GM's "rights"

[JMcL63]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Rpg's are supposed to be cooperative, and this should apply to the relationship between the players and the GM in terms of character-creation, and it should be a 2-way street. A GM can define the basic parameters of their campaign, and can reasonably expect players to stick closely to those. Beyond that, the GM should no more railroad players into something than vice versa.

 

Let my try to highlight this with an example from my own superhero campaign. A player, who is also the other GM in the campaign, was making up a character with a minor precog power. I was happy with the concept, but didn't like the execution. So I devised a version of the power that I felt gave a better version of what the player was telling me he wanted. At first the player was very unhappy with this, believing that I was denying him what he wanted. But I patiently explained what I was trying to do, and eventually the player realised that he was actually getting a more interesting version of the power, that was closer to his own conception, than his own first draft. In the end- strong arguments, harsh words and all- this turned out to be a very positive experience, because my player gained respect for my method of working with players, and realised that, if I offered input as a GM, it was always to make things more interesting, and that he could trust me with this.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Frankly' date=' I find the entire concept of an "auditor" way over the line: way past being merely "heavy handed" (which is bad, but tolerable). Any self-respecting person who would put up with such nonsense must be truly desperate. If I were that desperate, I'd find another hobby. No one should submit to that sort of abuse, and no one needs to.[/quote']

 

Yes, but then you believe that the GM has no right to demand any sort of changes, regardless of how fucked over a character's background happens to affect the background gameworld.

 

That, and you're a plagiarist.

 

When it comes to your character, try and be flexible. Try to remember that the more detailed a game setting is, the more work you will have to do in order to make your character fit. The Guardians Universe is an incredibly detailed game setting. You will have to make the effort if you wish to play, especially considering that the other players fighting for your spot are. Never expect us to change our requirements to fit you, your preferences, or your character. This sounds harsh, but actually its just common sense. The campaigns belong to us, after all, and thus we get to set the requirements for characters. Also, keep in mind that if you're flexible, you're in a better position than the guy who refuses to change anything about his character when asked.

 

Be willing to change things regarding your character. Yes, I know we just said be flexible, but it bears repeating. We understand that sometimes you are submitting a character who you've been running for ten years and that you want your character to be just so. But if the auditor says "I need you to do such-and-such to your character" and you say "I'm not changing anything", you won't be allowed to play that character. Always remember that the auditors reserve the right to ask for changes to your character before it enters play. Please do not get upset at this, as its not meant to be an inconvenience for you and no one is saying that you have a bad idea for a character. The creators of the Guardians Universe have specific ideas on what fits and what doesn't fit in their universe, and they get to make these decisions and rules because, after all, its theirs.

 

As creator of the gameworld, I have a right to say what does and does not fit in my gameworld. I have a vision for that gameworld, and while I am perfectly willing to allow players add to that vision, I will not allow them to change it in ways I do not want it changed.

 

As creator of the gameworld, I have the right to set standards for characters, and I have the right to expect that the player characters meet those standards.

 

The players, of course, always have the right to refuse, and thus not play in my sandbox.

 

But to say that those players who do participate in my gameworld don't have any self-respect is insulting in extremis, especially given that more than a few Guardians participants are participating in this thread specifically.

[nexus]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I have to agree. The gm can bend somewhat or at least listen to an interesting concept. But the gm's world is FINAL on what goes in his game. I couldn't make a "normal" martial artist for RDUneil's game that could punch apart a tank. In the old GGU I couldn't be Sorcerer Supreme because there was NO MAGIC. In my metachampions game if your powers are spell, then you have a skill roll. Period. Thats just the way game works. The gm doesn't have to rewrite the world for one player. You might be able to work out a compromise (I have a Cosmic VPP and I think its magic) but otherwise its the butterknife rule.

[nexus]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Frankly' date=' I find the entire concept of an "auditor" way over the line: way past being merely "heavy handed" (which is bad, but tolerable). Any self-respecting person who would put up with such nonsense must be truly desperate. If I were that desperate, I'd find another hobby. No one should submit to that sort of abuse, and no one needs to.[/quote']

 

What's the problem with auditors? All they are are assistants to the GM (Worldmaker) that look over the characters like any gm and make adjustments and comments. Usually correcting math errors and house rule mistake. There's hundred of GGU characters. If Jack did them all no one would ever get to play.

