Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9236670" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes, it's possible that GM needs to be seen in an entirely new light.I'm morally certain that it's right to see GM in at least some mainstream modes of play as part of "lusory-means", i.e. part of the mechanisms of play. But what does this mean in terms of rule-following? If one's view is that "rule zero/golden rule" power is essential to make TTRPGs work, then they're not only part but also fabricator of lusory-means.GM is often characterised as "referee" - interpreter and upholder of rules. But referees ordinarily do not follow the rules or enact them, they only see that they are followed/enacted. They may validate the goals of play, but do not set or pursue them.GM is often characterised as a "player". One view is that this is a plain mistake. Best read as a synonym of "participant." If taken in earnest, as I suggest, it gives GM skin in the game. They are rule-followers and game goal pursuers. Although not necessarily the same rules or goals as other players. Once asymmetry us embraced, I see no reason at all why GM cannot satisfy every function required of them, as a player.On surface, GM as player is rather efficient: no constitution is needed to say how GM should wield power... the background norms that enable game play at all, with the game text, covers it. What counts as GMing can be engineered into the design of each game, to suit the design intent. Hence it's placement in a manifesto for TTRPG design.Where GM is not player, I'd argue one ought to have a coherent idea of what they are. One coherent idea is that they are referee and lusory-means, at most signatories to a constitution. So it's a choice, that depends on purposes and preferences.</blockquote>

Verification