The Forge Archives

Quote from: in the proposition: background and foreground thread, lumpleyIf I say "my guy punches through the drywall," what has to happen among the real people playing before we all agree that yes, my guy punches through the drywall?

It might be rolling dice.  It might be comparing strength values.  It might be an argument about whether my guy "really could" punch through drywall.  It might be nothing but nods - of course he does.  It might be we all turn to the GM for a yea or nay.  I might have to bribe the GM with Yoo-Hoo or sexual favors!  It might take a lot of effort and attention, it might be invisible.  Whatever it is, that's our game's System at that moment.

There have been a number of threads which touch on the value if any of having a game master, particularly (but not exclusively!) the value of a simulationist game master but generally for all CA.  One concern raised by some is the fear of the game master functionary using force or deprotagonizing players.  This concern has always seemed inaccurate to me, at least for some definitions of game master if not for all, but I had trouble conveying successfully why it struck me as an inaccurate concern.

Reading Lumpley's comments provoked a possible insight.

I will use as an example a game I had run not more than a year ago.

The players came up to me and told that they wanted to play in a fantastical secret agent campaign and asked me if I would run it for them.  They then took pains to tell me that they didn't care what system I chose, whether I designed one myself or used a pre-existing system, nor whether I used any gaming system textbook at all.  What they cared about was being in a fantastical secret agent campaign and that I run it.  Nothing more.

I didn't want to juggle impromptu the incredible number of factors in a game setting, so I came up with a streamlined system of my own and then gave them a write-up of the basic game mechanics.  But I noticed as I ran the game that they never consulted the write-up and they never cared whether I varied from it or not.  They treated the character sheets as a tool that the game master used, not something which mattered to the players except perhaps in anticipating the game master's responses.  Sometimes they would discuss and debate whether something would occur this way or that, but despite being considerably creative (two writing majors, a philosophy/psychology major, a film studies major, and a visual artist), they expected me to make the final decision, and that was that as far as they were concerned -- they weren't about to let me shirk my duty of making the final call.  Yet they were not deferring imagination to me nor were they slacking in their creative input and interactions.

Reading Lumpley's quote above, I realize now what was happening :

The Game Master was the game's system.

Not a game mechanics textbook, not dice rolls, not discussion except as moderated by game master whether he/she wishes to be moderator or not.

A game mechanics textbook can not engage in Force nor in Deprotagonization.  When the Game Master is the System, to claim that the Game Master is using Force or Deprotagonization is no more rational (and no less rational) than it would be to claim that the die-20 and its roll or the combat matrices or the strength stat is itself using Force or Deprotagonization.

Thoughts?

Doctor Xero

No, the systems was all the players (GM included) assenting to many, if not all of the game master's decisions about framing events, resolution of in game events, etc. Meanwhile, the game master was assenting to requirements by the players of a particular setting, characters, and situation (presumably situation, if the agents did what agents do).

The way you've phrased your language, it sounds as though the game master is the sum total of all system. This is not the case in your example. The game master does make many significant decisions about what happens in the SIS, but every other player does something, too. He or she assents (or does not assent, perhaps). This is part of the system, too. The game master is not the system; all the people agreeing to play in this manner is the system. This is exactly what the Lumpley Principle says.

So, I ask earnestly, what is it you find revelatory in this example? Was this simply freeform roleplaying with a referee?

Quote from: Matt SnyderThe way you've phrased your language, it sounds as though the game master is the sum total of all system.

An error in my wording, then.  Mea culpa.

Quote from: Matt SnyderSo, I ask earnestly, what is it you find revelatory in this example?

This --

players because they are human can be not only all that is good about humanity but also can be selfishly subjective or invasive or self-absorbed or bullying;

a die-20 and its roll or a strength stat or some combat matrices can not be selfishly subjective nor invasive nor self-absorbed nor bullying because they are not players -- they are tools of the system;

when a game master is seen as another player, yes, perhaps people can argue that because the game master is only human he or she will naturally fall prey to  Force and Deprotagonization once given a position of authority (at least, those with cynical views of human nature when it comes to power),

but when a game master is seen as a tool of the system, well, that argument becomes far less viable.

