If you aren't capable or aren't willing to give the DM your full trust, then don't play the game with him.
Really, how simple can that get?
What some people here seem to want to say is "you -will- DM the game and you -will- DM it the way I want it to be done". But, really, that's putting the DM in a position of servitude. And, wrt that servitude, my response (as is the response of any self respecting DM) is to reply "screw you, buddy". Like I said, if you don't like the way the DM is running things, play elsewhere. Acting like a spoiled brat will get you nowhere fast.
You serious got to be joking. You don´t have that kind of a relationship in a marriage and you want it from your players?!? Get real.
And NOBODY is saying that the players can go tthe rules are this and that´s that...since we are saying not even the DM should be doing that for crying out loud. Your just exaggerating something that isn´t even being said. Asking WHY is not some big offense...and if you won´t allow your players to even ask why, then who is being the spoiled brat here?
I never said asking WHY is a big offense.
I said you're not entitled to an answer to WHY.
You can ask WHY all you want and its polite for the GM to give an explanation, but you certainly aren't entitled to one. The only thing you are entitled to is to not play.
So you believe the DM is "better" then the players and decides who and who is not entitled to whatever.
Sounds like the DM is the one feeling entitled, not the players.
The fact that you are trying to draw parallels between sexual molestation and a GM who won't give you an explanation for house rules is so deeply offensive to me that I can't give you a cogent response right now.
It hardly matters what the example is. Mistreating people as human beings is mistreating people as human beings. I could just as easily have had the host insulting my family or yelling in my face or any number of things. For all of them, the point holds true. Getting worked up up over the example does not address the fundamental point.
|
The only problem is that you've got to find another group of players to play with. The GM and the group of players he's playing with don't have a problem.
And, while walking away from the table doesn't solve your problem of needing to find a group of players to play with, accepting the house rules the GM plays with will. You've chosen not to do that. You've been given a cure to your problem and you've rejected it.
No, the problem is that the GM is disrespectful of his fellow humans. Houserules will never make me walk away from a table. THIS will make me walk away from a table. If you do not point out the flaws in a person, they will remain flaws. You may not be able to sway them, but letting them continue being flawed does not fix the problem.
Am I the only person who STILL has no idea what the OP's complaint is? Is it honestly "they used splatbooks, they are munchkins!" That's pretty weak.
|
|
Did you even read the comment about absolute trust lilith wrote? Obviously players should be complete slaves to the DM....and we all know how much respect slaves deserve.The only thing you are entitled to is to not play.Not even common respect?
I'd appreciate it if you didn't muddy the waters making attacks on LT instead of the arguments presented.
|
|
Am I the only person who STILL has no idea what the OP's complaint is? Is it honestly "they used splatbooks, they are munchkins!" That's pretty weak.
actually it seems the OP´s issue is minorly mechanical...easily fixed actually without taking away any splatbooks or rules(just consider the party higher level then they are)...and majorly a social one...which requires the group to meet and have a talk.
Rule 0 is RAW...rule 0 is also not a valid argument when talking about RAW as it basically nullifies RAW. Invoking rule 0 is basically going nah nah I´m right and I win because I said so in a message board (congratulation for reaching 3 year old logic). Honestly you nit picked so many things that the OP is horrible lost by now and this thread is fast becoming useless other then to debate useless points for debate sake. And for the record YOU seem to be the most adamant about people playing wrong.Rule 0 is null and void in a discussion of RAW. To invoke rule 0 is to admit defeat as you just can´t do better then nah nah I win because I said so.
No I have not forgot, core is a complete game. You can fiddle to your hearts content with that.Players can be creative as they wish with the core rules.Nothing in the Game says you have the right to play anything out side the core rules, nothing not a single thing. You may ask but are not entitled to use anything outside the core book.
Again the class does not make you interesting, the player does.
Did Pathfinder get rid of rule 0?
If it didn't, then -regardless- of what anyone else here says, when it comes to RAW, rule 0 trumps all. That means -even- stuff in core can be prohibited by the GM.
