How commonly is the GM actually the ultimate arbiter?

[Dannyalcatraz]

GM power in game: nearly absolute

GM power in group: pure democracy

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

So much more succinct than my own ramblings, Danny. That is close to my situation, with the understanding that I mean it in a literal sense, without assumptions, motives or hypotheticals attached.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I use DM fiat a lot, but we're all adults and we're pretty mellow about it. "Hey guys, I'm going to rule X because of reason Y. Anyone have a serious problem with that? No? Okay, game on!"

 

[Janx]

GM power in game: nearly absolute

GM power in group: pure democracy

Seems about right.

Really, if you're not gaming at the GM's house, the homeowner has more say about who sits at his table than the GM.

 

[evilbob]

What an interesting question!

Speaking only of my own experience, I would agree with your initial supposition: as we (as players) get older and more mature, and as tabletop gaming ages and matures as well, the power of arbitration has moved steadily away from the GM and toward the players. I think all parties have been happy about this: players get more engaged in games in which they have a personal stake, and GMs appreciate the delegation and assistance with various details.

As for why, I think this is partially based on newer rulesets (which are also designed by designers who are getting older), but also because - as a general rule, often excepted - I think people tend to be more empathetic and "share" easier as they get older. I feel like am a better GM now because I impose myself on my players less than I used to (or at least, I hope I do!). Also, the number of people I game with has slowly dwindled down to the people I enjoy hanging out with anyway. These are people I trust and love, and most of them have worn the GM hat from time to time and we all understand the perspective of the GM and the player. We also sort of know each others' strengths when it comes to gaming, and so when I suggest something - as a GM or a player - that pertains to something they know I'm usually good about, they're willing to trust me. I can say the same for them.

So you have higher levels of trust, better people, more experience, and a higher level of willingness to share in the responsibility of creating amazing experiences spread amongst the group. You've also got newer games designed to better facilitate this mode of play. All of this leads - in my opinion - not to a loss of GM "power," so to speak, but rather a greater collaboration amongst the group when creating interesting experiences. And unless you happen to game with some kind of creative savant, it's been my experience that collaboration makes telling a story better.

 

[Balesir]

So you have higher levels of trust, better people, more experience, and a higher level of willingness to share in the responsibility of creating amazing experiences spread amongst the group. You've also got newer games designed to better facilitate this mode of play. All of this leads - in my opinion - not to a loss of GM "power," so to speak, but rather a greater collaboration amongst the group when creating interesting experiences. And unless you happen to game with some kind of creative savant, it's been my experience that collaboration makes telling a story better.

You quite neatly ninjaed me, here Thinking about this question I have realised that what I value the newer/shifted systems doing is not moving power away from the GM, but moving work away from the GM! The players are expected to contribute creativity towards the world, the story and the flow of play. Naturally, that requires encouraging the players to take and use the power required to fulfill that responsibility.

 

[howandwhy99]

The DM runs the game. Like a facilitator hawking a new board game at a convention, the DM must know and apply the rules while the players actually play the game. They have their own pieces. The DM doesn't.

This doesn't mean the DM is in charge of the style of game (beyond the limitation of what the rules can handle), the strategies players enact, who can play, what the house rules are, what the table rules are, and anything and everything else that might arise from the game, but isn't otherwise relevant to running it. Sometimes the social situation outside the game bleeds into it. It isn't the DM's deal with it, it's everyone's.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I guess it really depends on where we are in the game. Gathering the group as a GM, I have a sort of absolute power over who plays. Players are free to agree with me or not. If I still have players after those who disagree leave, I still have a game. If I don't, I propose another game or I play one myself.

Once the game is in progress, I need to be a bit more diplomatic. If a player becomes a problem, I would need to discuss it with the group and get their opinions.

As for rulings, I admit I make mistakes. If it doesn't upset things too much we'll leave it go, then discuss it at the end of the session. Or look it up, whatever the cure may need to be.

 

[TwoSix]

You quite neatly ninjaed me, here Thinking about this question I have realised that what I value the newer/shifted systems doing is not moving power away from the GM, but moving work away from the GM! The players are expected to contribute creativity towards the world, the story and the flow of play. Naturally, that requires encouraging the players to take and use the power required to fulfill that responsibility.

So true. Pretty much all the new DMing techniques I've picked up in the past 5 years have been in the interest of me doing as little work away from the table as possible. Heck, I just emailed my players to remind me what happened last time, because they know the plot better than I do!

 

[Zhaleskra]

So true. Pretty much all the new DMing techniques I've picked up in the past 5 years have been in the interest of me doing as little work away from the table as possible. Heck, I just emailed my players to remind me what happened last time, because they know the plot better than I do!

I'm still fond of World Tree's "it's not the GM's responsibility to remember your characters abilities, that's why they're on your character sheet". The wording is definitely different, but that is the gist.