Critical Gamemastery: What is a Game Master?

[Irick]

[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]There are many views as to the role of a Game Master at the table. I will not say mine should be privileged over any other, simply that it is mine. This will serve as an attempt to lay out my findings and ideas as wholly as I can. The first question that we must turn to is that which is most fundamental: What is a game?[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]In [/SIZE][SIZE=14.666666666666666px]The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia[/SIZE][SIZE=14.666666666666666px] Bernard Suits argues a fairly convincing definition of play: [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]"To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude]."[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]However, this does not define a game. It gives us the action of playing a game. Now, game, Like play is a hard nut to crack. I think we can agree that all games have rules, even if they are fast and loose rules, but I don’t think any of us would argue that the rules themselves make up the game. I will start with the assumption that a game must be the rules plus something else that transforms the rule set into a full fledged game. Imagine a child finding the New Games Book, reading the rules for Smaug's Jewel, gathering the cones and making a suitably tempting shiny for the jewel then finally gathering a group of friends to play. Where does the game come into being?[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]Similarly, let us imagine the same child reading over D&D, or another RPG system. They gather their minis, they roll up characters, they read through their module and bring their friends to the table. When does the game… start?[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]I argue that this is fundamentally the same scenario, and thus, I define games in this way: A game is the emergent property of a system consisting of Design Intent, Rules, Implementation and finally Play. In D&D, The Game Designer provides the Design Intent, which uses a common culture to generate Rules. The Dungeon Master interprets the Rules and builds the Implementation, then finally, the Dungeon Master and the Players engage in Play to bring the Game into being.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]I feel it is important to note that I envision this system as in a state of constant feedback. The Game Designer is listening to Dungeon Masters as to what works in their campaigns to create better Rules. The Dungeon Master is listening to their Players to plan better sessions (Implementation) and finally, the players are listening to themselves to create better Play. This system is also not unaffected by the culture surrounding it, but I think that to extend past these points ensures that my model becomes chaotic.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]I would also argue that this model can work for any kind of game. In video games, for instance, we would consider the code and assets on the disk to be the implementation. However, I think that in framing it in D&D contexts we can far more easily the effects of one of my fundamental arguments: A change in any of the parts fundamentally changes the system.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]As much as Pathfinder society would like us to believe otherwise, no two GMs are the same. I go farther, and I hope, somewhat de-mythicize the role of GM by positing in addition to no two GMs being the same, no two players are the same. I argue that a game, no matter how large, becomes fundamentally a different game as the players cycle.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]In light of this model, what becomes the role of the GM? In video games, the implementation is fixed for the most part (Mods and player added content allows for the Implementation to still complete the feedback loop to the Design Intent). The Implementation standardises all Player experiences within a common system of understanding and implicit rules. Similarly, it is the GM’s function to act as a point of stabilization and standardization. To prevent the feedback loop from overloading the system and descending into chaos. GMs do this by acting as a final point of arbitration, an embodiment (Implimentation) of the Rules. Now, just as not every chess set is exactly the same, GMs can not expect for their Implementation to exactly mirror every other GM, and in fact for the feedback loop back to the Designer to work they should not. However, GMs provide a feedback buffer and stability to the Game.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14.6667px]Anyhow, that's as far as I've been able to get without getting into more practical advice. I'd be thrilled to hear anyone's thoughts on this [/SIZE][SIZE=14.6667px]model or consider competing claims![/SIZE]

 

[Grey]

Seems a pretty reasonable definition to me. Indeed, this feels for me like making explicit those things which are always implicit in the role of GM.


Where does the narrative control of the GM enter this model? Certainly we arbitrate rules in what we imagine to be their appropriate spirit or enforce them to the letter, but GMs are also responsible for the design and implementation of NPCs, and the narrative structure of the game. Assuming you aren't just running a pre-written dungeon crawl, at which point you might as well be playing videogames like Diablo or Path of Exile.


Also, welcome to the site. I'm afraid it'll probably just be you and I in this thread.

 

[Irick]

Where does the narrative control of the GM enter this model? Certainly we arbitrate rules in what we imagine to be their appropriate spirit or enforce them to the letter, but GMs are also responsible for the design and implementation of NPCs, and the narrative structure of the game. 

I'd say that these actually fit into the same task. Namely that of frameworking. In terms of narrative, I've been exploring the ideas of improvisational theater and the axiom "You can look good if you make your partner look good". We provide the structure that lets our players look good (within reason) by embracing their tendency to go off road, so to speak.


I'm attempting to use some of the structures that have been posited in comparative mythology, most famous of this being Joseph Campbell's Monomyth. Instead of developing out a NPC that is hard set within their own network of relationships and backgrounds I let the players start to prompt world development within one of these loose myth frameworks. NPCs rise and fall in importance, taking on the roles of "The Mentor" or "The Case of Mistaken Identity" depending on how the players are treating them. They inherit background and relationships as they fade in and out of player favor. In this way we can maintain the stability of a plot structure while reacting to that feedback loop developed by player interaction.


I keep a lose set of names and personalities, as well as a stack of relationship cards that can help me flesh out an NPC on the spot or come up with plausible role shifts when the players seem to lose interest with the current cast. This seems to have had a neat effect on my player's conception of my game world as a living thing as well as the depth and scale of the political landscape.

Also, welcome to the site. I'm afraid it'll probably just be you and I in this thread.

Thank you! It's nice to be welcomed. I'm glad at least one person is interested in my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Grey]

Fair points. Do you therefore emphasize improvisation over a concrete narrative arc? It sounds very like my own simulationist approach of providing a well defined setting (with some gaps fillable by players),  but I actually maintain a stock of defined NPCs with motives of their own, intending that the clash of player motive with NPC motive organically from setting elements (such as a player who feels their character would take steps to oppose slavery, bringing them into conflict with existing political and financial entities without fiat) be the source of mutually challenging, enriching stories.


But I am something of a nihilist, and the monomyth sits poorly with me unless it's an explicit or implicit component of a setting's metaphysics - in which case I am drawn to a character's assumption of a 'heroic' fate rather than their receipt of it,  in my own work most often portrayed as enlightenment or apotheosis in a pseudo-gnostic sense. I do wish there was a more elegant term for this specific concept. Guan Yu springs to mind as a broadly illustrative example.