Rule 0 is RAW. To ignore it while, at the same time, claiming to base your argument on RAW is to be cherry-picking RAW and selecting only those parts of RAW which agree with your argument. Such an argument isn't logical, rational, or consistent.
And, to be clear, you don't need a logical, rational, or consistent argument to play the way you like to -unless- you want to try to argue that people who don't share your opinion or style of play are wrong/bad. If you do -that-, then you're just coming across like a spoiled brat.
I think its more that LilithsThrall is the only one who hasn't attempted to argue with VV when they disagree. I agree with LT personally, and VV is acusing her of playing the game wrong, whether she realizes it or not. VV did it with SoS in one of the tiers threads for like 300+ posts.
As for the orriginal topic, it seems to me like the OP doesn't actually mind either the power gaming or the inter-party conflicts that were mentioned.
Inter-party conflicts are a problem for some groups and not others, and depend a lot on the players. I for one love them, but also like playing with some people who hate them and just will tone it down to a point where I will mostly agree. I find it boring if there is complete party cohesion.
Power gaming isn't a problem if everyone is doing it roughly equally. It causes huge problems if there are major power disparities between players, but that doesn't sound like the issue. It sounds like the OP has a group of players that know what they are doing and would be willing to help eachother optimize. The challenge then is for the DM to create good opposition. Mirror Mirror had a good post about not jacking up monsters further but using more puzzles. These challenges can be a lot of fun and will divert resources from optimazation, bringing the players back in line. That being said, a well optimized party should be having a decent time against CR +2-4 encounters. My group has faced CR+6 encounters and won, though those were some tough fights. The monster CRs don't all scale linearly, and I find arround CR+3 you can have some things be a cake walk and others be deadly. Larger groups of weaker foes are often better than 1 or 2 big baddies. You don't want an optimized group focus firing, they will just wipe the floor with all but the toughest monsters. Through a couple CR+1 monsters in with 5-10 CR-1s and its a great fight.
Hypothetical Situation: I am at a party. The host is hitting on me, and I am rejecting him in no uncertain terms. He is putting his hands in places they are not welcome, and he keeps on no matter how many times I tell him no.In this situation, the host is in the wrong. This is sexual harassment. I have the option to leave the party (which I'm liable to exercise in short order), but that does not change the fact that it is wrong of the host to treat me that way.
Likewise, just because I can leave a game when the DM is treating me like crap does not change the fact that he is treating me like crap and that he is wrong to do so. Just because I can leave the room when someone punches me in the face doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to just go around punching people in the face. Just because I can leave the park...
The fact that you are trying to draw parallels between sexual molestation and a GM who won't give you an explanation for house rules is so deeply offensive to me that I can't give you a cogent response right now.
Excuses Excuses. If the sexual harassment thing example bothers you, that still leaves the other two examples for you to work with.
LT, would you accept "because I said so" as an acceptable excuse. I dont just mean in RP games, I mean in any situation. If not then how is it ok now?
LT, would you accept "because I said so" as an acceptable excuse. I dont just mean in RP games, I mean in any situation. If not then how is it ok now?Anyone who has a career or even a job knows that "because I said so" is an acceptable excuse - and I don't mean just by management, rather any leader will, from time to time, have to make that statement.
I have to agree. I hear it every day at work from lots of people. You have to trust that other people know what they are doing sometimes. You can voice arguments to persuade, but that doesn't mean the final decision will be influenced at all.
|
|
I have to agree. I hear it every day at work from lots of people. You have to trust that other people know what they are doing sometimes. You can voice arguments to persuade, but that doesn't mean the final decision will be influenced at all.LT, would you accept "because I said so" as an acceptable excuse. I dont just mean in RP games, I mean in any situation. If not then how is it ok now?Anyone who has a career or even a job knows that "because I said so" is an acceptable excuse - and I don't mean just by management, rather any leader will, from time to time, have to make that statement.
I disagree. Because I said so is poor leadership. It makes you treat your workers like mindless drones, expected to follow without question. A good leader will take the time to say 'I don't have time to explain the reasons. I need you to do this for me.' Just because you hear it all the time does not make it acceptable.
