The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[overgeeked]

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.

Yeah, it's weird how bad some designers are at explaining what they mean by things. Jargon and obscuring phrases just take over.

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.

Sure, but then we're back to being unable to make any broad statement about RPGs because there will inevitably be a game that goes against that broad statement. The default, as in the vast majority of games as written or games that are actually played, is games that are incredibly lopsided in favor of the referee.

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

The longer I'm at this the less I have patience for phrases like this. Just because you personally aren't enjoying a particular game doesn't make it bad. It's not a good fit for you or your preferences, sure, but that doesn't render you subjective opinion into objective fact about the quality of the game.

And there's also the bizarre effect this kind of thing has on new referees. I don't think it's best practices to put even more pressure on new referees or normalize any mantra that makes it seem like unless they're perfect from the go they shouldn't bother trying. To me that seems like the opposite of what we should be doing.

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.

There's a lot of assumptions in there. Paid doesn't mean "professional-level GM," nor does a derth of referees mean lots that do exist are abusive or bad, nor does paid mean "high end GMs." It just means there are so many more players than referees that some players are desperate enough to pay referees to run games for them.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Do the rules allow full power over anyone(within the game environment) who remains playing the game? Yes. You either remain under the authority or you leave the game and the authority behind. In no case have you removed or altered the DMs authority over his game.

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".

Yes and no. The results of the game will be different, because different decisions will be made by the two groups. The DMs full authority over the game remains unchanged, though.

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".

I understand that, and to a degree you are correct. The final creation is mutual, because of the dance between player decisions and actions and the DMs response and control over the game environment. However, only the DM has complete authority over everything that happens within the game, so in that sense the game is his.

Think of it like this. If I bring over Settlers of Catan, all the players are playing the game. The results of the game will be a combination of all parties involved. However, I own the game. It's mine and I retain full authority over it. I can decide in the middle of the game to just pack it up. Or not. It would be a jerk move on my part to do that, but it's my game.

That's what D&D is like. Ultimately it's the DMs game, even if the end result is a creation that is mutually arrived at.

That power can be taken away by the player deciding not to play in the game.

It can't. If every last player leaves the game, the game is still mine as is the power. Only I can take it and find new players for it. The others don't have my notes and ideas.

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.

Yes. Something I never said. Not once did I say that my authority could prevent a player from leaving the game or would exist outside of the game. That's a construct you created for me. Within the game, though, my authority is absolute.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, it's weird how bad some designers are at explaining what they mean by things. Jargon and obscuring phrases just take over.

Juxtaposition!

The longer I'm at this the less I have patience for phrases like this. Just because you personally aren't enjoying a particular game doesn't make it bad. It's not a good fit for you or your preferences, sure, but that doesn't render you subjective opinion into objective fact about the quality of the game.

 

[Blue]

Do the rules allow full power over anyone(within the game environment) who remains playing the game? Yes.

True, but since "in-game" is just a subset of the whole game, still irrelevant.

Yes and no. The results of the game will be different, because different decisions will be made by the two groups. The DMs full authority over the game remains unchanged, though.

This isn't logical. The game has changed in ways the GM does not have control over by the player leaving. How can you claim that they still have full authority?

I understand that, and to a degree you are correct. The final creation is mutual, because of the dance between player decisions and actions and the DMs response and control over the game environment. However, only the DM has complete authority over everything that happens within the game, so in that sense the game is his.

First, the GM has never had "complete authority over everything that happens within the game" unless they ignore all player agency. So we can discard any notion of that.

Second, if a bunch of players fire the GM and a new GM picks up with the existing characters and situation, the first GM still "owns the game"?

(Oh, and I've done that personally.)

Think of it like this. If I bring over Settlers of Catan, all the players are playing the game. The results of the game will be a combination of all parties involved. However, I own the game. It's mine and I retain full authority over it. I can decide in the middle of the game to just pack it up. Or not. It would be a jerk move on my part to do that, but it's my game.

Sure, you can take your ball and go home. But unlike Settlers of Catan this doesn't deprive the players of their characters. Can another GM step in? Heck, if you are running a published module can another GM pick up right where you left off?

"The game" isn't a physical thing like a Settlers set, it's an intangible shared creation. The GM does a bigger share of the set design, the players do a bigger share of moving the story forward.

And you play lip service to players making a difference, but until you acknowledge that they are just as instrumental as the DM into the specific story that makes up a specific game, you just will be missing the point.