 

[Irick]

Fair points. Do you therefore emphasize improvisation over a concrete narrative arc? It sounds very like my own simulationist approach of providing a well defined setting (with some gaps fillable by players),  but I actually maintain a stock of defined NPCs with motives of their own, intending that the clash of player motive with NPC motive organically from setting elements [...] be the source of mutually challenging, enriching stories.

I used to develop these out more explicitly but I got to a point where I realised I was mostly re-treading the same components of design. I decided to look at the preparation methods in a different light and started considering the idea of atomic modeling. So I deconstructed the settings, characters, quests and campaigns I had developed over the years into something similar to FATE aspects. I keep these on hand and have started cataloging other sources (like modules) that share those aspects. From that point, I run more or less sandbox, but with a very powerful index of seed material that can be quickly tweaked on the fly.


The only thing that messes with this at times are world maps. I still more or less need to pre-bake maps.

But I am something of a nihilist, and the monomyth sits poorly with me unless it's an explicit or implicit component of a setting's metaphysics - in which case I am drawn to a character's assumption of a 'heroic' fate rather than their receipt of it,  in my own work most often portrayed as enlightenment or apotheosis in a pseudo-gnostic sense. I do wish there was a more elegant term for this specific concept. Guan Yu springs to mind as a broadly illustrative example.

There is more than the monomyth. In fact, a lot of gnostic exegesis is ripe for this sort of plumbing. The metaphysic for a few of my settings have borrowed heavily from a gnostic interpretation of the babylonian cosmogony. It rather liked that, I wrote out a holy book more or less offering a meta-hermeneutic on those texts as seen from a sort of hermetic tradition of mage-dominated western religions. I used it to play with the concept of how cultures merge and define themselves in opposition.


Mystical terminology tends to be imprecise and they do have a lot of ways to convey the experience of the godhead. But, the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. It would be a difficult, I think, to encapsulate that sort of revelation within a game structure. Not that I don't try occasionally  Unfortunately my The Demon's Sermon on the Martial Arts game got real weird, real quick.

 

[Grey]

Unfortunately my The Demon's Sermon on the Martial Arts game got real weird, real quick.

Considering how often I itch to run a game based around the kung-fu adventures of absurdly powerful post-human demons seeking true enlightenment, this seems like a desirable outcome to me. 

 

[Greenbriar]

Considering how often I itch to run a game based around the kung-fu adventures of absurdly powerful post-human demons seeking true enlightenment, this seems like a desirable outcome to me. 

Most people, I'd assume that was a joke - but I've seen your interest checks!


Sorry guys, I like that this conversation is being had but it's too far over my head for me to really contribute.

 

[Bone2pick]

I've read through your post twice and I'm still uncertain what your "model" is, and how it differentiates itself from what you would categorize as other models.  I'm sure it's the result of my own limitations as a reader — no offense intended.   If it's possible (and not too much trouble) I'd love it if you could sum up your model in a single short and sweet paragraph. 

 

[Grey]

I've read through your post twice and I'm still uncertain what your "model" is, and how it differentiates itself from what you would categorize as other models.  I'm sure it's the result of my own limitations as a reader — no offense intended.   If it's possible (and not too much trouble) I'd love it if you could sum up your model in a single short and sweet paragraph. 

Assuming I understood it correctly - and despite appearances I'm kind of slow, so I may not have - game designer makes rulebook, GM interprets and arbitrates any ambiguities in a way that they feel is consistent with the designer's intent, players act and react accordingly, and in an ideal world the GM provides the designer with feedback based on their campaigns.


Another model is freeform GMing, but I was hoping someone else would offer insights before I started conjecturing aboout that.


Honestly the question seems wholly academic; if there's a way to apply this theory to practice it so far escapes me.

 

[Bone2pick]

game designer makes rulebook, GM interprets and arbitrates any ambiguities in a way that they feel is consistent with the designer's intent, players act and react accordingly, and in an ideal world the GM provides the designer with feedback based on their campaigns.

So the model describes the chain of creation and consumption of a traditional (dice and/or system based) RPG?  


Hmm... I guess that's not what springs to mind whenever I contemplate the question "what is a Game Master."  I was expecting a healthy serving of advice & philosophy.


As a side note, I prefer the label storyteller, but out of habit I still use GM more than I care to.

 

[Irick]

Considering how often I itch to run a game based around the kung-fu adventures of absurdly powerful post-human demons seeking true enlightenment, this seems like a desirable outcome to me. 

I enjoyed it, I got to use an interesting set of wushu house rules I was prototyping based on A Wanderer's Romance's system. However, the players went super paranoid when the woodland creatures started enacting various morality tales and koans. It transformed from a neat little puzzle into 'we declare war on the mythical forest'.

So the model describes the chain of creation and consumption of a traditional (dice and/or system based) RPG?  

The model is of all of gaming. I mapped it to the typical gaming cycle of a tabletop rpg to help develop out the role of a game master. The way it works is you have basicly two feedback loops. You have Design Intent to Implementation, which is influenced by feedback resulting from the iterative modification if the Implementation and vise versa. You have the Implementation to Play, wherein the Implementation is influenced by the Play and vice versa. In the case of multiple players, you also have the feedback within Play of the individual player's Play Styles.


What ends up happening is that the GM strides a sort of conflux of dialog and development. They both change and are influenced by the rules, which change and influence the player's characters who change and influence the GM who chances and influences the Game Designer.


You can also contextualise this in terms of narrative, with the GM providing the implementation of a setting, plot, etc.

Hmm... I guess that's not what springs to mind whenever I contemplate the question "what is a Game Master."  I was expecting a healthy serving of advice & philosophy.

Philosophical meditation begins with definitions. I have a GMing style, but I want to base it on something that allows for critical analysis. It's an approach that I feel is underserved in gaming in general, I've been trying to rectify that. I feel games are an artistic endeavor, and I want to treat them to the same sort of rigor that other artforms

As a side note, I prefer the label storyteller, but out of habit I still use GM more than I care to.

