'Special Snowflake' GMing

[Raum]

I see a lot of posts where GMs appear to claim some sort of 'special' status. Comments like: “...can do <what I want> (because I'm the GM.)”
“...it's the GM's job to make / present / tell a 'good story'. (The players should simply support my story.)”
“...(my) story is more important than <some aspect of game play>.”
“...it's the GM's job to entertain. (The players just need to applaud when appropriate.)”
“...players should Trust the GM (no matter what he does).”
“...it's the GM's game. (I'll take my dice and go home if you don't deal.)”
“...only the GM should know <some mechanic used in play>.” (This is like saying only one of the tennis players should see the ball.)
And other comments, I'm sure I've only captured a few.Statements like these are common. My question – does this actually occur in real life gaming or is this simply an artifact of using forums (or the internet) as the medium for discussion?

[Kurald Galain]

I see a lot of posts where GMs appear to claim some sort of 'special' status.
So the items between parentheses, are those actually what the GMs say, or is it your assmption of what they might mean?

[Eldan]

These are over-exaggerated, but I see some truth in them.

Basically: the DM usually puts a lot more effort into the game than the players, at least in my experience. It was quite normal, back when I still DMed RL, to devote an entire weekend to writing down some part of the world before the players first visited it. Sacrificing an evening or two to write the next part of an adventure was a common occurrence.

Meanwhile, the players, even if they wrote a long backstory, put a few hours into it, and mostly only once per campaign, in the beginning.

So yes, in a sense, the DM deserves at least some respect for that.

Then, there's one other thing, namely "it's the DM's game". Here, I see the issue in what rules and content the DM does and does not allow. The DM has written his world, and tells his players "This world only has Humans, Lizardfolk, Elans, Dwarves and Raptorans as intelligent races, please choose one of those", then the player should not build a halfling. Of course, this goes both ways: if the player asks the DM to play a halfling, he should at least consider including them in the world (a happier player makes a better game), but in the end, if something doesn't work with the proposed campaign, it doesn't work.


Edit: and why don't you agree with people trusting the GM? For a good game, isn't necessary to be willing to believe that everyone is basically only here to make a good game?

[Mastikator]

It's an artifact.

What the GM decides is when the mechanics don't apply, and the fluff. If the GM says orcs have three eyes, orcs have three eyes. Even if they have two in the monster manual.

[Zuljita]

If i correctly understand what you are asking:

Do GM's claim that they are special or otherwise better than other gamers?

then my answer is this:
I've seen it a little, its more a matter of the fact that the GM's job is harder than the players. period. it requires more game knowledge, more planning, more prep and in general more effort. Players *should* respect the GM's effort. I GM about twice a month and play as a player 2-3 times a month and after being on both sides of the table, I think that a GM who doesnt get appreciated for his work is a sad GM indeed. He shouldn't have to demand it or claim it.

[Raum]

So the items between parentheses, are those actually what the GMs say, or is it your assmption of what they might mean?Most of them are stated as fact on the forums at one point or another. My curiosity is whether that's an artifact of the medium (the internet tends to polarize opinion rather than find compromise) or if it's a reflection of play.


These are over-exaggerated, but I see some truth in them. The only statement I'm not certain I could find is "my story is more important" - the "my" is usually left off.


Edit: and why don't you agree with people trusting the GM? Didn't say I disagreed with trust being a good thing. That said, trust is far easier to lose than to gain.


If i correctly understand what you are asking:

Do GM's claim that they are special or otherwise better than other gamers?Not quite...the statements are there. My question is whether it's a reflection of play or simply due to the polarizing nature of internet discussions.

[Sipex]

I find it's more of a polarization thing than an actual play thing. These are the posters opinions on a black & white term and having players which violate them would make them upset.

That said, in real life you tend to have many varying shades so while a player may not fully endorse the view set they may follow or respect it enough that there is no conflict.

In addition, since it's real life, the DM may not see a reason to bring it to light unless there is a conflict.

[Kurald Galain]

Most of them are stated as fact on the forums at one point or another. My curiosity is whether that's an artifact of the medium (the internet tends to polarize opinion rather than find compromise) or if it's a reflection of play.
Well, for example, it is the GM's job to entertain - however, if the players feel that they "just need to applaud when appropriate", then they aren't really entertained, so the DM is doing it wrong. Entertainment need not be passive, and in an RPG takes the form of participation.

And yes, the players should trust the GM. The flipside of that statement is that the GM should not abuse that trust.

[Knaight]

Do GM's claim that they are special or otherwise better than other gamers?

As a rule, no, and GMs who do claim this usually don't have players. For many of us the GM role is one we take on and off, and there are simply different duties attached. Some of that affects the player's, for instance the setting being played in. If I'm GMing space opera an elven archer is out of the question, with particular settings there may be more restrictions. Its simply having a different sphere of influence, the GM creates and controls the setting, the players create and control their characters, with some blurring of roles in certain games.

[Beelzebub1111]

Well...As both GM and player, I can sense when the GM spent months planning for an adventure. He's incorporated stories and plotlines for all of our characters in that adventure, including all the things we like, challenging combat, vast treasure, roleplaying opportunities to keep everyone happy.

If players go all "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE MAN! YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! I PLAY BY MY RULES! RAILROADING KILLER GM!" destroying months of planning and preperation, GMs tend to get a little pissed off at the notion and are more likely to throw something harder your way out of spite. Not always consiously, but you have months of work and careful planning to make a gift for someone only to have it tossed aside before they even open it, or worse, scoff at it. Then see how you feel about so-called "special snowflake" gm-ing

[Paseo H]

{Scrubbed}

[Megaduck]

I see a lot of posts where GMs appear to claim some sort of 'special' status.

I'm not so sure I like the term 'Special' Status. The DM does have a different role then the rest of the group, the same way a referee has a greatly different role in a football game then the rest of the players.

The DM does have a lot of power but in balance the DM has a lot of responsibility as well.

[Jan Mattys]

I'm not so sure I like the term 'Special' Status. The DM does have a different role then the rest of the group, the same way a referee has a greatly different role in a football game then the rest of the players.

Accurate metaphor, if you add that in it the referee also built the stadium, brought the ball, advertised the match and (usually) contacted all the players and organized their schedules so that the match could take place.

:smallbiggrin:

[Tengu_temp]

The DM has a special status because he puts the most effort into the game, even in experimental "mutual storytelling" games like Bliss Stage. He should not abuse this status, however - the keys to a successful group is mutual respect, understanding, and everyone having fun.

[kamikasei]

I can see myself agreeing with every one of the quotes in the OP, minus the spin he puts on them. I'd say they apply to games I've run and played in. I don't think the snark included applies, so maybe this doesn't count for his purposes.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Pro tip: there is pretty much no way to make a discussion which you open like that go anywhere good. If someone disagrees with you, asking them (even rhetorically) how to make them "realize" that your view is the correct one is completely backwards and staggeringly condescending.

[Paseo H]

{Scrubbed}

[Benly]

If you don't trust the GM, why is he GMing for you?
If the GM's job isn't to give you a good story or entertain the players, what is it?
Is he actually saying "my story is more important than a gameplay detail" or is he saying "the story is more important than a gameplay detail"? When I say that, it's usually because the players want to do something cool that rules as written don't alow.

You seem to be taking a deliberately hostile and sometimes stretched interpretation of a lot of these common statements.

[Raum]

Well, for example, it is the GM's job to entertainI see it differently. We're there as a group to play a game and entertain each other. Not for one individual to entertain everyone else.


And yes, the players should trust the GM. The flipside of that statement is that the GM should not abuse that trust.Yes, trust must be earned. All too often that 'players should trust the GM' statement follows some form of 'GM did X because he's the GM'. To reiterate an earlier statement, it is far easier to lose trust than to regain it.


As a rule, no, and GMs who do claim this usually don't have players. For many of us the GM role is one we take on and off, and there are simply different duties attached. I agree.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}I agree with this also...except I'd say they are peers more often than not. (There are a few exceptions where a parent may be GMing for a child.)


I'm not so sure I like the term 'Special' Status. The DM does have a different role then the rest of the group, the same way a referee has a greatly different role in a football game then the rest of the players.You don't like the term but you appear to claim the status. Or have I misinterpreted your analogy?


I can see myself agreeing with every one of the quotes in the OP, minus the spin he puts on them. I'd say they apply to games I've run and played in. I don't think the snark included applies, so maybe this doesn't count for his purposes.Have to admit, the 'applaud' comment contained too much sarcasm. I'm guilty of some of the polarizing comments mysefl, mea culpa. I'll attempt to improve.