By one common definition of duty, a component of duty is removing oneself from the equation as much as possible except insofar as needed to fulfill one's duties, and nothing more.  In certain definitions of game master (NOT ALL!), when duty is properly fulfilled, the game master is a tool of the system by which the players game, and thus fears about force and deprotagonization become non sequiturs except so far as one can be afraid of force and deprotagonization from some dice or from a pencil mark on a character sheet.

It was amusing to me to realize that I had become not so much a fellow player or gamer as I had become an incarnation of a gaming utility. < laughter!>

Doctor Xero

Seems to me that no matter how absolute, pure or whatever any "tool of the system" may be (whether is a die or a human being), the people agreeing how they'll use those tools is what matters. That what system is, people agreeing how they'll use any and all tools to make shit happen in play (I'm using "system" here just as Lumpley Principle does).

Also, I don't see how people seeing the GM as a tool of the system is anything more than a slight obfuscation of the fact that the guy could do something they don't like at any time (deprotagonization, Force, etc.).  It doesn't make that argument less viable, it makes the argument less obvious, I think.

Also, how could anyone fear deprotagonization coming from a set of dice or a pencil? That's impossible. It's blaming the messenger. I mean, who wouldn't want to walk out on a GM who uses the following as an excuse for a rotten actual play situation:

"Hey, don't blame me, the dice did it."

That's stupid. He forgot to add "All I did was enforce what the dice said." So, yeah, we can blame him, because he held up a stupid, dysfunctional situation that his players hated and no one had fun doing.

Again, there are NO tools of system in gaming that are not subject to the human beings playing the game. All players must assent before anything happens in the game. This is the Lumpley Principles main point, I believe.

I think your interest in a game in which the game master feels more like a neutral object ignores that the people using that object (i.e. the GM) are still susceptible themselves to all that selfish, subjective, invasive, bullying behavior most folks want to avoid.

This observation doesn't strike me as much more than, "Gee, when a GM acts a certain way, people notice him less, even though our game is just as susceptible as it ever was to dysfunction." What am I missing?

Force only exists if the Social Contract is violated by the GM's decisions.  

The GM is one of the players.  System is how those players determine what goes into the SIS.  Even if the GM is given all or most of the decision making power, it's how he makes those decisions that is system.  He may use any method of DFK, but in your case it sounds like it was mostly Drama.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Quote from: Matt SnyderWhat am I missing?

That the game master doesn't use anything, the game master is used by the players!  (in certain types of  gaming, that is)

Quote from: ErrathofKoshForce only exists if the Social Contract is violated by the GM's decisions.

Good point, one which has been overlooked so often I sometimes forget it.

Quote from: Matt Snyderhow could anyone fear deprotagonization coming from a set of dice or a pencil? That's impossible. It's blaming the messenger.

And in some types of gaming the game master is the messenger as much as the dice -- and is nothing more.

Quote from: Matt SnyderSo, yeah, we can blame him, because he held up a stupid, dysfunctional situation that his players hated and no one had fun doing.

Ah, but can we blame her if she upheld a situation specifically because the players demanded she do so?  Specifically because her duty was to function as a tool, like dice?  To blame her then is a case of blaming the messenger, and it's no more rational than blaming a set of dice.

Quote from: Matt SnyderAgain, there are NO tools of system in gaming that are not subject to the human beings playing the game. All players must assent before anything happens in the game. This is the Lumpley Principles main point, I believe.

Exactly!  That's why the Principle supports my contention.

In the specific sort of gaming about which I write, the game master is not a player, he or she is a tool of system that is subject to the human beings playing the game!  In such a situation, the game master is nothing more nor less than the vessel for the expression of the players' collective will.

They are in full control to a degree they could never be if he or she were another player, and thus if they are at all intelligent and perceptive, it becomes nearly impossible for Force or Deprotagonization to occur unless it comes from the players themselves and not from the game master.

Doctor Xero

System is iterative and it is closely tied to the social contract.