Storyteller wouldn't properly encapsulate what i'm contemplating. I've studied oral storytelling and I have worked out those techniques as a component of the performative aspects of running a game. However: everyone at the table is a storyteller. Everyone is bringing a character and narrative to the table. What the game master does (regardless of system specific terminology) is something different, though similar to the storytelling triangle synthesis.


On a note of terminology politics, I avoid storyteller because it does not address the ludic expression within games. While many people are comfortable with reducing roleplaying games to the concept of colaberative storytelling I insist upon the game aspect as unique and essential to the medium.

Another model is freeform GMing, but I was hoping someone else would offer insights before I started conjecturing aboout that.

I think that this model could be used to describe both free form and highly planned sessions. I think that a free form session would be maybe more able to be reactive to the feedback from the players. It has less concrete things to move around. We tend to get attached to the bits of the session that we spend the most time on. That's why I keep talking about building frameworks rather than specific entities. To me, a tool that lets me easily create a fully fleshed out NPC at the table in response to something the players have done is more valuable than a network of specific NPCs.

Honestly the question seems wholly academic; if there's a way to apply this theory to practice it so far escapes me.

It is academic. I'm an ammature ludologist.

 

[Bone2pick]

The model is of all of gaming. I mapped it to the typical gaming cycle of a tabletop rpg to help develop out the role of a game master. The way it works is you have basicly two feedback loops. You have Design Intent to Implementation, which is influenced by feedback resulting from the iterative modification if the Implementation and vise versa. You have the Implementation to Play, wherein the Implementation is influenced by the Play and vice versa. In the case of multiple players, you also have the feedback within Play of the individual player's Play Styles.


What ends up happening is that the GM strides a sort of conflux of dialog and development. They both change and are influenced by the rules, which change and influence the player's characters who change and influence the GM who chances and influences the Game Designer.


You can also contextualise this in terms of narrative, with the GM providing the implementation of a setting, plot, etc.

All gaming as in all roleplaying games, or any and every activity that could reasonably be called a game?


After your third sentence you dive head first into what I would call a word salad.  I honestly can't make sense of your summary.  I'm not trying to be obtuse, we're simply failing to communicate.  It's disappointing because I really do enjoy quality conversations about roleplay theory and writing.  Unfortunately that may not be a possibility here.

 

[Grey]

I think that this model could be used to describe both free form and highly planned sessions.

I meant freeform in the sense of being without fixed rules. Most of what people do here on RPN involves absolutely no system at all. No dice, no stats. Sometimes there isn't even a GM; just a player wih greater narrative control than the others.

 

[Irick]

All gaming as in all roleplaying games, or any and every activity that could reasonably be called a game?

The goal is for that basic model (what I have referred to as the Emergent System of Game) to be useful in thinking about all games. For instance: Chess has eons of development that make up its rules. Those eons of development provide the Design Intent. The culture that you are from provides the Rules. The specific chess board that you play on in addition to houserule modifications provides the Implementation. The two opponents provide the Play.


(I was going to go into how word games/freeform/speech fits into this model, however I see grey has responded. I will address that in that reply.

After your third sentence you dive head first into what I would call a word salad. 

This is an unfortunate danger of emersion in critical theory. ^^; I appoligize. I've been trying to moderate myself.

I meant freeform in the sense of being without fixed rules. Most of what people do here on RPN involves absolutely no system at all. No dice, no stats. Sometimes there isn't even a GM; just a player wih greater narrative control than the others.

In this case I would argue that, even though the rules are not explicit, that they still exist. I'd point to Wittgenstein's idea of language games and I'd fit these sort of 'systemless' games in the framework as such: The Elevator Pitch (OP) provides the Design Intent, Forum Culture provides the Rules, The Implementation is provided by the forum software in conjunction with the Common Language, and finally Play is engaged in by the Players.


*edit*


Basically, as you do away with specific roles, the subsystems are taken over by increasingly overlapping general systems.

 

[Alexandra]

The goal is for that basic model (what I have referred to as the Emergent System of Game) to be useful in thinking about all games. For instance: Chess has eons of development that make up its rules. Those eons of development provide the Design Intent. The culture that you are from provides the Rules. The specific chess board that you play on in addition to houserule modifications provides the Implementation. The two opponents provide the Play.


<snip>

I find myself reminded of the Shannon Weaver model of communication, with a different series of feedback loops.



As for defining a game, plenty of people have attempted to do that with varying degrees of success, but I quite like Jane McGonigal's quote on the subject -
"When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation."

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

I feel like you could have said that in less than half the words and still got your point across to the letter, but I enjoyed reading this.

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

I think you complicate the definition of game far too much.


I would counter with this,


An individual is playing when they are performing an activity with the intent of gaining enjoyment (fun) from performing said activity.


A game is the activity performed with the intent of gaining enjoyment (fun).


I like this definition better as it covers when kids play, often without any explicit rules.


I would then say a game system is a game that has been codified, much like how social groups can have moras about what is allowed and when those moras are codified into laws, rules, or regulations.


I think it is common however to refer to a game system as simply a game, effectively giving both definitions to the one word "game." Also, a third definition can be applied, the definition ascribed by game theory (I don't remember exactly, but it was something about choices.).


I present this mostly because I have never considered the rules of dnd (or any other ttrpg) to be the game. I have always considered them to be merely an aid to the actual game of roleplaying.


I also think the role of the gm depends om the group and how they play. I personally prefer gm's who are presenting a world and situations for the players to explore and interact with, but I've seen plenty of games with radically different styles of play.

 

[SaintHax]

This is an unfortunate danger of emersion in critical theory. ^^; I appoligize. I've been trying to moderate myself.

I disagree.  I'm a student of game design-- rpg and board, and I could have said as much in an easier to digest form.  Though, I avoid philosophy for practical theory.  As it's a game design (practice), not a game philosophy that I care to study.  All that aside, there are certain points in your posts that point to someone trying to use jargon that isn't fully understood-- which means, it's not fully needed and is done so to add false credibility to your posts.  I could rewrite all of them, but I won't.  I will give this gem as an example.

On a note of terminology politics, I avoid storyteller because it does not address the ludic expression within games.

