A Question Of Agency?

[Campbell]

And this is what the whole fairness thing is getting at

I think there is a world of difference between the disciplined application of a specific set of principles and kind of trying to be fair. Not making any judgements on where anyone in particular sits by the way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there is a world of difference between the disciplined application of a specific set of principles and kind of trying to be fair. Not making any judgements on where anyone in particular sits by the way.

I don't think what Rob and I are doing is "just kind of trying to be fair". There are deep discussions about this kind of GMing approach and we've participated in those, and there definitely are principles you can see he is laying out (and some that are unspoken).

 

[FrogReaver]

My takeaway is that y’all have decided that a GM using the fiction to make a decision about success or failure is not following a process.

While a GM for your games where the GM uses the fiction to make a decision about the DC of a check is somehow following a process.

Anyone want to explain the difference there in relation to “following a process”?

 

[Bedrockgames]

My takeaway is that y’all have decided that a GM using the fiction to make a decision about success or failure is not following a process.

While a GM for your games where the GM uses the fiction to make a decision about the DC of a check is somehow following a process.

Anyone want to explain the difference there in relation to “following a process”?

Also, a lot of what I have been saying about my own decisions is they follow rulings, or even established procedures. I linked to a bunch of them. There are just times where I don't need to make a check because I know what the causal effect would be (this might include portions of conversation between an NPC and PC, where the PC proposes something, and I have a handle on how the NPC views the PC and what the NPC would think of the proposal). Plenty of dice get rolled in these games

Also I think people missed something very important Rob said: if he makes a controversial decision, he will undo that decision if the table objects. And I know I have gotten causal things wrong and undone them (for example I have told a player some element was present in a situation, and I realized it should not have been, so out of fairness to the player, I explain I was incorrect and we can rework what happened. I am not particularly precious about that stuff. Neither of us are the kinds of Gm's who have trouble pulling back the veil. I don't believe in using a GM screen for example. Right now I play entirely online, but in my live games all my dice rolls are out in the open. The only things I make secret rolls for are when you need a partition between player and character knowledge (for instance if a player makes a Divination check, it just doesn't work in the system I run if the player knows the result, so would roll that secretly----but it is one of a maybe two or three things that get handled that way).

 

[hawkeyefan]

You have the ideal of fairness, and there is subjectivity there, but I think there is a difference between a GM striving for it, and one who doesn't (and I mean genuinely striving for it, which my experience with a GM like Rob is you can sense it at the table). There is also a difference between a GM who succeeds more at achieving that state at the table than one who doesn't (there are GMs who are consistently regarded as more fair than others). Further, having done plenty of competitive sports, even in the sports arena, fairness is often disputed because everyone is investing emotions in outcomes, seeing the event from slightly different points of view, etc. Just because that fairness is not going to be universally agreed upon, is hard to achieve, and perhaps an impossible goal to attain in its 'platonic form', it is still a horizon you can move towards, and again, there is a difference between a referee who strives to be fair in sports and one who simply calls things based on who he wants to win. So a GM, in my view can be more fair, or less fair in a given moment, and when people throw up this argument about how its just 'spin', I just don't think that matches what I have seen through the years. Or at the very least, it dismisses a concept that does actually matter, based on it being more complicated than this GM is fair and that one isn't.

Not that I think anything you say above is wrong, but I just want to use it as a starting point to ask a question.

When is a referee needed?

Generally speaking, a referee is needed as a neutral third party to help manage interactions between two other parties. Does that seem right?

When it comes to RPGs, we generally use the term referee to mean "arbiter of rules" or something along those lines. I think those things are a bit distinct though, no?

There aren't two parties at the table.

If we view it that way, do we need to consider the idea of fairness in the same way as we would a competitive sport or activity that involved two opposing groups?

In other words, doesn't the idea of fairness mean something else entirely for RPGs than for sports?

I think it's possible (and reasonable) for a GM who operates under principled constraints (I'll grant self-imposed) and is responsive to the players to feel as though being described as a dictator or despot is incorrect, because it isn't consistent with their experience. In reality, social pressures and table norms (in addition to the self-imposed constraints I mentioned) go a long way toward making the table a lot less ... autocratic than y'all's descriptions seem to imply.

I think any analogy may be useful. The dictator thing is an exaggeration, or a description of how the role of GM can be taken to an extreme that would become problematic.

