GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Ovinomancer]

If you want to make some argument about the pervasive malevolence of toxicity inherent to (a certain kind of?) GMing, the onus is on you. I'd suggest that's beyond the scope of this thread. You should start another topic.

Also, if you were trying to demonstrate you don't have a chip on your shoulder...

//Panjumanju

I have no statement for this topic about any styles of GMing -- how you choose to run your game is absolutely orthogonal to the point I'm making.

My point is that however you choose to run the game has no real bearing on your authority outside of it, and deciding what game to play is outside of the game.

Please, though, continue to insist I have a chip on my shoulder about topics that I'm not even engaging, it's setting a humorous tone for me as I continue to see you respond to what you're imagining I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying -- which is a longer-winded version of "don't use your position as GM to be a jerk."

 

[Jd Smith1]

Way to take such a neutral statement and interpret in a way that suggests toxicity is the norm. It's good to hear that you think mutually beneficial social interactions are for kids.

Discussion and agreement are for everyone's benefit. If it can be taken, it should, compared to fighting your friends when it's not necessary. If someone doesn't do that, then surely they will be a problem player/friend in the future.

Way to over-read a statement. My point is, this is a hobby, something done for entertainment. It is not an activity which has to concern itself with being 'healthy'. You can kick people from the group for the simple reason that their expectations are not compatable with the planned activity.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I know, but I wouldn't be mean to strangers either. If anything, I'd try harder to be fair and reasonable. If DnD is a transaction of effort, time and enjoyment, I would want to come to agreements with them so we all get as much positiveness out of the experience. No matter who you're with, there's no reason not to open with them on some level.

Managing expectations isn't 'mean'; it is the GM's prime responsibility.

Eliminating problem players before they disrupt a campaign is simply good sense, and better for everyone. Elf-boy may find a like-minded group, and the rest of the original group will have a better time.

 

[Panjumanju]

however you choose to run the game has no real bearing on your authority outside of it, and deciding what game to play is outside of the game.

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this.

First of all, I can't imagine preparing a game, any game, without already knowing your players would be into it. After shopping out new systems to play, the job of the potential GM (love it or hate it) is to sell your players on the game. I've never had the conflict that the OP had. But, let's assume that all goes to heck for the sake of this.

If as a GM you have a game in mind, and structure of the setting is based on one key point - whatever it is, it does not matter - and a player wants to introduce a character in conflict with that key setting element (presumably in a way that you don't feel capable of compromising while juggling all else)....how, at the end of that, is the GM the jerk for saying no?

//Panjumanju

 

[Ovinomancer]

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this.

You mean I keep responding when quoted? Gosh, you might be right!

First of all, I can't imagine preparing a game, any game, without already knowing your players would be into it. After shopping out new systems to play, the job of the potential GM (love it or hate it) is to sell your players on the game. I've never had the conflict that the OP had. But, let's assume that all goes to heck for the sake of this.

Exactly my point. Preparing a game doesn't confer any authority -- getting buy in is the key objective. And buy in is not owed to you.

If as a GM you have a game in mind, and structure of the setting is based on one key point - whatever it is, it does not matter - and a player wants to introduce a character in conflict with that key setting element (presumably in a way that you don't feel capable of compromising while juggling all else)....how, at the end of that, is the GM the jerk for saying no?

//Panjumanju

They are not -- if everyone else has reached a consensus and one player is the odd one out, then it's fine if the agreed majority continues. This is normal social behavior. If you thought that I've said that the dissenter must be catered to, well, I'll chalk that up to you imagining what I'm saying rather than reading it and put it alongside that supposed chip on my shoulder.

 

[Maxperson]

In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game. Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters. GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.

This is not correct. You have Shadows being summoned by the Red Witch. You have scrying/augury by the Red Witch. You have Raise Dead by the The Red Priest. You have illusions in the warlock's tower. You have whatever Sorcery is done by the Magisters. The ones that made Varys a eunuch so they could use his junk for magic. You have Domination via wargs. Prophecy in Westeros that Cersei and her friend encountered. And more.

