Re: GM Participation

From: David J Porter <porterd@netaccess.co.nz>

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Steve Pritchard wrote:
>
> A GM should not play to win any game he runs himself. I'll go with that one.
>
> A GM should not unbalance the play of any game he is involved in to the
> detriment of players. I'll go with that one too.
>
> I used to run a lot of Diplomacy at one time. It was a very open game where
> every move could be seen by every player every turn. A GM had no advantage
> over another player (in fact, he was disadvantaged, as he became a prized
> "scalp" for some).
>
> Would there be a problem for you in this?

At the moment I'm doing design work for two PBMs that at least in their
early stages will break at least one of these.

Each game involves a fairly large population of NPCs of various classes
who have a capacity for independent action. While most of these only
involve simply actions and can be generalised away into subroutines,
i.e.

farmer: home -> fields -> home
		home -> market -> home
		etc.

there are notable NPCs that cannot be restricted in the same way, i.e.
Nobles and Rulers of nations, etc., or larger entities such as some of
the more unusual monsters and NPC races.

Although it is envisioned that eventually we'll have some higher level
programs incorporating some sort of AI-ish turn generation for the
second group, at the moment we are not sure how to go about this and
have put this temporarily into the 'too hard/not yet implemented' basket
in favour of a GM hands-on approach.

I guess that the problem comes down to one of whether this sort of GM
involvement is considered 'playing' per se, as opposed to 'moderation'.
Either way, the GM would still have to overcome the same sorts of player
perceptions WRT what information he has access to and how he applies it
back into the game.

As to the general question of GM participation, IMHO if the game is
completely computer moderated and the GM is confident that s/he can play
without cheating then I have no problem with it at all.  Of course,
players may feel otherwise, although they can decide that for themselves
based on what they want out of the game. If the game becomes frustrating
because of a less than honest GM then player turnover would probably be
high.  Then again, if a game is just frustrating, then player turnover
will probably be high in any case.

--
And as we stand on the edge of darkness
Let our chant fill the void
That others may know

In the land of the night
	The ship of the sun
	Is drawn by
	The grateful dead.
		-- Tibetan "Book of the Dead," ca. 4000 BC.

References

GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
David J Porter <porterd@netaccess.co.nz>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
"Steve Pritchard" <steve@spelbind.demon.co.uk>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
David J Porter <porterd@netaccess.co.nz>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
"Steve Pritchard" <steve@spelbind.demon.co.uk>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000