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

[Midknightsun]

I voted for relatively equal power in the social (non-direct game aspects), subject to host fiat . . . 'cause, frankly, you're in their house. As long as their not being complete numbskulls, it all works out fine.

As a DM and player, the DM gets the final say on aspects of the game. Its a lot of work, and therefore should be largely under their control. However, as a DM, I personally take suggestions into account, and have incorporated more than a few into my games. I do not think a pure democracy really works at the gaming table, however, as it quickly descends into anarchy, and a lot of kitchen sink campaigns that rarely work out well.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Primary (but not absolute) power to establish houserules and genre choices.
Absolute power over houserules, genre choices etc but only in advance.
Generally equal say on scheduling, membership and social aspects with the rest of the Group.

Are the ones I went with. The GM builds his world, and uses whatever house rules he needs to get the feel of the world he is running. Genre choices are group choices, but a GM should never GM a genre they don't want to. Equal say in the social aspects, as that is group duty.


Final say on scheduling.
Final say on social aspects (table rules, eating, smoking, etc)

These belong to the host of the game in general.

But our group is unusual, we have 4 campaigns, and every player in the group GMs. So when someone wants to run, he presents his campaign idea, and structure, and the group decides if that something they want to play, or one of the other ideas that someone else may have.

 

[Glyfair]

Final say on scheduling.
Final say on social aspects (table rules, eating, smoking, etc)

These belong to the host of the game in general.

In my experience the scheduling issue is really always a group element. If the DM can't make it, there is no game (as I said, if someone else runs, then he's the DM). If the host can't make it, 99% of the time there is no game (I've known cases where the host will allow friends to use his house when he's not there). If a large enough group of players can't make it then their is no game.

D&D is a group activity. A lot of people can have "final say" on scheduling.

 

[kaomera]

The poll choices seem kind of odd to me... As does linking the game and the group that way.

IMHO: The DM holds at once both all and none of the power at the table. It's his game. He's not required to run it, nor can players force their way into the game (or, at least, if they can then something is very wrong with the setup). OTOT no player needs to show up for the game, if they don't like it then any and/or all of them can leave the group. Now, if there's no-one else in the group who is willing to DM, or anything else is going on that's going to force one side or the other's hand... Well, they say that no game is better than a game that is unfun, but overall if either the player(s) or the DM doesn't feel free to back out of the arrangement, then I feel that you're unlikely to reach a really satisfactory compromise on he game / group.

 

[Li Shenron]

IMXP the players participate in a lot of decisions, before the game starts, such as choosing the setting or the game-type (e.g. serious vs light-hearted, combat-heavy vs combat-light, etc.).

We are 3 different DMs in the same gaming group, so usually for us what happens is that someone proposes an idea (like... "let's try play a campaign in Rokugan with more focus on intrigue and story than battles") and we talk about it for weeks or months until we agree on the general features. Then the DM - which most often is the same person that had the first idea - takes the ball in hand and prepares for the campaign, and from this point on she usually gets to make all relevant decisions, for example allowed material and house rules. Actually in the specific case of house rules, it has happened that we changed them in the course of a campaign because some of the players didn't like how they were going, so there is always quite some cohoperation with the DM.

Then of course, when the game starts, you have to accept that the DM has more work to do, more responsibilities, and the players owe him/her the authority to say the final word if there is some disagreement, for example if some players like a house rule and others don't, it's the DM who has to take responsibility for the final choice, but the players should take the responsibility of accepting the decision.

Schedule, where to play, and group membership instead are always decided by everyone together.

 

[RFisher]

In no group I've played in has there been a single GM. So, scheduling, membership, &c. are always by consensus.

Within the realm of the game currently being played, the GM has nigh absolute authority. Yet, it is a benign dictatorship 'cause we're all friends.

& hey, if you don't like how he's doing things, I guarantee he'll be more than happy to roll up a PC & let you do better. (^_^)

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Hell, I'd be excited if they remembered the plot, more than one NPC each, and what happened last session.

Also, I wouldn't pay someone to DM, nor would I accept cash to DM. It's a labor of love, and money would make me feel vaguely conflicted about ruthlessly crushing the PCs.

Cheers, -- N

Think like a consultant. You could charge them for new character sheets and the time you spend on character generation.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

My regular games have always been with people that were friends outside of the game, too, so my experience may differ. To me the DM has ultimate authority, just because if he doesn't play ball, there's no game. That's not to say I don't listen to suggestions, requests, or for things where I have no preference let the group decide.

The social aspects, though, have to be communal. Everyone has to be comfortable and enjoy themselves. I've been fortunate in that it's never really been an issue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

& hey, if you don't like how he's doing things, I guarantee he'll be more than happy to roll up a PC & let you do better. (^_^)

Yeah. That's the breaking point for this thing with me, too. I've yet to have a chance to try 3.X (3.0 or 3.5) as a player. No one wants to let me out from behind the screen & take the DM's seat themselves.

(At least I got to play a Jedi in Star Wars d20 though....... )

 

[Nifft]

Think like a consultant. You could charge them for new character sheets and the time you spend on character generation.

That's brilliant. Forget Dungeon Mastery, work in Dungeon Consultancy instead.

- Reminding you of your current mission: $25/subplot
- Reminding you of your backstory: $125/page
- Reminding you of your Cohort's name: $150

Cheers, -- N