 

The GGU is huge. Without checks the characters would be all over the place and wildly inconsistent.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

In the old GGU I couldn't be Sorcerer Supreme because there was NO MAGIC.

 

I am so very glad I got rid of that rule.

[Victim]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Well, what I perceive the problem with "auditors" (and some other parts of the process) is that it sounds rather hostile and argumentative. Look at the word being used. The most immediate associations are going to be tax audits, and now accountants checking (or not checking) corps for fraud. Is this really the connotation you want?

 

Not having done Global Guardians, I can't say for myself what the audit process is like; perhaps it's being misrepresented. But it sounds like the emphasis is "Change this unless you can justify." Rather than focusing on seeing the justification or intention first, then working out necessary changes.

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't have some control what goes into your game. God knows, I've seen a number of very stupid character ideas that have been rejected. But the process seems perhaps unnecessarily unfriendly. Granted, that may be intention, to weed out unenthusiastic players.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't have some control what goes into your game. God knows' date=' I've seen a number of very stupid character ideas that have been rejected. But the process seems perhaps unnecessarily unfriendly. Granted, that may be intention, to weed out unenthusiastic players.[/quote']

 

 

Its not meant to be an antagonist relationship. Its just that some players insist on seeing it in that light.

[nexus]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Its not meant to be an antagonist relationship. Its just that some players insist on seeing it in that light.

 

You asked me earlier in the thread what I thought would help. I've been been thinking about it. I think it might help if the auditors were councilled by maybe a bit more careful in their word choice. Internet communication can be tricky. There's no cues like tone and expression. Some of the audit reports can come across as kind of harsh and judgemental. I've felt like I was being accused of power gaming or trying to put one over the gm a few times, though I don't think that was auditor's intention.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

You asked me earlier in the thread what I thought would help. I've been been thinking about it. I think it might help if the auditors were councilled by maybe a bit more careful in their word choice. Internet communication can be tricky. There's no cues like tone and expression. Some of the audit reports can come across as kind of harsh and judgemental. I've felt like I was being accused of power gaming or trying to put one over the gm a few times' date=' though I don't think that was auditor's intention.[/quote']

 

 

Okey doke. We'll try and be friendlier in our reports.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

The players, of course, always have the right to refuse, and thus not play in my sandbox.

 

But to say that those players who do participate in my gameworld don't have any self-respect is insulting in extremis, especially given that more than a few Guardians participants are participating in this thread specifically.

 

Uh yeah. Hi, I have no self respect...

 

Its not meant to be an antagonist relationship. Its just that some players insist on seeing it in that light.

 

...that said, perhaps it's not all their fault. The tone of an audit IS pretty authoritarian, and I believe there used to be a rule that said "don't argue with the audit".

 

The 'net can create friction just by muffling intent.

[Sketchpad]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Okey doke. We'll try and be friendlier in our reports.

Another possiblity would be to replace the audit reviews with maybe an audit interview ... something more interactive like a messener log between an auditor (or two) and the player ... you could even do voice chat (though the log would provied a paper trail) ... I know that I used to this when I was modding a chat and it worked really well

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

...that said, perhaps it's not all their fault. The tone of an audit IS pretty authoritarian, and I believe there used to be a rule that said "don't argue with the audit".

 

Never has been, never will be. The rule you are thinking of is "Don't be overly argumentative", meaning you have a right to appeal your case, but once a final judgment is handed down, accept it because arguing past that falls into "troublemaking" territory and is not permitted.

[Magmarock]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Frankly' date=' I find the entire concept of an "auditor" way over the line: way past being merely "heavy handed" (which is bad, but tolerable). Any self-respecting person who would put up with such nonsense must be truly desperate. If I were that desperate, I'd find another hobby. No one should submit to that sort of abuse, and no one needs to.[/quote']

 

Please don't turn this thread into a personal attack on GGU... it's not what the thread is about, and we've heard it all before. No reason to drudge it up again.

