Quote from: James J SkachThen we couldn't have neat conversations about make-believe games on the intraweb!

It's a very small side of me.  The rest of me has pretty thoroughly accepted the necessity of government, and tend to lean more to the social democracy side of things.  

QuoteExcept for the bolded part - as Red points out.  I think it's a mischaracterization since we've all been in threads where people claim to play this way and enjoy it and it's not a long protracted argument over what's really happening in the game. It's a taste thing.

As far as I am concerned, if there is debate and politcal wrangling in game over what's actually happening in the game and it's setting, you have an argument, period.  

That argument may be regimented and organized and facilitated by a system designed to structure that argument, but at it's core, all GM-less play is essentially nothing more than a political debate over the events of the game, and conflict over "what's really happening" is either inevitable, or in some cases built directly into the game itself with things like bidding mechanics and the like.

Quote from: BalbinusAs a brief cri de coeur, could we maybe engage with the points at issue and not construe every fucking paragraph pseudo types.

Pseudo, mate, welcome aboard and glad to have you here.  Could you maybe restate your core point in a really brief and summarised way for those of us sitting in the cheap seats?

Thanks mate. I'd be happy to do so.

I've got two basic points:

The first is that when people say things like "DMs own their games" or "DMs are the boss of the game" or "My word is law", they're obscuring what really goes on in a group. I think that by rethinking how exactly authority develops and get used, we'll reap all sorts of benefits.

The second is that I don't like jerks. When it comes to RPGs, I think one way to recognise jerks is to look for players (whether the DM or otherwise) who demand you recognise their ability to make you do what they want without reciprocating at all. I think that hashes itself out in all sorts of different ways of playing, most of them not too good. There are plenty of examples on this thread prior to my first post that I think show that this occurs, and that it's not too well looked on.

What people seem to be stuck on is that when I think someone is a jerk, I swear at them to insult them a bit so that they know that I don't like what they're doing. Everyone else on this thread seems to swear at or insult people they don't like as well, but they object to me doing it. I suspect it's a dialectical issue, since they keep on repeating the specific word I used as if it was especially bad, instead of just inserting generic swear words.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe first is that when people say things like "DMs own their games" or "DMs are the boss of the game" or "My word is law", they're obscuring what really goes on in a group. I think that by rethinking how exactly authority develops and get used, we'll reap all sorts of benefits.

First, I have to honestly say that's the most clear you've been about it - so thanks.  Second, it's not, IMHO, what you've said to date.  Perhaps it was missed in the bluntness of your response that meant exactly this in your head.  But this is much less...I don't know...confrontational? so thanks.

Third, I think you're obscuring what goes on at the table. In fact, I'd suggest that historically the comments you suggest are obscuring what goes on at the table actually represent the default position.  The fact that people find a hundred ways to adjust based on the style of the group doesn't change that.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe second is that I don't like jerks.

Who does?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhen it comes to RPGs, I think one way to recognise jerks is to look for players (whether the DM or otherwise) who demand you recognise their ability to make you do what they want without reciprocating at all.

I can't speak to your experience, but I don't see a lot of "demanding." It's simply the default position.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think that hashes itself out in all sorts of different ways of playing, most of them not too good. There are plenty of examples on this thread prior to my first post that I think show that this occurs, and that it's not too well looked on.

I think it works out just fine for lots of people. For others, you for example, don't think that's a valid model and so look for another.  S'all cool.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat people seem to be stuck on is that when I think someone is a jerk, I swear at them to insult them a bit so that they know that I don't like what they're doing. Everyone else on this thread seems to swear at or insult people they don't like as well, but they object to me doing it. I suspect it's a dialectical issue, since they keep on repeating the specific word I used as if it was especially bad, instead of just inserting generic swear words.

