Why does the stigma of the "jerk GM" still persist in our hobby?

[Aldarc]

Maybe if you are a glutton for punishment. During the threeish DMs that I encountered who were like this, I walked out after one session and I didn't even finish out the night in one of them. There is not other resort that I'm going to try UNLESS I know that the DM is very new and these are just growing pains caused by a lack of understanding. Then I will help the DM.

Okay. That's a good point that your response to the "jerk GM" may differ based on your sense of their experience. But let's bring this back to my earlier point about whether "leaving the table" constitutes an actual check on GM privileges. You have left the table. What has actually changed at the table? How exactly has the GM been "checked" by this act? How has the GM's authority actually been censured or rebuked? If the other players remain and your spot is later filled, then what did your "check" accomplish? How was that a "check" at all?

Normally when we think of a 'check' in a system of "checks and balances," as per its most common parlance, we are talking about an option within a system of rules with a division of power that authorizes one party to nullify or limit the power of another party, generally within certain areas. Walking away from the table, IMHO, is essentially an "extra-table" act where you reject the 'government' or 'table' entirely and emigrate. I don't think that a US civics class would necessarily list "revolt" or "Screw you guys; I'm going home," for example, as part of the outlined checks that Congress can exercise on executive authority. It's about like calling rats leaving a sinking ship a "floatation device."

Edit: Corrected a "pedantic" error.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay. That's a good point that your response to the "jerk GM" may differ based on your sense of their experience. But let's bring this back to my earlier point about whether "leaving the table" constitutes an actual check on GM privileges. You have left the table. What has actually changed at the table? How exactly has the GM been "checked" by this act? How has the GM's authority actually been censured or rebuked? If the other players remain and your spot is later filled, then what did your "check" accomplish? How was that a "check" at all?

Normally when we think of a 'check' in a system of "checks and balances," as per its most common parlance, we are talking about an option within a system of rules with a division of power that authorizes one party to nullify or limit the power of another party, generally within certain areas. Walking away from the table, IMHO, is essentially an "extra-table" act where you reject the 'government' or 'table' entirely and immigrate. I don't think that a US civics class would necessarily list "revolt" or "Screw you guys; I'm going home," for example, as part of the outlined checks that Congress can exercise on executive authority. It's about like calling rats leaving a sinking ship a "floatation device."

I think it is perfectly valid for games to have mechanics that give players more control. That is a preference issue. I am a little wary of the idea that such mechanics can or should be present to alter peoples' behavior (in terms of being a good person at the table). I don't think we need to treat a table of five people like a republic made up of millions. Five people should be able to figure this stuff out without requiring some kind of system to check one another's behavior.

 

[Hussar]

No, but, by the same token, setting things up so that one person at the table has virtually all the authority over the game and the only recourse for a player is to leave makes for some very problematic social interactions.

 

[Sadras]

Sometimes it is easier to stand up to the combined might of Tiamat, Zuggtmoy and Vlaakith CLVII, carrying only a solitary potion of healing and a bag of holding, than deal with jerk DM face-to-face.

 

[Aldarc]

I think it is perfectly valid for games to have mechanics that give players more control. That is a preference issue. I am a little wary of the idea that such mechanics can or should be present to alter peoples' behavior (in terms of being a good person at the table). I don't think we need to treat a table of five people like a republic made up of millions. Five people should be able to figure this stuff out without requiring some kind of system to check one another's behavior.

I am not arguing (here at least) whether or not these mechanics should be present as behavior modifiers. What I question is the argument put forth that "walking away from the table" constitutes a check to GM authority and privilege.

 

[Sadras]

What I question is the argument put forth that "walking away from the table" constitutes a check to GM authority and privilege.

I guess for most DMs, I assume, this would not sit well and perhaps for jerk DM's (who presumably don't give a damn) this won't be enough to shake them. All of this is speculation ofcourse.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. That's a good point that your response to the "jerk GM" may differ based on your sense of their experience. But let's bring this back to my earlier point about whether "leaving the table" constitutes an actual check on GM privileges. You have left the table. What has actually changed at the table? How exactly has the GM been "checked" by this act? How has the GM's authority actually been censured or rebuked? If the other players remain and your spot is later filled, then what did your "check" accomplish? How was that a "check" at all?

Because, tyrants fear a loss of power and if the DM loses his players, he loses all power. When a player stands up, lets the DM know what he did wrong and why he is leaving, and then walks out, that player stands as encouragement to the other players and tyrants know that. Human nature causes people to be afraid to be the first, but once someone is, the dam often breaks.

The tyrant would rather act less tyrantish and keep the power, than continue to be a tyrant and lose it all. These guys aren't dictators with armies to force people to comply, so they are the one to comply if they want to keep the game going.

It won't work every time, but it will work often enough that it is a check to the power of the DM.

Normally when we think of a 'check' in a system of "checks and balances," as per its most common parlance, we are talking about an option within a system of rules with a division of power that authorizes one party to nullify or limit the power of another party, generally within certain areas. Walking away from the table, IMHO, is essentially an "extra-table" act where you reject the 'government' or 'table' entirely and immigrate. I don't think that a US civics class would necessarily list "revolt" or "Screw you guys; I'm going home," for example, as part of the outlined checks that Congress can exercise on executive authority. It's about like calling rats leaving a sinking ship a "floatation device."

Funny, I'm sure that I noticed multiple government shut downs(a check that involves "Screw you guys; I'm going home) in recent decades. One fairly recently.

 

[Maxperson]

No, but, by the same token, setting things up so that one person at the table has virtually all the authority over the game and the only recourse for a player is to leave makes for some very problematic social interactions.

If you give that jerk any other system, he's still going to be a jerk. The problem is the person, not the system. For the vast majority of DMs, with great power comes great responsibility and they act like it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

Because, tyrants fear a loss of power and if the DM loses his players, he loses all power. When a player stands up, lets the DM know what he did wrong and why he is leaving, and then walks out, that player stands as encouragement to the other players and tyrants know that. Human nature causes people to be afraid to be the first, but once someone is, the dam often breaks.

The tyrant would rather act less tyrantish and keep the power, than continue to be a tyrant and lose it all. These guys aren't dictators with armies to force people to comply, so they are the one to comply if they want to keep the game going.

It won't work every time, but it will work often enough that it is a check to the power of the DM.

What you are leaving out is the part where you demonstrate how this constitutes a "check." It's an assumption built on assumptions and then disguised as an argument.

Funny, I'm sure that I noticed multiple government shut downs(a check that involves "Screw you guys; I'm going home) in recent decades. One fairly recently.

I don't think it's applicable. But I also will not engage further since this skirts the bounds of forum etiquette.