The role of the GM

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by trooper6

For me, the GM is not omnipotent or absolute. There is a separation of powers, as it were, the GM has duties refereeing the reactions of the world to the players actions. The GM has no power over the players and their choices. I like to think of the GM as "neutral."



But the outcome of the dilemma hadn't yet been determined...and of course the players, if they have the ability to do whatever they want, will side-step that dilemma. Anyway, of course there are people who like shared narrative, that is indeed why these games exist. I was just explaining why I don't like it--and imbalance of the sharing and the conflict of interest in the player role.

I was hoping that the example I quoted was one not of sidestepping the dilemma, but more of pointing out that "Nothing ever ends" and of allowing more narration to be added to the plot after the initial outcome narration, one with a different perspective.

And okay, now I understand about explaining.

Originally Posted by trooper6

Yeah...I'd never do that. It rubs me the wrong in two different ways:
1) A GM wanting the player to do various things breaks the way I embody the GM role: as neutral arbiter. As a GM I don't have ways I want the story to go. I am interested in seeing what the players do and then I adjudicate the consequences of those actions. Sure, I'm also adjudicating the actions of the NPCs and their plans, but I think it is important for me not to be invested in any particular outcome.
2) I think the player's control over their PC should not be infringed upon by the GM. If they chose a particular Disad and they fail a roll? Okay. If there is some Mind Control thing going on? Okay. But players own their PCs and barring rules explicit exceptions, I'm not getting involved in the player's sphere.

Other people play other ways and enjoy other things. But for me, it is a GM sin to say things like, "your character feels...", "your character thinks...", "your characters likes such and such an NPC..." That is out of the GMs purview.

Hmm. I guess this is to a large extent a matter of a railroad vs. sandbox spectrum. I tend to see myself as taking a position somewhere in the middle of it ('the campaign is a broad flowing river' or whatever). I know my current MtA and former Exalted GM is closer to the rail end of the spectrum, and you seem to be closer to the sand end of the spectrum.

However, since the discussed sharing of narration can be a two-way street (i.e. players gaining the ability to affect the narrative, GMs getting the ability to influence player choices), it's possible to increase the amount of sharing while not appreciably shifting the position on the sand/rail spectrum in either direction, just changing in what ways the sandiness and/or the railiness of the campaign expresses itself.

As for "Take a disad, fail the resistance roll": at one point I've been shown an interesting perspective on that matter. We (especially GURPSologists) seem to be used to the dice dictating whether or not our PCs resist a disad. But it's quite possible, for example, for a character to use expenditure of Willpower points to resist a disad in addition to or in place of the SC roll. And by extension, for characters to regain some of their willpower by giving in to their vice. This is somewhat similar to the Ham Clause in GURPS, which doesn't have such points, but still allows giving in to a disad in order to suppress it later.
I'm saying this because a GM saying 'roll the dice and either succeed to resist the disad or fail to give in to it' is not entirely unlike the GM saying 'get a point if you resist the disad or gain it if you give in'. They have their differences, but fundamentally they're both cases of rules/mechanics being triggered by the GM and then used to determine how a PC acts.