Nah, people are surprised that you would confront someone in such a personal way over something like this, instead of just politely excusing yourself and leaving - your ultimate power, as it happens.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat people seem to be stuck on is that when I think someone is a jerk, I swear at them to insult them a bit so that they know that I don't like what they're doing. Everyone else on this thread seems to swear at or insult people they don't like as well, but they object to me doing it. I suspect it's a dialectical issue, since they keep on repeating the specific word I used as if it was especially bad, instead of just inserting generic swear words.

Two points, one minor one major.

The minor one first: I think people are hung up on "cunt" because, like it or not, there is a vague hierarchy to swear words, and "cunt" is at the top (it even seems to mildly outrank "fuck" these days). Calling someone a jerk has less emotional impact, to most people, than calling someone an asshole, which in turn has less impact than calling someone a cunt.

This kind of leads me to my second point. As I said before, you don't seem to have a middle gear. I normally don't directly insult people when I think they are being a jerk unless actually negotiating with them fails. You seem to think that it is helpful and constructive to immediately go on the attack in social interactions - and furthermore, to go on the attack in a wildly unproductive manner. If someone is being a jerk, chances are they don't realise it. If they know full well what they're doing wrong and don't care, sure, they're assholes, but normally you actually need to tell people how they are offending you before you can seriously expect them to stop.

You compared DMs who say "my word is law" or "this is my game" to dictators, so I can understand why you might feel that moderating your stance is a compromise. But "cunt" is always there for you. "Shithead", "Fuckface", and "Donglicker" are always going to be available. If negotiations break down, if the DM's attempts to explain what he means by "my word is law" fall flat, by all means call him or her whatever you like. But bringing them out as your first option, your method of choice, your modus operandi for raising problems with a game, is a behaviour of an entirely different kind of jerk: the sort of guy who raises complaints with people by getting aggressive. In other words, a socially-maladjusted dork.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThanks mate. I'd be happy to do so.

I've got two basic points:

The first is that when people say things like "DMs own their games" or "DMs are the boss of the game" or "My word is law", they're obscuring what really goes on in a group. I think that by rethinking how exactly authority develops and get used, we'll reap all sorts of benefits.

Thanks, I'm indifferent to you swearing at people I don't know so I'm going to leave that bit.

On this bit, I both agree and disagree.  I think when people talk of the GM being boss of the game or whatever, they are mostly using an implied shorthand.  Generally people understand that this authority is granted by the players, but it's much faster and sufficiently accurate for most purposes to say the GM's word is law than to say by common unspoken agreement the players agree that one player in the role of GM shall have an arbiting function.

Now, some folk lack social skills, they therefore miss the unspoken element and take it literally.  That's a problem, particularly since many geeks to be frank are very poor at picking up unspoken and implied concepts and tend to take things very literally at face value.

However, I think the majority of gamers use it with the full implied baggage, that is they take it as so obvious as not to be necessary to state that GM authority is given by the players.

The other bit I disagree on is I'm not sure what else there is to say on it, other than that we need perhaps better explanatory advice and GM advice in our game books.

Balbinus> Unfortunately, I'm not sure that many gamers do just use the idea of DM-as-boss as a shorthand, instead of just a literal statement of how they understand that relationship.

The reason that I'm not sure they do is because even in discussions like this thread, where the issue of how exactly DMs have their authority comes up, most of the explanation and justification I was given was of the sort:

"The DM does... and has the following authority and tasks... and that is why he is the boss."

It seems that if it was a shorthand, the explanations would have been of the sort:

"The DM does... and has the following authority and tasks... and we just call him the 'boss' as a shorthand for doing those things."

That is to say, many of the posters here seem to want to defend the accuracy of the "boss" or "owner" labels of the DM rather than justifying their use on the grounds of brevity.

Now, I do think you're right that this may have started off as a kind of shorthand, or reductive description of what a DM is, but I think what's happened is that the metaphor has eaten the original idea. We start off using the word "boss" or "owner" metaphorically, then over time, we come to associate the DM's role as being similar to other ordinary uses of the word "boss" instead of remembering that we have a special use for it.

