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

[fusangite]

I'm glad the OP has raised this issue but I didn't find the poll questions were very useful for representing my approach. So, instead, I'll answer in long form:

Responsibilities and powers begin and end with the running of actual sessions.

I don't know what "powers" are in this context but, in my view, the GM is the host of a game. So his responsibilities are those of a good host: coordinating people to create a good social experience for everyone, finding a venue and inviting people.

Primary (but not absolute) power to establish houserules and genre choices.

A GM can't run something well if he's not inspired to run it. And, if you have a game in which discovery is an important play payoff, it makes no sense to decentralize control of house rules. Rules are part of the cosmology and metaplot of a campaign world. Unless you're running a Ron Edwards narrativist-style game (in which discovery can never be a payoff), it seems like a really bad idea to decentralize any component of this to the players. But obviously, in a narrativist social contract, such decentralization isn't merely a good idea. It's a requirement.

(a)Absolute power over houserules, genre choices etc but only in advance.
(b)Absolute power to establish and change any aspect of the game before or during play.

I vote for option (a). Even in a discovery-based game it is both possible and adviseable to establish these things from the outset. Of course, the players may discover in the course of play something about the genre or rules that has been there all along that they simply haven't noticed. But, in my book, that's different than changing these things on the fly.

Final say on scheduling.

The host of an event ultimately sets the schedule because, if he can't come, the event doesn't happen.

Final say on group membership.

I don't look at it that way. A GM communicates to players the kind of game he wants to run. The people who want to be in that kind of game join. SOmetimes this communication is ineffective and the GM fails, whether his fault or not, to communicate this effectively to the players; as a result, some group composition adjustments happen after the game starts.

But, of course, the host of an event ultimately chooses his guests.

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

Again, if host role=GM, this is true.

Generally equal say on scheduling, membership and social aspects with the rest of the Group.

Obviously, a GM should seek a group compatible with his schedule, circle of friends and social standards. To do otherwise is foolish in the extreme.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obviously, a GM should seek a group compatible with his schedule, circle of friends and social standards. To do otherwise is foolish in the extreme.

Well put, Sir.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The poll jumps around too much in its choices so I'll just put it in a post. The DM typically is the one who organizes and coordinates the game from the outset, runs the sessions, etc. It is typically "the DM's game", and thus almost entirely his choice as to who to invite, who to kick out, what game to actually play, how to play it (house rules, gaming style), when and where. Many of those things can and are passed to other players - Frank is the DM, but they play at Jims house because it's central and has a large, comfortable basement, and Nancy is the one who actually coordinates the game schedule making sure everyone can play, as well as assigning food responsibilities among everyone.

It seems not uncommon that the one who ends up DMing is simply the one who LEAST objects to the job. Lucky is the gaming group that has people competing for the DM position. The DM has to run the game, so naturally he generally CHOOSES the game, and whatever houserules will go along with that. But the DM also has to get players to agree to go along with it. Thus, the DM may have final, absolute say - but he doesn't make that choice in a vacuum unless he's a jerk.

Playing D&D is not like assigning homework so EVERYONEs responsibilities largely begin and end with the session. But the great unwritten rule of DMing is that you have to manage PEOPLE at the table, not just adminster game rules. Thus, LIKE IT OR NOT, your involvement often extends beyond the table, and after the game session is over. That is unless you're a jerk and your method of handling people is to just tell them to take a hike if they don't do things just your way and thus NOT actually deal with them at all.

Any decent gaming group begins not just with players generating characters, it begins when the DM and players get together and agree NOT ONLY on the game and the setting and so forth, but on the agreed responsibilities within the gaming group in and out of the game.

The DM does have the last word during the game. It is part of his purpose in being in the game at all - to adjudicate in the absence or inadequacy of rules and provide the characters a world to interact with. The DM controls EVERYTHING in the game except the player characters. Again, however, the DM does NOT exert that control in a vacuum - players don't have to mindlessly accept his rulings or his attitudes, limiting the degree to which he can abuse that position if not preventing it.

 

[Wombat]

As GM I am expected to do the following (according to my players):

Set up the game session and remind people when/where it is taking place.
Have copies of the rulebooks actually being used for the session.
Primary input on setting, genre, and style -- I am to set the tone, but others are allowed (encouraged) to provide input.
Final arbitration on all house rules -- I may make them, they may make them, but I am the one who has final say as to what stays and goes.
Final say, after consultation, as to who is In or Out of the group.
Answer any and all questions between sessions, including, but not limited to, one-on-one sessions, XP awards for input to the game, NPC letter writing, and other background/colour material.

The players, therefore, provide most (but not all) of the snacks, remember to bring their character sheets (...and hopefully their notes...), and be ready & on time to play.

So in the end I am responsible for setting the tone, running the session, keeping up with the majority of the paperwork, and maintaining the proper "feel" to the game; the players are to fit into the world, be there on time, provide input and suggestions, and play in-character.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

True Thayan Metal

The DM's word is absolute, with one exception: it is superseded by the property owner(s) of the actual location where the game takes place.

If players don't like this arrangement, they are free to leave.

-Samir Asad / Thayan Menace​

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The DM's word is absolute, with one exception: it is superseded by the property owner(s) of the actual location where the game takes place.

If players don't like this arrangement, they are free to leave.
​

Yes, and if he's being a jerk, they all leave, and he can play with himself.​

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Well Put

Yes, and if he's being a jerk, they all leave, and he can play with himself.

Players may leave a group for a variety of reasons, and the term "jerk" is fairly subjective one. Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

-Samir

 

[Treebore]

I'm not a fan of rule by committee and apparently neither are my friends. For us, the DM is the alpha and the omega at the end of the day. The DM will determine who is invited, what the setting is, what houserules are in effect, where we play (or at least where they are willing to run their game), etc.

The DM, as we see it, is the creator of the campaign and retains that power throughout. Now, that's not to say that those of us who DM do not elicit opinions from others before we make certain decisions. I have a very high level of respect for my players and I routinely will seek their advice and input in my design, but I will often times listen, then consider, then feel free to ignore if I want to go in a different direction.
...

This is pretty much how I see it, the DM does give serious consideraton to group input. Its just that the DM is the final say. I always strive to make everyone as happy as possible, but that isn't always possible. Sometimes someone isn't going to like my decisions. Hopefully it will be mild enough of a dislike that they stay in the group.

 

[Treebore]

As GM I am expected to do the following (according to my players):

Set up the game session and remind people when/where it is taking place.
Have copies of the rulebooks actually being used for the session.
Primary input on setting, genre, and style -- I am to set the tone, but others are allowed (encouraged) to provide input.
Final arbitration on all house rules -- I may make them, they may make them, but I am the one who has final say as to what stays and goes.
Final say, after consultation, as to who is In or Out of the group.
Answer any and all questions between sessions, including, but not limited to, one-on-one sessions, XP awards for input to the game, NPC letter writing, and other background/colour material.

The players, therefore, provide most (but not all) of the snacks, remember to bring their character sheets (...and hopefully their notes...), and be ready & on time to play.

So in the end I am responsible for setting the tone, running the session, keeping up with the majority of the paperwork, and maintaining the proper "feel" to the game; the players are to fit into the world, be there on time, provide input and suggestions, and play in-character.

You forgot to put "bring most of the snacks" in your summarization.

 

[Treebore]

This thread made me realize something I need to put in all of my house rules documents for the various games systems I run. In huge caps.


If you can run this game better than I can, then I will happily roll up a character and let you run the game. Otherwise, do your best to help make this game as fun as possible for everyone at the table.