It is interesting to see the list does appear to reflect how some play. Thanks!

-----
Regarding the "GM does more work" so "deserves more <of something - power / respect / I'm not sure>" argument - 1) The GM doesn't do more work in all game systems. 2) It's a volunteer position (last I checked - if it's a paid position someone owes me $ :smallwink: ) and 3) Respect is earned (or not) and power is ceded (at least in a social setting). Both are subject to individual group dynamics and the result really has little to do with gaming mechanics in my experience.

[ajkkjjk52]

Great D&D (or other RPG) requires something of an unwritten contract between the GM and the players, that the GM will respect the wishes of the players but also that the players will not try to give the GM a hard time. But the fact is that the GM has, and must have, final say about both mechanical and fluff elements of the game.

So yes, the GM has a special position, and must have that special position for a game to work.

[The Glyphstone]

Sometimes, at least in the groups I'm familiar with, GMing can devolve to a 'reluctant volunteer' - no one wants to do it, but someone steps up simply so that a game exists in the first place. Under that sort of environment, the desire for at least a modicum of respect or status makes since, because they are very pointedly making themselves less happy so that the rest of the group can be happy.

[Paseo H]

{Scrubbed}

[BlackSheep]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

No.

The hierarchy exists for a very simple reason. Inevitably there is going to be a conflict of some sort, and while in an ideal world we'd all hug it out and resolve our conflicts in a fair and equitable way, many times there's going to be an argument. This eats up game time for everyone at the table and is generally unfun. This is why the DM in most systems is defined as having the final say for all in game events.

All of the above is not the same thing as "lording their higher effort" over the players. The DM's job is conflict resolution. Using that power to make yourself feel powerful is inappropriate. It just feels like any time anyone says that the DM makes all final determinations because he's the DM, a vocal minority immediately assumes it's for selfish purposes.

[Paseo H]

Your idea of hierarchy works if the DM is a robot.

But maybe the reason I'm not Lawful is partially because I don't trust humans to use their hierarchial powers rightly? :smallsmile:

[Earthwalker]

I mainly group with friends that I have known ages so my experiances may be a mile away from some of the people posting on these boards but...

I choose to GM when I do and I do not demand any more or less respect than is owed to any player.

In my group GMing does usually come with responcibilities in terms of rules interprtation or clarification but this can equally fall to the person with the book open at the right page.

I have seen problems with entitlment in the past from both players and GMs, its just one effect of playing a social game.

As always I try to make sure the people I game with are having fun, no matter if I am playing or GMing.

Finally if you have spent weeks sorting out a game and have building a world only to have your players mock the concept and try to destroy it becuase they aren't happy, its difficult not to take it personally and then come to place like the forums and complain.

[kamikasei]

(I edited a lot of extra stuff in to this after I first posted, so I deleted and reposted to keep it all together - just in case this causes any confusion.)

If you don't trust the GM, why is he GMing for you?
If the GM's job isn't to give you a good story or entertain the players, what is it?
Is he actually saying "my story is more important than a gameplay detail" or is he saying "the story is more important than a gameplay detail"? When I say that, it's usually because the players want to do something cool that rules as written don't alow.

You seem to be taking a deliberately hostile and sometimes stretched interpretation of a lot of these common statements.
Full agreement here.

OP, I get the impression you're seeing a dynamic of "I am the GM, which means I am different from and better than you mere players" - *spits* - "and this describes us as people, not our roles in a game". And no doubt some posters do describe such a dynamic. I see posts here all the time from tables that sound like I'd rather saw my own head off with a spork than play at.

In general, when I play, it's because someone had an idea for a game - including setting, premise and basic plot outline (in terms of What's Up that the players are expected to uncover and deal with or respond to, though the actual structure of the story will of course depend on the actions of the players) - and decided to run it. That means that of course the GM knows things about the setting and NPCs that the players don't and shouldn't, and the players should trust the GM enough that she can surprise them without their crying foul or assuming she screwed up. The usual dynamic in my games is that the GM acts as the arbiter for rules disputes too, which means that they're free to have some things happen not according to the rules if that works better for the game. Any and all of these things can be handled badly, but your OP treats the worst interpretation or outcome as if it were inherent in the ideas.

Respect: you know, it was PaseoH who first said anything about GMs being owed greater respect than players, in this thread. Up to that point people were saying that the GM deserved respect, or that the game demands mutual respect between players and GM. Perhaps people should check for straw before they let loose.

[Paseo H]

I think it's more just an acknowledgement that humans are bastards.

But hey, maybe he'd have less problems if he didn't keep getting tsunderes for DMs.

[Winterwind]

I think such a "special status" exists to some degree, but in my experience, it's not so much the GM "taking" that status for themselves, as the other players voluntarily bestowing it upon them. At least, with some of your statements. Some come as part of the job, and others I just don't see reflected in reality. Allow me to elaborate.

First and foremost, the GM is just one more participant in a group where everyone is in for fun, and is in no way more or less important than anyone else. However, the special role they take - which happens to include weaving a plot and trying to entangle the players in it, even though they will, ideally, end up being co-creators of that plot and drag it into a new, unforeseen direction, pretty much requires a few of the things you've mentioned. Like, when some particular character of one of the other players suddenly starts to see things nobody else can see, it wouldn't be conducive to the game if that player suddenly stood up and started interrogating the GM ("Is it an illusion? I have a +9 save against those, you know! Is it this effect? That effect? Tell me!"). The player should just trust the GM to have some reason to have this happen, a reason to disclose which would just ruin the drama or mystery at this point, and go along with it. Is this “...only the GM should know <the mechanic responsible for this>.”, or “...players should Trust the GM.”? Why, yes, yes it is. But it's required for the job, and the players know this, too - in my experience, it's not the GM haughtily assuming the position where they take this for granted, it's the entire group naturally assuming that this is part of what being a GM entails.

Same goes for all of the other points you bring up, too. You present them as some unnatural usurpation undertaken by the GM to grab power, whereas in reality, it's a natural process where the players just run with the GM's decision in the expectation that this will lead to everyone having the most fun.

Except for things like “...(my) story is more important than <some aspect of game play>.”, “...it's the GM's job to make / present / tell a 'good story'. (The players should simply support my story.)” or “...it's the GM's job to entertain. (The players just need to applaud when appropriate.)”. Roleplaying is a joint venture, and everyone participates in the group to have fun; stories are co-written by everyone, and the GM tells just as much as necessary to build up the mood, but then quickly hands over the reigns to the players to allow them, the protagonists, to take the spotlight (as it should be in a story). The GM hogging the spotlight as you describe here would be the epitome of bad GMing in my eyes.

All of this just in my experience and in my opinion, obviously. :smallwink:

[woodenbandman]

Really i think that people are not addressing the OP's actual point. The point I believe he is trying to make is this:

Often DMs will present their problems with players as such: "player X doesn't like something I did, but I'm the DM, so he should like it because I'm the DM."

To that end: Yes that does happen, yes it's poor DMing to whine about it on the internet rather than discuss it with the person in question.

[Paseo H]

Rin: Generally, when someone says "Respect my authority," the term "greater" is implied.

Given the entire subject, I think it's fair to assume that "greater" is implied when it comes to "showing respect" for DMs.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because I really don't want to do work today :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter's Guide to Player-DM Relations

A DM should
- Plan enough material to make the session run smoothly
- Respect the autonomy of their Players
- Make sure their Players are having fun

A Player should
- Follow the rules of the session as described by the DM
- Be knowledgable of the rules of the game
- Respect the DM's authority to make rulings in regard to the game

If a DM does not like the way a Player is behaving
(1) The DM should speak the with Player, telling him exactly what behavior is problematic.

(2) The Player should explain why he is acting that way, and if there is anything that he would like to be different about the game.

(3) The DM should try to accomodate the desires of the Player. If doing so is impossible or would be harmful to the game as a whole, the DM should ask the Player to leave.

If a Player does not like the way a DM is running a game
(1) The Player should tell the DM about his problems with the game.

(2) If the DM is unwilling to alter their game, and the problem is sufficiently severe that it is impacting his enjoyment of the game, he should tell the DM that he is leaving - and then do so.

Summary
A Player who refuses to respect the amount of work that a DM does in order to run a game will soon find himself without anyone to run games for him.

A DM who refuses to pay attention to the wishes of his Players and places his own enjoyment over theirs will soon be without any Players to run games for.

[kamikasei]

Rin:
While we're on the subject of respect, one sign of it is addressing people by the names they use for themselves.

