RPGPundit's Response to Clinton R. Nixon, re. GM-empowermentWherein Clinton Steps Up and Boldly and Proudly Proclaims His FollyOver in the
Landmarks thread
in the "Theory and Game Design Forum" of the RPGsite, we're having one
hell of an argument about the whole issue of GM-empowerment,
originating from the whole "Say yes or roll the dice" paradigm that the
Forge clings to like a leech to a fat puppy. Most of the Forgeites
there tried to have their cake and eat it too, arguing that "Say yes or
roll the dice" didn't really mean that a DM didn't have power, and
tried to think up all kinds of convenient excuses to not answer the
question, or to try to think up "alternate ways" the GM could deny
players things without actually saying the physical word "no". Just
when I thought the whole thing was utterly mired in the absurdity of
this kind of evasion of the question, Clinton R. Nixon stood up and
directly answered me, as to whether or not he believed that GMs should
have the authority to say "no" to their players.
Here is his answer, and my subsequent reply.
Clinton R. Nixon:You guys are being unnecessarily argumentative (by you guys, I mean all of youse).There
is a travesty of reason happening, though - in order to meet some
standard by which you think el Pundito will agree with you, the
original statement is being watered down.So,
I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or
roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to
say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role
in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring
difficulty.Now,
the slippery slope argument that will happen and has happened is
basically this: "what happens when my player says, 'I want so-and-so to
give me an atom bomb?'" The answer to this is simple:- Is it within the game's realm of possibility to have an atom bomb? Ok, then, roll some dice and shut up.- It isn't? Well, then, the group as a whole has the right to tell anyone crapping on the game to shut up.Or
put simpler - all "Forge-theory," or whatever you want to call it,
requires one assumption: that all the players at the table are there to
actively participate in having fun. If someone is actively trying to
subvert the fun (by doing something totally out of genre, or just being
stupid), then anyone and everyone has the right to tell them to shut up
or go home, as you would in any social activity.RPGPundit:
So you're betting on Mankind's essential goodness, huh?
Yea.. that worked out really great for Marx and Lenin...
But
I admire, Clinton, that you at least had the courage to stand up and
admit this. I would have expected no less from you. Its what I admire
about Ron too; his honesty: he admits that he thinks mainstream gamers
are brain-damaged, he doesn't, like most of his cultmembers, pretend to
be nice to them while secretly despising them. He openly despises them.
You,
here, have shown that you are willing to step up, be a man, and admit
that you think that the GM should be neutered to allow for good game
play (pity that your "being a man" involves taking a stance essentially
arguing that the GM shouldn't be allowed to be likewise). Your
reasoning for this is that RPG
players
are a noble and ideal sort of being that will always care more about
the common good than about their character ending up with the +10 Holy
Avenger, or their character getting to be the center of attention as
much as possible. You really honestly believe that players will
willingly sacrifice their own "time to shine" as protagonists of the
party in favour of giving others equal time, each according to his
needs. And you believe that all players will behave this way. On the
other hand, you must apparently believe that
GMs,
if given the same kind of authority, would not be trustworthy with it
and would end up abusing the game and ruining everyone's fun, because
for some bizzare reason a group of self-interested players who's
purpose is for THEIR character to shine will somehow be less prone to
abuse this kind of power than a single GM who's purpose is for his
players to enjoy his game. I can only suppose that you assume that GMs
are lesser human beings, perhaps because you met a couple of Vampire
"Storytellers" who were, and it soured you on the whole deal.
Great. You're utterly and totally wrong, but at least you are honest.
Thank
you, sincerely, for that honesty. It was sorely missing from the rest
of the Forgeites here. You are a lesson to them in principles, even if
not in reason.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Gigi Full Bent Prestige + Ashton Type 3
(Originally posted Sept. 2, 2006)
Comments (8)
Who's being the naive idealist now? Let's talk about the elephant in the room: GMs are humans, so if human nature is selfish it is the case for the GM as well. The idea that a GM is any less self-interested than his players is laughable. Just because it is his appointed role to provide for his players' enjoyment doesn't magically make the GM automatically more interested in that than his own self-aggrandizement (see: White Wolf, Storytelling games).
At the very least each player has naturally a direct interest/stake in the fun of at least one player, which is more than can be said for the GM...
It is easier to subvert something to the self-interest of a single person when that single person is embued with more power than others. If anything, a game where GMs are 'neutered' to be on an equal footing with his players is LESS like Marxism than your Big Brother GM Utopian gaming circle.
Laughable?
I don't think it is madness to assume the GM is naturally less self-interested than the players.
Given that he is willing to take personal time to prepare and run a game for the enjoyment of the group...I mean it's obvious, right? Do we really want to discuss such a no-brainer?
And personally, I'll be damned if someone tells me that in my game I cannot say "no" to a player. Sheesh!
And keep up the good work Pundit. We could use more blogs like this.
Darkangel: A GM, without a single character to represent himself, is going to be directing his "ambition" to the model of what GMs are supposed to do: he'll measure his success by how cool his players think his game is.
Whereas a player will direct their "ambition" toward their PC, as is right for them. Their interest will not be the overall well of the game as a whole, just that they personally get to be the star, get to be the "most powerful", get to be "cool" or get to "win".
Can players override that instinct for the sake of the game as a whole, understanding that their own personal enjoyment depends on the game being able to continue functioning? Sure they can, and players do this all the time. But to count on ALL of the 4-7 players doing that all the time is a really iffy proposition; and it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.
Forger groups are full of bad apples. Epecially as the real raison d´etre for Narr is to tickle the players into doing embarassing stuff. So that all others can go "hua, we´re edgy/ you´re scary/us deep".
Narr is power-struggling-social-mind-fuckery. On purpose.
Say yes or roll the dice somehow works, when players aren't bunch of assholes... And this is more common than many of you might think...
Settembri: Your post seem more like hate for the sake of hate than anything else...
@Fritzs - I guess I would say that games in general work best when one isn't playing with assholes, so I can't say that I either disagree with you, or that I think that your qualifier is really saying anything great about SYoRTD that would make me see it as an advantage to a game I was either running or playing in. (of course, I try not to game with dm/gm/st's that are assholes either.)
Christ, Pundit! You're kind of skirting Godwin's Law there by comparing Forgies to Marxists. Seriously, is it so hard to imagine a system in which everyone at the table is a full participant, where the players aren't recalcitrant children that need to be disciplined by a father figure?
I'm with you, Pundit. If you have a good GM, and you let him do his thing, the game will be better for it.
At least, I keep telling my players that. :D