Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[Celebrim]

It's an extreme position, but if this is axiomatic to you, then there is no point in any further discussion. If you don't think that sematic webs, knowledge graphs or all the tools that are used to capture understanding are not valid, then I don't think we have common ground. You are essentially asserting that AI cannot exist, which really makes any conversation about computer intelligence, understanding or improvisation a non-starter to you.

Since you know the code of Nethack you also know it lacks semantic webs, knowledge graphs or any of the "tools that are used to capture understanding" so bringing up these things are total red herrings.

Also, articles in English are in fact semantic markers. In some cases they are actually important to understanding.

You also have a good day.

 

[CleverNickName]

Random guy on YouTube: "Be a Game Master, not a director!"

Me: "How about you mind your business."

 

[pemerton]

Don't be a novelist, either. TRPGs are not (usually, at their best) linear authored fiction; most of the techniques and approaches from linear authored fiction will not apply. (This includes TV, comics, and video games, as well.)

I think RPGs have at least one important thing in common with a typical novel, TV episode/series, or comic. (I can't comment on video games.) Namely, they present the doings of a protagonist, or group of protagonists, roughly in time order with an unfolding "now" within the fiction.

In this respect, they contrast with other forms of presenting fiction: say, a map with notes; or a timeline/chronology; or a painting of an imagined event.

(The fact that RPGing can include flashbacks, or "prequel" episodes, doesn't undermine the basic points of comparison/contrast.)

This means that certain devices/techniques that depend upon a protagonist and/or upon linearity of time with an unfolding "now", can be used in RPGing just as they can in the modes of fiction that it resembles. These include things like:

*Presenting a protagonist with a challenge to their goal, or their value, to which they must respond;

*Foreshadowing some "future" event, in the sense that, as the "now" unfolds, something in the now-"now" will be seen as reflecting on or resonating with or having some other meaningful relationship to something in the past-"now";

*Suspense, in the sense that something in the now-"now" suggests or implies that the future-"now" will include something that explains or resolves or is otherwise meaningfully related to the thing in the now-"now".​

These are all ways of establishing meaningful connections between events and elements within the fiction, that play upon the way time and the unfolding "now" are a key structuring aspect of the fiction.

I think the single biggest difference in RPGing, compared to other "story-telling" media, is that there is no editing. (Or virtually no editing, when compared to those other forms.) A second important difference is the distribution of authorship responsibilities, which is conventionally (in mainstream RPGs) best described in terms of "ownership" of, or control over, certain elements of the fiction. (Roughly, players control protagonists; the GM controls setting and antagonists and draws on them to establish situation.)

These differences have implications. They mean, for instance, that not all suspense will be paid out/resolved. And that foreshadowing is normally achieved post hoc, by paying out one of many possible prior foreshadowing events: there can be no guarantee of any given event in the now-"now" that there will be some definite event in the future-"now" that it foreshadows.

I have no strong view on how this relates to directing, which seems a bit of a separate thing. It's not really the role of the GM - at least in my experience - to coax some particular performance out of the players. But - again, in my experience - the GM may well have a role in coaxing play out of the players: that is, in provoking them to declare interesting/exciting/engaging actions for their PCs. The GM would not have this sort of role in a Gygaxian dungeon crawl; but in the sort of RPGing I enjoy the GM does have this sort of role. And it might be a little bit like directing.

Likewise, in some RPGing (not dungeon-crawling, but some other approaches) the GM has an important role in controlling pacing, helping establish what is at stake in a situation, etc. As @Gorgon Zee posted upthread, that might be a bit like directing.

I like Luke Crane's description of this role, in the Burning Wheel rulebook under the heading "Role of the GM" (Revised, p 268; the same text is in Gold and Gold Revised also):

In Burning Wheel, it is the GM's job to interpret all of the various intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. . . . Also, the GM is in a unique position. He can see the big picture - what the players are doing, as well as what the opposition is up to and plans to do. His perspective grants the power to hold off on one action, while another player moves forward so that the two pieces intersect dramatically at the table. More than any other player, the GM controls the flow and pacing of the game. He has the power to begin and end scenes, to present challenges and instigate conflicts.​

This control-and-coordination function, at least to some extent, serves as an alternative to a single authorial voice, supplemented by editing, in fostering cohesion and meaningfulness in the events of the fiction.

 

[prabe]

I think RPGs have at least one important thing in common with a typical novel, TV episode/series, or comic. (I can't comment on video games.) Namely, they present the doings of a protagonist, or group of protagonists, roughly in time order with an unfolding "now" within the fiction.

In this respect, they contrast with other forms of presenting fiction: say, a map with notes; or a timeline/chronology; or a painting of an imagined event.

