Heya,
This
is a more advanced theory topic than I usually deal with on Socratic Design,
but in light of me coming to a deeper understanding about RPG play and RPG
design, I feel I need to share this with my audience.
Within
the last twelve months I have written articles about GM Fiat and The GoldenRule (aka Rule Zero). I’m here, today,
in this article to state that neither of these things actually exists. GM Fiat and The Golden Rule (“the GM is
always right”) exist only as a means to describe a phenomenon at only the most
surface level. The truth is, the GM
cannot assert anything in any game without the group’s consent.
Now,
that may sound absurd to some, heretical to others, but it is the truth. Consider this: the GM in whatever FRPG you’re
playing says, “Okay guys, you walk into the nearest tavern and a sorcerer kills
all of you.” That’s an excellent example
of Fiat and/or The Golden Rule. The GM
made a decision and enacted it. So what
happens next?
Do
the players go along with it? Do they
rebel and leave? It doesn’t matter. Either way, what the GM said doesn’t happen
until the group agrees to it. If they
don’t say anything and start rolling up new characters, it means the group
assented. If they argue, “Hey, I never
said I even went into town!” then the situation will not be resolved until the entire
group-including the GM-agrees to what happened or the players get up and
leave. And if the players get up and
leave, the situation is still up in the air because play ended.
See,
the players and GM have a co-authorial relationship when play is happening. Nothing the GM says becomes true until
everyone agrees- either explicitly by saying “ok” or implicitly by not raising
an objection. Likewise, nothing a single
player says becomes true unless the rest of the group (including the GM) agrees
to it implicitly or explicitly.
GMs
who think they have all the power in a game are sorely mistaken. They must still get approval from the players
at every step of the way in order for play to continue. If they don’t, play stops until group
consensus is reached or everyone quits.
The players, therefore, have just as much control over what happens as
the GM.
Now,
it may not always appear that way. It
may appear that the players are allowing the GM to railroad them into whatever
direction the GM wants. Or the GM may be
using subtle social manipulation to nullify the choices made by the
players. But those are just illusions. Nothing happens during play unless the whole
group agrees to it or, at the very least, fails to object (implicit agreement).
So
what does this have to do with design?
Well, if a designer understands that this dynamic is already in play,
then he or she can take advantage of it rather than fight against it. Instead of trying to create rules that help a
GM keep the players “on track,” the designer can create rules that aid and
facilitate group consensus. This way,
play moves along at an orderly pace, there are fewer arguments and hurt
feelings. I.E. you avoid making a game
where the 20:4 ratio is the default mode of play.
Peace,
-Troy
