How commonly is the GM actually the ultimate arbiter?

[Oryan77]

not moving power away from the GM, but moving work away from the GM!

Can you elaborate on this a bit? What sort of things do your players actually do that takes less work off of the DM? I'm drawing a blank on how the rulebooks (D&D anyway) put more of the work on the player. The only thing I can think of is making it easier for players to learn the rules (which may not be all that great from certain perspectives). Maybe even how 4e put the magic items in the PHB is an example, but I see that as more of a negative thing (for my play style).

I actually enjoy doing work outside of the game as the DM. Except for maybe building NPCs. But I've got a ton of index sheets for various things that allow me to pull info more quickly to use in the game (like an NPC index of every 3.5 book so I can hopefully use stats from one of those builds rather than making it myself).

 

[innerdude]

Pretty much always.

When it comes down to it, all the GM has to say is,

"I'm not GM-ing anymore, don't come to my house, the end."

That said, it's rarely in the GM's best interest to unilaterally make decisions regarding group dynamics, if he or she wants a fun, productive group.

But in terms of "ultimate control"? It's all in the GM's hands.

 

[Balesir]

Can you elaborate on this a bit? What sort of things do your players actually do that takes less work off of the DM? I'm drawing a blank on how the rulebooks (D&D anyway) put more of the work on the player. The only thing I can think of is making it easier for players to learn the rules (which may not be all that great from certain perspectives). Maybe even how 4e put the magic items in the PHB is an example, but I see that as more of a negative thing (for my play style).

I'm thinking here not so much of D&D editions but of games like FATE, 13th Age, Sorceror, Fiasco and so on. The players are encouraged, through both character generation routines and the flow of play itself, to define parts of the background. What large organisations and key Powers are plotting around this week's adventure? 13th Age Icon rolls will tell you - and they will be ones the players are interested to interact with.

This can go out along a sliding scale to quite radical departures; in Hillfolk and PrimeTime Adventures the players (as opposed to the GM) frame most of the scenes. That is, the "encounters" are set up by the players, not the GM. In Fiasco you don't even have a GM - nor in Universalis.

4E D&D makes a very small start along this scale, at most. The monster stat structure and the underpinning structures of the rules in general make DM adjudications on the fly somewhat easier. It's easier to be sure you are being fair and not prejudicing your demands because of your own particular pecadilloes regarding a world model. The Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies selected by the players can be slightly suggestive of the story that needs to be told. All in all, though, it barely moves along the continuum towards player-driven plot as seen in PTA or Hillfolk.

I actually enjoy doing work outside of the game as the DM. Except for maybe building NPCs. But I've got a ton of index sheets for various things that allow me to pull info more quickly to use in the game (like an NPC index of every 3.5 book so I can hopefully use stats from one of those builds rather than making it myself).

I can certainly understand the desire - for certain game foci - of the GM to retain creative control of the world "outside" the PCs. Some game styles work better that way. Nevertheless, if you are hewing rigidly to one specific style and focus of game I would say "loosen up - you're missing out!"

Trying out other styles - or even pursuing the ones you find you like - doesn't mean you have to abandon the one you already love.

 

[Oryan77]

FATE, 13th Age, Sorceror, Fiasco and so on.

I don't have any experience with many other games besides D&D, so that's interesting.

Nevertheless, if you are hewing rigidly to one specific style and focus of game I would say "loosen up - you're missing out!"

I've actually had a player say the same thing once when trying to dictate to me how the game world should work outside of the PCs actual control/influence. Thing is, I DM because I like my style of DMing. My style changes over time, but there are just some play styles that I know I would not enjoy implementing as a DM. I'd rather let someone else DM if the group needed that kind of a change. I encourage backgrounds and I implement scenarios based on them, but there is a limit to how far I'll allow player control.

 

[Balesir]

I've actually had a player say the same thing once when trying to dictate to me how the game world should work outside of the PCs actual control/influence. Thing is, I DM because I like my style of DMing. My style changes over time, but there are just some play styles that I know I would not enjoy implementing as a DM. I'd rather let someone else DM if the group needed that kind of a change. I encourage backgrounds and I implement scenarios based on them, but there is a limit to how far I'll allow player control.

Oh, there's no reason you need to run the game - it's about trying something new and expanding your horizons and experience, not forcing yourself to do something uncomfortable!

If you can get to a convention, they are great for trying new systems. There are usually lots of games running that you can sign up to with an experienced GM running for inexperienced players - I have tried quite a few games this way. Alternatively, you can try a local game store, either for in-store games or advertisements for games. Meeting and gaming with new groups is something I'm generally cautious about, but a one-off in a public venue is usually pretty safe (both in a physical safety sense and in a "not getting trapped with antisocial gamers I really don't want to game with" sense). If a one-off or convention game works out you can expand from there - or not as suits your taste.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Many times, advice in response to GM/player issues seems to revolve around "You're the GM; pronounce X". Whether X is removing a person from the game, or barring a class or race, or what-have-you.

In my experience, though, the social environment doesn't really permit authority at that level. Sure, the GM runs the game; he isn't in charge of the social experience, though. His authority is limited by the people around him. While he has a role in the game, he's also just one of a half dozen friends getting together to enjoy a social activity together.

So in your games, how much power does the GM enjoy? Does this extend to the group makeup? Is his word law? Has the increase in player controlled narrative in RPGs over the years reduced this since the 70s and 80s?

I'm not talking about general jerk behaviour. Sure, any GM who's just a jerk is going to find himself playing alone in short order. So, excluding outliers of extreme antisocial behaviour - how much power does the GM have in (a) your game and (b) your group [during the game; if he has any outside the game then Jack Chick was right....]

In my groups the GM does have power over things like what classes or races might be available, essentially anything to do with the campaign, we'll defer to the GM's judgement. But he doesn't have authority over who can join the table or anything else outside the system and setting.

 

[Lindeloef]

[...] But he doesn't have authority over who can join the table or anything else outside the system and setting.

Wait, so he cannot say "that guy, I don't like, I don't want him to join the group" ???

 

[Bedrockgames]

Wait, so he cannot say "that guy, I don't like, I don't want him to join the group" ???

He can say that but he has just as much clout on those things as anyone else at the table. Generally if a single person objects to a new member, that's enough anyways. But my point is the GM's authority extends only seems to the game with the folks I play, and not the social dynamics at the table.

 

[Oryan77]

If you can get to a convention, they are great for trying new systems.

As long as I've played D&D, I've never gone to an RPG convention or played at a FLGS. But I recently joined a meetup group in my area and signed up to DM a game there. But maybe I should join a game as a player. I'm not really interested in a new system (I don't like learning new rules), but I would like to experience other ways a DM runs a game.

He can say that but he has just as much clout on those things as anyone else at the table.

In all of the games I've played (including games I DM) the only person that ever made the decision to kick someone out was the DM. In my case, I will try to ask my players about the problem player first before I decide to kick him out.

 

[Balesir]

As long as I've played D&D, I've never gone to an RPG convention or played at a FLGS. But I recently joined a meetup group in my area and signed up to DM a game there. But maybe I should join a game as a player. I'm not really interested in a new system (I don't like learning new rules), but I would like to experience other ways a DM runs a game.

My advice would be do it! And please come and let us know how it goes