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

Gregory,

Thank you for your comments. You make some very valid points.

I have some problem with one practice you describe, however.

I do not ask for confirmations or corrections to submitted orders, 
because I am just as capable of making mistakes as anybody else. If I do 
as you suggest, and ever fail to find the problem "in time (aka well 
before the deadline)", on that particular occasion, I have failed to 
provide an advantage to that player that I did provide on other 
occasions to his or her opponents. That would amount to GM interference 
in my way of thinking.

I make it a point to not even read order sets until I have issued my 
last receipt and am ready to adjudicate, because I never want to be 
tempted to do as you suggest, for a friend, as an example.

Regards to all,

Mike A.


Gregory Alexopoulos wrote:

>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 
>
>
>Community email addresses:
>  Post message: [email protected]
>  Subscribe:    [email protected]
>  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]
>  List owner:   [email protected]
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
>  http://www.onelist.com/community/CAT23-Gchat 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>