No need Thomas. I know your style is speaking, "for the people". And you know how little importance I place on popularity, and how much on not presenting opinions as objective truths.
I don't think the basics of my position require "truths", just logic. (Take note,
@GobHag if you're genuinely interested).
Let's say you have a group consisting of a GM and 5 players. The players want something the GM doesn't.
Now, let's acknowledge with a lot of games for structural and mechanical reasons, that the GM has more investment than any individual player. Let's even say this can sometimes be 2-3 times as much (for the moment assuming he's still getting at least a player's worth of fun out of it).
What sort of logic says that even with that weighting, his preferences should outweigh
all five of the other people involved? Other than tradition and "just because", what sort of rationale is there for this?
Now, he's still not obligated to do things he doesn't want to do, any more than any single player is required to play if he's not going to have fun. But its still the case where trying to argue he's doing anything but serving his own self-interest is a hard sell, and to try and sell it otherwise only makes sense when you go in with the idea the GM has--and should have--overreaching decision-making here, and if you're going to make that argument on other than practical grounds (i.e. that he just gets to by the structure of games) then one needs to make that argument, not just take it as a given.
