Over on my blog, there was a comment by Thanuir on an article I wrote where he pointed me to an old Treasure Tables article on "How different rpgs define the GM's role." He looked at first 30 and eventually 97 different rpgs, and he concluded (I quote in a summarising way),

• There is no "perfect" definition of the GM's role — but there are plenty of lousy ones.
• A lot of these definitions, especially the older ones, don't make being the GM sound like fun.
• Putting something this important at (or near) the end of a core book is a big no-no. Why should someone who is new to the hobby, or new to that game, have to wade through the whole book to find out something so crucial to the game?

This made me curious about stuff I'd written. The only currently-published rpg I've written for sale is d4-d4 (others not published and not for sale obviously have less detail in them), and I put in it a whole GMing chapter - really it needs some tightening up with the Game Play Styles chapter, though I do expand on all the things said here. Anyway for what it's worth, I said,   In essence, players play for four reasons:

1) Friends: the social group of the players and GM
2) Wonder: to explore stories and worlds of imagination
3) Heroism: to have the experience of being more brave and capable than you are, and/or to be a deciding factor in important events.
4) Acting: to get into the mind and behaviour of another, imaginary person.

The purpose of the GM is to make easier those four things, and to do a bit of it themselves. GMs run game for the same reasons players play, but with the extra element that it's nice to see other people enjoy themselves, and know that you made it possible.
What are some other GMing definitions you've seen - preferably other than the 97 listed in that article - or your own?

PS: come discuss this at #therpgsite!

"The role of a superior DM is NOT to tell a story to his or her players. The DM need only provide an interesting and challenging environment for the players to explore and then administer that environment totally impartially. Superior players will be able to create a character-driven, interactive story from these raw materials, and neither the players nor the DM can tell where the story is headed."

Stuart Marshall (the main OSRIC guy).

I don't think that's a superior GM, AoF. I just think it's one way to play (or run games).

Regards,
David R

A game master is something rarely achieved in role-playing games thats for sure...



Seriously, I would have to say a GM always has to be a ball-breaking referee first and an indifferent participant second no matter what the game. Otherwise you're going to eat a shit sandwich for a few hours...

Well, ball-breaking if you have a rowdy or power-gamey group.

Ours is pretty good - we all GM at one point or another, so in D&D, this works well, because we all know the ridiculous exploits a system like 3.5 has, so we are loathe to really push the game-breaking envelope because if we do, we'll all try it in eachothers games.  Well, and we're all friends having fun, not jerks in a dick-waving contest.

So, we often never have the problems others seem to have had with CoDzilla, or Diplomacy trumping every written rule in the game, or someone trying to break something stupid like Pun-Pun out.

I tend to be a relatively lenient GM - not a Monty Haul or anything, but I like my groups having fun.  I'm not overtly out to stomp all over them, though I do enjoy handing them their asses from time to time.  The most recent decision of mine is to allow players to chose the items in the 4ed parcels.  I could spend time trying to figure out what they want most - that +1 Flameburst Sword or the +1 Deathcut armor, or since 4ed has all the magic items balanced by level, I just get them to dice off for the particular magic item in said parcel, and tell the winner what level item or lower he can pick.  Theres no chance of them picking something too powerful, cause its all pre-balanced.  Saves me work, makes them happy, and I don't have the worries of rolling up a Frostbrand sword MANY levels too early because we rolled insanely well on the random treasure tables like I did in another campaign.  Forgot to roll one item, so I let the player who would be recieving said item roll (in front of me), and he proceeded to rattle off the most ridiculous array of consecutive rolls I've ever seen.  Also saves me from the situation we ran into with a dragon horde, where the DM apologized because he rolled up an assortment of potions, scrolls, wands and handful of really weak and useless magic items.  Man alive, we were pissed.  And this was 2nd Ed, where you didn't get to sell your magic shit.  You just dumped it on your henchmen and hirelings and followers.

There is no GM. There are only tasks performed by somebody in the group (eg providing antagonism, resolving disputes, detailing backstory etc). These are tasks that must be performed for the game to proceed. Many games centralise many of these tasks in one person, commonly called 'GM'.

There are no players, there is no GM, there is no game.

Done.

My thoughts...

"Some GMs become aggressive dictators over games. This is actively discouraged when playing API. Yes, GM generally stands for “Game Master”, a title worthy of someone who creates a world. But try thinking about it as the “Game Motivator” or “Game Mentor” instead. These terms are actually more correct. It’s your job to direct the action, plots, and stories, but players have the real control of the game’s direction. The GM controls the world, but you do not control the characters."

-Oni

I'm with Age of Fable (or Stuart Marshall as the case may be) on this one.

I have a hard time not bringing the rails a little bit in one-shots or at the very beginning of a game (just to get things going), but my favorite parts of any game are the surprises... shit I just plain couldn't have planned for, but which absolutely work given everything that's happened so far.

I wouldn't play in a game without a GM. Closest I'd come is a rotating GM game or one where the GM has one player help with this and that (I routinely have someone else keep track of initiative for me).

There is no gm, only zuul!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;276965

• A lot of these definitions, especially the older ones, don't make being the GM sound like fun.

Interesting, since earlier this year I took to using the term "referee" for this sort of thing.

I like to think of the role of the Games Master as like that of a Ring Master of a circus crossed with a Toast Master at a formal function.

A few thoughts in no real order:

• Being the GM, or whatever, isn't always fun for everyone. That's why the players generally out number the DM.
• I'm not sure we need aperfect deinition of GM. My game is no worse for wear with out it.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;277006Well, ball-breaking if you have a rowdy or power-gamey group.

Not necessarily those types though. The classic ball break for me is the big mouth who doesn't know when to can it. They're usually quite reserved and well spoken and they have a lot to say. Thats the difference between a true GM and a clod with a screen. That is, if you can get that guy to shut up and play then you've earned some kind of chops. If he returns to play and you don't have to "go there" again then thats a "game master".

Yeah, I guess I'm lucky. I don't have to game with those kind of assholes.