For some reason the term referee seems unpalatable to some. I think one of the reasons for this may be because the term reveals(betrays depending on your point of view)  what the whole concept of rpgs really is - a game.

Some(if not all games) have to be refereed. It's that simple. Now, lets take rpgs. Now everybody at the table plays the game. But there are two distinct roles. Those who play in the game as characters who interact with the world,which may include role playing, combat etc and the person who controls all the non-player characters, and sets up obstacles and challenges.

The GM does not play the game as the players do. The focus is different.  The fact is that the GM is not really an impartial arbitrator of the game, simply because creating fun for all sometimes means setting up events which to an impartial observer would seem unfair, but is part and parcel of the drama of the game. The gm is not one of the players, and i think the problem here is that sometimes gms make the mistake of thinking that they are playing the game with the players....that they are part of the group. This is not the case.

When your role in the game gives you the kind of power, that is beyond the range of the other players - and this may sound harsh - it means that you are never going to be able to play the adventure as how the players would. That is the nature of the game and the role of the gm in said game.

Now we may call ourselves gms, the fifth business, moderators, etc but i think what best defines what we do in terms of the actual game is to referee.
Don't get me wrong, we each have our own different styles, but what it all comes down  to at the end of the day, when you strip away all the stuff about entertaining the players, injecting themes into the game, creating drama etc, what the players realise is this - You as the gm make the final call - so what is it, boss? Or at least, this is how it is in my games.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RThe fact is that the GM is not really an impartial arbitrator of the game, simply because creating fun for all sometimes means setting up events which to an impartial observer would seem unfair, but is part and parcel of the drama of the game.

Okay this part, what i am trying to say is that on the whole, the gm is impartial, just like a referee, but his role is more complex. Sometimes to entertain the players, the gm has to make decisions in terms of plot developments and combat, which may  not seem impartial to an observer. Sorry about that.

Regards,
David R.

When I think of referee I think of soccer, an official who has the ability to say someone is playing incorrectly and if need be, kick them out of the game.  That is not the power dynamic I want with or as a GM.  I want to do the job of the GM in the book, not be some kind of god-emperor of imaginary shit.

That is not to say I don't strive to be a leader at my table but I'm a leader when I play and don't GM too.  Leader in that I strive to add fun shit to the mix and help folks out.

Quote from: David RFor some reason the term referee seems unpalatable to some. I think one of the reasons for this may be because the term reveals(betrays depending on your point of view)  what the whole concept of rpgs really is - a game.

RPGPundit having said it likely doesn't help.

In the case of Maddman it seems more related to him not quite understanding what [sports] referees actually do.  Maybe RPGPundit doesn't either, but those two quotes of his statements at the start of thread do not oppose each other. So he likely has at least a bit of a grasp.

Then there is the problem of people focusing on the part of sports that sometimes, but not always, doesn't match up with RPG P&P play. That being different competing human opponents/teams. I think at least one person in here took that angle.

Which is alway an issue with analogies. Risk of over interpreting or misinterpreting. Because one thing just isn't the other, and not understanding what is different and what is the same.

Quote from: PakaWhen I think of referee I think of soccer, an official who has the ability to say someone is playing incorrectly and if need be, kick them out of the game. That is not the power dynamic I want with or as a GM. I want to do the job of the GM in the book, not be some kind of god-emperor of imaginary shit.

If another RPG player kicks me in the groin with cleats I would like -someone- to toss him out.

But really it is the rules that say a player is ejected from a football match, rules that all the players and the referee agreed to function under before the match. The referee is just implementing the rules, applying them using their best judgement of what they saw happen.

Perhaps something else that bothers people about the idea of a referee is again with the indirect association with sports and that sports are often using heavily codified rules.  Perhaps RPGPundit intended this. *shrug*  But in truth we all enter games with quite a lot of rules, even if those rules aren't written down. Not having written down rules is fine, as long as everyone is running off very similar sets of rules (and intepretations there-of). If the set of rules differ then you're going to have to work hard to straighten that all out eventually.

