Development 07 - Moderators of Fiction

There's a big debate happening on Twitter right now (as there almost always is) about the nature of GMing in tabletop games. For those unfamiliar, the structure of a tabletop game like Dungeons and Dragons is that there are some number of players, who each control a single player character, and the Game Master (or Dungeon Master, or Master of Ceremonies, or Hollyhock God, etc.) who is a single person who controls the external world reacting to the players. So when a player says, "I would like to climb over this wall", it's the GM who determines how difficult that is and interprets the results of the dice to see whether or not the player succeeds. Many people think of the GM as being the ultimate arbitrator of the narrative - it's the GM who is crafting the story, we're all just living in it. 

Now, there's a number of variations on this core premise. There are many games with a "weakened" GM role (such as Apocalypse World), where the players are able to make notable impact on the external world beyond the recourse of the GM's imagination. Many games also feature the purpose of the GM divided among the players (like in Dream Askew or Wisher, Theurgist, Fatalist) or nonexistent (like Fiasco)

There is the general idea among the "Indie Tabletop" community that the removal of the GM figure is a necessary move for writing tabletops in the 2010s. The most common argument against the GM is that the role of narrative arbitrator shouldn't be held by a single person, as that forces the other players to obey that person's demands of the story and limits their creative control. I've also heard arguments that the nature of GMs are subconsciously authoritarian, and having them at the table introduces repressive politics. 

Even when people make allowances for the existence of the GM, they still hold that it is fundamentally better to strip away the nature of GMs are controllers of the world. That perhaps the responsibilities of GM should be distributed more, or that GMs should treat themselves more as referees. I think that what frustrates me about the positioning of GMs as intrinsically a bad thing for tabletop is that it gets away from the multiple responsibilities of the GM that extend beyond the fiction, and why people perceive the GM as creating a power imbalance when the role is just another role in the game.

GMs have, even in games that weaken the role of GM, the responsibility to curate and guide the fun the players are having. If a GM is doing their job correctly (and for now we'll be discussing only a well-performing GM, as problematic players can cause issues regardless of their position at the table) then the GM has to ensure the joy and expectations met of all the other players, and also is expected to sacrifice their narrative agency in order to give the players a more satisfying arc. 

This responsibility is never discussed. It's assumed and expected that a GM in a game like Dungeons & Dragons will spend multiple hours of their free time preparing for the session, outside of the session itself. It's expected that the GM will do research, work with the players outside of the game, and devote emotional energy to ensuring that the game is scheduled and will continue. 

 "But Jay!" You say, "These responsibilities are taken care of even if there is no GM! Many games manage to operate fine without a GM." That's super true! But those games have a very different relationship to the world that is created, and a very different expectation of player culture, in a way that I don't always think is better. In addition, I don't think those games are accessible to newer players. Many new players want, more than anything, for the majority of the improvisational responsibility to be lifted from them. In my experience, games like Fiasco require a level of radical buy-in that new players might find off-putting, especially if they're more quiet or apprehensive about the artform as a whole. 

Even in games like Apocalypse World, where the GM is expected to improvise on the spot, these emotional obligations are built into the game. Apocalypse World lists out how it demands the GM operate - "Make the world seem real", "Make the player's character's lives not boring", "Play to find out what happens". Good objectives, and important things to keep in mind, but nowhere does Apocalypse World remind the GM (or MC in this case) to actually have fun. There is the expectation and the GM's ability to enjoy themselves is secondary to ensuring the players exist in a real and fun world. Fundamentally, where does the MC's story get to exist, outside of what the players are doing? 

I think what frustrates me about the Apocalypse World style of stripping away GM fiat, but maintaining the social expectations of a GM, is that it honestly feels like the worst of both worlds, especially for a new GM. They have to still be a rules expert and help people do all their character creation, but they don't get to have any final authority on any part of the fiction. I still find Apocalypse World a slog to MC, even though it is a lot of fun to play, because I feel like I don't get to have anything, while still having out-of-game responsibilities.

In Dungeons & Dragons, I get to have fun because, even though I don't have a narrative arc or an advancement system, I get to facilitate that within a world of my own creation. I view the purpose of GMing to not be "ruling over the world" - instead, your purpose is to ensure the players are having a fun time. The principle tools I use to accomplish this are through executive control over the world outside the players, and the ability to manage the rules system. I would like it if games would trust me to have the common sense to do a good job of doing that.