Here is a grab for "ludic", or "relating to the game".  In context you are referring to the rules & implementation aspects of the game.  You've started by defining a game as made up of "Design Intent, Rules, Implementation and finally Play".  A "Storyteller" would apply to Implementation and Play, but neglect the Rules aspect that you want to stress.  The issue is-- all 4 parts are "ludic" by your own definition.  Therefore, you don't fully understand the word that you felt the need to use.

 

[MedievalMethods]

I meant freeform in the sense of being without fixed rules. Most of what people do here on RPN involves absolutely no system at all. No dice, no stats. Sometimes there isn't even a GM; just a player wih greater narrative control than the others.

Another model is freeform GMing, but I was hoping someone else would offer insights before I started conjecturing aboout that.

You might enjoy reading this

 

[Grey]

You might enjoy reading this

I'm aware of Nordic-style LARPing. That's a very different animal to freeform PBP on RPN. 

 

[AtlannianSpy]

I think you might be discounting the importance of narrative a little too readily. I think a lot of players and GMs approach roleplay as a means to fantasise or tell stories and are only interested in mechanics based play in the sense that it provides fiction and structure for their creativity. 


A lot of the conflict on this site and arises when the narratives players or GMs want to tell don't mesh or the people behind them are unwilling or unable to compromise and make them mesh. How many threads have there been on this forum complaining about characters who make Mary Sues and beat all the bad guys / solve all of the problems /'hog the spotlight. These players don't seem to be interested in rules based play and in fact often willingly ignore or try to get around rules to play out a fantasy or story they want to tell to an audience or themselves. So then I would say the RP becomes a shared narrative framework that allows the fantasies players want to act out to support rather than cannibalise each other and the role of the GM is to balance out these narratives and weave them together in a mutually satisfying way. In this scenario I don't really see why Storyteller is a less useful term then GM, storyweaver or something might be even more accurate but there is a limit to waht you can ask people to address you as before you descend into self parody. 


Anything I have to say about tabletop games would be conjecture, I listen to D&D podcasts but have never played a tabletop game personally, but I would think that table top players are at least partly interested in the fantasy or story element, otherwise they would just go play chess or video games right? Instead they chose a game that requires them exercise creativity to some extent and fill in the gaps with their imagination and they often choose to play in a way that has more to do with their imagined elements of backstory rather than the hard rules of the game "What would my character do?" Although I'm aware many systems incorporate and gamify such decisions with inspiration or similar systems.


I'm also really curious about what you think " [SIZE=14.6667px]feedback loop from overloading the system and descending into chaos" looks like. In my mind I'm picturing angry tabletop players besieging the Wizards of the Coast headquarters with pitchforks and torches but I freely admit to having an over active imagination.[/SIZE]

 

[SaintHax]

I felt like returning to this bombastic essay.  First, if this is supposed to be as in depth as it pretends to be, you've forgotten to define your scope: game mastering PBP/PBE, is different from GM'ing at a table, and different again from GM'ing at a LARP.  Perhaps these roles are so different that they deserve different titles, but that's another discussion.  I'll not try to guess your scope.

[SIZE=14.666666666666666px]... I define games in this way: A game is the emergent property of a system consisting of Design Intent, Rules, Implementation and finally Play. In D&D, The Game Designer provides the Design Intent, which uses a common culture to generate Rules. The Dungeon Master interprets the Rules and builds the Implementation, then finally, the Dungeon Master and the Players engage in Play to bring the Game into being.[/SIZE]

I have to reject this definition, as it would allow a trip to the movies be a game, where the rules are (buy a ticket, don't use a cellphone, etc) and the usher is a GM.  Instead, and this is my thoughts after listening to Rym and Scott's "Tabletop Game Mastery: Beyond Candyland", a game is an activity that is personally rewarding, where decisions you make within the rules can influence the success or failure condition at the end.


Also, how does common culture enter into generating rules in your D&D example?  This is really out there.

I feel it is important to note that I envision this system as in a state of constant feedback. The Game Designer is listening to Dungeon Masters as to what works in their campaigns to create better Rules. The Dungeon Master is listening to their Players to plan better sessions (Implementation) and finally, the players are listening to themselves to create better Play. This system is also not unaffected by the culture surrounding it, but I think that to extend past these points ensures that my model becomes chaotic.

Why in your model is the Designer listing to the GM, and not the consumers?  I can't imagine the Designer not wanting input from GM and players alike, and even game event organizers to a lesser degree.  There are also a couple of other things to note, this is now a digression from "what is a game master" to a "what is a game life cycle model".  Though digressions happen.  However, afterwards we hit a double negative "is also not unaffected", instead of the concise "is also affected", which is one of the signs of someone just trying to be grandiloquent, and I then wonder if the tangent is for the same reason.

... However, I think that in framing it in D&D contexts we can far more easily the effects of one of my fundamental arguments: A change in any of the parts fundamentally changes the system.


.. I argue that a game, no matter how large, becomes fundamentally a different game as the players cycle.

What's interesting here is that no argument has actually been made for either points.  To state a position, even when saying you argue it, does not an argument make.  There would need to be evidence to support an argument.  Anecdotal or a hypothetical example would be a start.  There would also need to be an opposing view else it's just a statement.  I'll offer one: A game does not always change as the players cycle in any fundamental way.  The experience may change, but the game doesn't have to.  No more than a car changes as the driver does.  This again is a tangent.  It adds to the word chaff, but I can not connect it to "what is a game master".

Similarly, it is the GM’s function to act as a point of stabilization and standardization. To prevent the feedback loop from overloading the system and descending into chaos. GMs do this by acting as a final point of arbitration, an embodiment (Implimentation) of the Rules. Now, just as not every chess set is exactly the same, GMs can not expect for their Implementation to exactly mirror every other GM, and in fact for the feedback loop back to the Designer to work they should not. However, GMs provide a feedback buffer and stability to the Game.

So we finally arrive at "what a game master is", and by this point I'm floored.  If we distill this post, it comes down to: "the game master interprets rules, and funnels question to the game designer about rules so that the game system is more standard and the game designer is not inundated with questions"... is the basic gist of it.  But this really seems like a post of jargon to bait responses in agreement so the poster can snicker at them from his side.  I would even suspect that a veteran user created Irick (who I supposedly live near) as his version of a Gecko45 (and you should read the Shrine of the Mall Ninja for laughs, though not game related).