Oracle Hunter: excellent post.

[Paseo H]

{Scrubbed}

[Raum]

But the fact is that the GM has, and must have, final say about both mechanical and fluff elements of the game.Just a note, absolute statements are nearly always incorrect. Your statement doesn't apply to all systems and I'm not certain it applies to all instances of any system.


Sometimes, at least in the groups I'm familiar with, GMing can devolve to a 'reluctant volunteer' - no one wants to do it, but someone steps up simply so that a game exists in the first place. Under that sort of environment, the desire for at least a modicum of respect or status makes since, because they are very pointedly making themselves less happy so that the rest of the group can be happy.Hmm, you make a good point. However, purely from a leadership point of view, demanding respect seldom gets more than the overt forms of respect. (Eight years in the military - you saluted every officer but didn't respect all of them.)


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Thanks for the laugh! Might want to move Machiavelli's works farther away from your RPG books... :smallbiggrin:


OP, I get the impression you're seeing a dynamic of "I am the GM, which means I am different from and better than you mere players" - *spits* - "and this describes us as people, not our roles in a game". And no doubt some posters do describe such a dynamic. I see posts here all the time from tables that sound like I'd rather saw my own head off with a spork than play at.Essentially. It's a foreign method of playing to me...and brought up my initial question: "Do people really play that way?" Seems the answer is yes.


,snip> ...but your OP treats the worst interpretation or outcome as if it were inherent in the ideas.Barring the applaud comment and the addition of 'my', those are paraphrased from recent posts. Most appeared in a single thread.

-----
To those making blanket statements on hierarchy and power requirements - not all systems are the same! Beyond that, not all groups are the same.

[some guy]

A DM should
- Plan enough material to make the session run smoothly
- Respect the autonomy of their Players
- Make sure their Players are having fun


Though I agree with you on most points, I don't think the responsibility of players' fun lies solely with the DM. A player is also capable of diminishing/enhancing his/her own fun and of that of the players and of the DM. I feel that creating a fun game lies with the whole group.

[Sipex]

I think what Oracle means when he says "Make sure the player is having fun" is that the DM should do their best to recognise when a player doesn't seem to be having fun and then do their best to remedy that within the lines of the game. If the player makes this difficult and is basically making the game unfun for themselves then at least the DM has done all the can.

[Gnaritas]

I see a lot of posts where GMs appear to claim some sort of 'special' status. Comments like: “...can do <what I want> (because I'm the GM.)”
Yes, if i want to give some NPC or something more feats than it should have, i will.


“...it's the GM's job to make / present / tell a 'good story'. (The players should simply support my story.)”
Yes, but not the part in between the parenthesis, the players live inside the story and help create some parts of the story by doing what they do


“...(my) story is more important than <some aspect of game play>.”
Yes, if for some reason my story cannot support the presence of say "Teleport", then i will ban that spell


“...it's the GM's job to entertain. (The players just need to applaud when appropriate.)”
Yes, except for the part in parenthesis


“...players should Trust the GM (no matter what he does).”
No, but there are occassions that you should, i am not sure what you are implying here


“...it's the GM's game. (I'll take my dice and go home if you don't deal.)”
Yes, if one of my players does not obey my rules there is a problem.(and my rules are open to discussion, provided good arguments or all the players disagree with me, i can change those rules, in any case the final word is mine)


“...only the GM should know <some mechanic used in play>.” (This is like saying only one of the tennis players should see the ball.)
Not sure what you mean here, but let's say i introduce Tome of Battle by creating an opponent that uses maneuvres, i might describe to the players what they see and give hints to where it comes from. I am in no way obliged to give them the exact mechanics. I will probably give the book to read to any players that seem interested in it after the encounter


And other comments, I'm sure I've only captured a few.Statements like these are common. My question – does this actually occur in real life gaming or is this simply an artifact of using forums (or the internet) as the medium for discussion?

And yes, i am a DM in real life.

[kamikasei]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
The former.

Barring the applaud comment and the addition of 'my', those are paraphrased from recent posts. Most appeared in a single thread.
I'd ask for a link so I check how fair your paraphrasing was, but the thread probably contains more fail in either case than I need to expose myself to.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Though I agree with you on most points, I don't think the responsibility of players' fun lies solely with the DM. A player is also capable of diminishing/enhancing his/her own fun and of that of the players and of the DM. I feel that creating a fun game lies with the whole group.
However, as the "organizer" of the game, the DM has the greatest impact in someone's ability to have fun in a game.

Barring cases of depressives, people come to game to have fun. If they're having fun by simply being at the game then there isn't much more the DM can do to enhance it - although forcing them to be engaged with the gameplay might make things less fun :smalltongue:

Everyone else, though, came to play a game they thought would be fun to play. If it wasn't fun, then there was some element in that particular session which was missing. Generally speaking, the DM can add or remove elements of gameplay at will; if something fun was missing he can add it; if something annoying was added, he can remove it.
That said, in the absolute sense only Players can decide when they're having fun. But I've always found it helpful to remind new DMs that the point of the game - above all else - is for the Players to have fun playing it. It is all too easy to get distracted by running games that you, personally, find fun without thinking about whether your Players are also enjoying themselves.

And - a word to the wise - Players who get bored become Problem Players. And you don't want that :smalleek:

[golentan]

Every so often I see one of these GM hate threads, and it always bugs me.

My usual response is: GM your own game. Seriously. Most of the complaints I see are intrinsic to the job, just blown out of proportion and twisted into the worst possible light. You GM your own game, and you'll see it from the other side. What's more, your current GM would probably enjoy the break: It's a lot less fun than playing, and nobody ever offers to run a game for many of us. If, having run 3-5 sessions, you come back with the same complaints, I'll eat my hat.

[Sipex]

Agreed.

I have great (amazing) players who do their best to work with me at the game and make it fun for everyone.

I will say that if anyone came in with the attitude implied in the parenthesis in the OP they would be, at best, a guest star for the session.

[Paseo H]

Fine, I won't call you Rin anymore.

The real problem lies in that neither side will give in because both sides view themselves as good intentioned.

The lawful "respect authority" types think that giving greater respect to the DM is needed to keep problem players from running roughshod over the game.

The chaotic types who disagree think that hierarchial measures that stress a lack of equality between one human and another by means of authority endangers their own gaming (if they leave) or their own dignity (if they stay and obey unwillingly).

So, no, it's not disrespectful or condescending to ask what it will take to get the other side to agree.

[Urpriest]

I see a lot of posts where GMs appear to claim some sort of 'special' status. Comments like: “...can do <what I want> (because I'm the GM.)”
This one's pretty much universal. There's a reason DMs have a screen and players don't. Most tables have houserules, houserules are rarely democratic, so the DM has a certain amount of latitude in this respect. Since the DM isn't trying to win, this is unlikely to be a problem.

“...it's the GM's job to make / present / tell a 'good story'. (The players should simply support my story.)”
Example one of an interpretation you've added that simply isn't there in the material you're looking at. Any DM coming to these forums with the idea that the players must follow the story or else would be lambasted as railroading.

“...(my) story is more important than <some aspect of game play>.”
Well everything's more important than something. By putting <some aspect of gameplay> in rather than your actual concern you're making it sound as if the story overrides everything, when even you would acknowledge that it can override some things. (What's more important: perfectly symmetrical cheeto allocation or telling a good story?)

{Scrubbed}


“...players should Trust the GM (no matter what he does).”
Example three. Plenty of posts advise that players boot the incompetent DM. And plenty of posts advise trusting a dubious player. People generally advise trust when they think that people should be given the benefit of the doubt, no matter what the person's role.

{Scrubbed}


“...only the GM should know <some mechanic used in play>.” (This is like saying only one of the tennis players should see the ball.)
I've never seen this applied to D&D, but for some games this is the default. Some games are based on a level of mystery covering the actual rules, generally games that are intentionally designed to give an atmosphere of fear and/or paranoia.

{Scrubbed}

[Raum]

Every so often I see one of these GM hate threads, and it always bugs me.

My usual response is: GM your own game. Seriously. For the record, I started GMing in the early 1990s and still GM today. It's not a "GM hate thread" so much as a "these are foreign ideas, do people really play the way they post? thread".


Most of the complaints I see are intrinsic to the job, just blown out of proportion and twisted into the worst possible light. Sounds like you're in the camp of 'yes, you do play similarly to what's in the list'. That correct?


