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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8165887">That isn't exactly what I said. But I am not sure what I said applies in this case, as neither I, Estar or Frogreaver are trying to tell you to use the term referee or imbue it with any kind of meaning that would nullify your use of the term agency (My issue with a lot of the language getting thrown around was the language seemed selected for its rhetorical power in the discussion). Here I think the use of referee is clarifying what Estar means. I don't actually use the term referee that much. In fact, I usually just say game master. And if people ask about what I think the role of the GM is, I would say a facilitator (and that isn't prescriptive, that is simply how I view my role as GM-----there are other ways to view it). When Estar invokes Referee, I immediately get a sense of what he means. I understand he is emphasizing things like the importance of making fair, impartial rulings, and I also understand he is referencing a more old school conception of the role (which is important if you want to understand what Estar is going for). That said I have no objection to other titles being used. I think that is a longstanding thing in RPGs. In D&D it is Dungeon Master. The generic term is Gamemaster. But games, for flavor and philosophy pick other labels. Master of Ceremonies seems fine to me if that fits the focus of GMing a game like that. I think where use of language gets bad is when you tell Estar, he can't use referee because its different from a sports referee, or if I tell you, you can't use Master of Ceremonies because that is a whole other kind of thing than RPGs. I think we all get that these are both involved because they point to something, and they are even a little playful and flavorful, to help get you in the right mind space for what you are about to be doing.</blockquote>

Verification