 

Bad, Blackmoor, bad!

 

Mags

[Magmarock]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

In the old GGU I couldn't be Sorcerer Supreme because there was NO MAGIC.

 

Here's something odd: I originally stayed away from GGU because there was no magic and now that magic exists, I have PCs in two GGU games and neither are magic-based (they are both mutants). Go figure.

 

Mags

[zornwil]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I thought the GGU process was fine, no issues whatsoever.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Never has been' date=' never will be. The rule you are thinking of is "Don't be overly argumentative", meaning you have a right to appeal your case, but once a final judgment is handed down, accept it because arguing past that falls into "troublemaking" territory and is not permitted.[/quote']

 

Ah. So, what exactly is "excessive" arguing? ('cause I distinctly feeling nervous every time I posed a question).

 

(Ah, the wonders of a text based medium... I really get the feeling things were much more relaxed than they felt.)

[Vondy]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

It's the difference between "this is how I envision my character" and "this is how I envision your character". The first is a perfect reason for the player to change powers around. The second is not. Some people aren't happy controlling their own characters: they need to control everyone's. Good players don't put up with that nonsense.

 

 

Its clear you have a personal problem with how Worldmaker runs his PBEM, which you have doggedly pursued in numerous threads at this point. Not every game is for every player. No one is compelling you to play in WM's game and no one is compelling his players to play in his game. They play in it because they've found they enjoy it. To suggest that the fact that they enjoy playing in a game or game style you do not care for means they have no self-respect is arrogant in the extreme.

 

I am known for being an open-minded GM who is willing to negotiate insofar as the concept doesn't change the overall nature of the game or make my life difficult in plot and balance areas - and I honestly don't think you'd last in my game. The first time you turned to the other players to "get consensus" on your character they would shrug and send you to me and I would send you packing. I've got a good thing going and there are other games out there for you to enjoy.

 

Yes, the players need to have a general say in the genre and style of play, but once a game is afoot the GM has invests a great deal of effort into building that vision from the ground up and should have a lot of say in maintaining it and keeping it on course. Worldmaker's game is a pre-existing game world that has been running for some time and has players who enjoy the way things are. A new player coming into that world, especially since its a PBEM game, should fully comprehend the fact that it has a direction its headed in and "auditors" to ensure that the whole house of cards doesn't come crashing down.

 

I ran a successful and popular game (three interlaced campaigns, really) that lasted for thirteen years. That kind of endurance and players who kept coming back chomping at the bit for more week after week tells my I must have been running something they liked - but it was a game with limited possible origins and characters who had to meet a specific set of parameters. The players accepted this, and because it required them to consider and invest in their characters - led them to be its biggest enforcers.

 

New players coming into that game had to understand some concepts were okay and some weren't, and that I was going to audit the hell out of not just their characters, but them as well. And my auditing system was suggested by one of my players after we had a bad experience with a newbiew who wouldn't get on the page with the rest of us. I can't have been that big a tyrant - I've been asked to start a fourth freedom patrol campaign as a PBEM game.

 

Everytime this general topic comes up and WM makes a comment you take the opportunity to attack his game and the way he runs it. Its demonstrative of a bigger problem on your part than his from where I sit. There are a lot of games on the wide-world of the net. His simply wasn't for you. Let it go.

 

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever, played in Worldmaker's game.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Ah. So, what exactly is "excessive" arguing? ('cause I distinctly feeling nervous every time I posed a question).

 

(Ah, the wonders of a text based medium... I really get the feeling things were much more relaxed than they felt.)

 

Being exessively argumentative falls into two categories. The first is being too abbrasive and/or offensive. The second is continuing an argument after a final decision has been made.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Disclaimer: I am not now' date=' nor have I ever, played in Worldmaker's game.[/quote']

 

 

Though you are certainly welcome to do so, should you ever have a wish to.

[KA.]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

The point of a team effort is that the combined effort is there to tell a compelling, coherent story. It is not about players getting to play any character that appeals to them... nor is it about the GM running any old plot he feels like. It is about the group first agreeing on a theme, direction, concept. "We are international supers, representatives of our respective countries... so what characters and abilities make sense for this? What kind of stories would be appropriate for this kind of group?" As a GROUP the players and GM together come up with the campaign.

