The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[niklinna]

Well, it's a lot more simple then complaining about power: The GM does whatever they want. It's not about "power" or who is "on top": it's only about having a fun, great game.

Such a GM clearly doesn't need other players if they just do whatever they want. Which makes it pretty clear that it's all about power and who's on top, and about the game being fun and great—for him.

I don't see the paradox either. The only one I might see is you have a normal GM controlled game vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.

My players can control thier main character players all they want.....inside my Power Tapestry.

Oh look! I called it several posts back.

What a surprise.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, sure, I don't get what "color" is because it's all made up by you.

I don't see the paradox either. The only one I might see is you have a normal GM controlled game vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.

My players can control thier main character players all they want.....inside my Power Tapestry.

I love this post.

A lot of folks say that “Power Tapestry GMs” (I really like this…particularly how it’s not crappy Forge jargon but the good kind of jargon) are basically mythical unicorns that don’t exist. I love how you own it. Seriously.

In your experience, is “Power Tapestry GMing” common or uncommon?

 

[bloodtide]

In your experience, is “Power Tapestry GMing” common or uncommon?

Uncommon. Other then those I have trained and set on the path, I have met only a few.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, sure, I don't get what "color" is because it's all made up by you.

Um, no. Color is the added details the provide spice. This is part of the dictionary definition of the word. To be fair, color has a lot of rather divergent definitions.

I don't see the paradox either. The only one I might see is you have a normal GM controlled game vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.

My players can control thier main character players all they want.....inside my Power Tapestry.

The paradox is that if the GM controls the story, how can the players control the main characters in that story. There's a conflict there -- the GM cannot have total control over the direction of the story while players have total control over what their characters do in that story. Has to be resolved. Lots of ways to do so, plenty of good gaming. You've clearly gone with participationism, and a strong statement of such. Not denigrating your choice -- perfectly valid!

 

[Manbearcat]

Uncommon. Other then those I have trained and set on the path, I have met only a few.

Appreciate the answer.

What does the training look like?

Like if you had to outline maybe 5 important techniques that you teach and 3-4 principles that you advocate for in your training, what would they be?

EDIT - and maybe talk about geography/topography/maps. What do you think about the answers given in this thread?

Why the focus on *geography* in RPGing?

In the published things Howard did describe the layout and history in broad strokes Is there a Howard-canon map of Conan's world? And apparently had a sketch for his own use ("secret DM info"?): Certainly more than a bit European inspired. I was enamored with Hyboria as a teen, but as I...

www.enworld.org

Any you like? Any you dislike?

 

[Maxperson]

The GM has not a single iota of power above and beyond that granted by the players. And at any time if they are abusing that power, the players can withdraw it by leaving the game - perhaps en masse. The idea that GMs have unlimited power is not just false, but it's commonly considered one of the sins of running. In reality there is a strong upper limit on what they can do, constrained by the shared understanding of the rules, the implied or explicit social contract, and the trust given by the players.

So this isn't doing what you think it's doing. When the players leave a game, they are leaving the DM's power and authority and going elsewhere. They are not removing or diminishing his power or authority over his game. That DM can go out and get more players and continue that game. Players don't grant the DM authority. The game does. The DM can cede some of that authority to the players, though.

The social contract is really the only limiter. Groups gather to have fun, so the DM abusing his authority and removing or diminishing that fun is a violation of the social contract. The vast majority of DMs choose to play within the confines of the social contract, so they do not use their authority in abusive ways.

This is the one place that is inviolate - the players are in control of their PCs in regards to their thoughts, intentions, feelings. (Outside corner cases like being controlled by magic or psionic.)

This again is due to the social contract. There's nothing in the rules that prevents a DM from abusing his authority and engaging in such things.

 

[Blue]

So this isn't doing what you think it's doing. When the players leave a game, they are leaving the DM's power and authority and going elsewhere. They are not removing or diminishing his power or authority over his game.

There is no "his game". It doesn't exist. There is only "their game". A GM with no players has no game. They can have plans for a campaign or an adventure, but unless they are ignoring all player agency, players leaving or changing will mean the game will not take the same route and end up the same place it would have if they stayed, showing that the game belongs to all of them.

Lord of the Rings would be very different story if Samwise walked halfway through.

Power isn't a point source - it's a description between things. Walk, and the GM has no power over you. I've even walked with all the players away from a game before and we just started a new game.

That DM can go out and get more players and continue that game.

No, the GM can (potentially) go out and get more players and create a new game that is based on what they have done before. If they have retained some players there can even be more continuity, like a show where a lead actor or director leaves and something with that same name continues, but it doesn't have the same chemistry or the same energy and needs to rediscover itself.

