What kind of advice should DM/GM guides give?

[Artless]

nothing of merit.

I've decided to only offer response via puerile satirical cartoons.

[wotmaniac]

DM: I decide it's raining when you go to attack the monsters! [by pulling it out of my ass or rolling on a table!]
Players: We dispute that and decide that it isn't raining when we go attack the monsters. [by WAITING until it fucking isn't raining]

To be fair, that's not the players disputing the narrated fiction (i.e., the weather); they're explicitly altering their course of action because of it.
Now, you could say that this is an instance of the players effectively saying "fuck you, we're gonna sit here and stare at the walls until you change the weather"; but I think that'd be kinda twisted.
More times than not, that wait will be done in-game; in which case, there are all kinds of perfectly reasonable and rational situations where that wait could very well result in relevant, significant, and (potentially) undesirable in-world changes.

There are several instances where Kuri's specific verbiage has definitely made me shake my head (mostly because of certain implications made by that verbiage); but I don't think he's entirely off-base with his observations.

[Kuri Näkk]

@Artless. I still cannot believe that you are saying that there is nothing unique about GM's role. The GM is no better than any other participant of the game and players' ideas have as much value, however, to my mind the GM’s role obviously is unique (i.e. incomparable/unusual) and he obviously has more opportunities to steer the game. I was trying to refute your arguments by using extreme examples. It doesn't mean that I am describing the game as it ought to be run.

@PhoneLobster. I see, you are an expert basher and I have the honour of being in your "bash" list. You clearly are not interested in making coherent arguments. How boring. Keep your head in your ass: it is warm and cosy there.

There are several instances where Kuri's specific verbiage has definitely made me shake my head (mostly because of certain implications made by that verbiage); but I don't think he's entirely off-base with his observations.

I am curious: which of my observations are definitely off-base and why?

[PhoneLobster]

To be fair, that's not the players disputing the narrated fiction (i.e., the weather); they're explicitly altering their course of action because of it.

No. A dispute occurred and they used available mechanisms to get their way. In the given example things changed, due largely to the powerful influence of player choice that this chump keeps shitting all over.

To NOT call that a dispute because the state prior to raising the dispute and resolving it remains the same (even though after the dispute things have changed) is semantic insanity.

The equivalent would be...

You have cake and say I cannot have it. I dispute that. We either fight with swords to the death or you say "whatever have some" and in the end I have some cake.

Only that is somehow supposedly not a dispute because I do not change the fact that before the entire event you had a cake and said I couldn't have it.

By that definition the ONLY disputes that can exist would require an active desire to rewrite history.

[Kuri Näkk]

To be fair, that's not the players disputing the narrated fiction (i.e., the weather); they're explicitly altering their course of action because of it.

No. A dispute occurred and they used available mechanisms to get their way. In the given example things changed, due largely to the powerful influence of player choice that this chump keeps shitting all over.

To NOT call that a dispute because the state prior to raising the dispute and resolving it remains the same (even though after the dispute things have changed) is semantic insanity.

GM : "The door is closed. What do you want to do?"
Player: "I open it."

PL seems to think that a dispute occurred: the players successfully refuted the GMs argument that the door was closed. In other words, PL thinks that RPG is basically a dispute resolution.

You are so eager to bash me that you have entirely missed the point of my question about deciding the weather. Artless was claiming that the GM’s role is not unique. I was trying to demonstrate that the GM's role is very distinctive and it enables him to steer the game more than players.

[infected slut princess]

The DM's role is special because he is always setting up scenarios and asking the players "what do you do now."

[PhoneLobster]

In other words, PL thinks that RPG is basically a dispute resolution.

Yes you moron, that is EXACTLY what RPGs are. The rules of RPGs are there in order to resolve fucking disputes during shared story telling. "Do I get to stab that guy?" is a dispute resolved by your RPG rules, and yes even "Can I change the closed status of that door in some way?" is a dispute resolved by RPG rules. Your breath taking desire to, well, dispute that basic fact is because you've put yourself in such a stupid position arguing for the unique god like powers of the GM that you have to pretend otherwise.

You are so eager to bash me that you have entirely missed the point of my question about deciding the weather.

Your question about the weather is demonstrative of both your ignorance and the stupidity of your claims.

Artless was claiming that the GM’s role is not unique. I was trying to demonstrate that the GM's role is very distinctive and it enables him to steer the game more than players.

I'm pretty sure that's a major back peddle on your part. You were, and to a great extent still are trying to claim the GM flat out steers the story in special unique "undisputable" ways. The "same as the other players but with a few more opportunities" is what the people you were disagreeing with said. I mean when they said it you ranted about them "failing a communication check" and declared it to be nonsense. But it's very much not YOUR line of argument.

[wotmaniac]

I am curious: which of my observations are definitely off-base and why?

I said that they weren't off base.
That being said, I was mostly referencing that the underlying tone in some of your posts seem to be based on an outdated and overreaching sense of GM-entitlement.
(BTW -- I was actually sorta supporting the basic gist of your position)

---

@PhoneLobster:
I understand what you are saying. But my point was that players are typically not disputing the existence of the narrated fiction; they're simply disputing the whether or not they have to engage it.
While this may seem like silly semantics (I definitely see that perspective), I believe that, within the context of this particular discussion, the distinction is not entirely irrelevant.
I think that you may be conflating the issue of intra-group disputes with in-game conflict.

[PhoneLobster]

I think that you may be conflating the issue of intra-group disputes with in-game conflict.

No, I'm specifically talking about in game conflict directly.