You GM your own game, and you'll see it from the other side. What's more, your current GM would probably enjoy the break: It's a lot less fun than playing, and nobody ever offers to run a game for many of us. If, having run 3-5 sessions, you come back with the same complaints, I'll eat my hat.I have fun GMing. I honestly would not run games if I didn't have fun. I think running but not having (as much) fun may be why some of the items on that list occur...though I may be jumping to conclusions, not sure.

Do hats taste better with salt? :smallwink:

[some guy]

I think what Oracle means when he says "Make sure the player is having fun" is that the DM should do their best to recognise when a player doesn't seem to be having fun and then do their best to remedy that within the lines of the game. If the player makes this difficult and is basically making the game unfun for themselves then at least the DM has done all the can.


However, as the "organizer" of the game, the DM has the greatest impact in someone's ability to have fun in a game.

Barring cases of depressives, people come to game to have fun. If they're having fun by simply being at the game then there isn't much more the DM can do to enhance it - although forcing them to be engaged with the gameplay might make things less fun :smalltongue:

Everyone else, though, came to play a game they thought would be fun to play. If it wasn't fun, then there was some element in that particular session which was missing. Generally speaking, the DM can add or remove elements of gameplay at will; if something fun was missing he can add it; if something annoying was added, he can remove it.
That said, in the absolute sense only Players can decide when they're having fun. But I've always found it helpful to remind new DMs that the point of the game - above all else - is for the Players to have fun playing it. It is all too easy to get distracted by running games that you, personally, find fun without thinking about whether your Players are also enjoying themselves.

And - a word to the wise - Players who get bored become Problem Players. And you don't want that :smalleek:

Both true. And I agree. But I think a player should realize he or she also can influence the overall funness of a game. With a bad scenario or a bad* GM a group can still have fun, but it requires active input from the players. Sure, it may not be perfect or a memorable session but it might still be a fun evening. I concur that a GM should provide the first and foremost step for providing fun, but part of the responsibilty of fun lies with the players as well.

*Bad in technical sense, not social.

[Daimbert]

I see it differently. We're there as a group to play a game and entertain each other. Not for one individual to entertain everyone else.

Sure, but ask yourself this: considering the role the GM plays, what does it mean for them to be entertained? How do they get entertained in their role?

If you throw over all their work, that won't result in them being entertained. So, at least, if you're going to ignore their plot hooks, at least do it with style [grin].


Regarding the "GM does more work" so "deserves more <of something - power / respect / I'm not sure>" argument - 1) The GM doesn't do more work in all game systems.

Well, it certainly seems to be the case in most of them, and particularly in D&D.


2) It's a volunteer position (last I checked - if it's a paid position someone owes me $ :smallwink: )

That's what makes them deserve it even more; they've volunteered to take on more work so that the whole group has fun. And sometimes, they've volunteered to do it even though they won't have that much fun. If someone volunteers to put in effort to ensure that other people have fun. that does deserve recognition.


and 3) Respect is earned (or not) and power is ceded (at least in a social setting). Both are subject to individual group dynamics and the result really has little to do with gaming mechanics in my experience.

I'm not sure how this point matters. A GM earns, in my opinion, at least a little bit of respect just by stepping up and doing it. It goes on from there.

[BlackSheep]

Fine, I won't call you Rin anymore.

The real problem lies in that neither side will give in because both sides view themselves as good intentioned.

The lawful "respect authority" types think that giving greater respect to the DM is needed to keep problem players from running roughshod over the game.

The chaotic types who disagree think that hierarchial measures that stress a lack of equality between one human and another by means of authority endangers their own gaming (if they leave) or their own dignity (if they stay and obey unwillingly).

So, no, it's not disrespectful or condescending to ask what it will take to get the other side to agree.

Honestly, these broader commentaries on societal hierarchies aren't really relevant. If the rest of the table is playing a game where the DM is the world creator and conflict arbiter, and you're playing some other game where everyone gets to do and say what they want when they want, then yeah, you'll probably wind up running roughshod over the game and spoiling the experience for other people. Most of us are playing D&D or some variant that relies on a DM running the game, so most of the comments are going to be about that model.

[kamikasei]

Sounds like you're in the camp of 'yes, you do play similarly to what's in the list'. That correct?
Which list? You have some statements in quotes which I and several others here find unobjectionable, and then paraphrases and commentary in parentheses which I expect (far) fewer would agree with. If you want a clear impression of what people agree or disagree with, you need to make a far clearer separation between the two.

[Sipex]

{Scrubbed}

[Paseo H]

That's just because it's an issue that many people feel strongly about and nobody wants to back down on.

[golentan]

Which list? You have some statements in quotes which I and several others here find unobjectionable, and then paraphrases and commentary in parentheses which I expect (far) fewer would agree with. If you want a clear impression of what people agree or disagree with, you need to make a far clearer separation between the two.

Pretty much this. Are you honestly saying that you, as a GM, have never handed down a Fiat rule because it is, say, setting appropriate and then justified it as story appropriate or just "trust me on this till later?" Or just said "It's my job to entertain you."

I don't do everything on the litany you posted, no. But I have said some of them, and object to them being portrayed in the worst possible of interpreted worlds. And if you can honestly stand there and claim that you have not done such things because they were appropriate at the time without all the backbiting interpretation, then and only then will I break out the marmalade.

Much better than salt.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

And yes, the players should trust the GM. The flipside of that statement is that the GM should not abuse that trust.
I think it is also important for a GM to trust one’s players and for players to not abuse that, either.

If trust is not mutual, then things will fall apart quite quickly.


If the GM's job isn't to give you a good story or entertain the players, what is it?
To provide a setting and possibly a scenario which the players can use to tell a story along with the GM.

[Fhaolan]

The chaotic types who disagree think that hierarchial measures that stress a lack of equality between one human and another by means of authority endangers their own gaming (if they leave) or their own dignity (if they stay and obey unwillingly).

Unfortunately, if a persion is that chaotic that they cannot cope with one person in a group having more authority than the others (however that they have gained said authority), then it is unlikely that person will be able to have fun in that style of RPG. There are other styles, of course.

If the GM has more responsibility than the other players, then the GM should have more authority than the other players. In general; if any person doesn't have authority commersurate with their responsibility, it leads very rapidly to dissatisfaction with the situtation. This is true in all walks of life, not just RPGs.

Now, if the GM *doesn't* have more responsibility than the other players, you're playing a different style of game. Likely one where the GM is restricted to just rule arbitration and moderation, and not campaign/adventure building. This is a style of game found in many forums, some LARPS, GNS-theory based games, etc. However, it is not common in classic table-top RPGs.

[Sipex]

{Scrubbed}

[Paseo H]

Fhaolan: My primary axiom is "Never let anyone disadvantage you in even the least way."

Now, maybe those with so-called 'authority' may overpower me through one way or another, but for me to give consent to them in such a way, even just by acknowledging that they have authority, that is like being in the French Revolution and then they expect you to chop off your own head.

Sipex: With respect, I will need to see more to draw the same conclusion as you.

[obliged_salmon]

It seems to me that the OP is used to games that go something like...

DM: Okay, so the overarching conflict is between two countries. The leader of country A is a sly, scheming duke who wants control of country B's super weapon. Country B is led by a righteous king, who wants to end slavery in country A.
P1: Ooh, I want to be a knight in Country A's service, sworn to kill King B because he kidnapped my sister, who had innate magical abilities, to be used in his indoctrinated corps of magic soldiers (totally made up on the spot).
DM: Sweet!

He's afraid that some DM's are like, instead of Sweet!,
DM: What? What are you talking about? There's no magic corps. They're the good guys! You're all supposed to work for them! Not the duke, he's my BBEG half-dragon velociraptor archblade 3/warfork 12! Veto!

What he may be missing is that most players are like this,
P1: Kay. Guess I'll...play a fighter?
P2: I'm rolling up a Planar Shepherd, gestalt, kobold sorcerer with immunity to all major damage types.

Then they stare at the DM. THEY STARE WITH THEIR BLANK, PURPOSELESS EYES! And the DM either creates a world, guides the players by the hand through it, or he just sits there.

[Vladislav]

The problem I have with this post is that the OP takes some completely valid and reasonable GM statements and turns them into something sinister by inserting parentheticals, which are most likely his own interpretation.

Let's start going over the list item by item.


I see a lot of posts where GMs appear to claim some sort of 'special' status. Comments like:[list] “...can do <what I want> (because I'm the GM.)”
True. He can do whatever he wants, something that doesn't apply to players. If the DM decides there is a red dragon in that cave, then there is one. For comparison, a player, facing the mouth of a dark cave, can't make such decision. He can't decide what is and what isn't in the cave.