Social Contract in this regard is very aptly named, because system is an ongoing constantly renegotiated contract.

In every contract there are 2 parts:  An Offer and an Acceptance.  That's all that is required to have a legally binding contract.  On occassion there is a third part: the Counter Offer.  

Common in RPG play is the concept of Negative Confirmation.  You don't see this often in contract law directly but it is used frequently in many legal applications.  Negative Confirmation simply means "failure to respond to the negative will be taken as acceptance of the positive"


Every single event that ever happens at the RPG table is simply part of this process.

When the GM says "3 agents of the KGB accost you as you try to get into your car" he is making an offer.

When the players respond "I try and delay them so the others can get away" they are 1) making an acceptance through Negative Confirmation of the GM's offer and 2) making an offer of their own.

When the GM says "Ok make an Intimidation Check against Difficulty 10" he is 1) making an explicit acceptance of the player's offer and 2) making an offer on how to decide whether the players desired outcome happens.

When the player picks up the required dice and makes the roll saying "Made it by 2 that's a total success" he is again making an Negative Confirmation acceptance of the GM's offer, and again making an offer of his own.  In this case his offer, not explicitly spoken, is to follow the precedent of interpreting "total success" completely in his character's favor.

When the GM says "Ok with total success, you manage to...." he is 1) accepting the player's offer of abiding by the total success precedent and 2) making an offer of what that is going to mean in this instance.


Thats it, thats sytem in action.  


I think a large part of the somewhat circular reasoning that I've seen in reference to GM roles and the use of force and such is the result of mistaking "negative confirmation" for lack of participation in System.

Just because the players are not openly challenging the GMs decisions does not mean they are not part of the process.  They are still accepting the GMs offers 100% as much as if they were openly saying "yeah ok, I'll accept that"

Umm, ok. I guess your whole point is that GMs can be tools. Crude jokes aside, that's fair enough.

It seems a little like journalism, which I happen to know a thing or two about. Journalists pride themselves on objective reporting. Can they really be 100% objective? Nah, but they strive. Same thing for the GM-as-tool. Inevitably, he won't be just a tool. He'll be a human being prone to things humans do. But, he and his fellow players can strive, I guess. Not my cup of tea, but more power to 'em.

EDIT: Note that when you agreed to me above, you were implicitly agreeing to the fact that deprogtagonization doesn't become impossible. If you're right, it means that only the GM can't deprotagonize. It doesn't prevent Asshole Player A from raining on Victim Player B's parade. Which is why this whole thing seems like TO ME a waste of time. It seems like you're interested in striving to prevent dysfunction from the GM, but admitting it might come along anyway from other players.

I'd be more interested in play that avoids the problems all together for everyone (either via another mode like Narrativism where force ain't gonna happen, or via a better social contract).

I must disagree with the whole idea, in general, of the GM being a part of system.  The difference that I see, which may only be semantic, is that as long as the GM is making decisions about what goes into the SIS, he is a player using the tool of system.  Only when he no longer makes decisions, but facilitates their being made, does he become a tool himself.  

Example:  
If I tell the GM the intent of my character and he makes the decision on whether my character succeeds or fails, he is using system.  How he makes that decision is irrelevant.

However, suppose I want my character to do something and another player has his character oppose mine.  To determine who wins we must guess the GM's weight.  The one who gets the closest without going over wins.  I get out the scale...  Now I am using system (however silly it might be) and the GM is just a part of it, a tool.

When the GM has the least control is when he is most likely to be a part of system.

Incidentally, I think this may make for an interesting system, say where the GM writes down a number between 1 and 100 or something similar...

Quote from: ValamirIn every contract there are 2 parts:  An Offer and an Acceptance.  That's all that is required to have a legally binding contract.

Doesn't the law require that each party actually receive something (money, service, consideration) from the contract?  I thought that's why all of these "free coupons" say in the fine print that they have a monetary value of one billionth of a cent, and why people give away big things (like baseball teams) through the legal fiction of selling them for a dollar.

