Misson of a GM (WAS: Question about Spain and coasts)

Hello all,

We fall upon this discussion again and again and yet
there are many different opinions on how to interpet
orders and how to run games in general. I'll try to
give you my thoughts on this and hopefully I won't
bore you to death. :^) 

There are many GM styles, in the same sense that there
are many player styles. This diversity is good and
it's one of the things that make this game great. I'm
not looking for "rules" on how to GM a game and I'd
hate to see this discussion producing a standardized
gaming environment. However, I would like to question
our /appraoach/ to the GM role. 

What is the role of the GM? 

The first that comes to mind is making sure that rules
are followed. But it's not just that. If it were,
judges would be better GMs than people. Is it to hunt
down players and look at the orders very carefully, so
that invalid ones can be found? No, a machine could do
that too. Is it perhaps to help the players write
their orders, meet deadlines, find alternative ways to
communicate with each other? Not really. You should
help the communication and send reminders out, but
they shoudn't rely on them - the GM is not supposed to
be a nanny. 

IMHO, the GM's mission is to promote the gaming
experience of the players. 

Sending timely reports, producing maps, setting up
game sites, adjusting deadlines to meet RL needs are
elements of that. Adjudicating fairly and helping
everyone get the same chances to the game is another
part. NMRing the player who doesn't respect the time
and effort of his co-players is also one, just like
granting a grace period to someone who has never
before missed a deadline is. Finding the occasional
replacements and "advertising" the game to the
community are other ways and so on and so forth. 

Invalidating a lot of orders and refering to the rules
and nowhere else may be correct technically, but it is
not consistent with the GM mission. It is not helping
the players get the most out of their gaming
experience. The player who mis-typed an order or
forgot to put a coast designation is punished for
something that has nothing to do with his tactical or
diplomatic abilities. His allies miss important
supports - his enemies miss the chance to win the game
against tough competition. A victory's value is only
equal to the value of the defeated party - and if my
enemy NMRed because of a power shortage, I have no
reasons to be glad I disbanded two of his units. 

The way I run games is the way I would like to have
them run: I'm "serving" the players, I'm trying my
best to make sure that the effort they put in the game
is returned as a fun experience. For example, I
refrain from publically commenting on moves (usually)
because it may influence someone's thoughts on the
game, but I try my best to include a short general
introduction. And if I get an invalid order and *if* I
realize it's invalid in time (aka well before the
deadline), I'll send the player a note asking him to
re-check his/her orders. I won't even point to the
order in question, just mention that something may be
wrong. I get a confirmation or a correction. The game
proceeds smoothly and the players are happy - and
since I do that for every set of orders, every player
gets the "help" he/she deserves. Oh, btw, I also don't
run NMR games: if a player fails to make use of a
grace period or strikes more than one missed deadline,
the player is replaced and the replacement gets the
chance to negotiate before the turn is adjudicated. 

So, in my head it's simple really: are you in it for
the rules? or are you in it for the game? In the
second case, ask the player! No harm is done, on the
contrary you may be saving a very spectacular game
from a pointless cancellation. Perhaps he hasn't
understood the way you want orders written! 

Just my opinion guys. But if you haven't given any
thought to why you GM games, do so before deciding on
your set of house rules. 

Regards to all,
Gregory

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com