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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8165815" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Not that I think anything you say above is wrong, but I just want to use it as a starting point to ask a question.When is a referee needed? Generally speaking, a referee is needed as a neutral third party to help manage interactions between two other parties. Does that seem right? When it comes to RPGs, we generally use the term referee to mean "arbiter of rules" or something along those lines. I think those things are a bit distinct though, no? There aren't two parties at the table.If we view it that way, do we need to consider the idea of fairness in the same way as we would a competitive sport or activity that involved two opposing groups? In other words, doesn't the idea of fairness mean something else entirely for RPGs than for sports?I think any analogy may be useful. The dictator thing is an exaggeration, or a description of how the role of GM can be taken to an extreme that would become problematic. By the same token, [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] has been asking if players, when given some amount of ability to influence the narrative through memories of PCs supported by their skill choices, can somehow narrate that they remember being friends with the king or with a god so that they can simply imagine whatever they want into being. This is also an analogy, one that paints the player as some kind of scheming cheater who doesn't actually enjoy challenge and who wants to worm their way out of any obstacle. I mean, when I get to actually play instead of run a game, I don't want things to just go easy for my PC. Do other people hold this view? Would anyone out there want to simply narrate away their PC's problems? I highly doubt it. So any conclusions that rely on that idea should just go away, same as any conclusions that rely on a GM who totally abuses his power.Now, each of these analogies may be taken too far, but I wouldn't say that they're entirely without merit. Each makes, or at least attempts to make, a valid point. GMs with significant authority can misuse that authority. I won't even go so far as to describe it as "abuse" because I think abuse implies knowingly doing so, and then becomes a problem that needs to be addressed in another way. Simply misusing authority is something that doesn't require any kind of bad faith.....it's simply using the authority given in a way that is less than ideal. I think this is very true, and this is something that even the most principled GM in the world will do at times. I think it happens quite often without any awareness on the part of the GM.Players can also misuse their authority. I mean, we all have heard enough examples of "power gaming" and so on. However, players very often start with so little authority that it's when they do misuse it, it tends not to be a big deal. It also tends to be noticed more readily than when a GM does it. It's much easier to spot someone who barely has any authority start to flex that authority beyond the established acceptable amount. I don't think player misuse of authority tends to be as damaging to a game as GM misuse.And again, a lot of this is a relic of thinking of these roles as being very distinct. If the lines blur a bit, then they become less oppositional and more collaborative, and then once you've done that, the very idea of misusing authority kind of falls away. The idea of fairness shifts.</blockquote>

Verification