Why I don't GM by the nose

[SkidAce]

Referring to Hussar's post above.

Actually in a way I do.

I consider it (another analogy oh no...) like the relationship of the president (DM) and congress (Players) [NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS PLEASE].

Both have great power, the president can veto anything he likes. But he should use it sparingly and wisely in conjunction with Congress, or they will overthrow it.

Congress can impeach the DM, and appoint another in his place. If the players tell the DM "we don't like it dude, Bob is going to DM" then the DM could still hang out and play with friends, or he could bail.

But overall, the bottom line should be this (unlike the above example sometimes) the relationship of power is shared and good natured, so when one side or the other feels the need to use its power, the other side is cool with it.

A final example, if the players came to the DM in a friendly way and said "Tom, we all talked and we want robots mixed into the campaign" every DM I have ever met to include myself would either say "Not fond of it but ok dudes" or "Hmmm, maybe I could get some play time then, Bobs world is a good fit for robots."

So Hussar, your example of the DM's power to create and arbitrate the world and ongoing play are spot on, but I feel the players have equal power to shape the entire game environment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A player cannot declare house rules at the table. A player cannot end the campaign for everyone at the table.

Are you saying that a DM cannot do either of those things?

A GM can do both of those things, so long as the players buy in. Likewise, a player can do both of those things, so long as the other players buy in (including the GM).

A GM cannot declare a house rule at the table, successfully, unless the players agree to allow him to do so.

A GM cannot end the campaign for everyone at the table, successfully, unless the players agree to allow him to do so.

When I moved from Los Angeles to Toronto, one of my players continued carrying on the campaign for the same group, and the same characters, using his maps and notes from when I was running. Sure, everything outside what had been discovered now bears his mark rather than mine, but for all practical purposes (from the players' POV) that campaign continued.

Is there anyone out there that thinks that there is even remotely parity in power at the table in D&D between the players and the DM?

I assume you have me on Ignore, because I have repeatedly demonstrated that your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

However, I am certainly one.



RC

 

[Mark CMG]

People who join a game playing situation, where one or more people are meant to facilitate most of the game play, thinking in terms of who has more power and seeing it as some sort of inequity are bound to create an adversarial situation (at least in their own mind) and curtail the potential success of that game play.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm curious as to why so many of this forum seem to think that players should hold the power on the game. You talk about players getting what they want but what about what the DM wants?

As someone who DM's for the most part but does enjoy playing, I would have suggested that it should be a compromise rather than one side or the other having their way. Now there are races, feats, prestige classes...etc that I won't have my games. Personal preference, mechanical balance... whatever the reason. But I'm open to player suggestions as to what sort of campaign, scenarios...etc they would like. Never been a problem.

There is no point giving players the power when the DM doesn't like what they want. The DM, who does all the hard work, should have their say providing that the game that gets run is fair.

 

[Krensky]

People who join a game playing situation, where one or more people are meant to facilitate most of the game play, thinking in terms of who has more power and seeing it as some sort of inequity are bound to create an adversarial situation (at least in their own mind) and curtail the potential success of that game play.

To be honest, I've found that understanding the inequity has made me more likely to allow the players more freedom and action and less likely to employ let alone abuse my power as a GM. Certainly seeing the exercise as adversarial will cause problems, but seeing it as adversarial is not a necessary end point of understanding the dynamics and balance of power.

 

[Mark CMG]

To be honest, I've found that understanding the inequity has made me more likely to allow the players more freedom and action and less likely to employ let alone abuse my power as a GM. Certainly seeing the exercise as adversarial will cause problems, but seeing it as adversarial is not a necessary end point of understanding the dynamics and balance of power.

Understanding that a lack of equivalence does not equal inequity is a good starting point.

 

[Krensky]

Understanding that a lack of equivalence does not equal inequity is a good starting point.

Sadly, my preferred response to this would run afoul of the no politics rule, so let's just go with:

That's like saying lack of oxygen does not equal asphyxia.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't think DMs are under any obligation to incorporate everything from the Player's Handbook (which I assume is what you mean by "the standard list") when building a campaign world.
BIG SNIP

I don't think DMs are obligated by published works either, just the rules known to all the players at the table. I would suggest trying to run an open world, not a locked in world as you put it, but if everyone knows it, then that's the group's game.

By standard list I mean something different than published lists. My standard list informs players of the PC-playable races included at the start of the game, the ones I've already incorporated. Droid isn't in there, but it could be. If a player writes a description I will work that person to codify it into the codeset. And it gets tacked on to the standard list as well thereafter.

That goes for classes and races and other character generation choices. Telling me in the background they are questing for a sword that trapped their uncle's soul is something fully incorporated and hunted down thereafter. The player could even do this during a session, but I'm not capable of including it during the same without breaking the rules.

Well, anybody can ask to play anything. I take much the same approach, except that I may well respond to this request with, "No, you can't play a Carebear. Not even if the rest of the group is 100% cool with it."

We were talking about veto power. Does everyone have that power at your table? I'm pretty open, but there are certainly grandma-unfriendly choices I would want to veto down too, referee or not.

 

[Mark CMG]

That's like saying lack of oxygen does not equal asphyxia.

Since you missed the point, let me restate that two things not being equal does not make the situation unfair. The game is designed to include a facilitator, so claiming that inherently creates an unfairness would be inaccurate.

 

[Mark CMG]

We were talking about veto power. Does everyone have that power at your table? I'm pretty open, but there are certainly grandma-unfriendly choices I would want to veto down too, referee or not.

Since I often game at public venues, game stores and conventions, that ability is a must.