If the DM position was seen closer to that of a tie-breaker, what would happen? I don't think it would change much in the obvious sense, because I feel like the majority of the time, the same things happen anyways. The rest of the players either don't have an opinion or don't know, so they default to trusting the DMs opinion. But maybe more people would be willing to speak up, or help the DM, with implementing parts of the rules, if it felt more like they were allowed to.
Well, even in a group-agreement model, you're going to need a tiebreaker under some circumstances so the GM might as well be the one.
Not to call you out specifically, Dragonsbane, but your post kind of shows my original point.
The very first thing you said is that the group follows you. You are establishing that the majority of the table votes with you on most points. And, if a player protests, you essentially tell him that the role of DM is special, and that if they want the ability to do what they want, then they can run their own game.
Which, de facto, especially for an online game, would mean leaving the game and leaving all the people they are playing with, and abandoning all the time they've put into this game. It is, in a way, a threat.
I think it absolutely is, honestly. At its best, its saying "My way or the highway" in a more civil way.
See, this is only possible if you have multiple groups to play with. Because you are really just looking for people who agree with you. You wouldn't run that game with those players though.
And, if you are in a situation where you can't just casually scare up five new people to play with, I think many people would try to find a different game to run.
Yeah, there's frequently an overly-casual attitude toward acquiring new players and GMs in these discussions that may well be the case in a lot of places, but is absolutely not in at least a fair number more. "Better no gaming than bad gaming" and all that, but what translates into "bad enough I'd rather just not play" is going to vary considerably while still landing in the land of "this is fairly annoying."
We as DMs often are not confronted by the entire table disagreeing with us. So it is hard to think up "valid" examples. One of those examples is the campaign pitch. I know there are many DMs on this forum who are long-term DMs for long-term groups, running multiple campaigns back to back.
And generally, those DMs bring multiple pitches, because if they only brought one, and it is shot down, they aren't going to say "I'm the DM and this is what we are doing anyways."
And many many times, when someone gives an example of a single player vs the DM, the rest of the table is assumed to side with the DM. Granting them that extra authority of the group, but I think this is mistaken for being the DMs sole authority.
Which is why I keep bringing up this point, what happens when the vast majority of the group disagrees with the DM? If the DM truly has an ultimate authority and final say, then they would get their way. But, I feel like what often happens is they back down, because the group has more authority than the DM alone.
Of course the problem is, as I referenced, that a lot of groups will have one or more players who are non-confrontational; that's a two-edged sword in this situation because, on one hand, they aren't going to tell the standalone player that he's being unreasonable, but they're also far, far less likely to tell the GM they think that he's wrong, not the least because of the assumed power dynamic there in the hobby as a whole.
So, to give a quick pivot to the question, would anyone here have a problem if a current or former DM wanted to play in their campaign? They have full access and knowledge of the Monster Manual and the DMG, they are probably going to instantly recognize clues that you leave about the various monsters, even some of the obscure things.
I'm probably a bad example, because I play with groups where half or more of each group are GMs too, so I never assume "secret" information in any books.
Yeah, there is a lot of this idea floating around that the player who argues with the DM is "causing a problem"
Well, when you have on one hand the idea that the GM defaults to being right, and the other than anything that interrupts the flow of the game is "bad", that's pretty much the expected final result.
People are gathering to have fun, not cause problems, so they don't argue with the DM. But this makes the players more passive, and the consquences of that can cause ripple effects.
And why I'm often suspicious of claims from GMs online that "My players have no problem with it." No, at best your players have no problem
they've chosen to share with you, and there can be all kinds of reasons for
that, and having no problem is only one of them
.