That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[pemerton]

I don't disagree with your post, but was leaving out the idea of GM as in charge of the rules an intentional omission? It's not part of every TRPG, but it's pretty explicit at least in the versions of D&D that I'm most familiar with that the GM is the last word on the rules--while still in principle being subject to them, which seems at least a little conflicty (but that's probably best left as a different discussion). That at least seems to be a difference in authority that's greater than the difference in (to use your example) Monopoly between the Banker and the other players.

I didn't leave it out on purpose (as in I didn't (i) bring it to mind, then (ii) choose to omit it).

But I don't think it's a coincidence that I left it out. Because even for very traditional D&D I think the idea of the GM being in charge of the rules tends to be overstated. When you look at actual empirical cases you see players make rules calls quite a bit.

 

[S'mon]

I didn't leave it out on purpose (as in I didn't (i) bring it to mind, then (ii) choose to omit it).

But I don't think it's a coincidence that I left it out. Because even for very traditional D&D I think the idea of the GM being in charge of the rules tends to be overstated. When you look at actual empirical cases you see players make rules calls quite a bit.

The GM is the only one at the table with the authority to make house rules, though.

 

[Campbell]

The GM role extends out of the wargame referee. Referees in war games are not valuable because they know the rules better than the people playing the game. They are valued because they have expert level knowledge of historical battles. The referee in OSR is similar in my mind. Their value is that they are supposed to have expert level knowledge of the fiction/setting/world and apply that fairly (staying within the written rules whenever possible).

Warhammer 40K and Magic - The Gathering have complex rules, but would not much benefit from an OSR style referee.

 

[pemerton]

The GM is the only one at the table with the authority to make house rules, though.

In a traditional way of approaching D&D (and similar games) I agree. We could call that (very roughly) a legislative function.

But I thought @prabe was referring also to moments of interpretation and adjudication.

 

[S'mon]

Warhammer 40K and Magic - The Gathering have complex rules, but would not much benefit from an OSR style referee.

Warhammer 40K did start off with a referee by default as I recall, same as Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

 

[Emerikol]

I didn't leave it out on purpose (as in I didn't (i) bring it to mind, then (ii) choose to omit it).

But I don't think it's a coincidence that I left it out. Because even for very traditional D&D I think the idea of the GM being in charge of the rules tends to be overstated. When you look at actual empirical cases you see players make rules calls quite a bit.

I think power doesn't have to be exercised to exist. Of course we all want some form of consistency in our games and GMs that changed rules willy nilly would be seen as abusers of their power. In the case of classic D&D at least, the power is not questioned though. This is why rules lawyers are held in such low esteem by most groups.

So again, the old maxime, "What the DM says goes but if he says enough crazy crap, then the players go as well". In a game setting, the DM is supposed to be using this power to make the game more fun. How we do that may vary by opinion but I hope that is everyone's goal.

 

[prabe]

In a traditional way of approaching D&D (and similar games) I agree. We could call that (very roughly) a legislative function.

But I thought @prabe was referring also to moments of interpretation and adjudication.

Yes. I was thinking more of the GM as the final word on/interpreter of the rules, not so much the GM as customizer of the rules. That doesn't make @S'mon wrong--it just means we were talking about different things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The GM is the only one at the table with the authority to make house rules, though.

This isn't strictly true, though. House rules can be overridden by the table, assuming non-dysfunctional social contracts. At functional tables, players can have input and suggest house rules as well, and the table agrees to them or not. In cases where the GM is exerting unilateral authority, I'd say that this is still either by implied consent of the table, or dysfunction exists.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. I was thinking more of the GM as the final word on/interpreter of the rules, not so much the GM as customizer of the rules. That doesn't make @S'mon wrong--it just means we were talking about different things.

Again, I think there's the implied consent of the table backing this.

 

[Emerikol]

Yes. I was thinking more of the GM as the final word on/interpreter of the rules, not so much the GM as customizer of the rules. That doesn't make @S'mon wrong--it just means we were talking about different things.

Imagine in the early days of D&D when most of the rules even in 1e AD&D did not exist but were brought into the game by the DM. For example, immunity to non-magical weapons. The DM might introduce that without notifying the players up front. The players might be surprised when they roll a 20 and the DM says your sword hits the target but there is no apparent damage. The rules as they know them make no mention of immunity to non-magical weapons.

So players in this situation, who want my style of gaming, have to trust the DM. The DM might introduce a new spell or a new ability at any time. A new monster might look a little like an old one but have one key difference. The wonder of encountering new things is what made D&D exciting for me.