The game is about deciding how the story goes. "Is it raining during combat?" is a decision on how the story goes. The GM makes it, the players change it, it doesn't matter if they move the combat or move the rain. That was dispute resolution by game mechanics. That is the whole point of game mechanics. And it is a direct representation of the similar nature of both GM and regular player input and the mutable and certainly NOT "indisputable" input the GM makes.

The only way that conflates with "intra group disputes" is if you make an again really bad semantic bullshit definition of whatever the hell that is supposed to even mean. I'm going to ASSUME you mean "disputes over what a ruling/decision should even have been in the first place". Because pretty much anything else completely fails to recognize the basic function or RPGs as a means of facilitating group story telling game play.

edit: not that we can even really pretend whatsisname here ever actually made the argument from the perspective of "disputes over what a ruling/decision should even have been in the first place", because he didn't. Or that if he did it would have made any sense.

"Hold up there did you even ROLL on the random weather table?" is a perfectly valid dispute of a GM action in the same way that "Hold up there did you even have Control Weather memorized?" is a perfectly valid dispute of a player action. And as such again, completely defeats this ridiculous GM has access to actions that are magically different by dent of being "indisputable".

[Kuri Näkk]

I was mostly referencing that the underlying tone in some of your posts seem to be based on an outdated and overreaching sense of GM-entitlement.

You ought to be careful when drawing conclusions from underlying tone. You are dealing with a non-native speaker: everything I say comes through rather crude filter. Also, this is a RPG forum. People posting here have practiced playing roles for years. However, your gut-feelings are not entirely off: I was introduced to the hobby by 2nd ed veterans who firmly believed in GM's absolute authority. I have played with some rather oppressive railroading GMs (I have a few “role models"). In fact, I despise railroading and lording GMs. It doesn’t mean, though, that I believe in the picture painted by artless.

@PhoneLobster: Can’t hear you well, you sound of sort of muffled. Can it be that your head is still in the hole? However, I think that I got the overall idea. That is laughable …and sad. It implies that your motivation to play is to dominate others: you are not playing the common “make believe” game with friends but always disputing their actions as adversaries, always trying to push through your vision. I am also not surprised: the way you are handling any disagreements, imagined or real, in this forum means that the RPG sessions you participate in must very rapidly degenerate into dispute resolutions.

BTW, I am not offended by your feeble attempts, try harder. I see no point in responding to your particular statements because you fail to make coherent arguments, inter alia, you keep shifting the goalposts and are so very certain of my views that meaningful discussion would be impossible.

[Cyberzombie]

@PhoneLobster: Can’t hear you well, you sound of sort of muffled. Can it be that your head is still in the hole? However, I think that I got the overall idea. That is laughable …and sad. It implies that your motivation to play is to dominate others: you are not playing the common “make believe” game with friends but always disputing their actions as adversaries, always trying to push through your vision. I am also not surprised: the way you are handling any disagreements, imagined or real, in this forum means that the RPG sessions you participate in must very rapidly degenerate into dispute resolutions.

I'd be pretty shocked if he still plays tabletop RPGs. My guess is he's a full-time RPG forum warrior. Anyone bringing that level of argumentative dissent to the table won't get invited back.

[MGuy]

@PhoneLobster: Can’t hear you well, you sound of sort of muffled. Can it be that your head is still in the hole? However, I think that I got the overall idea. That is laughable …and sad. It implies that your motivation to play is to dominate others: you are not playing the common “make believe” game with friends but always disputing their actions as adversaries, always trying to push through your vision. I am also not surprised: the way you are handling any disagreements, imagined or real, in this forum means that the RPG sessions you participate in must very rapidly degenerate into dispute resolutions.

I'd be pretty shocked if he still plays tabletop RPGs. My guess is he's a full-time RPG forum warrior. Anyone bringing that level of argumentative dissent to the table won't get invited back.

I find it completely believable that PL games. I've sat at any number of tables with people of differing opinions and play styles (though only one person has ever made me get up and leave a game). Most likely, in person, PL is probably less aggressive. Most people learn some time in their lives to fake not being a complete asshole when in polite company.

That being said my position on the GM/player issue is rather simple. I have the job of immersing my players into the game and playing referee. As referee I expect my calls to be final and my players should expect me to follow/know the rules (as referees are supposed to). Being a GM is FUCKTONS more work than being a player but it's still a position I choose to be in and a responsibility I choose to take. I don't believe I am owed special reverence for it (beyond the referee thing) since I chose to do it of my own free will. If I don't like what's going on I'll just not be the GM anymore and let that be that.

[PhoneLobster]

It implies that your motivation to play is to dominate others: you are not playing the common “make believe” game with friends but always disputing their actions as adversaries, always trying to push through your vision.

Absolute pure bullshit.

Even in a non adversarial game of shared story telling conflict between the ideas of different players at the table is inevitable, even conflict between the desires and ideas of a SINGLE player can be an issue.

That's why our RPGs have rules. That's why they are games. That's why they are anything other than fairy god damn tea party. Because those rules exist to resolve these conflicts.

The fact that you take "Game rules exist so as to resolve the conflict of "Can I stab that guy or not" " as a representation of adversarial hate filled game play is just... well you being arguably one of the most spectacular idiots I have ever seen on this forum.

I mean really, I've seen a lot of "I'm going to accuse you of hating GMs" come from people in various arguments about appropriately limiting GM power with nice conflict smoothing rules (which largely apply to limiting myself what with me being GM basically all the time, which freaks those guys the hell out). But this has got to be the most fundamental misunderstanding on how the very basis of rules based shared story telling works that I have EVER seen. I mean you didn't get past go, you didn't collect 200 dollars...