What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?

[Lanefan]

I think you should interrogate those assumptions pretty thoroughly. The tilt of the field toward the GM based on prep and 'mastery' of the setting is not something that's integral to RPGs generally, but rather a subset of RPGs that rely on deep prep and the unveiling of that prep.

I'm not talking about mastery of the setting or prep. I'm talking about mastery of the table, something akin to a facilitatorial or small-team managerial role, where the GM is more than just another player and may in fact be a step or two removed from the "player" role at all (e.g. a GM who really emphasises the 'referee' and-or social organizer part(s) of the job).

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not talking about mastery of the setting or prep. I'm talking about mastery of the table, something akin to a facilitatorial or small-team managerial role, where the GM is more than just another player and may in fact be a step or two removed from the "player" role at all (e.g. a GM who really emphasises the 'referee' and-or social organizer part(s) of the job).

Mastery is a loaded word there IMO. Facilitator is probably closer to the actual role (generally speaking). Trying to argue that the GM isn't a player (usually to valorize the role) doesn't carry a lot of water. We all know that GMing is a lot of work but construing that work into 'importance' is a whole other step.

A different characterization of RPG play, one that puts a lot more responsibility in the hands of the players (regardless of system) avoids a lot of this issue. The players are not passive consumers of GM prep - no account of what RPGs are will survive that initial assertion. To try and argue this point is to obviate that player actions are what drives RPG play, and thus by extension that informed, active, and enthusiastic player play isn't better than more passive consumption.

 

[Aldarc]

Mastery is a loaded word there IMO. Facilitator is probably closer to the actual role (generally speaking). Trying to argue that the GM isn't a player (usually to valorize the role) doesn't carry a lot of water. We all know that GMing is a lot of work but construing that work into 'importance' is a whole other step.

Yeah, more of a Game Moderator than Game Master.

 

[pemerton]

Mastery is a loaded word there IMO. Facilitator is probably closer to the actual role (generally speaking).

Yeah, more of a Game Moderator than Game Master.

Or even a Master of Ceremonies?

 

[pemerton]

A different characterization of RPG play, one that puts a lot more responsibility in the hands of the players (regardless of system) avoids a lot of this issue. The players are not passive consumers of GM prep - no account of what RPGs are will survive that initial assertion. To try and argue this point is to obviate that player actions are what drives RPG play, and thus by extension that informed, active, and enthusiastic player play isn't better than more passive consumption.

This is at least leaning in the same direction as the aesthetic opinion that I expressed not far upthread!

 

[Fenris-77]

This is at least leaning in the same direction as the aesthetic opinion that I expressed not far upthread!

The difficulty that we have with RPG discussion and analysis is often that it's very new, and also that the people giving it serious attention aren't always the same people who discuss it on ENWorld. This isn't any kind of attempt on my part to privilege the discussion to 'academics' or any such nonsense but I will try to contextualize the discussions we do have in more positive and fruitful ways (with more or less success in individual moments, naturally).

 

[pemerton]

The difficulty that we have with RPG discussion and analysis is often that it's very new, and also that the people giving it serious attention aren't always the same people who discuss it on ENWorld. This isn't any kind of attempt on my part to privilege the discussion to 'academics' or any such nonsense but I will try to contextualize the discussions we do have in more positive and fruitful ways (with more or less success in individual moments, naturally).

I'm not 100% sure if this expressing a degree of sympathy with my post, or disagreement.

I've read a little bit of academic writing about RPGing, but didn't find it as insightful - as far as methods, processes, techniques, etc are concerned - as what I've read from Ron Edwards and Vincent Barker.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not 100% sure if this expressing a degree of sympathy with my post, or disagreement.

I've read a little bit of academic writing about RPGing, but didn't find it as insightful - as far as methods, processes, techniques, etc are concerned - as what I've read from Ron Edwards and Vincent Barker.

I was talking more about actual academic investigation into the topic. For example, I searched hermeneutics and games on a couple of popular academic search engines and got a ton of results. My personal view of RPGs is enormously informed by Gadamer's hermeneutics from Truth and Method (and to some extent the post-modern takes on Gadamer, perhaps most alarmingly Derrida). So that said, the value of my adding academic takes on hermeneutic theory as regards RPG play here is somewhat limited (and even counter-productive in a lot of ways). I'm really not trying to transfer the conversation to the academic register.

What I am trying to do is translate my thoughts and ideas about RPG play into more plain language that suits the discussion at hand. My appreciation of the forum here to attempt that can't be oversold - being able to explain myself in more natural language is a litmus test for whether or not I have any friggin' clue what I'm on about.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Never mind the other typical away-from-table roles of the GM, i.e. recruiting players, hosting, scheduling, etc., without which the game is also fairly likely to collapse (or never start).

A tangent to the topic, but I am not sure I agree these are GM roles. Maybe in practice for some groups, these are the same people. But with my first regular group, we switched GM duties ,but always played at the same place. Snacks and drinks were brought by everyone to share.

In my current online group, the google meets call and scheduling is handled by one guy. Different people play Foundry host, which is not always the same person as the GM. And we share GM duties, though we don't usually have one active campaign per player (unlike my previous group) but only 2 or 3 active ones with 5 group members.

 

[TwoSix]

A rather vital support function without which the game likely collapses sooner rather than later, even if prep only consists of making it up on the fly.

Never mind the other typical away-from-table roles of the GM, i.e. recruiting players, hosting, scheduling, etc., without which the game is also fairly likely to collapse (or never start).

I mean, since we're in "dueling anecdotes" territory, that's not how my games work at all. I have one friends-and-family table I'm the
"forever GM" for, but my wife and several other participants handle the scheduling. If I'm lucky, I get reminded I'm GMing the morning of.

Our other tables all play at one guy's house, but scheduling is a communal effort, and the guy is just one GM among many.

The idea of a group being primarily driven by one person's interests is just totally antithetical to my experiences.