First and foremost, the simile of a chess set to the variations of game masters is so wrong that it had to be done on purpose as a clue.  Every chess set is identical except for cosmetics.  As a game, it's the most standardized thing that comes to mind.  Second, the definition hinges on the game life cycle model that currently doesn't exist, and certainly didn't have much of a chance prior to the internet, so that is really out there.  Also, who uses terms like "lusory" when talking about a Game Master, but fails to mention the "social contract", which is a very hot topic in current game design and extremely important to the GM's role.


Then we have the fact that referee and ambassador to the game designer (per OP suggestion) barely scratches the surface of what a GM does.  In fact, by the OPs own example of how a game comes into being, the GM "builds the Implementation" describes a big portion of the duty-- where is that in the single paragraph GM explanation?  If anything this is more of a definition of a GM for the dungeon hack-n-slash Descent game, and far from the Game Master of a game like Dogs in the Vineyard.  I cannot believe this is anything other than a bait thread, but I am morbidly curious to see how it progresses.

 

[Irick]

I disagree.  I'm a student of game design-- rpg and board, and I could have said as much in an easier to digest form.  Though, I avoid philosophy for practical theory.  As it's a game design (practice), not a game philosophy that I care to study.  All that aside, there are certain points in your posts that point to someone trying to use jargon that isn't fully understood-- which means, it's not fully needed and is done so to add false credibility to your posts. 

I'm using the established terminology for games studies. I appoligize if this seems convoluted to you, but it is the diction of the material I am building my theory on.

Here is a grab for "ludic", or "relating to the game".  In context you are referring to the rules & implementation aspects of the game.  You've started by defining a game as made up of "Design Intent, Rules, Implementation and finally Play".  A "Storyteller" would apply to Implementation and Play, but neglect the Rules aspect that you want to stress.  The issue is-- all 4 parts are "ludic" by your own definition.  Therefore, you don't fully understand the word that you felt the need to use.

Ludic does not simply mean 'relating to the game' in the context I am using it. This is why I began my exploration with a quote from The Grasshopper. Ludic in this sense means relating to play, I contend that play can not exist without rules, though the players may not be entirely aware of their existance or their strictures. Again, I point back to Wittgenstein, and I will borrow from The Grasshopper once more to address the following conundrum:

I think you might be discounting the importance of narrative a little too readily. I think a lot of players and GMs approach roleplay as a means to fantasise or tell stories and are only interested in mechanics based play in the sense that it provides fiction and structure for their creativity. 

Narrative to me would be the 'prelusory goal'. It's the thing by which we wish to achieve through play and therefore the 'objective' of the game.

A lot of the conflict on this site and arises when the narratives players or GMs want to tell don't mesh or the people behind them are unwilling or unable to compromise and make them mesh. How many threads have there been on this forum complaining about characters who make Mary Sues and beat all the bad guys / solve all of the problems /'hog the spotlight. These players don't seem to be interested in rules based play and in fact often willingly ignore or try to get around rules to play out a fantasy or story they want to tell to an audience or themselves. 

I don't think we are in disagreement here. I would call people who disregard the rules of roleplaying decorum (don't godmode, make your partner look good, etc) in favor of a power trip 'cheaters' in the sense of The Grasshopper. People who value the achievement of the preluciary goal, but are not willing to take on the lusory attitude and accept the rules (in this case, more social convention).

Anything I have to say about tabletop games would be conjecture, I listen to D&D podcasts but have never played a tabletop game personally, but I would think that table top players are at least partly interested in the fantasy or story element, otherwise they would just go play chess or video games right? Instead they chose a game that requires them exercise creativity to some extent and fill in the gaps with their imagination and they often choose to play in a way that has more to do with their imagined elements of backstory rather than the hard rules of the game "What would my character do?" Although I'm aware many systems incorporate and gamify such decisions with inspiration or similar systems.

I'm trying to abstract the thought to the point that it doesn't mater what sort of game we are looking at. D&D is just a popular RPG ruleset. However: There are several types of players that play tabletop RPGs. Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastery identifies The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor and The Casual Gamer. These are useful to think about. Tabletop games are not, for everyone, necessarily /about/ the story. They may be a way to bring their favorite single man Wargaming scenarios to fruition. In all cases, the narrative helps flesh out the experience, but for each player type it will be more or less important. Part of the challenge in GMing tabletop is ballencing this.

I'm also really curious about what you think " [SIZE=14.6667px]feedback loop from overloading the system and descending into chaos" looks like. In my mind I'm picturing angry tabletop players besieging the Wizards of the Coast headquarters with pitchforks and torches but I freely admit to having an over active imagination.[/SIZE]

If I admit too many systems into my model of game it would become a model of known reality and how it affects the phenomona of game  Before long I'd have to explain how tidal forces might affect d20 roles and how the phases of the moon might relate to the distinct narrative 'feel'. I mean Chaos here in the sense of Chaos theory, systems that become so complex in their interaction that a small change in one can drastically alter the others. This is popularised as the 'butterfly effect'.

I felt like returning to this bombastic essay.  First, if this is supposed to be as in depth as it pretends to be, you've forgotten to define your scope: game mastering PBP/PBE, is different from GM'ing at a table, and different again from GM'ing at a LARP.  Perhaps these roles are so different that they deserve different titles, but that's another discussion.  I'll not try to guess your scope.

The scope is universal.

I have to reject this definition, as it would allow a trip to the movies be a game, where the rules are (buy a ticket, don't use a cellphone, etc) and the usher is a GM.  Instead, and this is my thoughts after listening to Rym and Scott's "Tabletop Game Mastery: Beyond Candyland", a game is an activity that is personally rewarding, where decisions you make within the rules can influence the success or failure condition at the end.

You could play at going to the movies. You'd need to find a way to apply the lusory attitude, and your preludic goal may be to sneak into an R rated film. It's possible to model this interaction in the terms of game. This is somewhat the point, if I am to posit a comprehensive theory of game, I need to structure it in such a way that it is: 1) A unique perspective derived from gaming and play 2) A perspective that can be used as a critical theory to inform readings of other text. There is very little in human life that can not be made into a game. This was one of the arguments posited in The Grasshopper. The 'Utopia' in the title refers to a state of affairs in which people have solved every practical problem. When asled what people would /do/ in this post-need state of being, the Grasshopper posits they will do whatever they want to do, but that it will be fundamentally transformed into play. When all of science is known, running experiments via the scientific method becomes play. When Political science is solved, running for election becomes play. Etc. Etc.


