The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Thomas Shey]

Of course you still need a common metric of some sort as to what "skill" even means.

 

[Yora]

That's interesting. I have never heard it explained that way. I don't think it makes it any more for me, but I think I understand it a little better. Thank you.

Apocalypse World spells out specifically and goes into further detail "Be a fan of the characters" and "Make the characters' lives not boring."

It's instructing to leave the disinterested attitude of GMs in many other unplotted RPGs behind.

 

[Reynard]

Apocalypse World spells out specifically and goes into further detail "Be a fan of the characters" and "Make the characters' lives not boring."

It's instructing to leave the disinterested attitude of GMs in many other unplotted RPGs behind.

Emphasis mine.

That is a strange word choice. Maybe "dispassionate" is better? Or just "fair"? I am a fan of my players and usually their PCs, but I also play the world like the worl -- NPCs act like I imagine they would, and nature doesn't care one way or the other.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Emphasis mine.

That is a strange word choice. Maybe "dispassionate" is better? Or just "fair"? I am a fan of my players and usually their PCs, but I also play the world like the worl -- NPCs act like I imagine they would, and nature doesn't care one way or the other.

Dispassionate seems reasonable; I wouldn't use "fair" because there's too much semantic loading there that I think begs disagreement.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's such an odd impulse. Like the words on the page can somehow protect you from a bad referee. Hint: they can't. At most the bad referee will look at those and reject them and run the game however they want anyway. The players can either put up with it or point to the text and object. If the referee persists, the players can either continue to put up with it or walk. But the words on the page don't constrain the referee.

This is a very strange take. Like, imagine if the dealer in a card game just got to ignore the rules of the game on a whim. Or the banker in Monopoly. These are roles that have some amount of authority, but not carte blanche to just ignore or reinterpret the rules.

In some RPGs, when a GM ignores the rules, it’s incredibly obvious. Like, a lot of times you simply can’t get away with it. Other RPGs have a lot of fuzzy areas, and so the GM may be able to exercise their judgment without disturbing the expectations of the players.

But to just assume absolute authority for the GM? As I said…it’s strange.

But again, those are designated as such by whom? I'll leave it to the viewer as to who is usually expected to do that in a trad game.

The GM will be involved. But so may the players. I bring things like this to the GM in my 5e game all the time. “The rules donmt really say it for sure, so I think you’ll have to decide.” Recognizing such edge cases would seem to me to be everyone’s job.

Very many traditional GMs and players either don't agree with you, or don't even think your opinion matters in such cases unless you are the GM.

We should round such folks up and launch them into the sun.

Basically, I think you're presenting this from of POV that is anything but typical in the hobby as a whole.

In the hobby as a whole? I doubt that.

But even if so, I’d be all right with it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The GM will be involved. But so may the players. I bring things like this to the GM in my 5e game all the time. “The rules donmt really say it for sure, so I think you’ll have to decide.” Recognizing such edge cases would seem to me to be everyone’s job.

But that's it; I don't think with the majority of people's expectations in most trad games, that the players are routinely involved. The GM may or may not pay attention to them, but there's not a lot of expectation that they have any formal say. As I said, if it was otherwise there wouldn't be so much hostility to a player making an issue out of it.

In the hobby as a whole? I doubt that.

As you wish. But I think assuming otherwise has to ignore a pretty fair amount of commonly presented evidence.

But even if so, I’d be all right with it.

As you should be. But that doesn't mean convincing yourself its not true does your ability to discuss the issues with others any favors.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But that's it; I don't think with the majority of people's expectations in most trad games, that the players are routinely involved. The GM may or may not pay attention to them, but there's not a lot of expectation that they have any formal say. As I said, if it was otherwise there wouldn't be so much hostility to a player making an issue out of it.

So we started off with talking about “defining edge cases” and that’s what my comments have been about.

You seem to have moved on to “adjudicating edge cases”.

As you wish. But I think assuming otherwise has to ignore a pretty fair amount of commonly presented evidence.

Sure. I think granting the role of GM such a privileged position where the very rules of the game are subject to GM approval is advice that should be ignored. I realize that there are some folks for whom it works or is enjoyable. That’s fine.

But as widespread advice or as a kind of default expectation? I think it’s terrible advice.