By the same token, @FrogReaver has been asking if players, when given some amount of ability to influence the narrative through memories of PCs supported by their skill choices, can somehow narrate that they remember being friends with the king or with a god so that they can simply imagine whatever they want into being. This is also an analogy, one that paints the player as some kind of scheming cheater who doesn't actually enjoy challenge and who wants to worm their way out of any obstacle.

I mean, when I get to actually play instead of run a game, I don't want things to just go easy for my PC. Do other people hold this view? Would anyone out there want to simply narrate away their PC's problems? I highly doubt it. So any conclusions that rely on that idea should just go away, same as any conclusions that rely on a GM who totally abuses his power.

Now, each of these analogies may be taken too far, but I wouldn't say that they're entirely without merit. Each makes, or at least attempts to make, a valid point.

GMs with significant authority can misuse that authority. I won't even go so far as to describe it as "abuse" because I think abuse implies knowingly doing so, and then becomes a problem that needs to be addressed in another way. Simply misusing authority is something that doesn't require any kind of bad faith.....it's simply using the authority given in a way that is less than ideal. I think this is very true, and this is something that even the most principled GM in the world will do at times. I think it happens quite often without any awareness on the part of the GM.

Players can also misuse their authority. I mean, we all have heard enough examples of "power gaming" and so on. However, players very often start with so little authority that it's when they do misuse it, it tends not to be a big deal. It also tends to be noticed more readily than when a GM does it. It's much easier to spot someone who barely has any authority start to flex that authority beyond the established acceptable amount. I don't think player misuse of authority tends to be as damaging to a game as GM misuse.

And again, a lot of this is a relic of thinking of these roles as being very distinct. If the lines blur a bit, then they become less oppositional and more collaborative, and then once you've done that, the very idea of misusing authority kind of falls away. The idea of fairness shifts.

 

[Aldarc]

It's worth pointing out again that no one is accusing you @Bedrockgames or @estar of being a bad person, a bad/unfair GM, a bad player, or having badwrong game preferences. @Ovinomancer, for example, has gone to great and admirable lengths to repeatedly reaffirm that your games are a valid and fun playstyle, as well as being one that he partakes in as well for his own enjoyment. The point is simply to highlight some salient places in the various games' mechanical or GM-player power structure where the player's agency is more restricted than what are found in other games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not that I think anything you say above is wrong, but I just want to use it as a starting point to ask a question.

When is a referee needed?

Generally speaking, a referee is needed as a neutral third party to help manage interactions between two other parties. Does that seem right?

When it comes to RPGs, we generally use the term referee to mean "arbiter of rules" or something along those lines. I think those things are a bit distinct though, no?

There aren't two parties at the table.

If we view it that way, do we need to consider the idea of fairness in the same way as we would a competitive sport or activity that involved two opposing groups?

In other words, doesn't the idea of fairness mean something else entirely for RPGs than for sports?

I think referee is simply one of the more handy terms we draw on. I personally use facilitator when I talk about the GM's role in the game. But I do think there is a referee-like thing going on. In that the GM is the arbiter of the rules and the arbiter of the setting. Also a referee is there to enforce the rules of play in sports and to interpret them. That is similar to what a GM does. Johnny tries to use a fireball to make a cat, and the Ref says, no that isn't what fireball does according to the letter and spirit of the rules. But Johnny asks if he can use fireball to light some candles (without damaging anything), a GM might say, that isn't in the letter of the rules, but it follows the spirit of them, so I will allow it. I think that is a kind of refereeing. The big difference is the referee is also more involved in the action. And I think the GM has duties that go well beyond that of a referee in a sport.

I think a lot of the principles that drive fair referee decision, would drive fair GMing decisions. But yes, it is a different activity. And even between sports, what constitutes fair is going to vary depending on the specifics of the rules. That doesn't mean we can't develop, or that we haven't developed, a sense of what makes a fair referee. A lot of the conversations on threads I have been in with Estar have been about what makes a gamemaster fair.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it's possible (and reasonable) for a GM who operates under principled constraints (I'll grant self-imposed) and is responsive to the players to feel as though being described as a dictator or despot is incorrect, because it isn't consistent with their experience. In reality, social pressures and table norms (in addition to the self-imposed constraints I mentioned) go a long way toward making the table a lot less ... autocratic than y'all's descriptions seem to imply.

