GM's just having fun in Off Topic

ID:61994
 
Apr 8 2009, 7:49 am
Keywords: abuse, fun, gm, taco
So, I am a GM on a game on byond and I like to have a little fun with the players there. However, as a GM, it would be easy for me to abuse my power just for a laugh. I feel that I have drawn the line in correct places, but I thought I'd hear what others have to say on the matter of where they might draw the line.

Things I will do for fun:
- Temporarily Mute (typically for a period of 2 seconds.) I mainly do this one for the actual mute message.

- Make unnecessary GM announcements.

- Temporarily change players' names, although I don't do this one until the player and I somewhat know each other.

Other than that, I sometimes use the regular channels of communication to inform a player that I hate them for some random reason (typically something to do with their name).

Things I will NOT do for fun:

- Edit a player stats.

- Ban a player.

- Permanently mute a player.


As a GM, I hold myself to a fairly high standard and view it much more as a responsibility than a perk. (Granted, it is an internet responsibility, thus not bearing much weight of importance). However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to be myself. The players seem to enjoy a relaxed GM who has fun with them more than a Negative Nancy, or Rule-Enforcing Rodger, but it is always important to know where to draw the line.

Notes:
- You do not need to be a GM to discuss this topic.
- I am not interested in becoming a GM on your game.
#1 Apr 8 2009, 7:54 am
HAI U SOND LKIE A GUD GEEM CAN YOU BE LV5 GEEM FOR MY NARU TO GAEM NARUTO HIDDEN DARKNESS OFS TE SHINOBI FROM HIDEEN SCRET VILAJ?

Anyways, I think any abuse of authority is abuse of authority. Your JOB as a GM is to moderate the game, not "mess" with other players. If you want to have fun, play the game. If playing the game in itself isn't fun, you should probably find a better way to spend your time.
#2 Apr 8 2009, 8:03 am
I do somewhat agree with you. It's not easy to enforce rules and still be cool with a community.

GM is, and always will be, a job or responsibility, not something there for enjoyment.
#3 Apr 8 2009, 8:04 am
The only time I am ever a "GM" is in games I make, and I pretty much tell people, I AM THE RULES in such cases. There is no such thing as me abusing my powers, because I can do anything I want in a game I created, and you'll just have to deal with it, or get lost.
#4 Apr 8 2009, 8:40 am
Disturbed Puppy, I feel as though a GameMaster's job is more than just moderating. If my job were only to moderate, I would be a Moderator. I feel that it is my job to make the game as enjoyable as it can be. That job happens to include moderating.

In this particular game, the GM's make up the staff and we are in charge of all parts of the game. I realize not all game's would have the same mentality as to the roles of a GM.
#5 Apr 8 2009, 9:19 am
Classically speaking, GMs are supposed to play the role of guiding the game... They do so by creating/controlling gameplay elements, like telling the story, adding quests, creating monsters, handling behind-the-scenes game mechanics, etc. (like a D&D Dungeon Master)

For most BYOND games, this role is not really necessary as such, so the term "GM" is very loosely used (incorrectly, perhaps) to essentially mean "moderator"...

I guess if one makes the argument that messing with the players adds an element to the game that it needs (or is designed to be included in the experience), then doing so would be within rights...

However, if the game honestly doesn't need that sort of thing, then doing so is just goofing off, and not quite acceptable for the position...
#6 Apr 8 2009, 9:39 am
In response to the "it's my game, if you don't like it get the hell out" attitude: sure, it's yours, and you can do whatever you want with it and be as immature as you want in it... But don't come crying to me when everyone hates you and no one plays your game.

People want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to their games; they think they can be supreme evil dictator overlord who does whatever they want and at the same time be popular and loved, and have a large fanbase. It doesn't work like that.
#7 Apr 8 2009, 2:39 pm
I agree that it's a responsibility. I get annoyed by GMs that take their power for granted and abuse their status by acting all powerful and better than everyone else. I beleive that as a GM you are not only held at a higher standard but also putting yourself at a level below the player in how you help them in every way. That would be a model GM. Fun is always important, though. A GM will never be respected by players unless he likes to have some fun. This fun must not be more for the GMs enjoyment than the players enjoyment, though.
#8 Apr 8 2009, 3:15 pm
This is why in my recent projects I am attempting to make it so there is no need for any sort of GM.