Of course, (let's say it together, boys and girls) ... Just because he can doesn't mean he should!


“...it's the GM's job to make / present / tell a 'good story'. (The players should simply support my story.)”
A cynical and jaded parenthetical accompanies what is otherwise a truthful statement.
Sure it's the GM's job to tell a good story. Did you have any doubts?


“...(my) story is more important than <some aspect of game play>.”
True. The story (the story! ignore the parenthetical "my")is more important than some aspects of gameplay. When I DM, for example, I don't stop play after every encounter to check for PC encumbrance. Eventhough encumbrance is an aspect of game play.


“...it's the GM's job to entertain. (The players just need to applaud when appropriate.)”
Again, getting slightly too jaded and cynical here. I think I see a pattern.


“...players should Trust the GM (no matter what he does).”
True. A player who feels he can't trust his GM, should do one of two things:
a. Talk things over until trust is reestablished.
b. If (a) fails, cease the GM-Player relationship (in other words, leave)


“...it's the GM's game. (I'll take my dice and go home if you don't deal.)”Whether you like it or not, it is the GMs game, and the cynical parenthetical doesn't change that.


“...only the GM should know <some mechanic used in play>.” (This is like saying only one of the tennis players should see the ball.)
Comparison invalid. There is no contest and no score kept. If the GM feels it's appropriate for the players to be surprised at some point, he may choose to keep some aspect of play secret from them. Of course, just because he can doesn't mean he should, etc.


My question – does this actually occur in real life gamingSlightly less often than always.

[Sipex]

Fhaolan: My primary axiom is "Never let anyone disadvantage you in even the least way."

Now, maybe those with so-called 'authority' may overpower me through one way or another, but for me to give consent to them in such a way, even just by acknowledging that they have authority, that is like being in the French Revolution and then they expect you to chop off your own head.

Sipex: With respect, I will need to see more to draw the same conclusion as you.

I really really hope I'm wrong but right now I don't feel like I can't express an opinion on the original topic without being made 'the bad guy'.

On your arguement would you mind outlining how your usual D&D sessions go (or whatever system you play) and how your usual GM to player relationships are because I have a hard time picturing how it would work under the 'no authority' attitude you seem to have displayed.

edit: To clarify, I believe you may see your relationships in a different light where you and your DM/GM have a mutual agreement instead of the DM/GM being seen as having power.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Barring cases of depressives, people come to game to have fun.
Thing is, even in the most tightly knit groups, different players can have different ideas of what constitutes “fun”. Everyone can show up in the name of Having Fun, but that doesn’t mean they’ll all get along in the same type of game. So the GM has to know how to balance that, and the players have to know how to respect that balance. It also helps if the player’s know how to balance it themselves so if the GM misses something that’s a problem for one player, another player can help bring it to the GM’s attention.


So, no, it's not disrespectful or condescending to ask what it will take to get the other side to agree.
I think it would be better to ask what it would take for each side to understand the other’s points. Asking the other side to agree with you is still claiming you’re right and they’re wrong, no matter how it is worded. What you should be aiming for in most cases is to come to an understanding and then “agree to disagree.”

[golentan]

I really really hope I'm wrong but right now I don't feel like I can't express an opinion on the original topic without being made 'the bad guy'.

On your arguement would you mind outlining how your usual D&D sessions go (or whatever system you play) and how your usual GM to player relationships are because I have a hard time picturing how it would work under the 'no authority' attitude you seem to have displayed.

I'm having a hard time picturing how it would work in daily life... :smallconfused:

[Paseo H]

Actually, I am the DM.

And it's half-assed freeform BS.

It's sort of like we're both telling a story.

I could be more tight fisted about it, and have been tempted to, but then I'd be a filthy hypocrite.

Anyway, nobody even knows I'm a chaotic Knight Templar if they don't try to emphasize their 'authority.' In which case I will generally civilly try to state things in such a way that keeps the status quo, if acceptable, intact, while downplaying or denying their depraved false sense of power.

[Oracle_Hunter]

He's afraid that some DM's are like, instead of Sweet!,
DM: What? What are you talking about? There's no magic corps. They're the good guys! You're all supposed to work for them! Not the duke, he's my BBEG half-dragon velociraptor archblade 3/warfork 12! Veto!
Now, this is a fair reaction if the DM has already set up a world and there isn't any Magic Corps, much less a reason for Duke B to have them.

ANCEDOTE
Then again, I never kick off a campaign where such things are undecided unless they're supposed to be so. My last attempt at such a thing placed the PCs between a People's Revolution and a well-meaning but flawed Legitimate Authority. In the end the Players played each side off against each other until they got bored and jumped through a portal to Almost Certain Death in the Shadowfell :smalleek:

...I haven't run a Political Intrigue game since.
Anyhow, you have to respect the DM's world-building. If a Player has an idea which doesn't quite jive with the world-as-constructed, the DM should talk with the Player and try to work out a compromise.

Of course, in this example, if everyone wanted to go kill Duke B, then it is very easy to "steer" the PCs back towards the adventure you've planned - like having Evil Duke A steal the PC's sister to get him to go kill Duke B. The Magic Corp, of course, is pure propoganda :smallamused:

[Fhaolan]

Fhaolan: My primary axiom is "Never let anyone disadvantage you in even the least way."

Now, maybe those with so-called 'authority' may overpower me through one way or another, but for me to give consent to them in such a way, even just by acknowledging that they have authority, that is like being in the French Revolution and then they expect you to chop off your own head.


Fascinating. With that axiom it must be very difficult to not be under stress at all times. For example, if you were to take a trip to another country that required an airline flight, you are effectively ceding authority to the pilot. Otherwise you would be fighting with the pilot over who gets to steer the plane, because not being in control of the plane is a disadvantage.

Of course, you could always not fly until you have gained enough to own the plane and have the pilot as an employee. Would that count as valid?

In which case, you would only be comfortable in a classic GM-style RPG if you actually employ the GM and paid him a wage for running the game?

[Sipex]

Actually, I am the DM.

And it's half-assed freeform BS.

It's sort of like we're both telling a story.

I could be more tight fisted about it, and have been tempted to, but then I'd be a filthy hypocrite.

Anyway, nobody even knows I'm a chaotic Knight Templar if they don't try to emphasize their 'authority.' In which case I will generally civilly try to state things in such a way that keeps the status quo, if acceptable, intact, while downplaying or denying their depraved false sense of power.

This tells me a lot, you don't see yourself as the authority figure, just a mutual player and you're playing a system which doesn't require you to tightly enforce rules.

And I also see how our viewpoints differ. I thought you were against 'authority' period, but, if I read you right, you're more against people who laud it (which is totally understandable). You're thinking of a DM who acts as 'superior being' while I think of one who plays 'rules arbiter when needed'.

[Tyndmyr]

I see a lot of posts where GMs appear to claim some sort of 'special' status. Comments like:[list] “...can do <what I want> (because I'm the GM.)”

GMs are like the host of a party. Yes, the host can have a party where everyone does exactly what he wants them to, and demand respect, and all those other things. However, a good host would not.

A good GM, like a good host, will attempt to provide an entertaining time for all, and a good guest will hopefully attempt to contribute to this effort in some way.

It should never come to a contest of authority.

[Paseo H]

Maybe you have a point there.

EDIT: Hmm, there was a post earlier but now it's gone.

Oh well, good posts, those last few of you.

And it's more "I do deny all authority but I might not notice it and might be more willing to tolerate the status quo if they don't make a big show of it."

[Ytaker]

I remember a fun political game. The plot of it was basically a large organisation of vampires which had muscled into the area and was doing various horrific things to the populace. The players went their seperate ways and started fairly lawful careers as merchants, brothel owners, and librarians. Because they were so law abiding they had absolutely no interaction with the organization, and not much happened. A lot of lore got lost completely unread in that game.

Working out what your players want is a huge part of DMing. Much of the arrogance in the statements at the start limits your ability to do that.

[Gnaritas]

Fhaolan: My primary axiom is "Never let anyone disadvantage you in even the least way."

Now, maybe those with so-called 'authority' may overpower me through one way or another, but for me to give consent to them in such a way, even just by acknowledging that they have authority, that is like being in the French Revolution and then they expect you to chop off your own head.



It seems to me you have serious issues.
You also seem to think you are the only one who can decide what is disadvantaging to you. Sometimes things are arbitarily (probably misspelled horribly) and then you need an....arbiter. And yes, in a RPG there is always stuff you can think of that is not written out exactly in the rules.
You also seem to forget you are not supposed to win at RPG's.

