GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Ovinomancer]

A power relationship can be unequal without it being dysfunctional.

Sure, but this doesn't disprove anything.

When it comes to defining the setting of a campaign, the GM has more authority than the players. Earlier you said that if a sufficient majority opinion forms, 'that's the ticket,' and dissenters can leave, but that's not true, because if the dissenters include the GM, the game doesn't get played. It only works if the majority includes the GM.

The GM may have that authority in game. This really depends on the game being played. And, given that it does, it's a poor excuse for carrying that outside of the game.

And, I've addressed the GM opting out. This isn't as crazy as you seem to thing -- it happened in the OP. The first pitch failed.

The GM has more power in this relationship because they're the one who will be doing the heavy lifting, and without them the campaign doesn't happen. That's not dysfunctional, and in my experience it's a relationship dynamic that players are happy to accept (as it means they get to play without having to come up with a campaign themselves).

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.

Nope. If this was true -- if something I chose to do unilaterally gave me authority over others -- then there'd be a lot of strange interactions in the world. I could, for instance, demand you come to my party because I worked hard on it. I could, for instance, demand you eat my cooking because I worked hard on it. I could, for instance, demand you live in this shack because I worked hard on it. The labor the GM willingly takes on doesn't require any deference on the part of others.

And I say this as a GM that often works hard on my games.

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.

I think no such thing, and have been very clear to say that NO ONE should play in a game they don't want to play in. This isn't a GM vs player argument -- I've expressly rejected this distinction. It's a peer-to-peer argument -- everyone at the table is a peer when deciding what game to play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Ignoring the insults, but, yes, I have. I've played in them and have run them. Notebooks full of material, dense maps, lots of sideplots and details. I'm totally not unfamiliar with this play, and think it can be great fun, even if I've largely abandoned the effort. Do not mistake a difference of opinion for a lack of experience. And, that difference is that I don't see how any of this gives the GM authority when the group is discussing what game to play. A player having poured effort into a concept doesn't oblige anyone else.

 

[Jd Smith1]

While I love pointing out the errors in others as much as any guy who is definitively right, when red text enters a thread, it is time to change the subject. I think the poll says it all, really.

 

[macd21]

Ignoring the insults, but, yes, I have. I've played in them and have run them. Notebooks full of material, dense maps, lots of sideplots and details. I'm totally not unfamiliar with this play, and think it can be great fun, even if I've largely abandoned the effort. Do not mistake a difference of opinion for a lack of experience. And, that difference is that I don't see how any of this gives the GM authority when the group is discussing what game to play. A player having poured effort into a concept doesn't oblige anyone else.

Because when the group is discussing what game to play, the range of options is first defined by what the GM is willing to run. Players can ask the GM to include or exclude certain elements, but the decision is the GM’s. If a player doesn’t like it, they can exit the discussion.

 

[Aldarc]

While I love pointing out the errors in others as much as any guy who is definitively right, when red text enters a thread, it is time to change the subject. I think the poll says it all, really.

Ah, yes. "A forum filled primarily with GMs vote in favor of the GM based on a topic framed by the GM."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because when the group is discussing what game to play, the range of options is first defined by what the GM is willing to run. Players can ask the GM to include or exclude certain elements, but the decision is the GM’s. If a player doesn’t like it, they can exit the discussion.

Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because when the group is discussing what game to play, the range of options is first defined by what the GM is willing to run. Players can ask the GM to include or exclude certain elements, but the decision is the GM’s. If a player doesn’t like it, they can exit the discussion.

No, the range of games the GM will play in is limited by what the GM is willing to run. There may be no consensus and therefore no game, but this doesn't privilege the GM in the conversation. Thinking so is assigning authority to the GM outside of the game because of authority inside the game. This isn't a good social interaction.

Here's how it play's out: a player pitches a game. Presumably they might also run it, but this isn't required -- my next game starting in January was pitched by a player, agreed to by the group, and will be GM'd by me. But, usually it's the GM pitching.

1) no consensus forms. The pitch fails, and another pitch is needed.
2) A consensus forms, everyone is onboard -- the game happens.
3) A consensus forms, but a player or two does not join. Those players find something else to do, and the game happens.
4) A consensus forms, but the GM does not join. You either get a new GM or you try a different pitch.

You're looking at case 4), and declaring that the GM has authorities in cases 1-3 because case 4 might obtain. This is a flawed reasoning -- that case 4 might exist is not sufficient to grant the GM additional authorities over the other cases, nor to make a pitch that is absolute. There's tons of cases of a GM being unable to get together a game they want to run because they can't find sufficient players to accept their concept. This isn't exactly rare.

If the other players don't want to play in the pitched game, even after negotiation. this doesn't elevate the GM to be able to override just because that game won't happen now. That would be the point.

Also note that none of this presumes players have any ability to dictate to the GM in these talks. I'm advocating for a healthy peer-to-peer discussion, not slipping in a claim that players should have authority to dictate because of reasons.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.

They could, but they're not required to, either. No one has a duty or authority in this negotiation.

 

[billd91]

Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.

Or hear them out and decide that the suggested input doesn't work, also like an adult.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or hear them out and decide that the suggested input doesn't work, also like an adult.

That isn’t a distinct suggestion from the one I made. I implied no outcome.

It’s a conversation.