Players will moderate themselves. If someone is being annoying, you ignore then and stop dealing with it.

Even if you think it is a small drop in the bucket, what you are still doing is wrong and annoying.

I could just see it now, you change someone's name, or mute them for 3 seconds for no reason and they get pissed and say something and before you know it, you are being a dick head to them because you didn't think you did anything wrong.

Seen it #1.INF times.
#9 Apr 8 2009, 3:22 pm
Stupot wrote:
Disturbed Puppy, I feel as though a GameMaster's job is more than just moderating. If my job were only to moderate, I would be a Moderator. I feel that it is my job to make the game as enjoyable as it can be. That job happens to include moderating.

In this particular game, the GM's make up the staff and we are in charge of all parts of the game. I realize not all game's would have the same mentality as to the roles of a GM.

So, what's the logic behind you being allowed to abuse players? If I were to log on to, say Feval, and Aaiko decided to change my name to "cheeseburger walrus", I would probably laugh. However, he won't do that(not without provocation), on the grounds that it's immature and irresponsible. Your job as the "authority figure" is to set the example. and if you're abusing your powers, why should any player report a bug? A bug abuser?
#10 Apr 8 2009, 3:31 pm
You pretty much know if you're a suck GM or not, and know what you should or shouldn't be doing.

You can't please everyone, people will complain if you do nothing, people will complain if you do too much.

Neutral is the way to go.
#11 Apr 8 2009, 5:09 pm
Trosh Kubyo wrote:
This is why in my recent projects I am attempting to make it so there is no need for any sort of GM.

Players will moderate themselves. If someone is being annoying, you ignore then and stop dealing with it.

Even if you think it is a small drop in the bucket, what you are still doing is wrong and annoying.

I could just see it now, you change someone's name, or mute them for 3 seconds for no reason and they get pissed and say something and before you know it, you are being a dick head to them because you didn't think you did anything wrong.

Seen it #1.INF times.

There is really no need to have mods for anything except the chat output if you code the game itself to enforce the rules. For instance, if you don't want people backing others into a corner and killing them, don't appoint GMs to ban people that do that, instead code it in game to prevent that from happening or simply make it pointless to do. It would probably be better for the community as a whole to at least have someone moderating the chat output. Programmed mods in the output can only go so far. People think and know the exact situations where someone has broken a rule. It's alot of work to have the community do it themselves. Look at GOA, I can't even think of how many times the vote mute verb is abused. And you at least need SOMETHING to moderate with because the players are not going to want to simply ignore it.

#12 Apr 9 2009, 8:12 am
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
So, what's the logic behind you being allowed to abuse players? If I were to log on to, say Feval, and Aaiko decided to change my name to "cheeseburger walrus", I would probably laugh. However, he won't do that(not without provocation), on the grounds that it's immature and irresponsible. Your job as the "authority figure" is to set the example. and if you're abusing your powers, why should any player report a bug? A bug abuser?

I don't just randomly change people's names. As I said in my original post, I wait until the player and myself know each other. You are the one who is calling what I do abuse. I don't view it as abuse. The point of this discussion isn't to determine if it wrong to abuse players or not, it is to determine the line of what constitutes as abuse and what should be considered harmless fun.

You seem to be giving the impression that in your mind, any GM who ever uses a GM granted verb in any way other than for strictly moderating deserves to be taken out back and shot. I am of the opinion that players enjoy a light-hearted staff, as long as they aren't harming players, interfering with the game, or boasting their GM powers.
#13 Apr 9 2009, 8:17 am
"You are the one who is calling what I do abuse. I don't view it as abuse."

"The point of this discussion .. is to determine the line of what constitutes as abuse and what should be considered harmless fun."

How are we supposed to have a discussion on that if you have your own definition set in stone and you refuse to change it?
#14 Apr 9 2009, 9:22 am
I don't believe that what I am doing constitutes as abuse. However, just saying, "it's abuse" isn't defining what is and what isn't abuse.

If your definition is that any use of GM powers that isn't solely for the use of moderating is abuse, then that is your answer.

You are right in that I didn't clearly state what I was trying to say. I don't believe that I abuse players. I don't believe that players think I abuse them.

Regardless, the point of the discussion isn't to change my mind as to whether I abuse my powers or not, rather it was to get a feel of what other people who are also GM's view as abuse or just fun. My issue with Disturbed Puppy is that his tone implied that I am an abusive GM, which I don't believe is the case. I don't think an abusive GM would care about whether he's labeled as abusive and I don't think an abusive GM would care enough to make a topic and share what he does or does not do. I don't appreciate being judged pre-maturely.