Or let's go the other way. You bring over Settlers of Catan, and half way through the game the host throws you out. What does your authority over Settlers allow you to change that?

EDIT: Or a player gets a work call and needs to take off. Does your absolute authority over Catan by owning the physical game do anything about that?

That's what D&D is like. Ultimately it's the DMs game, even if the end result is a creation that is mutually arrived at.

Please explain how it's both the group effort but only belongs to one person. It's not like we're creating a physical mural somewhere, it's in the shared imagination of the table.

It can't. If every last player leaves the game, the game is still mine as is the power. Only I can take it and find new players for it. The others don't have my notes and ideas.

If you start another Settlers of Catan game later with different people, is it still the same game? Or has that first game ("your game" in your parlance) gone away and now you are playing a new game with the same basic configuration.

I think we both know the answer to this.

Yes. Something I never said. Not once did I say that my authority could prevent a player from leaving the game or would exist outside of the game. That's a construct you created for me. Within the game, though, my authority is absolute.

If you insist that lighter than air is the only method of flight, you don't need to utter the words "The Wright Brothers will never get their 'aeroplane' to fly", it's implied in what you said.

When you disputed that the player grants authority and can take it away, and instead insisted that the authority comes from the rules, you are saying that the rules are a higher level of authority than the player. Which means that your premise can only be right if the rules can prevent a player from leaving.

You never posted it because even you know it's hogwash and would undermine the rest of your statements. That does not mean that it isn't a necessary statement for your premise to be correct.

 

[Lanefan]

No, the GM can (potentially) go out and get more players and create a new game that is based on what they have done before. If they have retained some players there can even be more continuity, like a show where a lead actor or director leaves and something with that same name continues, but it doesn't have the same chemistry or the same energy and needs to rediscover itself.

Or you just accept occasional player turnover as a fact of life. This is essential if one intends to run a multi-year campaign, and note that said turnover may or may not have anything to do with the quality of DMing (i.e. life happens).

And again, your statement seems to assume that players are cogs - you can replace them and they all bring the same thing to the table.

Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh. Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.

 

[Blue]

Or you just accept occasional player turnover as a fact of life. This is essential if one intends to run a multi-year campaign, and note that said turnover may or may not have anything to do with the quality of DMing (i.e. life happens).

Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh. Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.

I never said player turnover was bad. Though player turnover because the GM is being abusive is bad in my opinion.

I was debating that the player is the ultimate source of authority over them, not the rules. That the rules can not force a player to join nor prevent a player from leaving, so the GM only has authority as voluntarily granted by the player.

Your points, which I agree with, are orthogonal to what is being discussed with Max.

 

[overgeeked]

Or you just accept occasional player turnover as a fact of life. This is essential if one intends to run a multi-year campaign, and note that said turnover may or may not have anything to do with the quality of DMing (i.e. life happens).

Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh. Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.

Exactly. And importantly, the referee is still in charge of the game. Players come and go, the game changes as a result, but the referee is still there running the game.

 

[Lanefan]

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"?

Yes.

And the same applies to a non-abusing GM.

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".

To me "the game" (here synonymous with "the campaign") is a construct of the GM running it in a particular setting in a somewhat-continuous or related manner.

Same GM, different setting = different game.
Different GM, same setting = different game.

Same GM, same setting = (usually the) same 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.

Well, it is once you realize that without that single person that "game" does not exist.

 

[Manbearcat]

Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh. Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.

This is interesting to me.

I'm curious what you feel intra-game turnover yields in terms of "new players bring new things to the table?" What "new things" do you have in mind?

I'm curious about this because I don't remember the last time I had intra-game turnover. Like...I think it was 2 decades ago in a 3.x game I GMed due to someone moving out of town? Yet, having the same players all the time hasn't affected "campaign freshness."

The same players at every game (and just in the last 2 decades you're talking GMing probably 150 different players, yet every game had no more than 4 players with most of them 2-3 players) have consistently kept things fresh and brought new and different and very consequential things into play consistently...all the time.

So can you maybe elaborate on that second sentence above with some examples from your games?

 

[overgeeked]

Yes.

And the same applies to a non-abusing GM.

To me "the game" (here synonymous with "the campaign") is a construct of the GM running it in a particular setting in a somewhat-continuous or related manner.

Same GM, different setting = different game.
Different GM, same setting = different game.

Same GM, same setting = (usually the) same game.

Well, it is once you realize that without that single person that "game" does not exist.

I think that last bit is exactly what blue refuses to accept/acknowledge.