The role of the GM

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Do realize that you have a particularly ideal player/gm situation, and the rest of us burn with envy at it.

He didn't stumble into that situation by accident. He built it. He learned to be a good GM and built a good community around him. I did the same thing: There were no good GMs around me, so I yanked the book away from bad GMs who didn't really want to run in the first place and began learning the art, and today, if I offer to run a game, I have no lack of players.

If you find that you have less quality game than you want, seek to rectify it. I'm not arguing that this is easy (it often takes years of investment, though with the presence of the internet, it can be more easily solved), I'm just arguing that you needn't "burn with envy." You can have what he has, if you invest as he did.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Here are some quotes from The Burning Wheel:

pg 24. "An instinct is essentially an 'if/then' statement for the character's behavior. 'If surprised, I draw my sword.' The players allowed to program these actions and reactions into his character. Therefore, he can be assured that his character will react within certain parameters whether the player explicitly states it or not at. Think of them as a hardwired reaction from training and experience (and a little insurance that player takes out against the GM)."

pg. 35. "One of the most important aspects of ability tests in game play in Burning Wheel is the Let it Ride rule: A player shall roll once for an applicable test and shall not roll again until conditions legitimately and drastically change. Neither GM nor player can call for a retest unless those conditions are met. ... This is a hard, fast, fixed rule and is non-negotiable. If a player finds a GM calling for unnecessary retests, he is free to call him on cheating. ... The Let if Ride rule is designed to protect players from GMs who constantly call for retools until a test is failed, and to reduce the overall number of rolls at the table." pg 36 "GMs may not call for a test of the same ability every time they get an itch: 'You reach the foothills, test your Stealthy. Ok, you reach the limits of the crater-basin, test your Stealthy. Ok, you reach the wizard's compound, test your Stealthy. Ok, you climb the wall, test your Stealthy.' No. No! NO!"

pg 58. "Instincts are also player priorities for a character, but they have a different mechanical application than Beliefs. ... Instincts can also be described as player character insurance vs. GM onslaught. They are a mechanical way to ensure that your character behaves in a certain manner which can't be contravened by the GM."

pg 61. "In addition voting for new traits for a character, the GM or owning player may propose that a character lose a trait. If the GM proposes the loss of trait, a unanimous result is required for the trait to be voted off. If the owning player suggested it, a simple majority will do."

This does not sound like, "training wheels for new GMs." It seems to me like the author of Burning Wheel has a problem with GMs.

I meant the indie 'GM is a first among equals' trend overall, not something specific to Burning Wheel. The examples you quoted do sound like they go far beyond that, indeed.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

If you find that you have less quality game than you want, seek to rectify it. I'm not arguing that this is easy (it often takes years of investment, though with the presence of the internet, it can be more easily solved), I'm just arguing that you needn't "burn with envy." You can have what he has, if you invest as he did.

I believe that's largely true. Checking my Historia Ludica file, I see that the year when I decided to run games in published systems rather than writing my own rules, and circulated my first prospectus, was 1992. Since then I've gained players by inviting in friends, having existing players refer other people to me, and later, having people who heard of me through these discussion boards ask if I had openings (that has brought me at least three players). It's always been my policy to look for new players, and if possible to bring people who aren't active RPGers into my campaigns. I'm a big advocate of "get non-gamers to game" as a good thing for the hobby, but it's also a source of private benefits to me as a GM.

Since we're planning to move from San Diego to Riverside in August, I'm going to get the experience of an environment without an accumulated player base, so I'll be finding out how well my strategy works in that situation.

[patchwork]

Just because we call it a Game doesn't mean we're competing with each other.

And +1 to Robkelk's bit about automation.

[Nymdok]

The GM and the Rules have a very peculiar relationship and that has changed over the years.

See the weird thing is that I can remember as a kid, playing AD&D and even the Red Box D&D that there was a mindset of 'I can do X because its in the rules!' or some other absolute notion that if you wanted to do it, it was covered somewhere by some rule. I realized later that the success of that mindset was DEPENDENT on the fact that we didnt do enough 'outside the envelope'. Our games really could have been handled quite well with a keyboard hotkey interface. In fact, they WERE, when SSI Pool of Radiance et al came onto the scene. Judging by that games popularity, IM assuming that I wasnt the only person running and playing those kinds of games.

Many years later, as I raised my own players, I encouraged them to do things 'off page' and get the story told that they wanted to tell, secure in the fact that I would rule on any grey or uncertain areas that they might come across but I would only make those rulings when absolutely needed.

Its a conflict of philosophy I think. Are the rules the LAST word or are they the FIRST word.

GURPS for example, is a wonderful system, but there are question that it leaves unanswered that a GM must address, either because the Rule is not yet written, the GM doesnt yet own (as in either purchase or fully understand) the rules, or he simply finds the rules to be inconsistent with the kind of game hes trying to run.

