The role of the DM in the game and the group.

[Raven Crowking]

I said both "equal" and "final" for the social stuff. Ideally, everyone should have input and the group should be able to reach concensus. This being real life, concensus doesn't always happen. In such event, the GM gets a larger say in these matters, as does the host.

For game rule stuff, I absolutely loathe the notion of game by committee. The GM has to make the game flow. Therefore, he has to be comfortable with most, if not all, of the rules. It is better for a player to be slightly uncomfortable with a rule than for the GM to be slightly uncomfortable with it.

When a decision on a rule interpretation has to be made, or there is a situation just plain not handled, the GM has the obligation to make the call. He must be entrusted with the authority to do so. When it comes right down to it, if a game fails, the GM will almost always be the one who takes the reputation hit. For a group to not give the GM the authority needed to actually referee the game is grossly unfair to the GM.

Well put.

 

[Insight]

My current game group, much like my last game group, has a revolving DM situation, especially since we tend to run multiple campaigns simultaneously, switching off sometimes from week-to-week. This really complicates the "DM-as-final-arbiter-in-all-things" dynamic for us.

Generally, the DM of the week in our group tells us what rules and setting he's using in "his game". If we choose to play in "his game", we accept whatever house rules he wants to use. If people don't like "his game", they'll generally make their voice known in which games continue and which ones don't.

This is a strange dynamic, and I'll admit it's not one I'm used to. But it seems to work, generally speaking, and people don't freak out and leave anyone's game if they don't like something. Not yet anyway

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

My take on it:

The DM runs the show and gets to make the rules (all of them); it's not a committee, and it's not a democracy. A good DM will take player desires, etc, into consideration, but the final word is his. I think that such an approach can get you a superior game to rule-by-committee approaches. However, you can also get the worst game out of such an approach. The best DMs are benevolent dictators; they're all-powerful, but never want for players. The worst DMs are petty tyrants that run off their players and become Lord of the Vacant Table.

 

[el-remmen]

Well, the GM has final say on scheduling because no GM no game to schedule.


As for the other stuff, there seems to be overlap in terms of the authority over certain aspects of the social portion of the game between the GM and the host of the session.

In my case, I am both - but I have not been always.

For example, if I allowed smoking in my house (I don't) and I had players who actually were smokers (non-currently), I would still disallow smoking if one or more of the players were asthmatic, for example. And if I were not the host and he/she were unwillign to prohibit smoking in the above case - well, I would look for another host.

So, I guess in that case I think the GM does have that kind of authority, because I feel the GM gets to decide where the game is played, since he has to schlep the most crap to and from the sessions, generally (as someone w/o a car, this is important to me).

As for house-rules, I usually discuss them with one or more players, but I annouce what we are going to try and we try it and either adopt or discard it.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

By that line, I suspect you think that I'm going to throw out the fantasy setting and start playing CoC or cyberpunk in the middle of a game, and I think that would be lousy DMing.

no, I don't think people who choose that option will do that. However, they might believe the DM has the theoretical power to do that, and if that doesn't work for the players they should simply leave the table rather than attempt to explain to the DM that it won't work that way.

 

[the Jester]

Absolute power!!

 

[Flynn]

It has been my experience that the DM typically has final say in all matters related to the game, the genre, the house rules, etc. A good DM typically respects the opinions of the Players, but when push comes to shove, the DM has the final say. (If another person is hosting the game, then that person has final say on all matters related to the use of his property, but that wasn't covered in the poll above.)

A lot has been said in other discussions about every Player having their own form of final say, in that they can vote by not playing in the game and finding a better use for their time. Everyone has that right, and that's the reason why good DMs respect the opinions of their Players.

However, the DM has that right, too, and without him, there is no game. Therefore, by default, he has final say.

I tend to game with groups that are not so insular that they only game with each other. I game with several DMs, each of whom have their own gaming groups, which I may or may not be a part of. That's how it has to be viewed, in my opinion, in this kind of environment. Were I living in a place where the only gamers were the five other guys sitting around the table with me, then yeah, I could see having to deal with the kind of issues related to gaming by committee, because there is simply no other game in town. Social dynamics should create appropriate boundaries. (They don't always do so, but the wise and smart DM is the one that pays attention to such.)

However, I am fortunate in that I live in a place where tehre's more than one game in town, as do many of the gamers that actively play RPGs. Even if I didn't, I have access to the internet, and there are online tools that allow me to game "face-to-face" using electronic tabletops, so I don't think my position would really change, even if there were no other game in my immediate area.

I often wonder about the bad gaming experiences of those who feel forcefully that the GM is not the final arbiter in matters related to the game, because there's only one reason I can think of why someone would have problems in this arena: they've ran into a bad DM or similar authority figure in the past (likely a control freak with limited social skills or experience), and they've been hurt in the process. If you are trapped in such a situation, I would suggest that you do yourself a favor, and get out. Find another group. It's not worth trying to control a bad DM, because then you're playing their head games, and you've already lost.

My Two Coppers,
Flynn

 

[Anti-Sean]

For the amount of money we pay our DM to run our games, he damn well better solicit opinions from us before he makes important decisions!

 

[Davelozzi]

I certainly take the players opinions into play, but for my group, the final say for all of these usually comes down to me (as both DM and host).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

For the amount of money we pay our DM to run our games, he damn well better solicit opinions from us before he makes important decisions!

And for the amount I pay my players, they better... Oh wait, I don't pay my players, and I enjoy DMing....