Celebrim
Legend
No, I wasn't responding to you as I did because I was emotional and overwrough and had lost my senses. And no, I don't know what you are trying to say with all these political metaphors.
Private ownership is technically Liberalism, and not Capitalism, but anyway.
That is indeed how things usually work, at least under a Liberal economic system a person is entitled to the fruits of his own labor. Generally speaking, when I run a game I make the division as follows - the players own their characters, their character's backstories, and all their actions that take place in the game. I own everything else. By virtue of the fact that I am the game provider and that the largest bulk of the economic cost, certainly in time and usually in money, falls on me, and by virtue of my position as arbiter and referee of the game, I'm in charge of the game. I don't believe I've ever met a player that found that relationship unfair. Granted, my six year old once complained about it until I pointed out to her that while she only got to be one character and I got to be many, her character was the protagonist and therefore the most important but she was six and its understandable that this obvious point would not immediately occur to her.
Yes; yes, I do. And in my experience, these beliefs are justified. I generally have a waiting list, as more people would like to be at my table than I am able to handle.
Mixed metaphor alert. Are the players more like customers, who consume a product I provide, or are they more like employees? I personally prefer to think of them more like players, and I think your whole metaphor is merely obfuscation. We have suitable language to discuss the game master and player relationship without resorting to metaphors, so lets do so. The analogies are inherently less accurate than simply talking about the thing itself.
It does not follow. Even if I have an authoritarian stance at the table, it doesn't necessarily follow that I desire the players to jump through any particular hoops in the story line. I run a flexible narrow-broad-narrow campaign structure which typically has planned branching points, and I typically tailor linearity to suit the tastes of the players. If the players want a railroad, I'll put it there for them. If they have their own ideas of whats entertaining and are highly proactive, then I'll expand the sandbox.
However, I insist on my fair wages. The game has to be fulfilling to me, or I won't run it. The players don't have to consume the product I provide, but I refuse to provide a product unless I derive some satisfaction from the experience. The DM is there to entertain the players, but the players are their to entertain the DM (and the other players).
I get the feeling from the rest of your post, that I'm not the one with the baggage.
I'm only quoting this to explain it to Hobo, who didn't understand why this was relevant. It's an attempt to argue from authority. It's basically saying, "When you are as mature and experienced as I am, then you'll have a different perspective." Of course, like many other assumptions about me, it fails to realize that not only do I have kids, but I also wrote my own gaming system for them (Simple Imaginative Play System), and referee story games for them as well.