 

I should have been clearer. I'm just as unhappy with GMs who have 27 pages of "here is my world, here are the rules, you have have a following selections of concepts to choose from..." etc. The GM can have lots of background, but it should only come up as it applies, helps to set up the current campaign. Players can reference it if they like, but they should have the freedom to at least suggest and come up with new ideas to add to the campaign world.

 

I'm just saying that, player or GM, nobody should come to the table with an absolute idea about "what will happen." The GM should be just as flexible in taking the story in directions he never imagined, if that is where the players push thing... and players should be flexible in realizing that certain actions and types of character won't fit the theme/concept of the storyline, and shouldn't try to force their character concept into the story. Mr. Massacre doesn't fit the high profile supers campaign... and Super Scout doesn't fit the "Paranormal Black Ops" game.

 

The players ask the GM what kind of game it is likely to be, and the GM asks the players what kind of game they'd like to play in. Then things are worked out from there.

 

 

Good Points,

I think we are pretty close to the same page here.

 

Having read a few more posts in this thread, I think I see another key difference that may be keeping this argument alive.

 

I think there is a difference in how "seriously" different groups take their gaming.

 

Let me begin by saying that I do not consider either group "superior" in any way, it is just a difference in approaches.

 

Imagine you move to a new neighborhood. You see your next door neighbor outside throwing a football with his son. The son misses a catch, and the ball ends up in your yard, so you throw it back. After a brief conversation, your neighbor informs you that the neighborhood football league is getting ready to start up, and that you should come to the park on Saturday afternoon if you want to play.

 

Having played touch football on weekends with your friends for years, you decide to give it a try to get to know some of your neighbors, and get some exercise.

 

You show up, expecting to get picked for a team, and then maybe throw the ball around with the guys on your team and talk about plays.

 

When you show up, it is like an NFL tryout.

There is a series of tables set up.

You have to sign in.

"Name?"

"Bob Johnson"

"Position?"

"Well, I don't know. I usually ran the ball. On Defense I usually played on the Line."

"Well, which is it? Offense or Defense?"

"Oh, well, Offense I guess."

"Fullback, Halfback, or Tight End?"

"Well, we never really got that formal about it . . . uhhhhh Halfback?"

"I doubt if you can make it as a halfback in this league, but if you move to the next station they will time you in the 100m and run you through the obstacle course a few times, and then we'll see where we are."

"What team will I play on? I know my neighbor John a little and I . . ."

"Listen, if you are chosen to be in the League, you will be drafted by the team that needs you and has a pick left in that round. The coach of that team will decide if he wants to play you, how often, and in what postion.

Next?"

 

Now if the neighborhood league consisted of a large group of guys who were very serious about football, and wanted to do things as "fairly" as possible, the above would make sense.

(The best quarterbacks get to play quarterback, not the most popular guys, etc.)

 

On the other hand, you can see how someone who is used to playing a game of touch football with his buddies could come away from the above experience thinking: "These guys are a bunch of Nazi buttholes! Not only do I not want to play football with them, I may need to move out of this neighborhood!"

 

Whereas the League people could think: "What a loser! This guy doesn't even know what position he wants to play. How can you even call it football if you don't take it seriously?"

 

And, as I said above, neither side is "right" or "wrong", they just have different ways of approaching the game.

 

Some people want it casual and fun, some people want it formal and "deep".

 

Neither side is wrong, but when the two sides intermingle, without being able to know where the other person is coming from, any conversation about "standards" can quickly devolve into:

"Fascist!"

"Anarchist!"

"Nazi!"

"Heretic!"

 

I am more in the "casual and fun" camp myself, but on the other hand, I am not trying to run a game for a huge number of players.

 

I can see both sides. But I can also see where the two sides can quickly fall into harshly judging each other if they don't take a step back and think about what sort of game the other person is running.

 

KA.