If you think that something I do is abusive, then by all means, say it, but point out WHAT it is that you find to be abuse. If it is all of it, then you should simply say, "I think that using any GM powers for any reason other than <blah blah> is abuse." That's stating your opinion on the rules. But when you say that I abuse players, then you are directly accusing me of being abusive without stating your opinion on what is and what isn't abuse. I don't believe that I am an abusive GM and I will continue to say that is my view. However, perhaps this topic may eventually change my habits (although that seems doubtful).

Edit: It seems that most of this discussion has been concerning the logistics of what the discussion should be about. Clearly I picked a bad topic/ steered it poorly and for that I apologize. I won't make any other posts that could be viewed as 'defending myself'.
#15 Apr 9 2009, 9:36 am
Well, here's why what you do is abuse:

Let's say Marty is a cop. He has known Steve since they were in high school. Marty sees Steve driving down the road, and decides to have fun and pull him over. There's no reason to pull him over, other than having fun.

In the Meantime, Steve is driving home, and then gets pulled by a cop. he sweats a little, but once he realizes it's Marty just "pulling a fast one", he laughs, then is back on him way.

This is the situation you have given to changing players names, or muting them for any length of time. No harm is being done, and it might even be helpful to show that an authority figure is present, but this is still an abuse of power. Police Officers who are caught being like Marty get reprimanded for good reason.

Now, on to the argument you just posted below. How much mud can you fling at a guy? I have yet to hear ONE reason why what you do is okay, and this is the second time I brought up an argument(first being it's unprofessional from a developer's standpoint, the second being from a more concrete authority figure). I didn't baselessly accuse you of abusing, I cited reasons. whether or not you want to listen to those reasons is something altogether, but don't say I attacked your character without citation, because then you're a liar as well.
#16 Apr 9 2009, 9:36 am
Abuse isn't defined by the GM; it's defined by the player. You may not think that what you do hurts other people, but what matters is whether or not those people feel hurt by it.

Like SuperSaiyanGokuX said, GMs messing around with stuff may or may not add to the game; doing such things isn't necessarily abuse, but may end up abusive depending on what actions the GM takes and whether or not the players benefit from it. In my old game Raegon, for example, the game itself was terrible, but the GMs had an extraordinary amount of power as far as altering the game goes, so they created all sorts of fun events and kept the game's community alive far longer than I ever expected.

That's just how I perceive the whole "GM abuse issue". I'm not saying you do-- I don't know the people you mess with or how well they know you.
#17 Apr 9 2009, 11:52 am
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
Let's say Marty is a cop. He has known Steve since they were in high school. Marty sees Steve driving down the road, and decides to have fun and pull him over. There's no reason to pull him over, other than having fun.

In the Meantime, Steve is driving home, and then gets pulled by a cop. he sweats a little, but once he realizes it's Marty just "pulling a fast one", he laughs, then is back on him way.

This is the situation you have given to changing players names, or muting them for any length of time. No harm is being done, and it might even be helpful to show that an authority figure is present, but this is still an abuse of power. Police Officers who are caught being like Marty get reprimanded for good reason.


See, this is what I'm actually interested in. So, the cop pulling his friend over is crossing the line in your mind. What if you were hanging out with Marty the cop and, in the midst of joking, he pulls out his ticket pad and writes you a ticket. The violation: "telling a bad joke". In this case, he is using his advantage of being a police officer, but is he really harming anybody? Would you consider him abusive for that? What if he flashed his badge unnecessarily as a part of a joke?

If so, then your position is clear. If not, then where do you draw the line.

As much as I appreciate analogies, just saying that what I do is like a cop pulling somebody doesn't make it so.

My reasoning that it is ok for me to behave in such a way is that it doesn't hurt any players and many players enjoy the interactions. If you are the other side of the fence, good for you. I hope that if are a GM (or ever are in any position of authority), you stick to your guns without becoming a hardened ass who has no fun in life.

I've seen strictness for the sake of strictness make happy people sad. I'm determined to keep myself happy in life without harming others and while staying true to my responsibilities. That is where I am coming from. Even if you don't agree with my stance, it'll be helpful for you to know why I'm angled the way I am.