Which is more tyranical?
The GM that says:
'Ive made my personal ruling on an area of the rules that is yet uncovered.'
or the GM that says
'Im sorry, you cannot perform that action as its not covered in the Rules As Written'.

My exposure in GURPS is that most GMs and players seem to prefer the former form of tyranny (Do what you want, Ill make the call and be the final authority) over the later (YOu cannot do that, book dont say so and Im enforcing the RAW's final authority).

Nymdok

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

See the weird thing is that I can remember as a kid, playing AD&D and even the Red Box D&D that there was a mindset of 'I can do X because its in the rules!' or some other absolute notion that if you wanted to do it, it was covered somewhere by some rule. I realized later that the success of that mindset was DEPENDENT on the fact that we didnt do enough 'outside the envelope'.

That in itself was a huge change from early-days D&D, which in many ways seems to have been much more like Free Kriegsspiel: the GM would adjudicate most things out of his head, based on his picture of the reality of the gameworld. Obviously that needs a GM you can trust absolutely - but you can't have a rules argument, because there aren't any rules. think it would be fair to say that rules arguments came in with the commercialisation of D&D and particularly the Gygaxian style; AD&D did a lot to push the "one true way of playing", and many people started with it who'd never played anything else and so assumed that was the way that RPGs should be.

Originally Posted by Nymdok

GURPS for example, is a wonderful system, but there are question that it leaves unanswered that a GM must address, either because the Rule is not yet written, the GM doesnt yet own (as in either purchase or fully understand) the rules, or he simply finds the rules to be inconsistent with the kind of game hes trying to run.

There are plenty of places in GURPS that are explicitly marked out as "GM's call".

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I believe that's largely true. Checking my Historia Ludica file, I see that the year when I decided to run games in published systems rather than writing my own rules, and circulated my first prospectus, was 1992. Since then I've gained players by inviting in friends, having existing players refer other people to me, and later, having people who heard of me through these discussion boards ask if I had openings (that has brought me at least three players). It's always been my policy to look for new players, and if possible to bring people who aren't active RPGers into my campaigns. I'm a big advocate of "get non-gamers to game" as a good thing for the hobby, but it's also a source of private benefits to me as a GM.

Since we're planning to move from San Diego to Riverside in August, I'm going to get the experience of an environment without an accumulated player base, so I'll be finding out how well my strategy works in that situation.

I just looked in Google Maps and, FWIW, it's about 90-100 minutes from San Diego to Riverside.

I'd drive that far, just to play in one of your games, if I lived in SoCal, so you might not have to worry about not having a player base.

Just sayin'. :)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Which is more tyranical?
The GM that says:
'Ive made my personal ruling on an area of the rules that is yet uncovered.'
or the GM that says
'Im sorry, you cannot perform that action as its not covered in the Rules As Written'.

My exposure in GURPS is that most GMs and players seem to prefer the former form of tyranny (Do what you want, Ill make the call and be the final authority) over the later (YOu cannot do that, book dont say so and Im enforcing the RAW's final authority).

Of course, there's at least one Third Option. E.g. the 'Table Consensus' approach, which seems like a step away from tyranny entirely (unless you broadly sweep it into the category of the tyranny of the majority, but that's not the same thing).

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

There are plenty of places in GURPS that are explicitly marked out as "GM's call".

True, in hindsight, I should have explicitly listed the Rule Zero condition as well because it IS specifically cited on several occasions. An oversight on my part. Apologies.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Of course, there's at least one Third Option. E.g. the 'Table Consensus' approach, which seems like a step away from tyranny entirely (unless you broadly sweep it into the category of the tyranny of the majority, but that's not the same thing).

Well, Ill not engage in the the debate over the types of Tyranny, I will agree that Table consensus is a viable option for some, but I would assume that the rules knowledge is LARGELY the burden of the GM, and the players NORMALLY only focus on the Char dependent aspects of it. YMMV of course.

One outstanding problem of Table consensus is that it seems taht there would be times when the players are at odds over a rule or ruling. Who then breaks that tie?

Nymdok

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

I will agree that Table consensus is a viable option for some, but I would assume that the rules knowledge is LARGELY the burden of the GM, and the players NORMALLY only focus on the Char dependent aspects of it. YMMV of course.

One outstanding problem of Table consensus is that it seems taht there would be times when the players are at odds over a rule or ruling. Who then breaks that tie?

I've seen players who are no less rules-savvy than the GM (and often am one), and I've seen at least one GM who runs GURPS without knowing all the nitty-gritty details of even the Basic Set.

As for tiebreakers, the tiebreaker vote is still not the same thing as unilaterally holding the power. (Yeah, I know players can leave a bad GM, but that's comparable to a revolution in a way - it's not part of the formal power structure.)