I would posit that the definition in Ryn and Scott's work has not reflected on the expressive mode of Snakes and Ladders or Parcheesi. Both of these games in their ancient forms came from a culture that believed in the ordinance of fate. Choice is arbitrary, your actions mean nothing to the game state. Who will win is destined to win, but yet we cast the bones and consult the oracle of game.

Also, how does common culture enter into generating rules in your D&D example?  This is really out there.

The common culture speaks English. Therefore, the rules are writen in english. The common culture sees dragons as quadruped beasts with wings, therefore they are described as such in the monster manual. We bring a set of assumptions and our own cultural context to the table any time we interact. WIth language, game systems, or otherwise. Popular culture molds the products that are created within it.

Why in your model is the Designer listing to the GM, and not the consumers?  I can't imagine the Designer not wanting input from GM and players alike, and even game event organizers to a lesser degree. 

The DM buys more books. Modules, handbooks, setting guides. The DM is also their marketing point of contact and a convenient way to get a pulse on an exponentially larger player base without having to go to the effort of individual project marketing for 4x+ the points of contact. This is why Wizards reaches out to RPGA DMs for consultation so frequently.

What's interesting here is that no argument has actually been made for either points.  To state a position, even when saying you argue it, does not an argument make.  There would need to be evidence to support an argument.  Anecdotal or a hypothetical example would be a start.  There would also need to be an opposing view else it's just a statement.  I'll offer one: A game does not always change as the players cycle in any fundamental way.  The experience may change, but the game doesn't have to.  No more than a car changes as the driver does.  This again is a tangent.  It adds to the word chaff, but I can not connect it to "what is a game master".

This touches on my argument that a game master provides stability within this interacting system. Part of the GM's role in a modern table is to moderate player altercations. I am somewhat split on this role, as I do not think it is explisitly within the domain of the game master, but it is one that they tend to get into due to their privileged position within the dynamic. In other words: Keeping players in the game is a function of the GM. 


As for your argument regarding shifting players, you are ignoring my framework and positing an alternative that has not been defined when you say "the experience may change, but the game doesn't have to." Without a definition of game, this statement is meaningless and would be wrong within the current definition as I have laid it out. A competing point would be welcomed, but you need to define your terminology if you are going to target the underpinnings of the current context.


(Also, you are becoming far more dismissive of points rather than taking them on in earnist. This is hurtful and not productive to a dialog. Please consider your wording more carefully.)

So we finally arrive at "what a game master is", and by this point I'm floored.  If we distill this post, it comes down to: "the game master interprets rules, and funnels question to the game designer about rules so that the game system is more standard and the game designer is not inundated with questions"... is the basic gist of it.  But this really seems like a post of jargon to bait responses in agreement so the poster can snicker at them from his side.  I would even suspect that a veteran user created Irick (who I supposedly live near) as his version of a Gecko45 (and you should read the Shrine of the Mall Ninja for laughs, though not game related).

Your summary is inadequate. This is not surprising considering how adamantly you are against my thesis, for whatever reason, but it does show that you have not internalized or understood the core of my position. You have questioned my motives as a rhetorical move to taint my position. I am not here to engage in politics. I am here because I am interested in the study of games and play. If you insist on further attacks against my character, I will take it as personal and bring it up with the staff.

First and foremost, the simile of a chess set to the variations of game masters is so wrong that it had to be done on purpose as a clue.  Every chess set is identical except for cosmetics.  As a game, it's the most standardized thing that comes to mind.  Second, the definition hinges on the game life cycle model that currently doesn't exist, and certainly didn't have much of a chance prior to the internet, so that is really out there.  Also, who uses terms like "lusory" when talking about a Game Master, but fails to mention the "social contract", which is a very hot topic in current game design and extremely important to the GM's role.

You are dismissing cosmetics. Is there not a difference between the indian pantheon squaring off for an earth shaking conflict and the cast of Dune maneuvering through the palace intrigue? Aesthetics relate subtle and complex ideas to our mind. Changing the peices changes the meaning, or the reading of the game. If you have not played a chess variant, like a speed chess, or one of the proposed rules tweaks to deal with the first move advantage: randomised starting positions, that is fine, but I can tell you that chess is an evolving game within the community of those who study and play it. I am uncertain how you imagine that people failed to communicate prior to the internet, but I can assure you they did.


As for the social contract. That's part of the rules of the game. It's an implicit rule, and one that has been informed by the prevailing culture. I can understand how this would elude you, as you seemed fuzzy as to how culture could inform games.

Then we have the fact that referee and ambassador to the game designer (per OP suggestion) barely scratches the surface of what a GM does.  In fact, by the OPs own example of how a game comes into being, the GM "builds the Implementation" describes a big portion of the duty-- where is that in the single paragraph GM explanation?  If anything this is more of a definition of a GM for the dungeon hack-n-slash Descent game, and far from the Game Master of a game like Dogs in the Vineyard.  I cannot believe this is anything other than a bait thread, but I am morbidly curious to see how it progresses.

This is a declaration of a fundamental model, an axiom. You are expecting me to drive every rule that would follow? I appoligize, but this is impossible. Euclid could no more predict the result of his axioms than I can mine until I have explored a particular line of reasoning that is generated by them.


But this is besides the point now: You have insulted me.


I demand an apology, or I will dismiss your further input. You are clearly not arguing in good faith and are not deserving of the role of interlocutor until you can engage civilly as well as critically.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

I think you might be discounting the importance of narrative a little too readily. I think a lot of players and GMs approach roleplay as a means to fantasise or tell stories and are only interested in mechanics based play in the sense that it provides fiction and structure for their creativity. 

Narrative to me would be the 'prelusory goal'. It's the thing by which we wish to achieve through play and therefore the 'objective' of the game.

