I disagree. I think you might have (as well as a few other posters who replied to him).
It is a bald statement. How
else could it be interpreted? If I say that Norway is near Atlantic City then there is no way to reinterpret that as Norway is near Sweden. It is very much a yes/no statement. He either wrote what he wrote, or he didn't. I am willing to bet on the former.
That's not my interpretation either, so I'm not sure where you got it.
From reading his post. It allows no room for the GM to be wrong - even if the GM
is wrong then the GM is the
only one that matters.
Sounds like you do that, though. If you won't allow a player a prestige class, or to play elves in your homebrew, or a particular magic item, or the ability to fly because they want to, etc... then you've said, "this is the way it is in my game." That's very much My Way or The Highway.
No - because
I allow room for 'whoops! Sorry, bad idea!' In short, I do not claim to be a god. Which was confirmed in subsequent posts that, yes, that
is what Pilgrim meant.
I
do withhold the right to say 'Sorry! No Oozemasters in the Reformation Hesiar!' But I do not do so if it is not fun for all concerned, and I
do give them my reasons. ('Errr, you do know that they are still burning folks for witchcraft in this area, don't you? Even licensed wizards in the Church lands need to be careful. An Oozemaster in Iconoclast lands will be burned at the stake the first time he starts to drip....'
) *Again, not a random example - a License is a form of Indulgence, allowing the wizard to commit an acknowledged sin in return for coin or service to the Church. It got tied in with Indulgences in general by the Iconoclasts when Maddeus nailed his proclamation to the door. The Traditionalist churches don't consider magic to be a sin at all, though it may be used in their commission.*
Should the players all disagree, I might be moved, but never once has that happened. There has never even been a plurality.
I put most of this information is in the campaign bible, before the campaign starts. With the exception of things brought to me mid campaign, in which case I will think about it for maybe two weeks before deciding, unless it is massively excellent or moronic. ('A feat for using the haft of a polearm in combat? Hell, yeah! Did you ever see the footage of that Swiss guard?...' - 'A feat for firing a whole bunch of arrows at once?! Yeah... no. You can miss a whole lot without taking the Manyshot feat if you want, though, taking the feat won't change that.')
I do not, as a non random example, put in a 'random PC explosion rule'. (Not making that up - though it is possible that the person that told me about it was.)
I do not, as another non random example, declare a houserule that all 1s are life threatening fumbles. Which, let us not forget, is the core of this whole discussion. The GM has put in a houserule that is making the players unhappy.
Um, this is what I've been trying to comment on... a My Way or The Highway approach is both normal, and additionally does not in any way indicate that the game will be run poorly. I feel like you keep trying to attach them, and it's not inherently the case. At all.
We have a bit of an 'if a tree falls' problem here. If I set up an intractable rule 'No evil PCs! Ever!' and the players agree,
is it My Way or the Highway?
On most campaigns I have that very rule, and never once have I had a concerted disagreement from the players.
See, this seems to be a recurring theme in your My Way or The Highway GMs. The phrase, to me, does not mean Railroad GM. That's a separate thing. My Way or The Highway means that what you say goes. It does not make you a bad GM, and it does not mean you railroad people.
Not all of my examples were Railroads, though two were.
The rest was a series of GMs pushing through their agenda against concerted player disagreement, and the GMs losing - every single time.
Perhaps a better way for me to phrase it is 'My Way or the Highway only works if your game is
worth it.' Nothing in the OP's description, or in Pilgrim's bald statement, makes me think that it
is worth it in those instances.
When D tried his schtick with the XP, his game was Not Worth It, and we walked.
When W tried to allow his BFF to run the entire party it was Not Worth It, and we gave him the boot.
When E tried to run an overly controlled Railroad, it was Not Worth It, and I got his players. When he corrected his mistakes then it Was Worth It, and he started GMing again.
When A was a stoner... nah, his game was Never Worth It to Begin With. We just got sick of his trying to run Call of Cthulhu while stoned.
His paranoia was the least of the reasons. He was just plain a lousy GM.
If you have a concerted group of players that are not happy, then the My Way or the Highway
won't work. (Why do I feel like I am about to start quoting from the Communist Manifesto?)
It is not a matter of 'anything I say, goes' it is a matter of ruling with the will and consent of the People.
In your case it is entirely possible that it is Worth It. Have you
ever had to push something through against concerted player disagreement? If so, did it work?
I gave examples, how about the other side?
I curried some chicken, some veg, and had it over rice.
The Auld Grump
