|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Matthew Downie wrote:People dislike it when GMs ban their favourite things. That's not anti-GM, unless you believe that GMs are beyond all criticism.
It's anti-GM when people tell the GM they're wrong for doing it or demand justifications for making the decision. Especially when those people aren't actually players in that game.
It's anti-GM when you say, "let's play one of those GM-less RPGs like Capes because GMs suck".
A sentiment like "GMs should not change the rules just because they feel like it" could more accurately be referred to as "anti-all-powerful-GMs" or similar. These people are still in favour of GMs, they just want the power balance tilted more towards the players. Calling them anti-GM is biased language, like accusing people of hating rogues if they think rogues should/shouldn't made a bit more powerful.
It might seem like a minor distinction, but imagine being labelled "anti-police" for saying police should have to obey the law. It's the kind of thing that happens in political debates all the time, and it just leads to greater misunderstandings and the escalation of arguments.