I know this is nitpicky, but I think it may be usefully nitpicky, since I think the same principle holds importantly in Social Contracts.  An explicit social contract that simply claims "The players will assent to GM rulings" is less useful and communicative than "The players will assent to GM rulings in exchange for smooth and uninterrupted play of the game".

Yes, that's called the "Consideration" which I left out of the write up because "Consideration" can be pretty much any thing the parties deem have value.  

Since actual play can be deemed to have value, pretty much the whole process has as the built in "Consideration" moving play forward.

I'm going to return to Doc's description in a moment; I think I can clarify what's happening there. First, let me step away from it.

When I run OAD&D, I have a stack of rule books on which the game is based; I'm the Dungeon Master. There are two concepts present here: authority and credibility. Authority rests in those books; if anyone wants to know the rules of the game, the books can be referenced as an authoritative statement of those rules. However, credibility rests with me--specifically, I have the credibility to interpret and apply those rules, and in a very real sense (unless there is a serious challenge from the players) those rules mean what I say they mean, and they impact play the way I say they do. If I say that the ground ahead is so steep that it requires a climb walls roll, then it does, because I'm the one who has the credibility to determine how and when the rules apply. That there is such a thing as a climb walls roll, and that it applies to surfaces whose slopes approach vertical, can be derived from the authority of the rules, but the presence of those rules in the book mean nothing until I, the person with the credibility to interpret and apply the rules, say they do.

What seems to be happening in Doc's example is that he himself is the authority (or his system in his own mind is the authority), and he has the credibility to interpret and apply it. Thus in that case he has the function of being an authority (traditionally assigned to rule books) and the function of having the credibility to apply the rules. He doesn't have all the credibility in the game--players are still providing credible statements about character actions--but he does have the credibility to resolve outcomes and to apply rules (and probably also to define situations).

I think the virtue in what Doc describes is his ability to be a good neutral referee; that is, he can be the authority and exercise the credibility fairly without bias. That's distinct from several other types of referees, many of whom can also be quite good--a good oppositional referee has to be able to exercise credibility fairly but with a certain type of bias that makes it possible for him to play against the players while still rendering unbiased judgments on resolutions. A good participationist referee exercises his credibility by taking over all outcomes and bringing the story to its intended conclusion.

So Doc is the authority to whom anyone would have to appeal for a statement of the applicable rule, but he's also the interpreter and applier of the rule, which are distinct roles from being the authority.

--M. J. Young

I think that's pretty right MJ.

Where I disagree with Dr Xeno (which I think is the same point Matt does) is here:

QuoteAh, but can we blame her if she upheld a situation specifically because the players demanded she do so? Specifically because her duty was to function as a tool, like dice? To blame her then is a case of blaming the messenger, and it's no more rational than blaming a set of dice.

See, in my business I am obligated to 1) follow fiduciary law, and 2) abide by the terms of the written trust document (more or less a contract).

Fiduciary Law requires me to act prudently in the best interest of the client.  The document has its own specific set of instructions.

But see, sometimes the document's specific set of instructions are not prudent.  Sometimes the document give us permission to do things that aren't a good idea.  Sometimes the document directs us to take direction from a client and the client's direction isn't a very good idea.

Sometimes even the document has language that holds us harmless from liability if following its instructions turns out badly.


Here's the kicker...none of that matters.  We are still held responsible and still held liable.  We are the professionals, we have a "nondelegable" duty to uphold sound fiduciary principles.  Even if the Client demands we do something, even if the document tells us its ok to listen to the client.  And even if the document promises we won't be held liable if the client screws everything up...we're still liable.

Its still our fault.  We can say all we want "but the document said for us to do X".  We can say all we want "but the client demanded that we follow the document".  But bottom line, if it turns out badly, we're still to blame and still liable if the action "X" in question was a violation of prudent fiduciary principles which go above the document and above client demands.


I see this as a direct parallel to the GM's roll in running an RPG.  The document (rule book) can say anything it likes.  But the GM is still bound to abide by prudent fiduciary principles (i.e. the social contract).  Even if the players demand that the rule book take precendence, the GM is still very much to blame for violations to the social contract.