For evidence of that happening, I'd point to the two different explanations I mentioned above. The former seems to be the result of taking the metaphor literally instead of as a shorthand, but it's also the type of explanation I was given by other posters on the thread. I don't think they're particularly unusual in saying that sort of thing, either.

Quote from: WarthurI normally don't directly insult people when I think they are being a jerk unless actually negotiating with them fails.

That would seem contrary to your actions in this very thread, should you go back and read the progression of your posts.

EDIT: Also:

Quote from: WarthurYou compared DMs who say "my word is law" or "this is my game" to dictators, so I can understand why you might feel that moderating your stance is a compromise.

I didn't compare them to dictators. J Arcane did. I did compare the kinds of justifications people use to justify saying things like "My word is law" to the kinds of justifications (the divine right of kings, etc.) people offered for absolute monarchy.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat would seem contrary to your actions in this very thread, should you go back and read the progression of your posts.

 A thread discussion is not a group trying to play a role playing game.

Not really a fair comparison.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarA thread discussion is not a group trying to play a role playing game.

Not really a fair comparison.

- Ed C.

Why not? Can you point out a meaningful distinction that distinguishes acceptable behaviour in one from acceptable behaviour in the other?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhy not? Can you point out a meaningful distinction that distinguishes acceptable behaviour in one from acceptable behaviour in the other?

theRPGsite actively encourages a "tell everyone you disagree with to fuck off" style, whereas typical real life gaming groups do not. As a case in point, Koltar, as far as I know, has never told anyone to fuck off (except perhaps Nox), but has been repeatedly lambasted for being too nice, too suck-uppish, and too eager to belong.

Quote from: James McMurraytheRPGsite actively encourages a "tell everyone you disagree with to fuck off" style, whereas typical real life gaming groups do not. As a case in point, Koltar, as far as I know, has never told anyone to fuck off (except perhaps Nox), but has been repeatedly lambasted for being too nice, too suck-uppish, and too eager to belong.

I've encountered plenty of rough and tumble gaming groups that would give the RPGsite a run for their money.

I didn't say "no gaming groups call each other cunts." I said that typical gaming groups don't operate under the same social rules as theRPGsite. Perhaps your experiences differ and you frequently find yourself in groups where there;s a raving lunatic shouting at people, a racist that gets slapped around frequently, and loads of folks wanting to tell you how their way is best. IMX, that's rarely the case.

I think that's focusing too much on the specific members. The attitude itself and the social expectations it gives rise to don't have to do with just those few members - it's something that plenty of ordinary people, including gamers sitting around a table, have. I don't think it's "typical" to hold the attitude or not hold it. I think it's brought out by various circumstances that vary from individual to individual.

It's also worth pointing out that it was Warthur who made the comment, not Koltar or you. He hasn't said anything about just being a good principle in a game group. He said that he followed it "normally" which seems to mean that he follows it as much as he can, whether gaming or not.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhy not? Can you point out a meaningful distinction that distinguishes acceptable behaviour in one from acceptable behaviour in the other?

I could tell you ones that are meaningful for me.

I can't tell what would be a meaningful distinction for you.

Personally, I think "This is an internet forum and has only a tangential relationship to real life or real relationships" is sufficient.

-O

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think that's focusing too much on the specific members. The attitude itself and the social expectations it gives rise to don't have to do with just those few members - it's something that plenty of ordinary people, including gamers sitting around a table, have. I don't think it's "typical" to hold the attitude or not hold it. I think it's brought out by various circumstances that vary from individual to individual.

Just because I gave an example doesn't mean it's only inherent to those few members. Look around a bit and you'll see that this is a much more "in your face" site than others.

QuoteIt's also worth pointing out that it was Warthur who made the comment, not Koltar or you. He hasn't said anything about just being a good principle in a game group. He said that he followed it "normally" which seems to mean that he follows it as much as he can, whether gaming or not.

So what? I was responding to you, not Warthur. When I want to respond to Warthur, I'll quote him instead. You asked a question, I gave an answer. That you don't like the answer in no way modifies the reality of it.