to let that player "create" their own version of the character and for that version of your character to somehow change the world.

As an adversary, the GM creates and plays the antagonists of the story. The GM must make them interesting and complete characters. Ideally, the GM gets in to their head a little and understands how they think. Then the GM can have these non-player characters act as real characters making decisions that are consistent and as intelligent as the antagonist would make. The antagonists want to win and they usually want to win as bad as the player's characters do. To that end they must work against the characters, resisting them and generally making their live's difficult.

As the enabler, the GM ensures that the players are able to be succesful. The players should be able to overcome all (or almost all) challenges and come out the victorious heroes (or anti-heroes). The GM also should enable the players and characters to have some influence on the story. Give them tools and abilities to change the face of the world or at least the oucome of the story. Give them oppurtunities to explore the depths of the character and become the fully realized person that great fictional characters are; not just two dimensional plot-devices but characters with hopes, fear, etc.

The GM is as much a player as the players who play the protaganists, the "player characters." The GM just has a much broader part and set of reponsibilities but these responsibilities are much a game as the game the others play. The GM must stretch his or her imagination and throw themselves into the imaginary world. Together with the players, it becomes a story. Together, with the players, the GM should feel free to have fun and remember that, in the end, it's a game. Everyone is playing to have fun. It just becomes a larger part of the GM's duty to make sure that fun happens. Encourage the players to throw themselves into their character's and let loose those creative energies. That, if you want my humble opinion, is the whole point of gaming. I have heard people try to make roleplaying into more than that and it can be. If we walk away knowing something more about the human condition or finding some deep insight in to our own personalities, its a nice bonus. The true magic of gaming comes in the creative flow between players and GM and the willingness to "just create."

Message 9741#102249

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Nuadha
...in which Nuadha participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 3:42pm, Loki wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Nuadha wrote: Some players take the roles of certain characters and other players, called gamemasters, take on the job of giving the story structure. The gamemaster gives the player a basic plot, a setting and other characters to interact with. Together, they tell the story.


Nuada, you sum up the traditional role of the GM, and the traditional structure of a roleplaying game (eg D&D) quite well.

Do you ever feel that the dual roles of the traditional GM (arbitrator and opponent) are a conflict of interest? If you (and others) do, what do you think about rules that address this conflict of interest? I think that because the rules determine so much of how a game is actually played, that to ignore such a big conflict of interest in the rules is to ignore how the game is likely to be played.

Also, I'd like to point out something about the 'traditional' roleplaying game you describe: it's often not supported by the rules. For instance, it's perfectly possible to play D&D in such a way that the GM is responsible for everything not on a PC's character sheet. In that sense, the player is not contributing to the story as much as playing a role in the story written by the GM. Add to this the GM's unlimited power, and you practically guarantee that many, many games will play out that way, since the player has virtually no power to "tell" the story, compared to the GMs ability to change just about anything until his story is told. Or the players leave and the game breaks.

In the example I've just described, the game is less a collaboration, and more a performance by the GM--albeit a performance that tries to follow the desires of its audience as closely as possible. I'm interested in rules and other structure that specifically address that conflict of interest.

Message 9741#102277

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Loki
...in which Loki participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 4:06pm, Rich Forest wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

[Edited to note crossposted with Loki]

Nuadha, in case no one has said it before, welcome to the Forge! I think you might want to do some reading in the articles section if you haven’t been yet, because I think you’re post is predicated on a lot of assumptions that may not be true for all styles of play. Furthermore, a lot of discussion and even game application there is out there that has broken up the issue of what the GM does/is versus what the Player does/is, which your post mostly seems to address. John (Feng) mentions some games fairly early in this thread that break up the set of “GM” jobs in different ways, and I think it’s worth remembering that traditionally assigned GM responsibilities can be distributed in a variety of ways. They don’t have to be, but they can be.