LT, would you accept "because I said so" as an acceptable excuse. I dont just mean in RP games, I mean in any situation. If not then how is it ok now?Anyone who has a career or even a job knows that "because I said so" is an acceptable excuse - and I don't mean just by management, rather any leader will, from time to time, have to make that statement.
An accepted excuse does not mean it is an acceptable excuse.
|
|
LT, would you accept "because I said so" as an acceptable excuse. I dont just mean in RP games, I mean in any situation. If not then how is it ok now?Anyone who has a career or even a job knows that "because I said so" is an acceptable excuse - and I don't mean just by management, rather any leader will, from time to time, have to make that statement.
I hear it at work...but my boss ALWAY apologizes for it afterwards. It comes up in the heat of things sure, but she hired us so we can work for her...not be mindless robots. I said so even from a boss is not a good thing to do. In fact I have gotten a few management people who have used that phrase against me fired...and the last owner who used that on me got caught in a lawsuit over it. You can be the boss, but when you tell me I can´t hire somebody because ¨I said so¨...well that just leads to discriminatory lawsuits (yes the applicant was still in the room with me when he said it).
It´s not a matter of if you can do something or not...it´s a matter of if you SHOULD. I CAN speed...I SHOULDN´T speed though. I CAN shoot somebody in the head...but I really, really SHOULDN´T.
LT, would you accept "because I said so" as an acceptable excuse. I dont just mean in RP games, I mean in any situation. If not then how is it ok now?Anyone who has a career or even a job knows that "because I said so" is an acceptable excuse - and I don't mean just by management, rather any leader will, from time to time, have to make that statement.
I was in the military, and sometimes you don't have time to explain. That is one thing that is possible in a leadership position. It has nothing to do with having time, and just not doing it.
It's one thing to have leaders in a hierarchy lay down a blanket, "You are doing it my way, period" and a DM in a social situation lay down similar levels of my way or the highway.
In a work situation, I am typically receiving financial renumeration that makes me okay with a certain level of autocratic behavior. That being said if my boss violates certain basic norms I'm free to tell him off and quit, or if it's particularly egregious I could always file a lawsuit, make a complaint, etc.
Roleplaying is a social activity and it's not one where there needs to be an autocratic authority that dictates the course of play. Some groups have agreed to this form of DM - Player interaction but to suggest that autocratic and frankly patronizing DM fiat is going to fly with a large percentage of the gaming community is misguided.
If the DM adjudicates play and makes decisions in consultation with the rest of the group (including explaining your logic and reasons for a final decision) then players are empowered to a greater degree than the old DM fiat model. Greater player empowerment typically results in greater player enjoyment. It's not universal by any means but merely a generality.
There is enough room in tabletop play that DM empowerment does not need to take place at the cost of player empowerment. By a similar token increasing player empowerment doesn't necessarily result in less DM empowerment.
|
|
It's one thing to have leaders in a hierarchy lay down a blanket, "You are doing it my way, period" and a DM in a social situation lay down similar levels of my way or the highway.
In a work situation, I am typically receiving financial renumeration that makes me okay with a certain level of autocratic behavior. That being said if my boss violates certain basic norms I'm free to tell him off and quit, or if it's particularly egregious I could always file a lawsuit, make a complaint, etc.
Roleplaying is a social activity and it's not one where there needs to be an autocratic authority that dictates the course of play. Some groups have agreed to this form of DM - Player interaction but to suggest that autocratic and frankly patronizing DM fiat is going to fly with a large percentage of the gaming community is misguided.
If the DM adjudicates play and makes decisions in consultation with the rest of the group (including explaining your logic and reasons for a final decision) then players are empowered to a greater degree than the old DM fiat model. Greater player empowerment typically results in greater player enjoyment. It's not universal by any means but merely a generality.
There is enough room in tabletop play that DM empowerment does not need to take place at the cost of player empowerment. By a similar token increasing player empowerment doesn't necessarily result in less DM empowerment.
You know that bring up a good analogy...
Okay so your working and you have a boss that says do it my way...I don´t care what you think, you have to do what I say because I said so.
