The role of the GM

[RyanW]

"Rule #1: Obey all rules" is a waste of typesetting. Anyone willing to abuse rules 2-100 won't exactly be deterred by rule 1 telling them not to.

[Stormcrow]

Which is why Rule 0, giving you permission to break or change any rules, is also a waste of typesetting.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Which is why Rule 0, giving you permission to break or change any rules, is also a waste of typesetting.

I appreciate Rule 0 for two reasons.
1) there are people who won't break rules at all (including house rules) unless given permission, Rule 0 gives them permission.
2) There are rules lawyer players who will harass you and say you aren't allowed the house rule or make different decisions and will make your life miserable, and being able to point to Rule 0 will usually get them off your back.

So I appreciate the presence of the rules.

[Stormcrow]

So what happens if you choose to ignore Rule 0? :D

[Classic Uncle Sam]

Originally Posted by Cybren

...I'm curious what other people think of the idea of GMs as neutral interpreters of a 'complete' rules system rather than arbiters of rules in their own right.

I would say that the DM/GM is there to:

• Be the Keeper Of Thematic Order (if I am using that word correctly)
• Utilize the rules to simulate the contest amidst the conflict

All this is quite subjective. So even rules that expressly state when to use them, given enough variables, it will eventually become a question of "is this the right place/time to use these rules?"

This is why I would say that DM/GMing has a level of art to it.

I will admit that I am biased. I am not a fan of games that specifically give players the ability to arbitrarily alter the game in their favor. To me those games become less "this is my character in this world risking for reward/survival" and more "I have a responsibility over this point of view chapter and when I get enough points I will rewrite things to how I see fit, prior established elements be damned."

There are those who will say "but its expected that the players will change the narrative within reason." I say that's exactly what is expected of the DM/GM too, so you're really just changing who has the opportunity for abuse. "But the rules allow them to do that! They're just following the rules!" Which I think brings the matter full circle.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by RyanW

"Rule #1: Obey all rules" is a waste of typesetting. Anyone willing to abuse rules 2-100 won't exactly be deterred by rule 1 telling them not to.

I've...never seen that rule written down before that I recall.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I've...never seen that rule written down before that I recall.

I know, but all the rules specifically made to prevent GM abuse amount to the same thing. Anyone inclined to abuse the GM's position will do so regardless of the rules structure set up to stop it. As long as there are no game police, the only option against a GM who abuses the lack of a rule is to leave, and the only option against a GM who abusively ignores a rule is also to leave.

When you outlaw GM authority, only bad GMs will have authority.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by RyanW

When you outlaw GM authority, only bad GMs will have authority.

Same principle applies to other forms of power, such as firepower.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by trooper6

I appreciate Rule 0 for two reasons.
1) there are people who won't break rules at all (including house rules) unless given permission, Rule 0 gives them permission.
2) There are rules lawyer players who will harass you and say you aren't allowed the house rule or make different decisions and will make your life miserable, and being able to point to Rule 0 will usually get them off your back.

So I appreciate the presence of the rules.

I detest it because, in a great many cases, all it does is encourage (to use Bill's IMNSHO mediocre taxonomy) mediocre GM's to become bad ones.

It's absence isn't the same as its existence. Competent GMs will make changes as need be with or without it, and inform players of them. Bad GM's won't inform players until "gotcha" time. It's the Mediocre GM's who will take it as given that they can change the rules on the fly, and become bad GMs in the process.

Rules are best when presented as a social contract, and Rule 0 being included in that actually removes the contract nature of them, dumping all the authority on the GM and making the contract simply to "whatever the GM feels like using"...

And that's before the absolutely toxic advice Gygax wrapped around it...

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

I detest it because, in a great many cases, all it does is encourage (to use Bill's IMNSHO mediocre taxonomy) mediocre GM's to become bad ones.

Do you actually believe that all GMs are either outright abusive, or excellent?

I don't think I'm offering anything as sophisticated as a "taxonomy." I'm simply noting that it's possible for a GM to have faults, and not do a first rate job, without being so dreadful that it's better to go without gaming than to game with them. That is, I'm rejecting what I see as a false dichotomy.