Or, ok, in this case, maybe they should be, or could be. Or rather, that’s the question: Should they be broken up differently? Timfire isn’t asking what the role of the GM is. He’s got a very focused question here: Given that he wants to “develop a game with a strong competitive player-vs-dungeon(GM?) aspect,” what is the role of the GM? Is it feasible to put the GM into the role of both arbitrator and opponent, or is that a conflict of interest.

Now, some games have explicitly dealt with this from the early days of the hobby. The traditional idea that a dungeon should be designed before the game (here’s where the GM gets to be the opponent), but it should not be altered if the players are clever enough to break it in play and the GM should always be “fair” (here’s the arbitrator). That was one approach. Mike has also addressed the social contract issue really well. (Why haven’t I heard that analogy before? It’s a good one.)

And of course, coming back to the issue of breaking apart the roles among different people instead of just at different times, there’s a range of possibilities here. “GM-less” versus “traditional GM” isn’t a simple dichotomy with no middle range.

Actually, I’m interested in what Gareth is arguing. That the GM and the players, perhaps, can’t all be really playing gamist without it looking more and more like a board game or strategy game. Or entirely like one. I’m not sure I’m convinced of that, but I’m open to convincing. I think that it should be possible to get everyone, GM and players, involved in the challenge and the competition. But maybe it hasn’t been supported as well in system terms as it could be. Who is the "rules arbitrator" in a board game? The rule book, first and foremost. But that doesn't always work (although in really well designed games, it does). But when there is a genuine ambiguity, I think that it goes back to social contract. The person with the strongest social power, or maybe a random "high/low" roll, maybe a vote in some cases. If it's not in the rules, board and strategy games tend not to even address the issue of arbitration.

I do think (regarding whether the GM and players can all be playing competitively) that there's a much greater range to victory and defeat than just “stopping the opponent cold.” Why does victory have to mean the annihilation of your opponent? Why couldn’t other victory conditions be established? Rune uses a scoring system that makes it explicitly not about fully destroying the PCs (you’d better not—you’re one of them). It’s still very dependent on the set-up versus play distinction, though, to the extent that the set-up phase is fairly involved and is so for all the players. We’ve played it a couple times in my group but only as Player versus player scoring because I was the only person really committed to set-up enough to be the GM. I wasn’t able to “play” the game in the same way. It was still fun, and I suppose providing challenge was part of that.

But I wonder if there isn’t another way. Actually, I’m also trying to work on a design that includes explicit player versus GM competition. I’m most intrigued by the possibilities of a “give ‘em enough rope” approach. That is, if the rule system can be set up as a fairly concentrated core that is applied consistently to all situations, and the players are allowed to choose their own level of risk… the GM is in the situation of providing lots of opportunities for them to take risks for appropriate rewards. And to encourage it, perhaps through NPCs, descriptions, etc. But if the GM and the players have identical system resources for a single session, the GM can’t cheat and doesn’t need to arbitrate (yes, the game has to be well designed). The GM then can just focus on tempting the players to overextend their own resources and push it too far. The consequences of the players “losing” do not necessarily have to be lethal or game ending, however (maybe session ending, but who knows).

My group has tended to focus our Step On Up on risk taking. Here’s an actual play thread that discusses some of that.

Rich

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 8616

Message 9741#102286

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rich Forest
...in which Rich Forest participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/13/2004 at 11:37pm, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Shreyas Sampat wrote: In your second paragraph you imply that consistency of character and theme require consistency
of creatorship. Do you assume that this is true?

Yes, in certain cases it is true (no, Shreyas, I have never implied such a thing is ~always~ true and I still
don't imply it). I will explain by example.

In a mystery scenario, in which all four NPCs are murder suspects and both the PCs and their players are
trying to discover who is guilty of what, the person who plays the NPC needs to know just what it is that
PC is guilty of, or it is impossible to have the delight of a battle of wits between PC and NPC. The only way
that every player can play every NPC is if every player knows every NPC's secrets and -- viola! -- the mystery
is ruined!