Quote from: David RFor some reason the term referee seems unpalatable to some. I think one of the reasons for this may be because the term reveals(betrays depending on your point of view)  what the whole concept of rpgs really is - a game.

Interesting observation.

Quote from: blakkieIf another RPG player kicks me in the groin with cleats I would like -someone- to toss him out.

But really it is the rules that say a player is ejected from a football match, rules that all the players and the referee agreed to function under before the match. The referee is just implementing the rules, applying them using their best judgement of what they saw happen.

Now that is turning me around on it.

Eh, I'm more than willing to write it off to RPG internet semantics and game on.

Quote from: PakaEh, I'm more than willing to write it off to RPG internet semantics and game on.

Very true.

As to the question of power dynamics during play, I have posted some stuff on my mind in another thread - the gist of it, that power in the game is an extremely fluid concept, passing between gm and player.

I too am uncomfortable with the sports angle in this discussion. Simply because there are aspects of being a gm that far exceed what a referee does in his role in many games. Having said that however, and using the analogy myself(although with no mention of specific sports) i think that at it's core, when dealing with only the rules part of the game the referee analogy is pretty sound.

As far as the other resposibilities of a gm - beyond the rules aspect - something more appropiate than a sports analogy should be used. But as is, when discussing RPGs in general - and let's face it - the rules are the most obvious aspect of the whole rpg concept, then i think the referee analogy is a pretty safe comparison.

But just a short detour , with regards to the rules - "there are more like guidelines " - savvy?

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RBut just a short detour , with regards to the rules - "there are more like guidelines " - savvy?

Never have agreed with that.

Quote from: gleichmanNever have agreed with that.

Gleichman, one of these days, we will have to have a discussion about this very subject. Something tells me it would be a very interesting discussion. Back in the day when i used to read your post at RPGnet (you don't seem to post much these days), I found myself not really agreeing with you, but i dug the way you articulated your points. I am not in the same league, but i think i can keep up. But then again maybe not.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RGleichman, one of these days, we will have to have a discussion about this very subject. Something tells me it would be a very interesting discussion. Back in the day when i used to read your post at RPGnet (you don't seem to post much these days), I found myself not really agreeing with you, but i dug the way you articulated your points. I am not in the same league, but i think i can keep up. But then again maybe not.

I wouldn't mind.

I should note however that I have nothing against groups that play fast and loose with the rules. It's their game and they may play it as they wish. So the debate may not be what you expect.

I do however have a issue with those who claim that this is a better way of playing and that anyone who doesn't raft that river is a bad player. I've had it hammered at me time and time again, to the point where it's a bit of sore tooth. So I tend to knee-jerk and point out that I don't agree whenever the subject comes up.



As for RPGNet, good times.

But on principle I don't post at sites with Moderation. I left when it was first enacted there and came back when it appeared that it was guided by a very light hand. That was a mistake. Over time things went as they do, and the moderation now became more than I accept. So I left again. Won't go back until policy changes.

To be honest, I don't think it will. It's not a place that allows open debate, but it really can't be. They have a number of designers and other industry names there (if small names) and those people are draws for others to come to that site. Thus they are protected, and protected in a very one-sided manner.

So I understand how they got to where they are.



I showed up here only because in a rare visit to RPG sites on the Internet it was recommend to me as an site where you could speak freely. Not completely true (although the allowed range is impressive), but it's still moderated. One of the reasons I won't be here long.

Quote from: gleichmanI wouldn't mind.

I should note however that I have nothing against groups that play fast and loose with the rules. It's their game and they may play it as they wish. So the debate may not be what you expect.

I do however have a issue with those who claim that this is a better way of playing and that anyone who doesn't raft that river is a bad player. I've had it hammered at me time and time again, to the point where it's a bit of sore tooth. So I tend to knee-jerk and point out that I don't agree whenever the subject comes up.