Totally, but, again, I cannot analyze the general case based on specific idiosyncratic relationships at a given table, but I can analyze the framework those relationships act upon. And, here, it's entirely up to those relationships because the system grants all of that agency to the GM over the players. Using this as the starting point, then we can actually talk about ways in which this can be altered through specifically tailored agreements at the table.

For example, when I run 5e I do not blink a moment at the fact that the system and system expectations are that I, as GM, decide things. I decide if a given action declaration succeeds, fails, or is uncertain. If uncertain, I decide which mechanic will be used and the particulars (DC, ability, dis/ad, etc) that shall be applied. When resolution, I decide the details of the resolution entirely. This is the framework under which the game places the GM and the players. Now, that said, I can talk specifically about what I do with this. Ultimately, I have some written agendas that are player facing and constrain me -- the players can call me out if I violate these. However, the nature of the system means that I have lots and lots of ways to deploy Force, and do so covertly, so that it can be difficult to tell I'm violating those agendas. This is due to the system structure. I take steps to avoid this (announced DCs, roll in the open, explicit stakes), but the nature of the system, and the fact that it strongly privileges GM agency over player agency, is just a fact of play. And, all of that said, I run a pretty mean 5e game.

Which is cool! I'm sure you run a good game, too, you seem very much aware of what you're doing and focused on ways you enjoy playing! And, I think a lot of that is because you've taken in these ideas I'm talking about, recognized how they work, and tailored your approach. Prior to this, did you do as good a job achieving what you wanted in your game?

 

[Aldarc]

I think referee is simply one of the more handy terms we draw on. I personally use facilitator when I talk about the GM's role in the game. But I do think there is a referee-like thing going on. In that the GM is the arbiter of the rules and the arbiter of the setting. Also a referee is there to enforce the rules of play in sports and to interpret them. That is similar to what a GM does. Johnny tries to use a fireball to make a cat, and the Ref says, no that isn't what fireball does according to the letter and spirit of the rules. But Johnny asks if he can use fireball to light some candles (without damaging anything), a GM might say, that isn't in the letter of the rules, but it follows the spirit of them, so I will allow it. I think that is a kind of refereeing. The big difference is the referee is also more involved in the action. And I think the GM has duties that go well beyond that of a referee in a sport.

I think a lot of the principles that drive fair referee decision, would drive fair GMing decisions. But yes, it is a different activity. And even between sports, what constitutes fair is going to vary depending on the specifics of the rules. That doesn't mean we can't develop, or that we haven't developed, a sense of what makes a fair referee. A lot of the conversations on threads I have been in with Estar have been about what makes a gamemaster fair.

I recall you have also said that if the language of terms causes more problems than it's worth, then there may be an issue with using such loaded terms. I would argue that this would be the case for "referee." I think that it reflects an older, if not outdated, understanding of the GM's role in such games, coming from a time in its infancy when D&D and roleplaying games were still being sussed out and distinguished from wargames. While a GM and a referee may both arbitrate rules, a referee may still not be the best or even all that handy of a term to describe the process. DCC, for example, uses the term "judge" to describe the role. Apocalypse World uses "Master of Ceremonies (MC)" to describe this role. The "moderator" of an organizational committee would likewise be familiar with the by-laws and interpret them for facilitating meetings.

 

[prabe]

Which is cool! I'm sure you run a good game, too, you seem very much aware of what you're doing and focused on ways you enjoy playing! And, I think a lot of that is because you've taken in these ideas I'm talking about, recognized how they work, and tailored your approach. Prior to this, did you do as good a job achieving what you wanted in your game?

I think I was running good games before I started conversing here. I'm pretty sure I had at least started my second campaign by then, and the first campaign was already going well--it looks to me as though the party in the first campaign had just taken the Forge (where the Masked Ones were made) when I started the second campaign. To the extent I'm a better DM now than then, some of it is almost certainly from conscious consideration of these ideas--even in games I've rejected--but some of seems also to be a matter of getting better at a practiced skill. I'm a good deal less analytical when I think about previous sessions, than it seems many of the posters here (as in, this thread) are--but that's plausibly from the same part of my personality that never really thought about theory when I was writing fiction, or never really thought about music theory when I was playing in bands (or, now, when I'm messing around in my MIDI space). I think the time for thinking about gaming processes and preferences is before the need arises, not when, so as not to disrupt the actual gaming; the thinking about things might change a response in-game, but it's not at what I experience as a conscious level.