The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Thomas Shey]

To be honest, I’m not sure either.

Probably accidentally ended up in your reply buffer and you didn't notice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, it's a lot more simple then complaining about power: The GM does whatever they want. It's not about "power" or who is "on top": it's only about having a fun, great game.

And you're making assumptions now that only a GM who's allowed unlimited power can produce a fun game. Tip: its not.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think that latter is a particularly uncharitable way to phrase the reaction of players who simply dislike that particular coarseness of result. You can very much argue they shouldn't be playing a PbtA game (and I'd agree) but I think "no mental malleability" is a bit of a harsh way to put a matter of taste.

I didn’t mean it as an expression of a matter of taste and I wasn’t going for charity or lack of charity.

We all have deeply internalized mental models or cognitive biases or even predispositions (that are more affliction than actual work) that bind us in particular ways whereas others don’t have those so they’re more malleable under those exact same conditions.

God knows I have a metric effton on several fronts (do you have an hour?).

But the reality is that these are autobiographical features of self. They’re not objective features of the stuff we engage with like conflict resolution vs task resolution (one doesn’t give more or less agency than the other…they do different stuff and then their different stuff gets amplified or drawn back by the system tech they’re integrated with). They’re our personal orientation to them.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm not sure how these ideas are causally connected or how the former is necessary for the latter.

Well, if you stop being so hostile to the GM, and just get immersed and play the game, then everyone has fun. Having a player that calls out the GM and complains every couple of minutes does not make for a fun game for most people. Though sure, some peoples idea of fun is to disrupt the game.

And you're making assumptions now that only a GM who's allowed unlimited power can produce a fun game. Tip: its not.

Note that it is your assumptions, not mine. I think it is the best way, but not the only way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn’t mean it as an expression of a matter of taste and I wasn’t going for charity or lack of charity.

We all have deeply internalized mental models or cognitive biases or even predispositions (that are more affliction than actual work) that bind us in particular ways whereas others don’t have those so they’re more malleable under those exact same conditions.

God knows I have a metric effton on several fronts (do you have an hour?).

But the reality is that these are autobiographical features of self. They’re not objective features of the stuff we engage with like conflict resolution vs task resolution (one doesn’t give more or less agency than the other…they do different stuff and then they different stuff gets amplified or drawn back by the system tech they’re integrated with). They’re our personal orientation to them.

I just think there's a significant difference between "doesn't want to" and "can't", and your statement implied the latter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, if you stop being so hostile to the GM, and just get immersed and play the game, then everyone has fun. Having a player that calls out the GM and complains every couple of minutes does not make for a fun game for most people. Though sure, some peoples idea of fun is to disrupt the game.


Note that it is your assumptions, not mine. I think it is the best way, but not the only way.

Have you read The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast essay? It's pretty short. You're describing participationism. Maybe some illusionism.

Participationism, identified and named by Universalis co-creator Mike Holmes, is not structurally different from illusionism. The referee still controls everything meaningful that happens in play, while the players add nothing but color. The difference is that the players know it, and are quite happy to let the referee tell his story about their characters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Note that it is your assumptions, not mine. I think it is the best way, but not the only way.

And other people don't, and get by perfectly fine without ceding unlimited setting/system control power to GMs. You, on the other hand, seem to not accept that's possible.

 

[bloodtide]

Have you read The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast essay? It's pretty short. You're describing participationism. Maybe some illusionism.

Nah, that is not my game. Though I hate using other peoples Wacky Words to describe things I do.

I sure disagree with that silly "the GM tells the story about the players characters".

I think I will name mine Power Tapestry : The referee still controls everything meaningful that happens in play, while the players add their small parts. The players know it(though really not most of them), and are quite happy to let the GM run the Game.

And other people don't, and get by perfectly fine without ceding unlimited setting/system control power to GMs. You, on the other hand, seem to not accept that's possible.

I just said so in the quote you quoted for this post.....

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nah, that is not my game. Though I hate using other peoples Wacky Words to describe things I do.

I sure disagree with that silly "the GM tells the story about the players characters".

I think I will name mine Power Tapestry : The referee still controls everything meaningful that happens in play, while the players add their small parts. The players know it(though really not most of them), and are quite happy to let the GM run the Game.


I just said so in the quote you quoted for this post.....

Right, that's what the essay labeled participationism. You seem to be quibbling around using 'small parts' when the essay used 'add color,' but not actually saying anything different. This is a perfectly fine way to deal with the Impossible Thing (which is the paradox between the GM controlling the story but the players controlling the main characters -- these things can't coexist and so need to be reconciled in some way).

 

[bloodtide]

Right, that's what the essay labeled participationism. You seem to be quibbling around using 'small parts' when the essay used 'add color,' but not actually saying anything different. This is a perfectly fine way to deal with the Impossible Thing (which is the paradox between the GM controlling the story but the players controlling the main characters -- these things can't coexist and so need to be reconciled in some way).

Well, sure, I don't get what "color" is because it's all made up by you.

I don't see the paradox either. The only one I might see is you have a normal GM controlled game vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.

My players can control thier main character players all they want.....inside my Power Tapestry.