And again, your statement seems to assume that players are cogs - you can replace them and they all bring the same thing to the table. So there never a penalty to losing them. That's a very senior management view you have there, one that isn't held up in the real world.

Players don't grant the DM authority. The game does.

Please, exercise that authority given by the game over me. You can't, because I don't grant you that authority over me by accepting you as a GM. See, the rules grant you no authority, only I can grant it. And take it away.

Tell me how the rules have FORCED a player to accept authority when the player wants to leave the game. Again, your thesis is that the rules grant this authority and not the players, and by your thesis you can use that power even when the players do not want you to. Please, tell me how.

There is literally no way the game grants any authority not granted by the player. There is no mechanism to make a player accept something if they do not wish to enough to leave the game.

The DM can cede some of that authority to the players, though.

The social contract is really the only limiter. Groups gather to have fun, so the DM abusing his authority and removing or diminishing that fun is a violation of the social contract. The vast majority of DMs choose to play within the confines of the social contract, so they do not use their authority in abusive ways.

This again is due to the social contract. There's nothing in the rules that prevents a DM from abusing his authority and engaging in such things.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this, because it's a pointless distinction. Regardless if it's because a DM is abusing their power, are just a bad DM, are a great DM but not a good match for how the player wants to play, if the DM claims the rules give them authority but also claim they can change the rules as they want, all of it doesn't matter. If a GM is net decreasing fun the players can take away the power they have granted the DM over themselves by walking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I just said so in the quote you quoted for this post.....

In the last post. After acting like it was a given to be not true for the prior four.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no "his game". It doesn't exist. There is only "their game". A GM with no players has no game. They can have plans for a campaign or an adventure, but unless they are ignoring all player agency, players leaving or changing will mean the game will not take the same route and end up the same place it would have if they stayed, showing that the game belongs to all of them.

Lord of the Rings would be very different story if Samwise walked halfway through.

Power isn't a point source - it's a description between things. Walk, and the GM has no power over you. I've even walked with all the players away from a game before and we just started a new game.


No, the GM can (potentially) go out and get more players and create a new game that is based on what they have done before. If they have retained some players there can even be more continuity, like a show where a lead actor or director leaves and something with that same name continues, but it doesn't have the same chemistry or the same energy and needs to rediscover itself.

If I owned a gun, I could walk out and shoot some random person. I have that power. That I would never do something like that doesn't mean that the ability is gone. That the first person of few people can run away(leave my game) also doesn't stop me. I can just go out and find more people(get new players). The power resides with the DM, even if he would never abuse it.

And again, your statement seems to assume that players are cogs - you can replace them and they all bring the same thing to the table. So there never a penalty to losing them. That's a very senior management view you have there, one that isn't held up in the real world.

The players leaving would be taking with them the pros and the cons that they brought to the table. The new players would be coming in with new pros and cons. They may not be exactly the same, but my game would still run the way I want it to.

Please, exercise that authority given by the game over me. You can't, because I don't grant you that authority over me by accepting you as a GM. See, the rules grant you no authority, only I can grant it. And take it away.

If you are playing in my game, I have authority over the game and everything that happens within it, even if I don't exercise that authority to the fullest. You can remove yourself from that authority by leaving the game, but you cannot remain in the game without placing yourself under that authority, or remove my authority over the game by leaving it. You have no ability to affect my authority over the game.

Tell me how the rules have FORCED a player to accept authority when the player wants to leave the game. Again, your thesis is that the rules grant this authority and not the players, and by your thesis you can use that power even when the players do not want you to. Please, tell me how.

There is literally no way the game grants any authority not granted by the player. There is no mechanism to make a player accept something if they do not wish to enough to leave the game.

You're arguing against something that I never said. Either you stay in the game under the authority granted to me by the game, or you leave the game. Leaving doesn't affect my authority over the game at all.

 

[overgeeked]

Please, exercise that authority given by the game over me. You can't, because I don't grant you that authority over me by accepting you as a GM. See, the rules grant you no authority, only I can grant it. And take it away

Yep. Playing a game is all about consent. Players consent to the referee running the show. The referee consents to the players running their characters. And anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason. The only way it works is everyone agrees to engage in good faith…otherwise it falls apart.

If there is disagreement, those involved have limited options. In the game, the referee can do whatever they want, infinite dragons and all that. If that bothers the players, they have little recourse besides asking the referee to stop or walking away.

It’s interesting that referees almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the referee” while players almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the players.” In truth, it’s both. But considering there’s a burgeoning market for paid referees but no market for paid players…it’s not hard to see the demographic imbalance and the reality of who needs whom more.