I may be reading your post in a wrong way, but it seems to me you will not fit into most RPG-groups where the GM does in fact have 'authority'.

Did you also realise that GM stands for Game Master.....perhaps you should change that to Game Enabler or something...? Just to get rid of the feeling someone else is a 'master' and you are not! :smalleek:

[Paseo H]

Just because I'm crazy doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[Sipex]

Maybe you have a point there.

EDIT: Hmm, there was a post earlier but now it's gone.

Oh well, good posts, those last few of you.

And it's more "I do deny all authority but I might not notice it and might be more willing to tolerate the status quo if they don't make a big show of it."

I will point out just for informations sake that the last statement there really makes it seem like you're anticonformist for the sake of being anticonformist (instead of, say, thinking about it, weighing the pros and cons and deciding that the cons of authority outweigh the pros).

You may already realise this (and not care, which in that case, good for you) but I thought it might be helpful as it may explain to you why people tend to react negatively towards your attitude here (and possibly other places, I'm not sure).

[Paseo H]

It's fine, I'm well aware of the presence of a vocal number of Lawful types on these forums. It's one reason I stay out of the subforum for OOTS itself, at least this subforum maintains some civility and good sense.

[Raum]

Pretty much this. Are you honestly saying that you, as a GM, have never handed down a Fiat rule because it is, say, setting appropriate and then justified it as story appropriate or just "trust me on this till later?" Or just said "It's my job to entertain you."Can I guarantee I've never made arbitrary rulings? No. Too many years of GMing to say something like that. Besides, I was a poor GM by my own standards when I first started. It takes time to learn and improve. All that said, arbitrary changes have never been something I've liked, they may well be the item I was least guilty of - even as a beginning GM.


I don't do everything on the litany you posted, no. But I have said some of them, and object to them being portrayed in the worst possible of interpreted worlds. With the exceptions I've already owned up to, those statements were paraphrased from others.


And if you can honestly stand there and claim that you have not done such things because they were appropriate at the time without all the backbiting interpretation, then and only then will I break out the marmalade.

Much better than salt.If your criteria is my having been perfect, your hat is safe. :)


If the GM has more responsibility than the other players, then the GM should have more authority than the other players. In general; if any person doesn't have authority commersurate with their responsibility, it leads very rapidly to dissatisfaction with the situtation. This is true in all walks of life, not just RPGs.This is the best argument I've seen for use of hierarchical authority in gaming. Thanks!


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}I did? Where?

[Tyndmyr]

I am routinely referred to as "chaotic evil". However, I recognize that authority can be good and should not always be shunned.

In short, so long as your following of an authority is voluntary, life is great. If you dislike what they decide, you can leave. This solves a great many problems with abuse of authority.

Also, only use authority where needed. It has no value in itself, but only for achieving other things.

[Sipex]

{Scrubbed}

[Megaduck]

You don't like the term but you appear to claim the status. Or have I misinterpreted your analogy?


There is a difference between Separate jobs and saying "I'm special and therefor better."

Tyndmyr's host example is a good one. The host is neither better nor worse then the guests but different with different responsibilities.

[Paseo H]

People act like it's wrong to "want to be right," but on certain things that are central to ones worldview, where to be wrong would not only change things, but change them for the worse, wouldn't you want to be right too?

[Sipex]

Wanting to be right isn't a bad thing, everyone wants to be right, it makes you look good and feel smart. Wanting these things isn't a bad thing.

That said, 'wanting to be right' in the way stated more or less means 'Being seen as right without actually being right to the point where one won't concede to facts or admit to being wrong if need be.' which is a common internet arguement standpoint.

To have an intelligent discussion you have to have both sides of it willing to admit when they're wrong and concede if it makes sense.

[golentan]

If your criteria is my having been perfect, your hat is safe. :)

Never said that. Said that you never uttered some of them thar phrases or paraphrases because it *was appropriate*.

[Raum]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}The hat eating? I perceived the offer to eat a hat as humor and responded in kind. If I've failed to convey that appropriately, I apologize.

[Claudius Maximus]

I did? Where?

When Golentan said that he did some of the things on the list, you implied that he played by the whole list, which could be inferred to include the parenthetical statements. I don't think anyone here agrees with those.

Moreover, your first post in this thread contains some pretty fallacious rhetoric. You give a list of mostly reasonable GM statements and attach absurd parentheticals, and imply that those who practice the former also support the latter. And like I said I don't think the majority of the playground does.

To answer the question whether these things ever occur, yes, they most likely do. I'm sure someone out there is a railroading "my way or the highway" GM. We get threads every once in a while that supposedly report on such games. It doesn't mean that it's widespread.

[Sipex]

The hat eating? I perceived the offer to eat a hat as humor and responded in kind. If I've failed to convey that appropriately, I apologize.

No problem, I may have overreacted now that I've seen the discussion further.

[Tyndmyr]

I think it sadly is. I know multiple such GMs in real life. Admittedly, not the majority, but a fairly substantial minority. I'd say that a great deal of players have had the misfortune of dealing with one at some point.

[obliged_salmon]

Now, this is a fair reaction if the DM has already set up a world and there isn't any Magic Corps, much less a reason for Duke B to have them.

ANCEDOTE
Then again, I never kick off a campaign where such things are undecided unless they're supposed to be so. My last attempt at such a thing placed the PCs between a People's Revolution and a well-meaning but flawed Legitimate Authority. In the end the Players played each side off against each other until they got bored and jumped through a portal to Almost Certain Death in the Shadowfell :smalleek:

...I haven't run a Political Intrigue game since.
Anyhow, you have to respect the DM's world-building. If a Player has an idea which doesn't quite jive with the world-as-constructed, the DM should talk with the Player and try to work out a compromise.

Of course, in this example, if everyone wanted to go kill Duke B, then it is very easy to "steer" the PCs back towards the adventure you've planned - like having Evil Duke A steal the PC's sister to get him to go kill Duke B. The Magic Corp, of course, is pure propoganda :smallamused:

Right. The DM who works his bum off prior to start of campaign expects the players to toe the line. I think that's precisely the attitude OP is calling into question, however. What's missing is, why does the DM feel the need to work his bum off? Why can't he just take a vote among players? "Hey, what do you guys want to play? What kinds of worlds and story arcs are you interested in pursuing? Let's build the world together!"

That's how I like to run games. Then when we have an arc or conflict worth exploring, the players make characters who have goals and beliefs tied directly into that (and therefore probably wouldn't play both sides against each other and leap into the shadowfell).

However, you can't always have players who are willing to be so active and creative in the process, and that's where this kind of play can fall apart, and why DMs feel the need to create everything from scratch. Either that, or they just want the power trip of being ABLE to create everything from scratch, and nobody can fight them on it, cuz they're the DM.

All of the above is pure speculation and rhetoric based on my experiences, please feel free to disagree/debate any and all premises.

Addendum: As a player, I HATE when GMs make conflicts and characters without ever telling me, expecting me to somehow discover these things over the course of gameplay without any clues, hints, ideas, or motivations. There are quests and bad guys and treasure, but none of it means a danged thing if I don't have me some context. Then when the big bad shows up I'm somehow expected to care. NOPE.

[Paseo H]

When Golentan said that he did some of the things on the list, you implied that he played by the whole list, which could be inferred to include the parenthetical statements. I don't think anyone here agrees with those.

Moreover, your first post in this thread contains some pretty fallacious rhetoric. You give a list of mostly reasonable GM statements and attach absurd parentheticals, and imply that those who practice the former also support the latter. And like I said I don't think the majority of the playground does.

To answer the question whether these things ever occur, yes, they most likely do. I'm sure someone out there is a railroading "my way or the highway" GM. We get threads every once in a while that supposedly report on such games. It doesn't mean that it's widespread.

Even if every word out of your mouth is absolutely correct, and Raum is just trollfacing us now...

You have to admit, a good number of the replies here haven't exactly disproved his case.

You can say either that he's right and that many GMs do throw their weight around, or else they are easily provoked and allow themselves to be riled up by uppity trolls on the board.

That's not to say that there haven't been some constructive posters on the thread on the pro-GM side of things.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Right. The DM who works his bum off prior to start of campaign expects the players to toe the line. I think that's precisely the attitude OP is calling into question, however. What's missing is, why does the DM feel the need to work his bum off? Why can't he just take a vote among players? "Hey, what do you guys want to play? What kinds of worlds and story arcs are you interested in pursuing? Let's build the world together!"
If you have Players who are that active in world-building, I must say you're very lucky :smallbiggrin:

Personally, my Players are usually more focused on Character Building - which works out fine since I'm big on World Building.