When part of the fun of a campaign is exploring the NPCs in that world (as said in the wonderful film Jeffrey,
"Don't you just love this part? When everything about the other person is new . . . is sexy?"), then knowing
enough about the NPCs to play them ruins that part of the fun.

Not every gaming group wants that, of course, and therefore not every gaming group needs that particular
type of consistency, Shreyas, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. However, for groups which ~do~ want that,
that particular type of consistency can best be provided when only one person plays the NPCs in question.

The same is true when part of the joy of that campaign is epiphany -- discovering the underlying themes or,
as Professor Tolkien might phrase it, the ~Story~, of that campaign world.
In fantasy, one very powerful theme is the discovery of the underlying Story of the world. The PCs and their
players can not enjoy discovering the underlying Story if they all already know it because they all game master.

If your own interests differ, Shreyas, that's fine. I'm describing what we do -- not proscribing what you must do.

contracycle wrote: It seems to me the whole problem dissapears if Gamism is seen and discussed as challenge-based rather
than competition-based.

I LIKE THAT WAY OF EXPRESSING IT!

Nuadha wrote: The GM is a host, an adversary and an enabler.

An excellent way of describing a certain style of gaming, Nuada!

Loki wrote: Do you ever feel that the dual roles of the traditional GM (arbitrator and opponent) are a conflict of interest?

I think that happens when the game master is better at being adversary than at being host and enabler.
The host role and enabler role together mediate that conflict of interest. A lot of people can't do this in
gaming or in real life, and thus in gaming we have Killer DMs and in real life we have scientists who falsify
their findings and politicans who misread the data they have to support the conclusions they already
intend to make.

An insight-provoking discussion on the Forge -- as usually happens. ^_^

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102367

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/13/2004




On 2/14/2004 at 11:21pm, Loki wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Xero, I think the enabler/host role can be taken too far as well. I think that's what's called Illusionism (though the jargon on the forge is tough for me to keep up with or understand still).

As an example from actual play, a friend and I were players in a game of V:tM. While the GM was in the bathroom, we were discussing what to do about a challenge and were both stumped. Then we realized that if we did nothing, the GM would present us with either an NPC with a hint (usually by cell phone), or a fight that we could beat. Realizing that it made little difference whether we investigated the plot or prepared for conflicts--because the plot would always come to us and conflicts were tailored to be beaten--meant that suddenly the game became more like an amusement ride, and less like a game. Still a hell of a lot of fun, but different.

Ever experienced what I'm talking about?

Message 9741#102486

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Loki
...in which Loki participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/14/2004




On 2/15/2004 at 3:51am, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Loki wrote: Xero, I think the enabler/host role can be taken too far as well. I think that's what's called Illusionism (though the jargon on the forge is tough for me to keep up with or understand still).

As an example from actual play, a friend and I were players in a game of V:tM. While the GM was in the bathroom, we were discussing what to do about a challenge and were both stumped. Then we realized that if we did nothing, the GM would present us with either an NPC with a hint (usually by cell phone), or a fight that we could beat. Realizing that it made little difference whether we investigated the plot or prepared for conflicts--because the plot would always come to us and conflicts were tailored to be beaten--meant that suddenly the game became more like an amusement ride, and less like a game. Still a hell of a lot of fun, but different.

Ever experienced what I'm talking about?

Yes! We absolutely loathed it!

Except . . . what you call illusionism is precisely what we fear would happen in a GMless game!

One of the reasons we prefer having a single game master is that our game masters have always been people who are very good at reading other people by their body language and therefore can discern when to be which role. (Another reason we wish to avoid GMless play -- it puts power in the hands of those who lack such sensitivity towards others, and they prefer to avoid game mastering authority because they recognize their lacks.)

Game mastering involves a complex juggling act . . .