Then you have a boss who says I want you to do it this way because of reason x, y, z...but if you have a better suggestion I will consider it and if it´s a good idea, we´ll do it your way.
Who has the better job experience? And who ends up with the better employees? Which leads to who has a better game? And better players?
Like you said vuron, there are exceptions as always of course.
He may have, also, based that decision on facts having to do with how the company is doing business - facts which are on a need to know basis.
That raises an assload of questions
1) Why do people working on the project in the company not know about company policies and practices?2) Why are people working on the project without proper clearance?
Your analogy lacks a lot more things than just a good example.
|
|
One thing that I thought I addressed, but I'll do so again.
The only rule I've used here is that the only thing everyone is entitled to is to not play. The GM is entitled to not play by rules he doesn't want to.
What you all are arguing is that he's not so entitled, rather, he's obligated to play by rules you want him to (forex. giving you an explanation for everything). As I've pointed out, what you want is an inherently unequal environment where you are entitled to things (not playing) at the same time saying that the GM is not.
Frankly, as I said before, any self-respecting GM is going to respond to that by saying "screw you, buddy".
And I only take issue with the 'not playing being the only entitlement'. I say the players are entitled to common respect. You're suggesting I'm not. You have to remember that I group 'GM' in with 'players' because that is what he is. All the players are entitled to respect from the other players. GM or PC. And I have never said that a GM has to play with rules he doesn't like, only that he needs more of an explanation than 'Because'. Even if all he says is 'I don't like them, because of X' then he has at least explained why.
|
|
I agree that everyone is entitled to common respect, but there is most definitely different opinions as to what common respect is.
"Because I said so" may have nothing at all to do with respect. You assume it must, but you've never defended that position.And GM may not like the rule that he has to provide more than "because I said so". If he doesn't like that rule, he is entitled to not play with you.
Even if the minimum he has to give is 'it's a secret I plan to reveal in-game'?
'Because I said so' has the connotation in my book of 'you are not important enough/intelligent enough to understand'. Should I ever have kids, I hope I never make the mistake of using it on them. After nine years of military service, I understand there are reasons not to tell me. Time constraints and security clearances, however, are usually very obvious reasons that don't need spelling out. Even just 'this is the way the general wants it' is acceptable because, hey, he's the frickin' general and he don't have time to share everything.
But when it is something not time essential, and can be resolved by a simple explanation like the ones mentioned above, it is insulting and frustrating to not even be given that courtesy. And it suggests he cannot trust you with that information.
|
|
To which the player is going to immediately start looking and speculating for in-game reasons why this rule isn't allowed.
Is this really a problem as long as his character doesn't show any knowledge of it? It sounds more like a metagaming problem than anything else.
I don't know how to respond to this other than to say that if I were at all predisposed to the belief that my friends thought I wasn't intelligent enough or important enough, they wouldn't be my friends much longer. Because they are my friends, I trust and respect them. Because I trust and respect them, I'm not prone to interpret them saying "because I said so" as them thinking I'm not intelligent enough or important enough.
You probably have the advantage of gaming with your friends for years. Being in the military, I tend to only have a couple years at best of knowing my players. I've played with my group all of three sessions now. We are still building that trust. I'm fortunate to have known the one when he was living at my last duty station, but the rest I have hung out with all of four times.
Interesting that the debate has now polarised to either:
The DM does not respect or trust his players because he is not revealing his reasons for banning things out in the open.
or,
The players do not respect or trust the DM because they are demanding explanations and justifications for every decision he makes.
Both of these are equally true. But what is more true is not necessarily what you do but how you do it; if the players ask politely what the reasons are, they are more likely to get an answer. If the DM explains politely that he has to keep his reasons concealed for now, he is more likely to keep his players happy. Courtesy is a good way of showing respect, regardless of what you do.
If I ban material from a game, I have always given an explanation. I admit, sometimes it has been that I just don't like the material. That is a valid argument for a GM. If the GM doesn't like something, then there is zero reason to expect him/her to be able to make the material enjoyable for the players. You should never force a GM to admit something into the game, anymore than a GM should force players into certain games. Both are equally wrong.
