LOL don't worry, it isn't.
Ridiculous. You seem to think a GM is the employee of the players. That's absolutely not the case. It is a group activity but it is one that is assymetric in regards to work input. A group is absolutely entitled to play what they want to play but they don't get to force a GM to run a game they want to run just because the vote is 5 to 1. Instead, that's a group that should be a GM and 4 players.
Consensus, discussion, voting, random chance if you really feel like it, consulting an expert or independent third party. All the usual ways by which social groups determine what should be done besides autocracy.
Who said that?
What if there is no consensus? If the players want something the DM doesn't want, and no consensus can be reached, no majority vote or roll of the dice is going to make the DM run that game. One of the players can be the new DM, with the old DM either staying on as a player in the new game or walking. Or no one DMs, and the group comes up with a new idea everyone can agree on.
@Hussar , the person I was responding to.
Then the group is incapable of gaming together and, realistically, shouldn't have been allowed to get to the point where this became a dealbreaker.
Unless you have an exact quote, or Hussar explicitly says otherwise, I'm pretty sure this is putting words in their mouth.
"Let the players do whatever they want" is very clearly hyperbolic, just to be clear. Leaping from "so there's no absolute power vested in one person" to "ah, so literal anarchy" is hyperbolic and it's extremely frustrating that you somehow don't see that.
Froglok paladin in Everquest was really cool though...
No idea, never played it.