(The fact that RPGing can include flashbacks, or "prequel" episodes, doesn't undermine the basic points of comparison/contrast.)

This means that certain devices/techniques that depend upon a protagonist and/or upon linearity of time with an unfolding "now", can be used in RPGing just as they can in the modes of fiction that it resembles. These include things like:

*Presenting a protagonist with a challenge to their goal, or their value, to which they must respond;​

​

*Foreshadowing some "future" event, in the sense that, as the "now" unfolds, something in the now-"now" will be seen as reflecting on or resonating with or having some other meaningful relationship to something in the past-"now";​

​

*Suspense, in the sense that something in the now-"now" suggests or implies that the future-"now" will include something that explains or resolves or is otherwise meaningfully related to the thing in the now-"now".​

These are all ways of establishing meaningful connections between events and elements within the fiction, that play upon the way time and the unfolding "now" are a key structuring aspect of the fiction.

I think the single biggest difference in RPGing, compared to other "story-telling" media, is that there is no editing. (Or virtually no editing, when compared to those other forms.) A second important difference is the distribution of authorship responsibilities, which is conventionally (in mainstream RPGs) best described in terms of "ownership" of, or control over, certain elements of the fiction. (Roughly, players control protagonists; the GM controls setting and antagonists and draws on them to establish situation.)

These differences have implications. They mean, for instance, that not all suspense will be paid out/resolved. And that foreshadowing is normally achieved post hoc, by paying out one of many possible prior foreshadowing events: there can be no guarantee of any given event in the now-"now" that there will be some definite event in the future-"now" that it foreshadows.

I have no strong view on how this relates to directing, which seems a bit of a separate thing. It's not really the role of the GM - at least in my experience - to coax some particular performance out of the players. But - again, in my experience - the GM may well have a role in coaxing play out of the players: that is, in provoking them to declare interesting/exciting/engaging actions for their PCs. The GM would not have this sort of role in a Gygaxian dungeon crawl; but in the sort of RPGing I enjoy the GM does have this sort of role. And it might be a little bit like directing.

Likewise, in some RPGing (not dungeon-crawling, but some other approaches) the GM has an important role in controlling pacing, helping establish what is at stake in a situation, etc. As @Gorgon Zee posted upthread, that might be a bit like directing.

I like Luke Crane's description of this role, in the Burning Wheel rulebook under the heading "Role of the GM" (Revised, p 268; the same text is in Gold and Gold Revised also):

In Burning Wheel, it is the GM's job to interpret all of the various intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. . . . Also, the GM is in a unique position. He can see the big picture - what the players are doing, as well as what the opposition is up to and plans to do. His perspective grants the power to hold off on one action, while another player moves forward so that the two pieces intersect dramatically at the table. More than any other player, the GM controls the flow and pacing of the game. He has the power to begin and end scenes, to present challenges and instigate conflicts.​

This control-and-coordination function, at least to some extent, serves as an alternative to a single authorial voice, supplemented by editing, in fostering cohesion and meaningfulness in the events of the fiction.

Yes, there's overlap, but in my experience that serves mostly to lead people to think that GMing is like writing a novel or directing a movie or play. It's close enough to trip people up, but it's not the same. Trying to GM as though you are the author (only the author, the only author) is a well-known error-state, after all.

 

[Piperken]

I feel that any description or bullet points of what constructive table running happens to be, has to include this bit cited from Luke Crane above, "...that fits within the context of the game."

Does what the table runner do in the game necessitate them "to interpret all of the various intents of player actions and mesh into a cohesive whole?" If I were answering this, I'd say... it depends on the game. It seems to be the case in Burning Wheel.

What I've found fascinating is how much overlap exists now between game theory/design between traditional table top games with adjacent mediums like video games, along with the modes it's picked up from more traditional media like novels, serial television, comics and so on; there's free borrowing in the first, and there are all varieties of niche table top games with original, variant or hacked rule systems that desire to replicate or renact the same qualities we enjoy from these other genres.

Just look at the language that's used to define what spaces they occupy on the box or back cover to gamers.

 

[Piperken]

You can't teach experience.

So you're saying we need to create a DM dungeon of some type where they can grind DM exp???

James Lipton Meme Here

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm recombining this strange fisking...