He can't cede that responsibility and say "I was only doing what the rule book said" and be validated any more than the courts would let me get away with cedeing my fiduciary responsibility and say "I was only doing what the document said".

Quote from: ValamirI see this as a direct parallel to the GM's roll in running an RPG.  The document (rule book) can say anything it likes.  But the GM is still bound to abide by prudent fiduciary principles (i.e. the social contract).  Even if the players demand that the rule book take precendence, the GM is still very much to blame for violations to the social contract.

But it sounds like you're assuming a specific kind of player (or set of responsibilities) in a specific kind of situation when you say "GM" and like Doc is being careful to say one kind of GM in one kind of game.  What about a game where all players are equally GM (e.g. Universalis)?

Quote from: ValamirHe can't cede that responsibility and say "I was only doing what the rule book said" and be validated any more than the courts would let me get away with cedeing my fiduciary responsibility and say "I was only doing what the document said".

This is somewhat off-topic, but many people think that this limitation on the right to ultimately contract with you freely is a bogus infringement of a right nodded to by Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution and explicated by the supreme court in quotes like "[the individual citizen's] power to contract is unlimited."  Certainly any libertarian would consider the legal situation you describe a fault of the system.  Now you may not think so, or maybe you don't care because you're just dealing pragmatically with your profession, but if the system you operate under professionally is flawed (as I think) then why should we try to pin analogies from gaming to it?

Chris

QuoteBut it sounds like you're assuming a specific kind of player (or set of responsibilities) in a specific kind of situation when you say "GM" and like Doc is being careful to say one kind of GM in one kind of game.  What about a game where all players are equally GM (e.g. Universalis)?

I don't think that matters to my point.  The only difference in this regard between Universalis and a traditional GMing roll is that its even harder to hide behind "what the rules say" because the mechanics make the Offer and Acceptance process so obvious.

I honestly don't think that actual Universalis play is fundamentally different from traditional play, with the exception that in traditional play we've been trained through habit and repitition to not notice the real process that's going on.  That's why the Lumpley Principle is at once completely obvious and quite shocking...because it spotlights the actual mechanism that is at work around the gaming table each and every time we play and which we typically don't see because its largely invisible.  Universalis just makes that mechanism very visible where usually it is hidden.  Its just Crunchy Lumpley...(ewww...why does that phrase generate a gag response...)

Its still an iterative contract process.  Its still "If I say X happens, will you buy into it?" each and every time something is said at the table by GM or by player.

Quote from: ValamirHe can't cede that responsibility and say "I was only doing what the rule book said" and be validated any more than the courts would let me get away with cedeing my fiduciary responsibility and say "I was only doing what the document said".

QuoteThis is somewhat off-topic, but many people think that this limitation on the right to ultimately contract with you freely is a bogus infringement of a right nodded to by Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution and explicated by the supreme court in quotes like "[the individual citizen's] power to contract is unlimited."  Certainly any libertarian would consider the legal situation you describe a fault of the system.  Now you may not think so, or maybe you don't care because you're just dealing pragmatically with your profession, but if the system you operate under professionally is flawed (as I think) then why should we try to pin analogies from gaming to it?

Chris

You can't enforce a contract to committ a crime.  If I offer to pay you $10,000 to kill someone and you accept and perform the job, no court would help you collect that money.  I don't consider limitations of that sort to be an infringement.

In fiduciary law, acting imprudently is a crime.  So in the same vein you can't enforce a contract that lets you do that.

The purpose of fiduciary law is to keep the naive from being abused by the sophisticated...i.e. to protect the less savvy from charlatans and crooks.

Players in an RPG aren't necessarily less savvy than the GM on the whole, but there are parallels.  The role of the players who don't have all of the information while the GM has alot of information the players don't know is very similiar to the situation of an unsophisticated client dealing with an expert professional.  The ability of the GM to fiddle with things and take advantage of the players lack of knowledge is very similiar to the ability of a professional to take actions the client doesn't know about.

In a shared GM situation this doesn't really change.  Its just fragmented.