GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[macd21]

Then one of the previous players decides to GM, and the game goes on, though maybe with a different setting or even game. "Life finds a way."

At which point that GM will be the one with the authority to decide what is in the game. The role of GM has moved, and the authority has moved with it.

A lot of that heavy lifting is optional, self-inflicted, and built on the backs of what @Ovinomancer talks about with the whole myth constructed around all the hard work of GMing: e.g., campaign/adventure prep, world-building, etc. This is particularly true if you are running something basic like Dungeon World or using no myth roleplaying techniques.

The fact that any of the heavy lifting is optional and/or self-inflicted is irrelevant - it's still heavy lifting. And even a game with 0 campaign/adventure prep or world building still requires heavy-lifting - that of actually running the game itself. In my experience, the vast majority of players do not want to run a game, and are happy to concede authority to someone who will.

If Player 4 wants to, they can offer to run a campaign. They will then become the GM. And when they do, they will have the authority to restrict character options. Player 4 can declare that no humans are allowed. If the OP's GM (now in the role of a player) doesn't like it, they don't have to play.

 

[Aldarc]

The fact that any of the heavy lifting is optional and/or self-inflicted is irrelevant - it's still heavy lifting. And even a game with 0 campaign/adventure prep or world building still requires heavy-lifting - that of actually running the game itself. In my experience, the vast majority of players do not want to run a game, and are happy to concede authority to someone who will.

If Player 4 wants to, they can offer to run a campaign. They will then become the GM. And when they do, they will have the authority to restrict character options. Player 4 can declare that no humans are allowed. If the OP's GM (now in the role of a player) doesn't like it, they don't have to play.

See @Ovinomancer's half-a-dozen earlier posts that already addresses this.

 

[macd21]

See @Ovinomancer's half-a-dozen earlier posts that already addresses this.

I'm aware of the post. Nothing in it changes the fact that the GM gets to decide what will or won't be included in the campaign. Ovinomancer's belief that players have been 'indoctrinated' to believe GMing is hard (a stance I find nonsensical) doesn't change the fact that the campaign doesn't get played if the GM doesn't want to run it. If Player 4 decides to overcome their 'indoctrination' and run a game, like I said, they're now the GM and they now have the authority to decide what is and isn't in the campaign.

Ovinomancer thinks there's something wrong with a GM refusing to run a game, whereas I think the expectation that a GM should run a game they're not happy with is ridiculous and entitled. If Player 4's pitch meets with demands that they change it, and Player 4 isn't happy with the impact those changes would have on the campaign, then there's nothing wrong with Player 4 refusing. It's certainly not 'edging towards abusive,' as Ovinomancer would have it. No gaming is better than bad gaming, and a GM running a game they're not happy with is bad gaming.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I happily ban half the material in the PHB in my games. I've never had a complaint, and several players have listed my campaigns as the best they ever played in. The key is being clear upfront with players/potential players - this is even before Session 0. For me, it's part of the invitation to join or start a game.

Not all tables are right for everyone. I have no problem with someone deciding not to play in my games because they don't like how I do it. I've left groups before for the same reasons; there's no hard feelings.

 

[Crusadius]

Sigh. No. It's an exercise in consensus seeking. If the player really one thing A, but the GM doesn't, then there needs to be negotiation. If negotiation fails, then no game. If a sufficient majority opinion forms, that's the ticket -- dissenters can then agree or go their separate way. In all of this, the GM is not privileged. The very question you pose assumes the GM has some moral authority they should wield here, when what should be happening is a group of players picks the game they all most want to play together.

The very idea that the GM has authority over this negotiation is edging towards abusive. It's the GM acting as dictator over something outside of the game -- the very choice of game to begin with. In this, the GM's opinion is equally valid as the players. Or, in other words, there's nothing special about the GM's creative vision that makes it better than anyone else's. In fact, the only leverage a GM actually has is the threat to not run a game. This is usually coupled with long indoctrination that running games is hard, so players shy away from it, closing the gates to more GM's and allowing the existing GM to threaten to remove access to force their way on the group. If you think this is an okay way to act, well, we're just probably going to disagree.

Once buy-in is achieved, if a player goes against the agreed to framework, they're the jerk. And, not everyone has to buy-in, if the group majority wants Game A, and the dissenters Game B, they can go find it somewhere else. This is just like deciding to go bowling with a group of friends, but one begs off because they're just not feeling bowling tonight.

It's not really. Its an exercise in convincing the person who has volunteered to run the game. The final decision is made by that person. If you can sweet talk the GM, or bribe them with food, then you're in luck. If not, then either the Players accept the game on offer, or the GM asks which of the Players will run the game.

In the end the GM is the final arbiter of what game they're running and what character options are available to the Players. Perhaps all are, perhaps only humans are. Even the game itself, whether it be D&D, Cyberpunk or Mörk Borg.

I've often had the GM ask the Players what game we'd like them to run and given a list, and the Players talk about it and come to a decision. Other times the GM has just said "I'm running Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, you're using the random tables for generating a character, are you in?". But it's always been a game the GM wants to run, and anything out of the ordinary was always with the GM's permission.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship. I agree!

Judgmental, and wrong.

 

[Jd Smith1]

See @Ovinomancer's half-a-dozen earlier posts that already addresses this.

Actually, they don't.

 

[Jd Smith1]

A lot of that heavy lifting is optional, self-inflicted, and built on the backs of what @Ovinomancer talks about with the whole myth constructed around all the hard work of GMing: e.g., campaign/adventure prep, world-building, etc. This is particularly true if you are running something basic like Dungeon World or using no myth roleplaying techniques.

That heavy-lifting is the campaign. Ovin doesn't grasp that, and neither do you.

Good GMs invest time, thought, and prep into a campaign, particularly one that is intended to run for 50-70 sessions, and does not involve systems that stink.

I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.

 

[Umbran]

If the GM has prepared things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, they're the jerk.

Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship.

Mod Note:
You made it into a blanket personal insult, which doesn't fly in these parts.

What a judgmental attitude.

And you made it a directly personal thing.

Both of you then continue to argue, trying to claim the other guy was in the wrong, when you are both being disrespectful. It makes both of you look... pretty bad.

So, both of you, cut it out. Thanks.

 

[Aldarc]

That heavy-lifting is the campaign. Ovin doesn't grasp that, and neither do you.

Good GMs invest time, thought, and prep into a campaign, particularly one that is intended to run for 50-70 sessions, and does not involve systems that stink.

I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.

You are making a lot of assumptions, and your tone here is hardly indicative of good faith discussion.