The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Ovinomancer]

Yep. Playing a game is all about consent. Players consent to the referee running the show. The referee consents to the players running their characters. And anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason. The only way it works is everyone agrees to engage in good faith…otherwise it falls apart.

If there is disagreement, those involved have limited options. In the game, the referee can do whatever they want, infinite dragons and all that. If that bothers the players, they have little recourse besides asking the referee to stop or walking away.

It’s interesting that referees almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the referee” while players almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the players.” In truth, it’s both. But considering there’s a burgeoning market for paid referees but no market for paid players…it’s not hard to see the demographic imbalance and the reality of who needs whom more.

Really? You think that a player paying for a service isn't the customer, the person that is the most important and who will be catered to?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Yeah again I don't think that "fun" is causally guaranteed from a complete submission to GM authority as you suggest here. By comparison, there is a jump to conclusion that involves the citizens shutting up and accepting the Divine Right of Kings to a fruitful and happy state.

 

[aramis erak]

Just want to pop in and say PbtA games do not step all over player agency. In fact, I feel like my character decisions matter a lot, scarily so! There's been a ton of discussions and explanations about these games but there is still so much misunderstanding. They are great games that do work. They aren't going to be loved by all. No system is. They are worth trying or at least understanding because the vast majority of criticism about PbtA games comes from lack of understanding how they actually play out at the table.

When coming from the Wargame tradition, the mechanics of wargames are a list of allowed actions; if there's a referee, they get to pick which of the allowed fits the action if one goes "off the list"... anything that has no fit. doesn't happen.

Meanwhile, AWE's list is 1+moves entries: the moves list, and "Anything else that makes sense - Autosuccess"

Most RPG GMs I've seen run run things somewhere closer to wargame tradition than AWE's "Anything but the moves is say-yes"

There also is a subset of the OSR that runs D&D as if it's AWE...

But it's a wide spectrum.

I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, but personally I don't really see it. It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.

The similarity is in play process. Crerate assets to use, then use them.
The plot point economy works very differently, but the basic cycle of "If you can't gank them yourself, build some assets, and then try again."
While it has no compels, it does have tagging complications for use in your pool. Compels aren't entirely needed; Distinctions as disads is equivalent and voluntary...

Both are built around building assets from existing ones, & using those, and flexing the expendable meta-point pool to pull off a number of related stunts, to go beyond the stated distinctions.

It's also worth noting that MHRP is NOT the archetypical Cortex Plus; the prototypical is Smallville; MHRP is the breakout, but Firefly was, while just as good, seriously different in the details, but nearly identical in process... MHRP is closer due to

If I'd not played Fate first, I'd not have found MHR nor Firefly nearly as intuitive. They're different, but in the details, not in the mindset.
If I'd not fought to understand AW itself, I'd have had a hard time with Sentinel Comics, since it's related (distantly - the quickstart set includes the thank-yous.)

Huh? The rules of AW are clear: if the table looks at the GM to see what happens next, the GM makes a soft move unless (i) it's a failed throw or (ii) the GM has been handed a golden opportunity to follow through with a hard move.

Not to everyone. In order to grasp what was being meant, I had to ask for help. That help came from Luke Crane and Thor Olavsruud. On their forums.

There is no "his game". It doesn't exist. There is only "their game". A GM with no players has no game.

False on several levels, the simplest of which is that prep is a form of play, usually unique to the GM.
Then, there's the function of solo-play, where one runs the game as both player and GM. Very common in the PBTA space.
There's also the solitare modules (esp. TFT, T&T, LAW) - but that's play sans GM, really.
There also is the tangible element: those books still constitute a game even if unused.

There is literally no way the game grants any authority not granted by the player. There is no mechanism to make a player accept something if they do not wish to enough to leave the game.


I'm not really sure where you are going with this, because it's a pointless distinction. Regardless if it's because a DM is abusing their power, are just a bad DM, are a great DM but not a good match for how the player wants to play, if the DM claims the rules give them authority but also claim they can change the rules as they want, all of it doesn't matter. If a GM is net decreasing fun the players can take away the power they have granted the DM over themselves by walking.

There is the implied social contract as an aspect of selection of a ruleset. Which is a powerful lever. Not quite Archimedies' level of lever, but still a psychological lever of much utility.

WHile I agree that it's bad GMing to abuse it, especially with Gygax's rule 0,

 

[pemerton]

Players consent to the referee running the show.

What RPGs are you talking about here? Or which tables?

 

[pemerton]

It's also worth noting that MHRP is NOT the archetypical Cortex Plus; the prototypical is Smallville; MHRP is the breakout, but Firefly was, while just as good, seriously different in the details, but nearly identical in process

OK. At all points I was quite explicit that I was talking about MHRP.

If I'd not played Fate first, I'd not have found MHR nor Firefly nearly as intuitive. They're different, but in the details, not in the mindset.

I found MHRP pretty intuitive, except for managing the Doom Pool. There are a couple of places where I think the rules could be clearer, but I was able to work around that.

Not to everyone. In order to grasp what was being meant, I had to ask for help. That help came from Luke Crane and Thor Olavsruud. On their forums.

I'm a pretty big fan of Luke and Thor! I think the biggest deal for some people in coming to AW seems to be taking literally the instruction to make a soft move unless the appropriate trigger for a hard move is in place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Interesting that this pedigree is only so recently asserted. Especially since you do not seem to be able to steelman PbtA play at all, despite this pedigree. I'm skeptical.

