When a DM says something like "I am a DM, my word is law," I call them a "cunt" and walk out. It's a cunt thing to do.

The "rules" by which a particular game operates evolve out of a complex interaction of the players with the published material they draw on, with some of the players taking on the roles of individual protagonists and another one taking on the roles of other characters in the story.

For one of the players, even the one who plays the other characters in the story, to assert that he has an arbitrary authority to determine how that relationship will develop is for that player to be a giant flopping cunt.

Now, individual players might want to propose changes in how this game will develop - suggesting house rules, telling people that they're idiots for wanting to play lesbian strippers ninjas in your mediaeval courtly intrigue game, and just generally building a consensus of what the game will be. That's cool. But hell, the claim that one person "owns" a game is ridiculous to start with, and it only gets more ridiculous when they start making demands that everyone else must follow.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhen a DM says something like "I am a DM, my word is law," I call them a "cunt" and walk out. It's a cunt thing to do.

Yup, calling someone a cunt over something like that surely is a cunt thing to do.  Thankfully, you won't be around to be a cunt anymore.  

Quote from: RedFoxYup, calling someone a cunt over something like that surely is a cunt thing to do.  Thankfully, you won't be around to be a cunt anymore.  

:rolleyes:

The DM is not a boss. He has authority only insofar as the players let him adjudicate rule disputes. When a DM starts pretending that he's anything more than the player who plays the other characters and who gets to arbitrate rules disputes, he's pretending to an authority he doesn't have. And someone who pretends to an authority they don't have, and then tries to use that "authority" to make you do what they want is a cunt.

Umm, actually a GM has as much authority as his or her group lets him or her have.  Much more than being able to play NPCs and adjudicate rules disputes, depending.  That doesn't make him or her a cunt.

Quote from: RedFoxUmm, actually a GM has as much authority as his or her group lets him or her have.  Much more than being able to play NPCs and adjudicate rules disputes, depending.  That doesn't make him or her a cunt.

What non-trivial examples can you provide of additional things a DM is given the authority to do?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhat non-trivial examples can you provide of additional things a DM is given the authority to do?

I can't.  Not with a litmus like "non-trivial," which is entirely subjective.  And there's so many.

Things just off the top of my head, though:

• Creating new rules.
• Adjudicating social disputes OOC.
• Dealing with disruptions.
• Dictating character roles at character creation (i.e. "no evil guys, you must have a connection to the Liberty City Police Force," etc.)
• Providing a play venue.
• Reigning in PC actions ("No, you cannot do that.")
• Scheduling the game.

Man, my group does it all wrong. Play venue and scheduling aren't presently the GM's - my living space does not physically permit it - but the rest of RedFox's list is placed squarely at the GM's feet. Suggesting that a given game isn't "the GM's" would leave them looking at you like your second head had just told them the Earth was flat.

Any chance you could refrain from telling them how ridiculous their prefered style is, so we can keep having fun?

Quote from: RedFoxI can't.  Not with a litmus like "non-trivial," which is entirely subjective.  And there's so many.

Things just off the top of my head, though:

• Creating new rules.
• Adjudicating social disputes OOC.
• Dealing with disruptions.
• Dictating character roles at character creation (i.e. "no evil guys, you must have a connection to the Liberty City Police Force," etc.)
• Providing a play venue.
• Reigning in PC actions ("No, you cannot do that.")
• Scheduling the game.

Not to mention being the chief arbitrator and originator of the structure of the game world, setting, theme, initial plot concept.

whether it's an entirely original setting, or whether it starts from a pre-written core setting, it's generally the GM who decides where to go from there, what part of the larger world the players will initially explore, what chief NPCs will influence the course of the plot, and all manner of other considerations.

It is generally from there that conflicts over what is allowed in game tend to stem, as the GM may have a fairly concrete idea of the game world he'd like to manage, and PCs may wind up with characters or mechanics that conflict with that.  

This can be especially volatile if there is conflict between a GM's version of a pre-written setting, and it's original form.  

Personally, I tend to feel leery GMs that start ripping things out of a pre-formed setting in that fashion, because I go into it expecting things as they're written.  It's usually the thing that gets me interested in the damn game in the first place, so it becomes sort of a rug-pulling scenario when the GM starts willy nilly adding and subtracting things from the setting to suit his own whims.  

A good example of this kind of thing is some of the crazier theories that gamers start coming up with about Jedi and the Force in Star Wars whenever the subject comes up on RPGnet.  Everyone has their interpretation of course, it is after all basically a religion, but sometimes you get stuff like "there is no real Dark Side" and all sorts of lunacy, that, if sprung ona  player expecting the actual Star Wars mythos, is jsut flat likely to piss him the hell off.

Quote from: RedFoxI can't.  Not with a litmus like "non-trivial," which is entirely subjective.  And there's so many.

