The role of the GM

[trooper6]

I wanted to expand upon the idea of neutrality this is important to the way I see the GM role.

I think it is important for the GM not to be invested in anything that happens internally in the game. I think the GMs investments should all be meta.

What I mean by this is: the GM should not be invested in the success or failure of any NPCs. They should not be invested in the plot going this way or that. They should not be invested in the survival of this NPC or that town. A GM can be invested abstractly, in that they created this world, but they shouldn't be invested in particular outcomes. If I have a big bad and the PCs kill that big bad on turn 1...that is fine...because that is what happened. The PCs decide to avoid this town? Okay...that is what happened.

For me, the GMs investment should be in meta concerns: are the players being challenged, are they all getting spotlight time, are they all having fun. Is the game working for everyone?

The one place where I am more heavy handed is in campaign creation. I propose a couple of campaign frames and get player buy-in. Then I am pretty active in making sure the character concept the player comes up with fits the frame. I will reject or ask for reworkings of characters that conflict with the frame. I was running a cyberpunk campaign and a players wanted to run a character who was really a prince of the fey realms. I said no to that. I was going to run a Banestorm where the players were on a three hour boat tour and one player wanted to play a serial killer so he could go on a murder spree once through the banestorm. I also vetoed that one. But once the PCs are approved and the campaign buy-in is settled, players can do whatever they want and I won't tip the scales one way or the other.

[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.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.

What Ham Clause in GURPS are you talking about? What page and what book is it in?

Anyhow, I think there is a fundamental difference between the GM saying 'roll the dice and either succeed or fail to resist the disad' and 'I'll give you a point if you fail this disad roll.'

The first is not (at least I how do it) "rules/mechanics being triggered by the GM" --it is an example of GM as neutral adjudicator with noting that a disad was triggered by the circumstances of the game who has no investment in either outcome. The second is the GM wanting something to happen to the PC and bribing him to make it happen.

I like GMs to be neutral.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by trooper6

What Ham Clause in GURPS are you talking about? What page and what book is it in?

GURPS Action 1 p. 20; or After the End 1 p. 21; or Pyramid #3/70 p.15.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

GURPS Action 1 p. 20; or After the End 1 p. 21; or Pyramid #3/70 p.15.

Thanks for the page ref! *reads* Hm...I don't like the option. But then, I don't tend to run over the top action. Going with grittier sorts of games.