GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[Lanefan]

Please read the thread before commenting. This was not the point in question -- the point in question is not "is this metagaming?" but "is this a classic example of illusionism".

Illusionism and metagaming share some common ground; a GM changing encounters on the fly falls within that overlap.

Please read the thread before commenting. I specifically stated that was not the case. As an aside, it can only be bad faith if there is a table contract that the GM will not do that. If there is no such contract, it cannot be in bad faith. And, if you read my comments on my style in this thread, it should be obvious that I have no such contract to break faith with.

Which raises the question of when there is no specific table contract, what's the default. I'd have simply assumed the default to be that the GM runs the game as a neutral and impartial arbiter, with anyhting different requiring discussion and buy-in ahead of time.

Please read the thread before commenting. This was in response to a poster saying they had "never experienced this style of play". Not "never had an ongoing home campaign using this style" or the like. They said they had decades of play, were a good GM and had NEVER experienced this style of play. They did not put conditions on the "never". I was expressing surprise that they hadn't seen this style of play, not advocating it as a template for them.

The advice you gave was all about managing pacing and as written seemed intended to be universal. My point was/is that managing pacing like that only applies to a small subset of games.

And yes I did read the thread up to whatever post I quoted, before quoting that post.

 

[pemerton]

I'd have simply assumed the default to be that the GM runs the game as a neutral and impartial arbiter, with anyhting different requiring discussion and buy-in ahead of time.

Because? Is all the world Lanefan?

If I turned up to a random D&D table with no more information about it than that, I'd make an empirically-based assumption that it is trad-trending-neo-trad.

If someone turned up to my table, during a 4e session, they'd hear one of my players saying "We'd better keep something in reserve, it would be just like pemerton to have a second wave." And maybe I just would!

It's both presumptuous and silly to treat one's own preferences either as normative or as predictive - the latter is especially silly when all available evidence points in a different direction.

 

[Fenris-77]

Illusionism and metagaming share some common ground; a GM changing encounters on the fly falls within that overlap.

I have a question. The job of the GM, in any system, is to adjudicate player actions, which by their very nature change encounters, which by extension means that the job of the GM is to change encounters on the fly (for some value of 'change'). I think you'd need to be way more specific for your statement here to carry water.

 

[Celebrim]

I have a question. The job of the GM, in any system, is to adjudicate player actions, which by their very nature change encounters, which by extension means that the job of the GM is to change encounters on the fly (for some value of 'change'). I think you'd need to be way more specific for your statement here to carry water.

The fiction can obviously be changed by player character actions and the adjudication of those actions. The fiction can obviously be changed by NPC actions and the adjudication of those actions. Neither of those things were being discussed or referenced in the comment you quoted.

What is being discussed is the fact that the GM is also in addition to being the referee, the games "secret keeper" who is responsible for the fictional setting and backstory, sometimes referred to as the "myth". Either the GM has built this myth himself or else he's using someone else's prepared myth: an "adventure". Likewise, since everyone understands that the myth isn't complete, the GM is expected to insert into the gray areas of the myth more detail to help bring the setting to life. Maybe it's a prepared adventure, but guard #3 is not named and his personal backstory isn't given.

What is being discussed is the GM using this power of being the "secret keeper" to influence the course of the game by inventing myth on the fly for reasons that aren't simply down to filling in the details but which seem to have purpose or which might unconsciously have purpose because the newly created myth impacts how events play out. This includes invention of myth that would contradict myth that is already established but not yet revealed, ignoring the fortune mechanics of the game and choosing a favored fortune, and ignoring the rules of the game during adjudication of events to choose a favored outcome. The discussion is over to what extent are those behaviors also part of the GM's job, especially if there is an implied or stated understanding that the GM is also being a neutral referee of events - what you call in the above statement "the job of the GM, in any system".

 

[hawkeyefan]

This includes invention of myth that would contradict myth that is already established but not yet revealed,

What do you mean by the above? How can something be established if it’s not yet been revealed?

 

[soviet]

What do you mean by the above? How can something be established if it’s not yet been revealed?

Written in the GM's notes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What do you mean by the above? How can something be established if it’s not yet been revealed?

Established by the GM in their campaign notes, I would gather. Not every GM treats the world like a shapeless mass of potential until the PCs interact with it.

Edit: that came off as harsh, I'm sorry. It's a different way to play that plenty of people enjoy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The fiction can obviously be changed by player character actions and the adjudication of those actions. The fiction can obviously be changed by NPC actions and the adjudication of those actions. Neither of those things were being discussed or referenced in the comment you quoted.

What is being discussed is the fact that the GM is also in addition to being the referee, the games "secret keeper" who is responsible for the fictional setting and backstory, sometimes referred to as the "myth". Either the GM has built this myth himself or else he's using someone else's prepared myth: an "adventure". Likewise, since everyone understands that the myth isn't complete, the GM is expected to insert into the gray areas of the myth more detail to help bring the setting to life. Maybe it's a prepared adventure, but guard #3 is not named and his personal backstory isn't given.

What is being discussed is the GM using this power of being the "secret keeper" to influence the course of the game by inventing myth on the fly for reasons that aren't simply down to filling in the details but which seem to have purpose or which might unconsciously have purpose because the newly created myth impacts who events play out. This includes invention of myth that would contradict myth that is already established but not yet revealed, ignoring the fortune mechanics of the game and choosing a favored fortune, and ignoring the rules of the game during adjudication of events to choose a favored outcome. The discussion is over to what extent are those behaviors also part of the GMs job, especially if there is an implied or stated understanding that the GM is also being a neutral referee of events - what you call in the above statement "the job of the GM, in any system".

First you assume that one specific sort of play is the only one... Ok fine, I am just pointing it out and I don't actually want to burden us all with qualifying statements on that score. Hopefully that works both ways.

But secondly the whole idea of a single individual who authors the fiction and then adjudicates everything in some sort of 'neutral way' while also playing the opposition seems preposterously unlikely to me. The initial fiction itself is not neutral, let alone the adjudication! The entire idea is untenable and IMHO by interpreting play through such a distorted lens we simply can't analyze it properly.

 

[Celebrim]

What do you mean by the above? How can something be established if it’s not yet been revealed?

Suppose you are running 'Tomb of Horrors'. You have like 32 pages of notes and maps and illustrations that have established the myth of the tomb, all of which are secret from the players and have not yet been revealed. The players are exploring the 'Tomb of Horrors' with the goal of uncovering the things that have not yet been revealed knowing these facts are established, but not knowing what they are. It's this process of discovery of the hidden myth that is key to a common aesthetic of play.

Or consider that you are playing a cRPG like "Mass Effect" or "World of Warcraft". Again, all the myth of the game has been established before hand and the process of play and enjoyment of the play is largely around that exploration of and discovery of the myth. In fact, this aesthetic of play is called "Discovery" and it's the same aesthetic that is available when reading a novel or watching a TV series (well, one of several in common for example). You are playing to find out "what is out there".

This aesthetic is all but destroyed if nothing is actually out there and it's redefined as you go. There are other aesthetics like Narrative and Expression still available and that's fine, or you could focus entirely on Discovery as introspection about the character (assuming the character had some starting defined nature being explored) but the majority of typical Discovery play becomes unavailable to you. Challenge play likewise suffers because there isn't any standard to adhere to, which is why for example if you were running 'Tomb of Horrors' as a tournament game you'd alter nothing on the fly or you'd be doing it wrong.

 

[Celebrim]

First you assume that one specific sort of play is the only one...

I'm just going to ignore what you say from that point, because clearly with that opening it's just not worth my time.