Of course, I am mainly discussing what should, and should not, be included at the gaming table. Conflicts in playing style will always arise, from time to time.
You'll find, as you get older and move out away from high school/college, that these kinds of things are a regular fact of life.
For genuinely offensive behavior there's nothing quite like baseless condescension.
To which the player is going to immediately start looking and speculating for in-game reasons why this rule isn't allowed.
What an appalling lack of trust you display. :)
|
|
Perhaps, but you aren't going to build that level of trust unless you start trusting them.
Have they given you any other reason to lead you to believe that they think you aren't as intelligent or important as them? Perhaps something away from the table/game?
If not, then you sound like you are lookng for a bad self-fulfilling prophecy.
I grew up moving once a year or so, so I've got an idea what it's like.
I admit that I may have set up a self-fulfilling prophecy in the example I linked to earlier. As for having been given any reason, not really. We don't interact much outside of sessions and the Google Group I set up. Something about being an hour away from them all. But I think we can agree we're arguing the same side from different viewpoints, as Dabbler pointed out.
...
What an appalling lack of trust you display. :)
To which the player is going to immediately start looking and speculating for in-game reasons why this rule isn't allowed.
Its exactly what I would do as a player, no matter how hard I attempt to forget. Its a real pain to forget things in the metagame, and I absolutely hate spoilers. There it depends on your players some though.
Its exactly what I would do as a player, no matter how hard I attempt to forget. Its a real pain to forget things in the metagame, and I absolutely hate spoilers. There it depends on your players some though.
For shame! :p
It's not what I'd do. In fact, I would be more concerned with my group deliberately hindering their own character's attempts to make heads or tails of what's going on in order to prevent metagaming.
But it seems to be the unstated assumption underlying many of the arguments against sharing info. "No! You'll misbehave!"
Feh.
I work in a high tech field where we are counting on each other to be subject matter experts. Sometimes, for a leader to explain why he's doing things, it would take a very long time because his decision is derived from his knowledge of the project and a lot of little details which he's synthesized.
He may simply not have that time available. He may have, also, based that decision on facts having to do with how the company is doing business - facts which are on a need to know basis.Now, I also game with a bunch of people who have lives away from the table - family, career, etc. and can only get together maybe once a month, maybe not even that often. The time we have available to get together is rare and we consider it very valuable. If anyone were to suck up that available time by demanding an explanation for every disagreement, there'd be less time to actually play. Also, the DM may have based that decision on information which is need to know.
You'll find, as you get older and move out away from high school/college, that these kinds of things are a regular fact of life.
Email works, and telephones work. A lot of questions are handled by most groups before a campaign even begins so there is no reason to take up game time. That HS/college comment is nothing but an insult, and an excuse. Need to know, does not mean you "because I said so" is acceptable. It only means you can't go into details which everyone who has disagreed with you has said is acceptable. As I have stated, and you have ignored saying, plot reasons or telling the player you have reasons which cant be explained right now is an acceptable answer. It at least lets them know you have a reason, where as, "because I said so" let them no nothing, and only belittles them.
What you all are arguing is that he's not so entitled, rather, he's obligated to play by rules you want him to
WRONG. Nobody has said that. We are saying if X is denied we only want to know why. If its better for us not to due to story reasons as an example, then there are ways to let us know that without giving any details. Many general statements have been given throughout this thread that say how to do that. It has nothing to do with wanting to control a DM. It has to do with the idea that nobody likes being talked down to, and many of us see "because I said so", as just that.
Being in the military, I was more likely to hear that than any civilian ever would, and even then I would get normally eventually get an answer, even if it was not detailed because it was on a need to know basis.
And GM may not like the rule that he has to provide more than "because I said so". If he doesn't like that rule, he is entitled to not play with you.
If you can't defend a position maybe that position is not valid. That would be my concern with such an answer. Arbitrary rulings dont sit well with people. To go back to an earlier example, the ability to walk out of a situation does not make it ok.
To which the player is going to immediately start looking and speculating for in-game reasons why this rule isn't allowed.