 

[Panjumanju]

They are not -- if everyone else has reached a consensus and one player is the odd one out, then it's fine if the agreed majority continues. This is normal social behavior. If you thought that I've said that the dissenter must be catered to, well, I'll chalk that up to you imagining what I'm saying rather than reading it and put it alongside that supposed chip on my shoulder.

Now you're just operating in bad faith, so perhaps I'm foolish to continue, but, humour me...what I can only assume you are trying to communicate is that the GM should have so increased social clout that should bare the setup of a new game just because they prepared it, will be doing the work of running it; (to say nothing of hosting or whatever elase because that's certainly not always the case) and further that players should be regarded equally in the decision-making (you might extend your argument into in-play situations but I don't know that), and in general the attitude that the GM has somehow increased authority to go along with their increased responsibilities is toxic or somehow harmful to gaming culture. Is that about right?

//Panjumanju

 

[Crusadius]

First of all, I can't imagine preparing a game, any game, without already knowing your players would be into it.

I can. Being asked to run a game for strangers at a local game store. You have no opportunity to contact the Players ahead of the first session but must be prepared to have the Players generating characters and even start the first time you meet. You could assume they'll all like D&D... but you know what they say about assumptions - they all might be Wrath of Glory players excited to put some exterminatus down on some heretics and you might be a Cyberpunk aficionado.

 

[Panjumanju]

I can. Being asked to run a game for strangers at a local game store. You have no opportunity to contact the Players ahead of the first session but must be prepared to have the Players generating characters and even start the first time you meet. You could assume they'll all like D&D... but you know what they say about assumptions - they all might be Wrath of Glory players excited to put some exterminatus down on some heretics.

You are correct. That is a case where you wouldn't know what expectations players were coming to the table with. I have run maybe 100 games at various conventions where presumably strangers have read your little writeup to attract them, at least, but I've never run at a FLGS so I don't know if the situation is similar.

Even so, I'd assume that with a full open circumstance (especially for D&D where playstyle from table to table can vary wildly) you'd approach GMing with quite a bit more flexability than you can usually, wouldn't you? That wouldn't be the place to try out a cool specific idea, I would think.

//Panjumanju

 

[Ovinomancer]

Now you're just operating in bad faith, so perhaps I'm foolish to continue, but, humour me...what I can only assume you are trying to communicate is that the GM should have so increased social clout that should bare the setup of a new game just because they prepared it, will be doing the work of running it; (to say nothing of hosting or whatever elase because that's certainly not always the case) and further that players should be regarded equally in the decision-making (you might extend your argument into in-play situations but I don't know that), and in general the attitude that the GM has somehow increased authority to go along with their increased responsibilities is toxic or somehow harmful to gaming culture. Is that about right?

//Panjumanju

I'll be frank, I'm not sure I can parse that sufficiently well. What I am saying has nothing at all to do with how a GM runs or how much time they put into the campaign or if they are hosting or not -- these are red herrings. What I am saying is that, when deciding to play a game, everyone is on equal footing. Being the GM gives no special place in the decision of what game to run. If the decision is for a game the GM doesn't want to run, then it's the same as being a player that doesn't want to play in a certain game -- that person doesn't play in the game. The mistake made here is that usually the GM deciding not to play means no game, and the control over that is confused with righteous authority over the social group. This is a bad take.

As for bad faith, at no point have I engaged in bad faith, here. I've patiently answered you the same way, even though you keep accusing me of saying things I haven't said, implying I mean things I haven't said, and telling me I'm angry or have a chip on my shoulder. None of this is correct, yet I haven't lashed out or accused you of bad faith. My points have remained constant and unchanging, so I'm not darting around looking for the next goalpost location. The accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith. I will thank you to desist.