I'm finding that the more control I give up, the more fun I am having at my games. And it is making me suspect that centralizing power in the DM is not as necessary as the rules presuppose. Depending on the group.
Generally, I'm of the opinion that the existence of a GM is a stopgap measure. Game Master in pretty much every RPG that has one (except in maybe PbtA games) does the work of an in-situ game designer, closing gaps that should've never been there in the first place.
Totally this. "Game master" is so often a mashup of referee, judge, plot guardian, filler of gaps, antagonist, and portrayer of the rest of the world, roles that are inherently in conflct, and often in conflict with the very idea of a group activity meant to be fun. PbtA games largely remove the first three responsibilities from the Master of Ceremonies (as Apocalypse World calls it, and I'd argue that still isn't a great name for the job). This allows the MC to really push antagonism when appropriate, and portray the world with all of its antagonists, but also neutral parties and allies. Torchbearer is also pretty clear about that too, although its mechanics are rather baroque in comparison. Blades in the Dark comes close but does have a few chinks, in my limited experience. And then there's Ironsworn, which has full support for GMless play out of the proverbial box. I'm particularly itching to give that game a try sometime. But next up for my group is Stonetop, which is in the PbtA family of games. (It looks to have a Ranger that isn't a heartbreaker so I'm pretty eager to see if it lives up to the promise.)Generally, I'm of the opinion that the existence of a GM is a stopgap measure. Game Master in pretty much every RPG that has one (except in maybe PbtA games) does the work of an in-situ game designer, closing gaps that should've never been there in the first place. That is the main reason I despise running most trad/midschool games -- they ask me to design a game, but if I wanted to design a game, I would do exactly that. What the hell I need their game for?
Overall, there's only two good options:
- Completely remove the GM. In many cases, they just ain't needed.
- If you want to have a GM, make them an actual damn player, who can and should try their hardest in every situation
Many games, most notably D&D, sit in this awkward position, where the GM is allowed to do anything she wants, but actually has a very limited pool of options that would be fun and then has to sort through all the infinite possibilities to distil a couple that will make the game better. That is the designer's job! The designer should've sat and handpicked only fun cool options, so you at the table could choose anything you want and be guaranteed to have a good time.