A lot of the conflict on this site and arises when the narratives players or GMs want to tell don't mesh or the people behind them are unwilling or unable to compromise and make them mesh. How many threads have there been on this forum complaining about characters who make Mary Sues and beat all the bad guys / solve all of the problems /'hog the spotlight. These players don't seem to be interested in rules based play and in fact often willingly ignore or try to get around rules to play out a fantasy or story they want to tell to an audience or themselves. 

I don't think we are in disagreement here. I would call people who disregard the rules of roleplaying decorum (don't godmode, make your partner look good, etc) in favor of a power trip 'cheaters' in the sense of The Grasshopper. People who value the achievement of the preluciary goal, but are not willing to take on the lusory attitude and accept the rules (in this case, more social convention).

Having not read The Grasshopper I can't claim to be using the definition with full knowledge of its original context but the way you use it at least asserts that games are necessarily an agreement to reach an objective by less efficient means. If the goal of an RP is to produce a narrative that's often not the case. The framework and community provided by a roleplay frequently make it easier to produce said narrative, by allowing the player to focus solely on a single character, by giving them interesting scenarios to react to, by giving them an invested audience / colleague group to consult for advice or inspiration. When I say that many players choose to roleplay to produce a narrative the reason they choose roleplaying instead of writing a novel is that roleplaying is a lot easier.


I'd argue that the creation of a narrative therefore isn't the objective of the game, the pre lusory goal but is a product of playing a game with some other objective. In some cases the aim in participating in the game is to generate the narrative, other times it isn't or is a secondary aim. You can expand this out a bit further and say that all games necessarily include an element of narrative generation simply by positing an alternate reality and having stuff happen in that reality, you could even theorise that games evolved as an immersive means of play acting narratives and thereby  communicating information or values. I don't think I'm covering new ground there but I don't presently have the means or really the inclination to delve into the academic discourse around it.

Anything I have to say about tabletop games would be conjecture, I listen to D&D podcasts but have never played a tabletop game personally, but I would think that table top players are at least partly interested in the fantasy or story element, otherwise they would just go play chess or video games right? Instead they chose a game that requires them exercise creativity to some extent and fill in the gaps with their imagination and they often choose to play in a way that has more to do with their imagined elements of backstory rather than the hard rules of the game "What would my character do?" Although I'm aware many systems incorporate and gamify such decisions with inspiration or similar systems.

I'm trying to abstract the thought to the point that it doesn't mater what sort of game we are looking at. D&D is just a popular RPG ruleset. However: There are several types of players that play tabletop RPGs. Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastery identifies The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor and The Casual Gamer. These are useful to think about. Tabletop games are not, for everyone, necessarily /about/ the story. They may be a way to bring their favorite single man Wargaming scenarios to fruition. In all cases, the narrative helps flesh out the experience, but for each player type it will be more or less important. Part of the challenge in GMing tabletop is ballencing this.

I think you may be in danger of abstracting your model to the point that it doesn't actually convey any information. But to address the point specifically I wouldn't disagree that players might vary in how much they value the narrative of a tabletop game but I would say that the thing that separates tabletop gaming from other mediums of entertainment that those players might choose to spend their time on is that they facilitate narratives. While it's technically possible that a player might be solely interested in the parts of that experience other than generating a narrative and for various reasons have concluded that other means of satisfying those interests that don't include narrative aspects are unsuitable I don't think it's very likely. Even power gamers and the like consent that the moulded, painted lump of plastic before them is a Elfdude McLeaftoucher the Bard and that the dice rolls and moving the lump of plastic around that they engage in somehow symbolises his quest to rescue Princess Mcleaftoucher.

I'm also really curious about what you think " [SIZE=14.6667px]feedback loop from overloading the system and descending into chaos" looks like. In my mind I'm picturing angry tabletop players besieging the Wizards of the Coast headquarters with pitchforks and torches but I freely admit to having an over active imagination.[/SIZE]

If I admit too many systems into my model of game it would become a model of known reality and how it affects the phenomona of game  Before long I'd have to explain how tidal forces might affect d20 roles and how the phases of the moon might relate to the distinct narrative 'feel'. I mean Chaos here in the sense of Chaos theory, systems that become so complex in their interaction that a small change in one can drastically alter the others. This is popularised as the 'butterfly effect'.

That's... an answer that generates more questions. The hypothetical scenario that suggests to me (You may haven noticed by now I have a bias towards narratives so that's how I'm approaching this) Is something like "a game creator stubs their tow and the bad mood it puts them in results in them creating bad rules. Because there is no GM to say, those rules don't seem fun or useful, let's disregard them in my campaign the players have to experience these bad rules and as a result have a terrible session and resolve never to play that particular tabletop game again. Due to decreased revenue games creator goes out of business. Or two go the other way, player stubs toe while playing , associates the pain with session, communicates to creators that the game sucks, the creator makes drastic changes that make the game actually suck, etc. etc.


 Those are extreme examples but that's what comes to mind for me. But that kind of feedback loop would only happen if games creators had no other means of regulating feedback like say, a manager who reminds the games creator not to let their personal feelings interfere with the job, or play testers who say this rule sucks, the are lots of mechanisms that could fill this kind of role. It kind of sounds like what  you're saying is that GM's take the place in tabletop gaming that would otherwise be filled by tools like playtesters, focus groups, consumer surveys or community managers. 


That might be one function of GM's but I don't think it's a useful definition of the role. If a GM doesn't give feedback to the company that designed the game they use are they no longer a GM? if the GM makes drastic alterations to the way the game works with their house rules then they no longer function as a standardising element, are they no longer a GM? If they are still a GM despite not functioning in those ways than your definition has to be altered to include whatever else they are doing that makes them GMs, if they aren't then there are probably a significant group of people who believe themselves to be GM's, are recognised as such by their players and who fulfil the role ascribed to GM's in the playbooks and rulesets they reference all without ever being a GM. I dunno maybe someone should let these poor, misinformed souls know.

 

[Irick]

Having not read The Grasshopper I can't claim to be using the definition with full knowledge of its original context but the way you use it at least asserts that games are necessarily an agreement to reach an objective by less efficient means. If the goal of an RP is to produce a narrative that's often not the case. The framework and community provided by a roleplay frequently make it easier to produce said narrative, by allowing the player to focus solely on a single character, by giving them interesting scenarios to react to, by giving them an invested audience / colleague group to consult for advice or inspiration. When I say that many players choose to roleplay to produce a narrative the reason they choose roleplaying instead of writing a novel is that roleplaying is a lot easier.