That is speculation. Many players can play without metagaming or trying too. Now if your group has that issue I understand why you feel that way, but I would not apply it across the board.
I don't know how to respond to this other than to say that if I were at all predisposed to the belief that my friends thought I wasn't intelligent enough or important enough, they wouldn't be my friends much longer. Because they are my friends, I trust and respect them. Because I trust and respect them, I'm not prone to interpret them saying "because I said so" as them thinking I'm not intelligent enough or important enough.
If they are your friends then why can't you trust them enough not to cheat?
If I ban material from a game, I have always given an explanation. I admit, sometimes it has been that I just don't like the material. That is a valid argument for a GM. If the GM doesn't like something, then there is zero reason to expect him/her to be able to make the material enjoyable for the players. You should never force a GM to admit something into the game, anymore than a GM should force players into certain games. Both are equally wrong.
Of course, I am mainly discussing what should, and should not, be included at the gaming table. Conflicts in playing style will always arise, from time to time.
I can accept I dont like material X, even if I wanted more detail. That is better than, because I said so. There are things that just rub me the wrong way also.
|
To the OP, I remember when a particular DM, who gave out Lots of treasure and had strong gestalt characters, threw a "mage's" disjunction at them, the whole party at once. This was in 3.5, but in Pathfinder I guess you could do a trap that does the same thing as the 3.5 version did.
It definately lessened the power of the players, for a little while.
Another DM did a curse on us, directly from a god, when we were ~9-10th level. We had to go through a whole lot in order to get a different god to remove it for us. It certainly affected our effectiveness. He chose 50% do nothing/50% act normal in combat situations. negative stats would also do nicely.
What's most important to me as both a player and a DM is to keep things flowing in the game. Nothing spoils the moment more than "I don't think that works that way" followed by a half hour discussion of whether it does or not. I don't want to get bogged down or sidetracked with reasons (whether valid or not) as to why something happened in game. We can hash it out later.
If I receive or give a curt answer to a rules-y question I make an effort to address it after the session (and those we play with know this). We have had too many combats get drawn out way longer than they should have taken due to page flipping and discussions on rules interpretations. It drives me nuts. Fortunately it doesn't happen much when I DM, but then again I haven't DM'd more than a module in a number of years.
As to the OP's question, I think a sit-down with the players in the group is in order. Talk through concerns and listen to suggestions. Hope that helps. /salute!
I work in a high tech field where we are counting on each other to be subject matter experts. Sometimes, for a leader to explain why he's doing things, it would take a very long time because his decision is derived from his knowledge of the project and a lot of little details which he's synthesized.
He may simply not have that time available. He may have, also, based that decision on facts having to do with how the company is doing business - facts which are on a need to know basis.
There is a lot wrong with this line of reasoning, but I'll hit the big ones.
1) You're comparing a game to work. When the game becomes work, it's time to leave the hobby. The DM/Player relationship is not a boss/employee relationship. DMs and players are peers. Equals. Friends. The DM's seat does not make you superior to your friends.
2) You're framing the DM as the undisputed expert on pretty much everything. Thing is, in all likelihood, the players as a collective are going to know a lot more about the system than the DM. They're also capable of devising things the DM never imagined, using things in ways the DM never expected. In the end, it's extremely rare for a DM to actually well-equipped to make all mechanical decisions on what it best for the campaign as a whole.
When the players know as much about the system as the DM, treating the DM as the system expert above all others is an inherently faulty model that actively and drastically reduces game quality.
3) Going outside of analogy and into business, even the expert is subject to questioning. If the results are dubious, you don't just say, "Well, he's the expert, my instincts on the matter must be wrong." I'm an engineering student, and when engineers let things slide like that, people can die.
Just because someone's an expert doesn't mean they're always right. There are times when you have to do due diligence and investigate the issue. In those situations, "Because I said so," won't cut it. I already know you said so. If I'm asking questions, it's because, "Because I said so," is not enough. And pretty much every business on the planet has protocols for those necessary lines of inquiry.