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102514

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/15/2004




On 2/15/2004 at 7:09am, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

This topic's a bit of a pickle. I've learned that it's more important to decide "what we're going to agree to" than it is to determine "what's the right way of doing things," though I do indulge investigations of the latter in private, for my own satisfaction. A rules text is a good reference point for this debate. I like to confront conflicting views that are disrupting play or causing negative undercurrents. Arguing the merits of your position can be as fun as playing the game.

To me, the role of arbitrator is the more divisive of the two, and is more suitable for player distribution. Some players set themselves up as technical references (guilty). As with any other enterprise, agency can be good or bad. Pro: they can bullet point the issue and lower handling time. Con: they may color advisement with bias.

As for being an opponent, using a second GM as a Monster Runner ends up being a clerical post (IME). Were the role to hold play impact value, the antagonist principals would have to be given their turn to make Exploration (IMO). As for dysfunctional trends, I would first decry overly polite opposition. Christ, I'm not made of glass! is what I want to shout sometimes. I find it hard to forgive boring opposition.

Message 9741#102527

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by bcook1971
...in which bcook1971 participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/15/2004




On 2/15/2004 at 7:36am, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

contracycle wrote: I think it is much more reasonable and for me effective to have a single character controlled by a single creative mind. tHe qauntity of data I would need to reproduce qualitatively similar decisions to another player is, I feel, prohibitive.


This is convincing. And poses a dilemma for me. I've always thought that it sucks that the GM should have to come up with all the ideas. Especially when there are three or more brilliant minds at the table, languishing in impotence. I'm currently making some experiments with improvized situation and had the thought of passing the hat for GM duties. I would like to preserve player-to-character unity, but it's like you can't have both.

Just thinking out loud, I guess.

contracycle wrote: . . . either Gamist GM's do not exist, or Gamist GM'sd do not address their CA during the play of the game, both of which conclusions I reject. It seems to me the whole problem dissapears if Gamism is seen and discussed as challenge-based rather than competition-based.


This makes great sense to me.

Message 9741#102531

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by bcook1971
...in which bcook1971 participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/15/2004




On 2/17/2004 at 8:54pm, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

bcook1971 wrote: As for dysfunctional trends, I would first decry overly polite opposition. Christ, I'm not made of glass! is what I want to shout sometimes. I find it hard to forgive boring opposition.


< laughter > I would probably enjoy discussing things with you in public, then. I've found that it's safer to be cautious on line, however; people assume a growl so often when reading what was written with a fascinated smile.

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102972

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/17/2004




On 2/17/2004 at 9:05pm, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: GM as arbitrator and opponent - conflict of interest?

Consider this :

As a host (for the campaign setting), it's best to have one person as the game master if the other gamers want to focus on exploring a single individual's specific vision. The gaming group may prefer multiple visions, such as having alternating game masters each with his/her own city, or having each player as the authority for a specific culture with the game master as the final word only when conflicts occur.

As an adversary, it's best to have one person as the game master for crucial or nexus NPCs if the other gamers want an over-arcing storyline (that they must discover, such as a mystery or hidden history) so that said NPCs contribute to this storyline. If the opponent is a random monster or not a crucial or nexus NPC, and if the gamers all understand the over-arcing mood and theme of the campaign, there is no reason that various gamers could not play these other NPCs. Gamers might also prefer hidden storylines they construct as they go along rather than ones they discover, in which case there would be no such thing as a nexus NPC for a specific singular storyline.

As an enabler, it's best to have one person as the game master if there is a concern in the gaming group that it's too difficult or too inconvenient (or too disruptive to the pleasures of gaming) for more than one person to have to maintain the objectivity necessary to adjudicate fairly yet mercifully the rules questions and adversary NCP-PC conflicts (or even PC-PC conflicts!).

If the above is true, then it becomes critical in any written game book to make it clear what might be the roles and responsibilities of the game master (or of cooperative players in a GMless game system) and how he or she or they might best delegate said roles and responsibilities within the mechanics and themes of that specific gaming system.

Doctor Xero

Message 9741#102974

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Doctor Xero
...in which Doctor Xero participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/17/2004