That may be, but if everyone was writing a novel they wouldn't be insistent on playing characters would they? I mean, we aren't even editing these. That's a pretty significant role in creating a novel. No, perhaps I have misdiagnosed the prelusory goal. Perhaps, and this is probably not a new conseption, the prelusory goal of role playing is... assuming a role?


(I do appoligize for leading you down this line of discussion. I should have looked back over my source to give you a better break down, but I was just attempting to illustrate where such a goal would be found rather than give you a specific model for argument. The Grasshopper is a great read if you are interested in philosophy. It's very playful and it's written in a socratic dialog style rather than the more dry formulations of modern dissertation.)

I think you may be in danger of abstracting your model to the point that it doesn't actually convey any information. But to address the point specifically I wouldn't disagree that players might vary in how much they value the narrative of a tabletop game but I would say that the thing that separates tabletop gaming from other mediums of entertainment that those players might choose to spend their time on is that they facilitate narratives. While it's technically possible that a player might be solely interested in the parts of that experience other than generating a narrative and for various reasons have concluded that other means of satisfying those interests that don't include narrative aspects are unsuitable I don't think it's very likely. Even power gamers and the like consent that the moulded, painted lump of plastic before them is a Elfdude McLeaftoucher the Bard and that the dice rolls and moving the lump of plastic around that they engage in somehow symbolises his quest to rescue Princess Mcleaftoucher.

It's not an attempt to convey much information. It's an attempt to give a model that allows for informed interpretation. It's a structure by which it may be useful to contextualise other, harder problems in order to dissect them and explore the interaction. I will admit that it may not be useful for the broader level questions yet. I need to develop more on top of the framework base to address matters of practicality. The abstraction is a necessary starting point to establish a foundational model, though I acknowledge this makes it difficult for someone to apply it to their GMing style directly. I will develop these tools out after further reflection.


I understand your doubts in regards to the interests of players, but I will have to refer to myself as an authority on this particular issue. I've been running tabletop games for a decade and some change. I have met quite a few players and had to deal with their interests. In the old school 'grognard' there is a focus on the mechanics as an extension of wargaming. This has to do with the historical context that D&D was created in and its dependance on the fantasy wargame Chainmail. There were games that are similar to our narrative focused ilk back in the early days, namely Tunnels and Trolls, but the 'serious' practitioner of the hobby a that time viewed them somewhat disparagingly.


The narrative is there, it's an aspect of the game. But it's also an aspect of wargames. It's an aspect of chess, etc. The players are going to be inclined toward different levels of narrative importance depending on how they approach the game. Someone who studies computational aspects of Chess isn't probably going to be thinking in terms of two armies clashing so much as a symbol system that conveys a game state. Similarly, someone who is playing a wargame is probably not imagining the how the logistics struggles their hypothetical commander is undertaking is affecting his personal life. They are going to be thinking in a different mode, the tactics are key to them, the narrative is just consequential. It's something someone else will read into their game.

That's... an answer that generates more questions. The hypothetical scenario that suggests to me (You may haven noticed by now I have a bias towards narratives so that's how I'm approaching this) Is something like "a game creator stubs their tow and the bad mood it puts them in results in them creating bad rules. Because there is no GM to say, those rules don't seem fun or useful, let's disregard them in my campaign the players have to experience these bad rules and as a result have a terrible session and resolve never to play that particular tabletop game again. Due to decreased revenue games creator goes out of business. Or two go the other way, player stubs toe while playing , associates the pain with session, communicates to creators that the game sucks, the creator makes drastic changes that make the game actually suck, etc. etc.

I mean, that's an amusing interpretation, but I would hasten to add that the butterfly effect doesn't accurately represent the findings of Chaos theory. At least, not as it is popularly understood, I'm just using metaphors to try and relate these concepts. A butterfly is not going to cause a hurricane, and a single game group isn't going to cause a company to go under, but they are still involved in the system as a whole and they contribute to the ending state in ways that are unpredictable.

But that kind of feedback loop would only happen if games creators had no other means of regulating feedback like say, a manager who reminds the games creator not to let their personal feelings interfere with the job, or play testers who say this rule sucks, the are lots of mechanisms that could fill this kind of role. It kind of sounds like what  you're saying is that GM's take the place in tabletop gaming that would otherwise be filled by tools like playtesters, focus groups, consumer surveys or community managers. 

The manager is a vehicle by which the culture (of which the GM is a privileged member for the purposes of game rules) impresses its state to the designer. Remember, these are not /actual/ entities. Thinking of them as such is going to hurt your understanding of this model. Play testers... require a GM. Because the GM is also listening to the players, asking them their opinion is the route of efficent information exchange and thus the highest weighted avenue of feedback within this information system. Let me suffice to say we typically weigh secondary feedback loops in cybernetics differently. While there is a likelihood that the players will provide direct feedback, in practice it is an exception. My core assumption is "every node affects every other node, but in more or lesser degrees". The point of this model is to show those more and lessers rather than exclude points of interaction.

That might be one function of GM's but I don't think it's a useful definition of the role. If a GM doesn't give feedback to the company that designed the game they use are they no longer a GM? if the GM makes drastic alterations to the way the game works with their house rules then they no longer function as a standardising element, are they no longer a GM? If they are still a GM despite not functioning in those ways than your definition has to be altered to include whatever else they are doing that makes them GMs, if they aren't then there are probably a significant group of people who believe themselves to be GM's, are recognised as such by their players and who fulfil the role ascribed to GM's in the playbooks and rulesets they reference all without ever being a GM. I dunno maybe someone should let these poor, misinformed souls know.

The GM gives feedback. It's not that it's their job, it is that by playing they form an opinion, By forming an opinion, their behavior changes, as their behavior changes the state of the popular culture changes either implicitly or explicitly. There isn't a conscious choice in this model, it's a cause and effect.There is always information leak, GMs are just more likely to be the source of that information.


Again, it may help not to try and imagine a case a specific entity but instead think of a billion of these systems and then think about how the majority of them would work.