Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2248788" data-attributes="member: 4937">Let's see.  I misunderstood you when you said that the DM was like a referee?  You didn't say that, you said that the DM was not unlike a referee?  Ahh... yes, there is in fact a  difference to that at some level.I don't know how much clearer I can be about this.  The DM is not like referee in competitive sports, and competitive sports are not a good analogy for RPG combat.  The DM is not like referee in competitive sports, period.  I've already said that I don't think that RPG's are analogous to competitive sports, so why would you think that I think particular aspects of competitive sports are good analogies to particular aspects of RPG's.  I'm not disagreeing with you in particulars; I'm disagreeing with you completely.  It's best not to compare the DM to soccer referees at all, because you'll make false inferences about the nature of DMing if you do so.  The analogy isn't good enough.  If I said that the DM was like a referee, except that he was like a referee that coached one team involved in competition and also played in it at the same time you'd rightly look at me like I was crazy because referees aren't like that.  Now maybe, if RPG's had a 'villian manager' that ran the NPC foils, and the DM merely arbitrated between the 'villian manager' and the PC's, then he would be something like a referee assuming that the 'villian manager' was actually trying his utmost to win (and not for example playing stupid NPC's as stupid, or animals as having only animal level understanding and motivations, and so forth) and was on a level playing field with the PC's.  But of course, the more we try to make the game like a competitive game so that the DM can be like a referee, the more clear it becomes that the game isn't anything like a competitive game and the DM isn't anything like a referee.Look, if you can name me five competitive sports in which one team always agrees to let the other team referee the game, then I'll concede to you that the DM is not unlike the the referee in many sports.I don't really see why this analogy is important to you anyway, because if you try arguing a call with a soccer referee, you are going to get ejected from the game.  Soccer referees for better or worse or the ultimate arbiters in the game, they don't have to take any lip, and throwing a rule book in their face isn't going to do you any good. Only combat situations?  Why not say something simple that we can all agree on, "The DM has a responcibility to be fair."  I think we are well past needing to agree that DM's need to be impartial, and on to discussing what it means to be impartial and what rule fairness actually means.  To me, the minute you start suggesting that the DM has to stick to the rules because combat is all about 'us vs. them', you've completely missed the point. At that point you are suggesting that the game is really about the PC's vs. the DM.  You are suggesting that the DM is not like a referee, but like a competitor, and that one side has every right to get upset because the other side is cheating and gaining an unfair advantage and they might lose.  All that it seems to show me that you keep suggesting that RPG's are like competitive sports is that you aren't terribly comfortable with the concept behind RPG's, which is that they are not like competitive sports.In fact, its worth noting that the RPG was born - if I recall the story correctly - when one member of a group of bored grognards (it might have been Dave Arneson) suddenly had his Polish Husars cheat by firing a Star Trek phaser at the opposing medieval army, and it was suddenly realized that a cooperative free form fantasy might be more fun (at least on occassion) than the rigid structure of a game that actually was designed to be competitive.I don't care how limited your going to make your meaning.  It's a freakin' bad analogy.</blockquote>

Verification