That said, I do recall in my latest venture that one Player really did get into World Building with her backstory. Unfortunately, it assumed a lot of background details that just weren't true about even the broadest abstract of the world I had constructed. I probably could have (should have?) taken the time to work more closely with her, but the details weren't actually relevant to the campaign as introduced - which is to say, what all of the other Players were building their characters around.

Additionally, if you like cooperative world building, there are many games that either encourage it (Bliss Stage) or in fact make it the central conceit of the system (Shock: Social Science Fiction).

[Fhaolan]

People act like it's wrong to "want to be right," but on certain things that are central to ones worldview, where to be wrong would not only change things, but change them for the worse, wouldn't you want to be right too?

Nothing wrong with wanting to be right. The problem enters in when one cannot admit to being wrong. If one is always right, one never needs to change. If someone never changes, then they are far more Lawful than Chaotic.

In addition, if someone automatically behaves in the same way without thought then that person is predictable. Being predictable is also Lawful.

So to me, someone who always goes against authority automatically, especially only when they are made aware of it, is actually acting in a capital-L Lawful manner, even if it against the 'law'.

:smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

Right. The DM who works his bum off prior to start of campaign expects the players to toe the line. I think that's precisely the attitude OP is calling into question, however. What's missing is, why does the DM feel the need to work his bum off? Why can't he just take a vote among players? "Hey, what do you guys want to play? What kinds of worlds and story arcs are you interested in pursuing? Let's build the world together!"

If I work my tail off prior to a game on an awesome campaign world that I love, great. However, the players owe me nothing for that. It's stuff Im doing cause I want to, not because they asked me to or the like. If they want to play in a world Ive created, great! Im probably going to enjoy that. If they want to play elsewhere, that's cool too.

I'd like to see mutual campaign building, but in practice, I haven't seen more than two people actually building a world. Most people tend to limit input to "wouldn't it be cool if?".

[Raum]

Right. The DM who works his bum off prior to start of campaign expects the players to toe the line. I think that's precisely the attitude OP is calling into question, however. What's missing is, why does the DM feel the need to work his bum off? Why can't he just take a vote among players? "Hey, what do you guys want to play? What kinds of worlds and story arcs are you interested in pursuing? Let's build the world together!"Yes! It's why I used the tennis analogy earlier. "Control" of the story tends to get bounced around the table. The GM may guide it at times but so will other players. Any retcons and rule changes tend to be accomplished by consensus. Not fiat.

It's obviously not for everyone - that's certainly become clear in this thread. Previously I'd always wondered how many of the "GM is boss because he's GM" statements were simply rhetoric and hyperbole.

[Paseo H]

So to me, someone who always goes against authority automatically, especially only when they are made aware of it, is actually acting in a capital-L Lawful manner, even if it against the 'law'.:smallbiggrin:

Well, I sometimes do think that I'm so Chaotic that I've become Lawful. :smalltongue:

[Zuljita]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

...
Probably not, when we all have busy lives, (which is true in every gaming group I've ever been a part of) the act of taking time between sessions to work on something for the group's entertainment and enjoyment, is significant and has always been something groups I've been in have greatly appreciated. But, It's never been brought up by anyone specifically unless someone truly fails to show (by no call, no show) that they appreciate it. Appreciation doesn't need to be accolades or greeting cards, active participation when the game is in session, shows appreciation, and for most GMs (myself especially included) thats all we are looking for. If that didn't happen in my game, I would be looking to players for ways to improve their experience (In my short tenure here I've seen lots of threads looking for advice on this subject).

[Tyndmyr]

Yes! It's why I used the tennis analogy earlier. "Control" of the story tends to get bounced around the table. The GM may guide it at times but so will other players. Any retcons and rule changes tend to be accomplished by consensus. Not fiat.

I've always used a similar style. If someone brings up a house rule or the like, we chat about it a bit, then just generally decide for or against it. Works pretty well. Same for retcons, though they are generally disliked, and people rarely vote for them.

[randomhero00]

OP
All that stuff happens in my real life game :(

[Ecalsneerg]

I'm of the opinion that you have the "Gm and the PCs", not the "GM and the players." The GM should have final word, simply so you've got an adjudicator, but players should be able to discuss things, have setting input, and so forth.

I mean, when I GM, I don't think "Oh god, I'm having to put in all this work for you". I'm thinking "screw you guys stuck with one PC, I'm getting a dragon this week, and next week, an ogre mage!"

[Tyndmyr]

I mean, when I GM, I don't think "Oh god, I'm having to put in all this work for you".

I think this attitude comes up frequently when you have someone who would rather be playing. If you have a group where nobody wants to DM, it can suck a bit.

Im fortunate in that my usual group has a few of us who enjoy doing it, so we all get our playing fix and DMing fix, and rotate whenever we get bored of a system or campaign.

[obliged_salmon]

It's true that players aren't typically interested in world building (or at least, they don't jump up and say "can I help?")

Whether that's the CAUSE of GM's taking the reins (or else no game happens), or the EFFECT of GM's always taking the reins (such that they expect to have no say), is a mystery.

Anyway, here's how I like to start off talking about new campaigns, with something that looks like this:

burning sherwood (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?4298-Burning-Sherwood-Luke-s-Qs-Our-A-s&highlight=sherwood)

I sit down with the players prior to chargen and talk about what they want from their game.

These questions are derived from the mind of Luke Crane, creator of Burning Wheel, for the record.

[Britter]

I'd like to see mutual campaign building, but in practice, I haven't seen more than two people actually building a world. Most people tend to limit input to "wouldn't it be cool if?".

I would argue that in many cases, the GM symptoms listed in the OP, exagerated though they may be in some respects, actively impede cooperative world building.

In general, the majority of players have been trained to expect the world to be the DMs, and that their input will be rejected. Therefore they don't bother to offer any input. Honestly, many of the OPs points are things I have encountered (to varying degrees, natch) in actual play. Players grow to expect their input will be discarded or politely ignored. Heck, as a DM I have done exactly that in the past, much to my chagrin.

It is also my opinion that this is why many players write long, complex backstories full of all the interesting, awesome, dangerous things that have happened to their characters. They don't trust the DM to allow them to do the things they, as players, are interested in doing during the game, so the player chooses instead to enshrine those details in a place the DM can not touch, i.e. the backstory.

I will readily admit that smaller groups of more involved players make world building easier as a cooperative excersise. But I would wager that Obliged Salmon is talking less about the "traditional campaign world built by all of us together" and more about "what is it exactly that you guys want your characters to focus on within the greater context of the world? What conflicts interest you?".

In other words, the GM can and imo should do a lot of front-loaded planning, to create a situation pregnant with potential conflict, but he or she then turns that over to the players and says "whadda ya wanna do guys?". Play then revolves around the issues the players want to explore, with the GM trying his darndest to make achieving those goals difficult and to make failing to achieve them lead to interesting, often unexpected, complications and situations.

Edit: semi-ninjad by the Salmon. I too agree with Luke Crane's pre-game questionaire as a good starting point for the gaming I like to do.

[Tyndmyr]

Everything you said seems quite reasonable. I suspect you're right.

[Britter]

Everything you said seems quite reasonable. I suspect you're right.

Please note that my world-building and play models are very much idealized. I have yet to pull it off as well as I would like to in real life. I am still trying to improve myself as both player and GM in order to get ever closer to that ideal "perfect game".

[Daimbert]

I would argue that in many cases, the GM symptoms listed in the OP, exagerated though they may be in some respects, actively impede cooperative world building.

Of course, there's no necessary reason to think that cooperative world building is, in fact, actually good, or always good.


It is also my opinion that this is why many players write long, complex backstories full of all the interesting, awesome, dangerous things that have happened to their characters. They don't trust the DM to allow them to do the things they, as players, are interested in doing during the game, so the player chooses instead to enshrine those details in a place the DM can not touch, i.e. the backstory.

But what does this have to do with actual WORLD BUILDING? This is basically about plot and character building, and if they don't think the DM is going to give them the sort of plot or character building that they want the game is not going to go well.

Personally, I write long, complex backstories to build and explain who my character is, not to get some sort of adventure in that the game won't provide.



In other words, the GM can and imo should do a lot of front-loaded planning, to create a situation pregnant with potential conflict, but he or she then turns that over to the players and says "whadda ya wanna do guys?". Play then revolves around more or less the issues the player want to explore, with the GM trying his darndest to make achieving those goals difficult and to make failing to achieve them lead to interesting, often unexpected, complications and situations.