I'm with gleichman on this one.

I can play fast and loose when the group is up for it but I'd much rather be playing a game whose text is solid enough so that I can play it straight out of the book and have a rollicking good time with the rules backing our asses up.

QuoteI wouldn't mind.

I should note however that I have nothing against groups that play fast and loose with the rules. It's their game and they may play it as they wish. So the debate may not be what you expect.

Not expecting in a good way i think. I'm in complete agreement with you.

QuoteI do however have a issue with those who claim that this is a better way of playing and that anyone who doesn't raft that river is a bad player. I've had it hammered at me time and time again, to the point where it's a bit of sore tooth. So I tend to knee-jerk and point out that I don't agree whenever the subject comes up.[/QUOTE

I have never understood how people can say that rules are just guidelines and then go and piss in the soup of anybody who treats said guidelines/rules in a more concrete manner. I mean guidelines/rules is all about what works for your crew and you.

My current crew likes things set in stone. They don't like fudging with the dice or rules and they really respect the whole let dice fall where they may ethos. Coming from a group and history with a lot more looser way of doing things, i've had to adjust. And guess what? I'm having the time of my life.

I think once you get set in your ways and discount the possibility of any other way then the way you game and have enjoyed for such a long time, you are denying yourself from some truly new gaming experience. Yeah i know, strange - i'm talking about guidelines, but my gaming holds rules as paramount.

QuoteAs for RPGNet, good times.

But on principle I don't post at sites with Moderation. I left when it was first enacted there and came back when it appeared that it was guided by a very light hand. That was a mistake. Over time things went as they do, and the moderation now became more than I accept. So I left again. Won't go back until policy changes.

To be honest, I don't think it will. It's not a place that allows open debate, but it really can't be. They have a number of designers and other industry names there (if small names) and those people are draws for others to come to that site. Thus they are protected, and protected in a very one-sided manner.

So I understand how they got to where they are.



I showed up here only because in a rare visit to RPG sites on the Internet it was recommend to me as an site where you could speak freely. Not completely true (although the allowed range is impressive), but it's still moderated. One of the reasons I won't be here long

Yeah, i understand where you are coming from. Things have changed over there, not for the better in my opinion, but since i have only been a lurker, said opinion doesn't really count.

Regards,
David R.

QuoteMy current crew likes things set in stone. They don't like fudging with the dice or rules and they really respect the whole let dice fall where they may. Coming from a group and history with a lot more looser way of doing things, i've had to adjust. And guess what? I'm having the time of my life.

This has been exactly my experience.  I'm a big "by the book" player now.  I don't mind changing the rules but only well before play, publically to everyone, and in a well-thought-out manner.

yrs--
--Ben

I'm a fast and loose sort of guy, which may be why the referee analogy doesn't work for me.  The referee is expected to enforce the rules.  When I GM I emphasize that to me there is no book of rules, just a book of suggestions.  The only part I take as a capital-R Rule is the central mechanic.  Stat + Skill vs TN or dicepools or whatever, and I'll figure out the rest when we need it.

And this works for my players.  Even the old vets have said they've intentionally not gotten into the rulebooks because it's more fun for them to not really know much about the system.  They know if you want to do something, roll your stat plus skill, ask me if there's any modifiers, and tell me your successes.  As a recent example of playing loose and fast with the rules, one of the PCs got sucked into a demon dimension.  The beginner witch said she was delving deeper into magic than she'd ever gone before trying to find a way to get him back.  She thought this was a good reason to raise her Sorcery but was 1 short.  So I let her owe me an XP.

I'm not a dice fudger though.  I've come to the conclusion that if you're fudging dice, it's because the system isn't doing what you want.  If you don't want the result that you're fudging, change the rule that gets you that result.

I've played close to the rules, and if I'm running someting grittier I will.  I don't think there's a right way to do it, there's all different kinds of fun.