Meanwhile, there are times when there aren't any questions that need asking, but that's different from, "Because I said so," being a valid answer. Likewise, there are many houserules and world aspects that won't be questioned because no one sees a need to question them. I dare say this will be the case for the overwhelming majority. But when questions are needed, questions are needed, and the players deserve actual answers.
There's a difference between trusting someone and never ever questioning them.
Now, I also game with a bunch of people who have lives away from the table - family, career, etc. and can only get together maybe once a month, maybe not even that often. The time we have available to get together is rare and we consider it very valuable. If anyone were to suck up that available time by demanding an explanation for every disagreement, there'd be less time to actually play. Also, the DM may have based that decision on information which is need to know.
You'll find, as you get older and move out away from high school/college, that these kinds of things are a regular fact of life.
Who ever said the explanations have to be during the session? There are cell phones, email, message boards, getting one or two folks together for a hot dog over lunch. Communication is so easy in this era that there just isn't an excuse anymore. Don't have the time to have the discussion in the monthly four-hour session? There are seven hundred and sixteen other hours in the month. Just send out the campaign information a couple weeks early for review. No loss of play time.
Meanwhile, if you only have one session a month to game, it becomes that much more important to actually get those session right. To have those discussions, to hash out those rules, to work together, to give the explanations, to get everyone on the same page so that when everyone does get together, the game is a fulfilling experience for everyone.
The only rule I've used here is that the only thing everyone is entitled to is to not play. The GM is entitled to not play by rules he doesn't want to.
What you all are arguing is that he's not so entitled, rather, he's obligated to play by rules you want him to (forex. giving you an explanation for everything). As I've pointed out, what you want is an inherently unequal environment where you are entitled to things (not playing) at the same time saying that the GM is not.
Frankly, as I said before, any self-respecting GM is going to respond to that by saying "screw you, buddy".
Everyone at the table, DM and player alike, it entitled to being treated like an intelligent adult, regardless of setting, whether we're talking about a dinner party, board game night, working in the office, or sitting around the gaming table. When I go to a party, I'm entitled to not being berated, harassed, assaulted, robbed, mocked, stabbed, yelled at, groped, or transmogrified into a haddock, and so is everyone else at the party.
A DM who cannot DM and treat his peers as intelligent human beings is not fit to be DM and should either change his ways and begin respecting the players or he should step down and allow someone else to take the DM's seat.
A DM who is mistreating me as a human being is wrong. A DM who is treating me like a child is wrong. This isn't a matter of DM/player relationship. It's a matter of fundamental human decency.
And do note that no one ever said the DM has to DM. The DM is free to step down at any time. However, just because someone's DM does not mean they no longer have a responsibility to treat their players like intelligent human beings.
"Because I said so," in a game setting when asked for an explanation for a ruling is refusing to treat the players like an intelligent adult, instead choosing to treat them like a child, and at that point, the DM is overstepping his bounds as a human being.
And GM may not like the rule that he has to provide more than "because I said so". If he doesn't like that rule, he is entitled to not play with you.
No, he isn't required to play. That doesn't make it right.
A waiter may not like the rule that he's not allowed to knock customers out, steal their kidneys, and sell 'em on the black market, and he's perfectly free to choose not to be a waiter over it, but it's still wrong to knock people out and sell their organs on the black market.
You can choose not to play for any reason at all, or even no reason at all. That doesn't mean it's right to treat people like crap.
The players do not respect or trust the DM because they are demanding explanations and justifications for every decision he makes.
That's a caricature in the extreme. I'm saying that when the players ask for an explanation, they're entitled a valid explanation. That does not in any way mean players are supposed to question every single decision.
If I receive or give a curt answer to a rules-y question I make an effort to address it after the session (and those we play with know this). We have had too many combats get drawn out way longer than they should have taken due to page flipping and discussions on rules interpretations. It drives me nuts. Fortunately it doesn't happen much when I DM, but then again I haven't DM'd more than a module in a number of years.
The discussion is more on the up-front houserules and guidelines, where game flow is a complete and utter non-issue. On-the-fly rulings are a separate issue (though it still needs to be hashed out afterward).