Things just off the top of my head, though:

• Creating new rules.
• Adjudicating social disputes OOC.
• Dealing with disruptions.
• Dictating character roles at character creation (i.e. "no evil guys, you must have a connection to the Liberty City Police Force," etc.)
• Providing a play venue.
• Reigning in PC actions ("No, you cannot do that.")
• Scheduling the game.

Most of those examples don't require the player who does them to be a DM to do them. The group could play at anyone's house, and anyone could schedule the game. I'm interested in what the DM does as a DM with his DM authority, not just as the guy who's most eager to play or whatever. That's what distinguishes him from the other players, after all.

There are two examples you provided that fit that description, but I'm not sure I'm fond of either of them. "Reigning in PC actions" seems problematic unless it's just a subtype of "dealing with disruptions" - which the entire group can (and should) do. Otherwise, it's just a sign that you're gaming with someone who wants to fuck up everyone's fun. You don't need one guy to step in and slap that person on the hand, the group as a whole needs to point out that what he's doing is jerkish, and if he persists, give him the boot.

And dictating character creation is problematic. Heck, you yourself have acknowledged in this very thread that there are all sorts of cool ideas you have that DMs shut down. Once again, it's an issue that the group, not the DM alone, should deal with, and one that doesn't seem to benefit much from having one guy tell everyone to do.

DM: "You're in a room, 10 feet square. There's a chest in the corner. Apart from the door you entered in, there are no exits"
Player: "I walk through the wall behind the chest."
DM: "Erm, it's a solid wall. You're a halfling fighter. No, can't get through."
Player: "Cunt!"

GM: "So, we're playing a Star Wars campaign, roughly 5 BBY. This campaign centers around blockade running, con jobs and working together to keep the ship running and your colleagues alive."
Player: "Okay, I'll be playing Darth Revans love child with Darth Traya. I'm 5000 years old and will accompany the ship with my own Super Star Destroyer".
GM: "Erm, nope?"
Player: "Cunt!"

Quote from: Christmas ApeAny chance you could refrain from telling them how ridiculous their prefered style is, so we can keep having fun?

It's pretty ridiculous to pretend you own "a game", where "game" means an ongoing series of events requiring the participation and consent of a half-dozen people or so. You might own the rulebooks, or your notes on the game, or the dice the group uses or the place they play at, but saying that makes you the owner of the game is like saying that you own Christmas or Sunday.

For fuck's sake, do you wear a helmet to school? You're either desperately short on reading skills or dodging the point of every post like a zoo keeper in the monkey cage. In neither case am I willing to expend the time or mental energy to bother continuing this ridiculous conversation. You can play by commitee, we'll dispense with the formalities and appoint a GM to run the game we've discussed in the manner that suits them.

Speaking of which, I'm gonna pour another Schweppes & gin, pack a bowl, and watch you and E.B. shit yourselves over your various pet points while I finish up the character creation notes for The Long Walk Home.

Quote from: J ArcanePersonally, I tend to feel leery GMs that start ripping things out of a pre-formed setting in that fashion, because I go into it expecting things as they're written.  It's usually the thing that gets me interested in the damn game in the first place, so it becomes sort of a rug-pulling scenario when the GM starts willy nilly adding and subtracting things from the setting to suit his own whims.  

Which is why it's vital for the GM to lay out his/her "version" of the campaign setting before the game starts. You're are right about expectations. If a GM does not take this into account, he/she is neglecting one of the most important rules of GMing - the campaign setting must be interesting to the players. It's all about being honest with the players. IME the GM is the player with the most "power" in the game. Anybody who runs the game normally is. But it really is a power to make the game "fun" for the players and not a power to rule over the group with an iron fist. As usual it all boils down to communication, an aspect which is surprising absent in most groups.

Regards,
David R

As far as having a character concept nuked by a GM's house rules goes, character creation should include the GM throughout the procedure. If nothing else just to avoid people showing up with Indiana Jones, Darth Vader, Jesus, and Chicken Little for the GM's CSI-themed modern police detectives campaign.

I did not say, "I am the law!" that was some other bloke. I said, "As the Game Master, I master the game, the game does not master me."

That means that as GM, I run the game - not several hundred pages of badly-written, sloppily-edited, rarely-playtested, saucily-illustrated rules. I'm talking about Spike's original point, which was about what he calls "subtractive GMing" - taking things out of the rules because you don't think they'll fit well in your campaign or group. To say that the GM has the right to do that is not to say that the GM is the brutal dictator of the oppressed masses of players.

"I am going to run things like this, because I think that'll make for a good campaign and session."

The players are always free to just get up and walk away. I believe in a roleplaying game group competitive free market - GMs and players can behave as they wish, the best one will win, an invisible hand will guide them to the groups with the play styles which best suit them.