What you're describing is, essentially, a sandbox game. As a player, I dislike those because I want there to be some plot and structure. If it's too unstructured and if there's too little plot -- not coming from me or the other players -- then it will bore me and I won't play. I, in fact, play to participate in a story. As such, I'm not interested in the GM as foil, but the GM as facilitator of the story, making things hard or easy as required.

Even after re-reading it, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to play in a game like you describe above.

But also, doing this can be more work for the GM than a more limited world, because they have to find interesting things to do in reaction to what the players want to do. And if the players decide it all mostly in advance, there's no discovery in the world. The GM has to keep some things hidden so that they can be found. How much fun do you have with anything if you know, in advance, how it will turn out, but in outcome and mostly in details?

So, you risk the only hidden things being that they might fail by the dice or encounters, and for some that might work. For others, being caught between knowing it all and failure can be quite annoying.

[Britter]

For the record, I disagree that I am describing a sandbox game. I would argue I am describing the exact opposite; a game tightly focused on how the players react to a conflict in the game world, based on what their characters hold near and dear. It is my experience that my approach leads to very tight, specific play full of drama and action.

Now, you and I may very well have different ideas of what is meant by "world building" and that will of course affect how we view this issue.

As far as plot, frankly, I distrust a GM who comes to the table with a plot. That, to me, is a complicated way of saying "here, jump on my railroad and enjoy." I want to have the ability to write the "story" of the game as I play through my success and failure. This approach does not appeal to everyone, of course.

Edit, for further clarity. Regarding "Whadda ya want to do guys?" That conversation takes place BEFORE the game starts, and before the players roll characters. That way, everyone knows what the game is about before we even get to playing. Characters therefore fit the game, the players have clear goals in mind, and we can all attack the conflict directly.

I do NOT mean "roll characters. You are all in a tavern. Go forth and find plot hooks while I sit here and wait for you to do something." That, to me, is a sandbox game (and a badly put together one at that)

[Tyndmyr]

Please note that my world-building and play models are very much idealized. I have yet to pull it off as well as I would like to in real life. I am still trying to improve myself as both player and GM in order to get ever closer to that ideal "perfect game".

I suspect that's true for anyone realistic. I certainly have many things in both I wish to improve as well. Probably always be the case, IMO. Everyone starts off rough as a GM/world builder.

I think one of the big advantages of involving the players in world building, if they are so inclined, is that it's engaging. Anything you create tends to be generally more interesting that stuff other people make.

[obliged_salmon]

I think one of the big advantages of involving the players in world building, if they are so inclined, is that it's engaging. Anything you create tends to be generally more interesting that stuff other people make.

Exactly. For me, as a player, I like to say "my character's father was killed by the archduke, who is a major villain in our campaign," instead of, "my character's father was killed by the archduke...so why am I running around with these other weirdos chasing necromancers and half-dragons?"

[Raum]

Regarding cooperative world building - the Dresden Files RPG is worth checking out. It codifies building the city you're going to play in as a group activity - prior to character creation. Characters are created afterwards and tailored to fit the city as much (or as little) as the player desires. There's no "character doesn't fit the campaign" issues unless players choose to create a dichotomy intentionally.

(I've also used the city creation methodology in other game systems. It helps set expectations up front on what to expect in a given city.)

[Sipex]

Exactly. For me, as a player, I like to say "my character's father was killed by the archduke, who is a major villain in our campaign," instead of, "my character's father was killed by the archduke...so why am I running around with these other weirdos chasing necromancers and half-dragons?"

Oh yeah, this is an ideal for mid to long campaigns (where character can be explored and developed) and should be added where possible. Not so much that the PCs suspect every relative to pop up as a BBEG but enough that they go "MY BROTHER?! CURSE THE BASTARD!" if it turns out to be the case.

((For instance, our party rogue found out he had a brother then murdered him in cold blood after an epic duel for the fate of the continent in a recent session. It's too bad since there was a ton more story behind it but he decided that his brother, being willing to kill the continent, could only be punished with death))

[Britter]

Regarding cooperative world building - the Dresden Files RPG is worth checking out. It codifies building the city you're going to play in as a group activity - prior to character creation. Characters are created afterwards and tailored to fit the city as much (or as little) as the player desires. There's no "character doesn't fit the campaign" issues unless players choose to create a dichotomy intentionally.

(I've also used the city creation methodology in other game systems. It helps set expectations up front on what to expect in a given city.)

It is my opinion that game designers codify things like this in order to combat the negative GM actions brought up in the OP. Players who have some influence on the world are less likely to feel they are riding along the GMs rails with no say in the matter.

[Knaight]

Comments like:[list] “...can do <what I want> (because I'm the GM.)”
“...it's the GM's job to make / present / tell a 'good story'. (The players should simply support my story.)”
“...(my) story is more important than <some aspect of game play>.”
“...it's the GM's job to entertain. (The players just need to applaud when appropriate.)”
“...players should Trust the GM (no matter what he does).”
“...it's the GM's game. (I'll take my dice and go home if you don't deal.)”
“...only the GM should know <some mechanic used in play>.” (This is like saying only one of the tennis players should see the ball.)

Coming back to the beginning here, in regards to role division. I both play and GM frequently, and will be looking at all of these from both sides.

In the first one, it depends on <what the GM wants> is. As a GM I arbitrate, and operate based on what makes sense. However, in the game creation stage altering the rules, setting, etc. to however I want it is normal, as none of my players have enough information on setting to get the rules done. That said, I always keep several settings around, and will GM whichever is wanted, or make new ones as asked. Similarly, the players get what they want. As a player, my view is much the same, I expect that the GM will have something set up that provides framework, and have no issue with it. I'm also willing to use this settings however. If a player wants their character background to include parents killed by a noble (to use an example from earlier), who is thus major in the campaign, that's fine. I'll include the noble, and they always have the option of pursuing them, if they want to write in a more personal grudge, I'll ramp up the noble's efforts against them. The only thing likely to stop this would be something along the lines of a setting with no nobility.

As far as the second one, its never my story. Its not even our story, its the story, something that emerges from play, and over riding rules to make sure it goes a certain way is pointless. I'm not willing to fudge. That said, even as a GM, I don't mind fudging, if any of the players feel the dice must go one way for their fun, I have no problem. As a player, I consider overriding the agreed upon rules for the story annoying, and will leave a game if it becomes habitual.

How "its the GMs job to entertain" has a connotation of everyone else being a passive participant is beyond me. In any case, I would consider this looking at something from the wrong angle. Because of the role the GM takes most interactions come town to Player-GM in the metagame, meaning that the GM can insure that nobody is entertained, while a player can probably only ruin their own fun. An integral part of being a good GM is not doing that.

Yes, players should trust the GM. The GM should also trust the players. Presumably everyone involved is at least an acquaintance, trust should just be the default state in this. Given that nothing in the game is really all that important, given what a game is, trust should be the default state even if everyone playing is a stranger. Its a safe assumption that everyone has the same goals (a good time had by all), so trust becomes something much like respect. Its something you have, that you can lose. Furthermore, the easiest way to lose it is to insist that it is given to you, but that everyone else has to earn it.

Now, my position of trusting the players might be a little more extreme than most. I don't mind player fudging, don't check to make sure character sheets are legal, don't insist that all dice are rolled in the open, etc. If someone wanted to use a player screen, I have no issue with that, and this is from someone who completely avoids GM screens.

As for it being the GMs game, I think that was misunderstood. The GM has the most influence on how the game plays, particularly in regard to how well the game plays. As such, having stuff operate the GMs way makes sense. As a GM, I insist on this to some degree, because of how it is better for everyone. I won't GM D&D or Savage Worlds, period, because if I try to it won't end well and nobody will have fun. They are both so far away from my GMing style that I can either fight them, or go along with them extremely poorly. I prefer to GM Fudge, because I can actually work with it, but if the group of players as a whole prefers a different game that I can actually operate in, then I'll do that instead. The game system is just an easy example, other aspects to the game are every bit as relevant. As a player, I expect the GM to GM something they can actually GM. It works best for me that way.

As for mechanics, I don't mind the secrecy as a player. I don't need to know the mechanics to play, though I do read GM sections of games I'm going to be a player in by default. As a GM, all my mechanics are out in the open. So are my notes, with the exception of stuff that isn't ready to be viewed. I would prefer my public material be free of glaring grammatical errors, and devoid of the oddities of my notation, secrecy has nothing to do with it.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Thread locked. It did shape up pretty well near the end, but I had to do way to much scrubbing of the other pages.