[Starlord]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

It's the difference between "this is how I envision my character" and "this is how I envision your character". The first is a perfect reason for the player to change powers around. The second is not. Some people aren't happy controlling their own characters: they need to control everyone's. Good players don't put up with that nonsense.

Sounds like you have some personal problems with GGU and/or Worldmaker here. The world isn't for you. Let it go. Your overall argument is weakened because of it.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Disclaimer: I am not now' date=' nor have I ever, played in Worldmaker's game.[/quote']

 

Nor have I. I do not have a problem with Worldmaker's games, per se. I have a problem with bad GMs: World Maker just happens to be the local advocate. In other discussion forums, the local advocate for bad GMs is someone else. The problem is not a specific person, it's a type of behavior.

 

For close to twenty years now, whenever players complain about other GMs, the excuse I routinely hear is "we don't have choice: GMs are hard to find, and we have to put up with them". My response to that is that no, you don't have to put up with them, and you shouldn't. Some players are so brainwashed that they don't even realize that they are being treated unfairly: that is even more frustrating. It's like trying to convince an abused spouse to leave her husband, while she makes excuses about "deserving it" or him being a "good person".

 

And no, of course bad GMs are not as serious a problem as domestic violence, and of course it's not my job to save people who don't want to be saved. But when the topic is "GM's rights", I think it's appropriate to point out that the GM for a particular game session has exactly the same rights (but greater responsibilities) as any other player in that game session, and that GMs who say otherwise are bad GMs.

 

And that's pretty much all I have to say about that.

[nexus]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Nor have I. I do not have a problem with Worldmaker's games, per se. I have a problem with bad GMs: World Maker just happens to be the local advocate. In other discussion forums, the local advocate for bad GMs is someone else. The problem is not a specific person, it's a type of behavior.

 

For close to twenty years now, whenever players complain about other GMs, the excuse I routinely hear is "we don't have choice: GMs are hard to find, and we have to put up with them". My response to that is that no, you don't have to put up with them, and you shouldn't. Some players are so brainwashed that they don't even realize that they are being treated unfairly: that is even more frustrating. It's like trying to convince an abused spouse to leave her husband, while she makes excuses about "deserving it" or him being a "good person".

 

And no, of course bad GMs are not as serious a problem as domestic violence, and of course it's not my job to save people who don't want to be saved. But when the topic is "GM's rights", I think it's appropriate to point out that the GM for a particular game session has exactly the same rights (but greater responsibilities) as any other player in that game session, and that GMs who say otherwise are bad GMs.

 

And that's pretty much all I have to say about that.

 

But as far as I can tell your definition of a "bad gm" is a gm who in anyway tries to excersize some control over his game world or the type of characters he allows in it. GM's do have "greater" rights than the players. They are the one's putting fourth lion's share of the work in creating the game world, handling the experience and basically they are the guy in charge. I've never played in an rpg run by committee. That's called "collective story telling" and can be very entertaining but its a different experience than playing an rpg. The GM can say "No" for any of a number reasons. Assming the players are adults and discuss things reasonably than a dialogue might be in order. If not then somene's word has to be final.

 

Worldmaker is not a "bad gm". He is a GM that works differently from what ever style you have chosen as your own personal "One True", but the fact he has, what, 200+ players working in his game world (thats the GGU alone) seems to indicate that he has some talent. Calling all those people "insecure, beaten dupes that don't have enough backbone to move on" or otherwise too stupid to realize how bad they're being treated is just plain arrogant.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

For close to twenty years now, whenever players complain about other GMs, the excuse I routinely hear is "we don't have choice: GMs are hard to find, and we have to put up with them". My response to that is that no, you don't have to put up with them, and you shouldn't. Some players are so brainwashed that they don't even realize that they are being treated unfairly: that is even more frustrating. It's like trying to convince an abused spouse to leave her husband, while she makes excuses about "deserving it" or him being a "good person".

 

So... not only are my players weak-willed, they are brainwashed?

 

And you expect us to take you seriously?

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Being exessively argumentative falls into two categories. The first is being too abbrasive and/or offensive. The second is continuing an argument after a final decision has been made.

 

Let me rephrase... what is a final decision? Is it labelled as such?