Why would you fisk a reply to the single post #30 into two separate individual posts across post#31 & post#32 because the original here [royal] we are now entertain [royal] us toxically-entitled playstyle you described depends pretty strongly on blaming the GM for both feeling like they need to meet unrealistic expectations & failing to meet them while basking in the last decade of the industry leading ttrpg endlessly lowering the bar for "legitimate" play. That bar for players has been lowered so far that should the GM ever fail at or refuse to meet those unrealistic expectations it only requires a personal definition to be inserted for an unassailable position like a "properly run" game. It's really not reasonable to blame GM's for feeling like they need to meet an unrealistic bar set with so much force that the one video put out by the industry leading ttrpg company about their next upcoming GM book is practically the lead for that book being slapped by that bar & having to repeatedly push back against the last decade of badly set expectations.

I am sorry tetrasodium. I am a bit confused by your post. I will try to answer the best I can, but if I come across naive or misinterpreted, please know I was answering in good faith.

I split the two posts simply because I realized, after having typed my first explanation and posting, that there were further questions to be answered. I apologize for not making it more uniform.

As far as "toxically-entitled playstyle" you say I personally described, I don't see it. I read back through my post. I feel it is very clear all I called ALL styles legitimate. So, I am sorry, I do not feel like that is "toxically-entitled playstyle." If you can elaborate, I will be sure to take your message open-minded.

 

[bloodtide]

I think RPGs have at least one important thing in common with a typical novel, TV episode/series, or comic. (I can't comment on video games.) Namely, they present the doings of a protagonist, or group of protagonists, roughly in time order with an unfolding "now" within the fiction.

I'd say that both things have n common a single story vision of often a single individual. The writer/director/GM all have a plan, that everyone else must fall in line with.

And it is a hard thing for many players to accept: this is how many RPGs are made.

I think the single biggest difference in RPGing, compared to other "story-telling" media, is that there is no editing. (Or virtually no editing, when compared to those other forms.)

As the GM can "edit" reality on a whim....I'm not sure why you don't see any editing.

A second important difference is the distribution of authorship responsibilities, which is conventionally (in mainstream RPGs) best described in terms of "ownership" of, or control over, certain elements of the fiction. (Roughly, players control protagonists; the GM controls setting and antagonists and draws on them to establish situation.)

This is what make an RPG a "Game", and not a movie/TV show. Each player is "free" to do what they want their character to do on a whim. Anyone on a movie/Tv show has to listen to the director.

I have no strong view on how this relates to directing, which seems a bit of a separate thing. It's not really the role of the GM - at least in my experience - to coax some particular performance out of the players. But - again, in my experience - the GM may well have a role in coaxing play out of the players: that is, in provoking them to declare interesting/exciting/engaging actions for their PCs. The GM would not have this sort of role in a Gygaxian dungeon crawl; but in the sort of RPGing I enjoy the GM does have this sort of role. And it might be a little bit like directing.

It's a bit of an ill fitting word. There are a couple directors that do just set up a scene for some actors and then let them improv with little or no direction. A number of directors, and actors, are quite famous for it.

And some directors do set up things....without the actors knowledge...so that when they happen, the reactions of the actors is 100%....they are not 'acting'.

But that is about as close as "directing" gets to a GM.

Likewise, in some RPGing (not dungeon-crawling, but some other approaches) the GM has an important role in controlling pacing, helping establish what is at stake in a situation, etc.

This is the big difference. As few players will ever willing role play....act out...any sort of story or plot willingly. Or anything else. Even the average player that says they want a "fast paced game" will have their character sit in a tavern as the player just looks at the wall and says "um, ok, what happens next?".

 

[tetrasodium]

.


This is the big difference. As few players will ever willing role play....act out...any sort of story or plot willingly. Or anything else. Even the average player that says they want a "fast paced game" will have their character sit in a tavern as the player just looks at the wall and says "um, ok, what happens next?".

You are describing Bob there. Don't forget the other end of the spectrum with Alice the "R O L E roleplayer" sitting silently and answering "I'm waiting on that thing Bob is doing" when prompted for what her character is doing in the meantime unless the thing that happens next somehow involves her directly.

 

[pemerton]

I'd say that both things have n common a single story vision of often a single individual. The writer/director/GM all have a plan, that everyone else must fall in line with.

<snip>

As the GM can "edit" reality on a whim....I'm not sure why you don't see any editing.

<snip>

This is what make an RPG a "Game", and not a movie/TV show. Each player is "free" to do what they want their character to do on a whim. Anyone on a movie/Tv show has to listen to the director.

The last quoted passage seems to be in contradiction to the first two.

Or, at least, this is a theory of RPGing that seems almost guaranteed to produce conflict at the table: everyone must fall in line with an "on a whim" editor, yet is at the same time free to author fiction "on a whim".

I've experienced games played in this fashion, and the ensuing conflict, but thankfully not for some decades. Through a combination of trial and error, and reading advice and analysis, I've managed to identify better approaches in my own RPGing.