Mod Note:

How about we not gatekeeper like this?

 

[aramis erak]

OK. At all points I was quite explicit that I was talking about MHRP.

I found MHRP pretty intuitive, except for managing the Doom Pool. There are a couple of places where I think the rules could be clearer, but I was able to work around that.

I mentioned the differences because Cortex Plus/Prime isn't a single game system in the same way 2d20 or YZE aren't... each is a group of closely related games with similar task resolutions.

I'm a pretty big fan of Luke and Thor! I think the biggest deal for some people in coming to AW seems to be taking literally the instruction to make a soft move unless the appropriate trigger for a hard move is in place.

For me, the sticking point was "To do it, do it." Which to me read as nonsense until explained by Luke and paraphrased by Thor.

"To do it, do it." = "To engage the move rule, have the character do the action in the fiction."

That was the hardest bit.

 

[pemerton]

For me, the sticking point was "To do it, do it." Which to me read as nonsense until explained by Luke and paraphrased by Thor.

For me, that contrasts with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - instead of the stakes being determined by intent, we have a set of moves built around a conception of what sorts of actions in this fiction raise the stakes. As I posted in another one of these recent threads, that's why custom moves become important - to allow specific sorts of stakes to be brought within the scope of the action resolution system.

 

[Blue]

Yep. Playing a game is all about consent. Players consent to the referee running the show. The referee consents to the players running their characters. And anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason. The only way it works is everyone agrees to engage in good faith…otherwise it falls apart.

If there is disagreement, those involved have limited options. In the game, the referee can do whatever they want, infinite dragons and all that. If that bothers the players, they have little recourse besides asking the referee to stop or walking away.

I'm with you here.

Well, for a subset of games at least like D&D. The rules of some games put different levels of restrictions on the GM.

It’s interesting that referees almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the referee” while players almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the players.” In truth, it’s both. But considering there’s a burgeoning market for paid referees but no market for paid players…it’s not hard to see the demographic imbalance and the reality of who needs whom more.

Being a GM is more work, especially away from a session - sure there are more players. On the other side players are generally focused on the fun part - it is it's own reward for the entire time put in, while especially for traditional games like D&D the prep for a GM may be hours and may not be as enjoyable at all times.

That doesn't mean that a bad game you don't enjoy is better than no game.

So we have players just looking for enjoyment who could want a paid GM, either because they want a professional level of GMing that they can't get for free, or have a lack of GMs that they are willing to play with (such as abusive or bad GMs). On the other hand because play is pretty much just enjoyment (when the table is good), the only people who would want paid players are those who provide an unpleasant game that can't attract players otherwise.

So yes, the market for high end GMs exists, and a market for players to be miserable does not. That unbalance there explains why only one market exists.

 

[Blue]

If I owned a gun, I could walk out and shoot some random person. I have that power. That I would never do something like that doesn't mean that the ability is gone. That the first person of few people can run away(leave my game) also doesn't stop me. I can just go out and find more people(get new players). The power resides with the DM, even if he would never abuse it.

I said power isn't a point source, it is a description between things. With a gun, you can project that over others. It's still a description between things. If you tell no one you have a gun and never use it, it has no power. It has power when you use it, when you threaten with it, when you intimdate with it, when you bring up owning it for some purpose. Without doing any of those, the gun has no inherent power. Not until it or it's existance interacts with something else.

But that's all pretty moot because the rules do not allow you to project power over someone who does not wish you to.

Can the rules force someone who hasn't granted power by agreeing to be your player? No. Can the rules force someone who wishes to revoke that power by leaving? No.

The players leaving would be taking with them the pros and the cons that they brought to the table. The new players would be coming in with new pros and cons. They may not be exactly the same, but my game would still run the way I want it to.

It's all very Ship of Theseus. If an abusing GM loses their players one by one and replaces them, is it still "the game"? From your point of view you've made it clear you feel "the game" is a construct of the GM running it and that individual players are not a defining point of "the game".

I disagree, I think everyone at the table is important in defining "the game". That's why I called it "their game" when you were calling it "his game".

So your protests about still being able to run as you like (assuming you still have players) are just missing the point. "The game" isn't just the construction of a single person.

If you are playing in my game, I have authority over the game and everything that happens within it, even if I don't exercise that authority to the fullest.

Woo, thank you for finally agreeing to my point. I'm glad you see that a GM only has power when people are agreeing to play in their games. That power can be taken away by the player deciding not to play in the game. It is not inherent in the rules, it is granted by the player.

You can remove yourself from that authority by leaving the game, but you cannot remain in the game without placing yourself under that authority, or remove my authority over the game by leaving it. You have no ability to affect my authority over the game.

Since "the game" isn't just yours, by removing my character I've already changed the game in a way you have no authority over.

Heck, if a group leaves and another GM picks up with the characters where they left, it would seem like you are removed from "the game" and all authority removed from you. Unless you feel that changing the people at the table means it's not "the game", in which case removing myself as a player also means it's not "the game". Either way you pick, you end up incorrect.

You're arguing against something that I never said. Either you stay in the game under the authority granted to me by the game, or you leave the game. Leaving doesn't affect my authority over the game at all.

Something you never said? You stated authority comes from the rules. I said authority is granted by the player. I am arguing that we can easily show that the player can revoke authority that the rules can not enforce. And yes, you absolutely said authority does not come from the player, it comes from the rules in post #336 so what I am arguing is exactly to your point.