The frequent suggestion on this thread (not just from JamesonCourage but also Ariosto, I think RC, and maybe others I'm forgetting) that a player has the right to walk from a GM's game is true but not really helpful.
I disagree. More to come.
We're here talking about what makes for better or worse GMing, across a range of editions of D&D (and some other games) and a range of playstyles. Given that purpose, I think there is a lot more to be said about how to GM well than simply "Exercise whatever power you want to subject to the knowledge that if your players really hate it, they'll quit your game".
That's true. I mean, I don't think anyone has disputed that. That seems to be an unfair attempt to shoehorn my post into something I didn't say. I never said, at any point, that the bit of above advice ("exercise whatever power you want to subject to the knowledge that if your players really hate it, they'll quit your game") is the only way to GM a game well. Ever.
I said that it's the right of the GM, when Hussar said the following:
Hussar said:
And this, right here, is where the problem comes. The DM has decided that you absolutely CANNOT do something. No matter what. No matter how much evidence you provide or how fun it might be at the table, at Ultramark's table, you absolutely cannot do this.
Do people honestly think that being the DM entitles you to this level of power over the game?"
The context of my quote was in response to that. It was not in response to "how would you describe, in a short paragraph, the best way to GM?" Had that been the case, my answer would have been dramatically different. To that end, I think the context of my quote is exceptionally important, since I think you've framed it unfairly (by comparing it to a question I have yet to comment on).
After all, no creative writing course gives instructions saying "Write whatever you want, subject to the knowledge that you'll only make money from it if you find a publisher who thinks the public and/or critics will like it." Part of the point of a creative writing course is to learn how to write stuff that will withstand critical scrutiny. Similarly, part of the point of this discussion is presumably to share a range of ideas about how a GM can make the play experience a better one (with "better" being relative to a range of rulesets, playstyles etc).
When it comes to the underlined section, you can bet I'll speak directly about it. However, once again, the quote you used from me is being applied to the wrong question.
As far as my thought on the underlined portion go, I'd say what I always do: play what you like. If you want to use all the rules, use them. If you want to use no rules, don't use any. If you want to compromise, do that. If you want to let the GM decide things without questioning it, do that. It's really that simple to me. It's too subjective. Find what works for you within your group dynamic and play that game.
For some rulesets, it's just not true that the GM has the level of power over the game of being entitled to say "yes" or "no" to a player's call in respect of any of his/her PC's action. Now for some potential players, that might be a reason to avoid those rulesets, or to add such a rule into the way they play the game. But it's also interesting to think about why a ruleset might be written which doesn't include such a rule, what sort of play experience it might be intended to promote, how that play experience might interact with other preferences and concerns at the table, etc.
That's true. I suppose that's relevant in a roundabout way to my quote. But again, if you apply my quote to it, it's out of context.
As far as playing with the ruleset (where the GM doesn't have the same level of veto power I commented on), I'd say play it if you like it. If you don't like it, don't play it. Pretty straightforward to me.
I can't honestly give much more advice on "how to GM well" when:
1) Enjoyment is way too subjective.
2) The type of game keeps changing in the conversation (GM has veto power, GM doesn't have veto power, etc.).
For example, if a 4e GM purports to veto the Knocked-down Snake, and a player queries that, I don't think it's very helpful to just start talking about "pushy" or "whiny" players who don't understand the GM's role.
That's true.
What sort of play experience is the GM trying to promote. If it's about the coherence of the GM's fiction, what is the GM's understanding of the players' contribution to that fiction? Does the GM object to knocking a snake down per se, or to the fact that the PC can do it willy nilly when in the real world it would be very hard, or what? If the GM won't allow a player takeback, is that because of the effect of takebacks on immersion, or because the GM thinks that players should be bound by some sort of equivalent to chess's "touch, move" rule, or what?
I'm guessing the end goal is subjective enjoyment, ideally. That's pretty much the common thread no matter which way you rule things.
Whether or not it would be productive to raise this sort of issue actually at the gaming table in question is one thing. But I can't see how it is remotely out of order to raise them on a discussion board.
Well, I think people have implied "this is the one true way to play for maximum fun" (including Hussar's quote above) but I don't know who you think wants to stop talking about it. I think it's fine to talk about this at the gaming table. Preferred, even, if it helps the group find what they like. But, I know you meant (I think...) that it shouldn't pop up regularly at it, and I'll pretty much agree with you.
And once these sorts of questions are put into play, I can't see that the range of satisfactory, considered responses is exhausted by "Of course a GM has that sort of power, but equally players are free to quit the game". The actual history of RPG design and play shows that other things are possible!
Yeah, they're possible. I never implied they weren't. I never said that the only way to play the game is how you portrayed me. The context of my quote was very different from how it was portrayed, and that's a little disconcerting to me.
If we want to start giving tips on how to run a game better, I'm down. The majority focus has not yet slipped there, nor have I addressed it in-depth yet. Especially not in the quote of mine you used.
EDITED TO ADD:
One of the premises of a creative writing course is that even if you know what you like when you see it, it can be non-trivial to proudce that stuff yourself. Presumably the same is true for GMing. So while I agree that people should play what they like, I nevertheless think that critical reflection can help work out what it is that they're doing that is contributing to them getting what they like, and what it is that they're doing that is impeding them getting what they like. I will freely admit that my game has improved by becoming more self-conscious about my conception of the function of the rules, the GM, the way these can relate, the range of purposes they can serve, etc. Am I really an outlier? Is everyone else already running a game that is (by their own lights) the very best that it can be?
I'm not sure where you're headed with this, honestly. Can you help me out? If the rhetorical questions were leading somewhere, I unfortunately missed it.