As you should be. But that doesn't mean convincing yourself its not true does your ability to discuss the issues with others any favors.

There are significant numbers of games where that’s not the case, and significant numbers of folks I know who, even when playing traditional games, hold the social contract above the GM’s authority.

Is it most? I don’t know, but I didn’t claim that it was.

 

[bloodtide]

In games like D&D, a GM technically follows the rules, but it does not really matter because the GM is outside the rules.

The big thing is that a GM can just say things, make up and add whatever they want to a game world on a whim.

A new, inexperienced, clumsy, bad or a GM lacking any game mastery might just say "yuk yuk, the goblin is immune to your spells" and not have anything to back that up with.

A good, skilled, smooth, experienced or a GM with game mastery can with EASE make a "goblin with immunity to magic" by USING the rules. The GM just says the goblin has x, that makes it immune to spells.

And sure, hostile players can watch every number, but it's a bit meaningless. To say goblin Bob was hit with a roll of 12, so for some reason a roll of 12 must always hit is just silly. The players hit Bob with a 12 on Monday, but when encountered again on Friday he has X to improve his defense....but the players would not know....but "suddenly" a 12 does not hit Bob anymore.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So we started off with talking about “defining edge cases” and that’s what my comments have been about.

You seem to have moved on to “adjudicating edge cases”.

Not really. When it turns into a question of whether a GM can intervene, it can very easily turn into a "The rules say..." "They don't apply here." argument. That's absolutely about whether its an edge case or not.

Sure. I think granting the role of GM such a privileged position where the very rules of the game are subject to GM approval is advice that should be ignored. I realize that there are some folks for whom it works or is enjoyable. That’s fine.

But as widespread advice or as a kind of default expectation? I think it’s terrible advice.

I don't disagree with you. I've been arguing against the Divine Right of GMs now for at least 25 years. But that doesn't mean I doubt its an extremely common expectation. Its been carried over from the earliest days of D&D, and barring games specifically designed with power-sharing assumptions, fairly few games even try to move away from it that hard its so baked into assumptions in the hobby as a whole.

There are significant numbers of games where that’s not the case, and significant numbers of folks I know who, even when playing traditional games, hold the social contract above the GM’s authority.

Significant /= majority. Even if you pulled out the D&D-sphere I seriously doubt that would be true.

Is it most? I don’t know, but I didn’t claim that it was.

When talking about things in a general sense, having an idea how most people are doing things is kind of important, though, and I'll note this thread is a general thread on the topic.

 

[Campbell]

In games like D&D, a GM technically follows the rules, but it does not really matter because the GM is outside the rules.

The big thing is that a GM can just say things, make up and add whatever they want to a game world on a whim.

A new, inexperienced, clumsy, bad or a GM lacking any game mastery might just say "yuk yuk, the goblin is immune to your spells" and not have anything to back that up with.

A good, skilled, smooth, experienced or a GM with game mastery can with EASE make a "goblin with immunity to magic" by USING the rules. The GM just says the goblin has x, that makes it immune to spells.

And sure, hostile players can watch every number, but it's a bit meaningless. To say goblin Bob was hit with a roll of 12, so for some reason a roll of 12 must always hit is just silly. The players hit Bob with a 12 on Monday, but when encountered again on Friday he has X to improve his defense....but the players would not know....but "suddenly" a 12 does not hit Bob anymore.

The type of rules you are speaking to here are not the constraints I'm speaking to. GM facing mechanics are basically pixie dust* (much of the time). They make us feel better, but they aren't really all that binding. The type of things players hold GMs accountable for in more traditional games are structural in nature. What sort of scenes are you allowed to frame? How do you treat space and time? Do things hold up to inspection? If I have a conversation with this NPC do they seem like a real person? If I gain leverage over the setting with information I have discovered is it effective?

You can only be accountable for things players can actually observe and care about enough. In terms of most traditional play that includes respecting fictional positioning, giving players a chance to suss out the information they need to succeed, the setting holding up under extended scrutiny, providing chances for characters to shine and players to feel awesome, giving players time to plan, etc.

* I'm not saying they never matter. GMs can exercise a great deal of self discipline to use them. I do when I run traditional games (which is quite often) I treat them very seriously, but as a player I never depend on them.