The question:
Can a GM do anything he wants at anytime regardless of the players decisions or input?
I have met a few people that would say that the GM can do anything he wants at anytime to the players and to his world without any deliberation between them. If it means changing the rules, breaking the rules, making the impossible possible..Anything and Everything is ok and should never be questioned by the players.
Do you think the GM has the right to do anything he wants? If so Why?
Personally I think the game is a collaboration between the players and the GM. If the GM wants to change something he not only has to tell his players but also get them to agree on the change.
Also! Most if not all changes should be discussed before the campaign begins and not added in between or in the middle of adventures.
What do you think everyone?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely no, I have always been against GM Fiat. Is not the GM game, is the game of all. I also think the game is a collaborative thing.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules the GM can "do anything he wants", yes.
However, as with most things, a GM who abuses that ability will soon find themselves without players. What a person CAN do is rarely equatable with what a person SHOULD do.
The term "GM fiat" is like the term "metagaming." To many players either is a "bad thing." However, done properly both can add greatly to the gaming experience.
As the GM my bottom line is that my world is my world. I know what happens in my world. So long as the world maintains an appropriate internal consistency, or if the inconsistencies are explainable in game terms, then the only real question is "are the players having fun?" If they are, then my GM fiat is fine. If not, then my GM fiat is not fine.
Of course I try my best to only apply GM fiat to advance or improve the game, never to constrain or confuse the PCs. Because while I CAN do that, it's rarely been my experience that I SHOULD do that.
No one is always correct. But you need to defer to someone in a game in order to keep it moving along.
|
Can a GM do anything he wants at anytime regardless of the players decisions or input?
With my groups the GM makes the ultimate decision on any ruling during a session. That said its expected that the GM will listen to player input when making decisions. In favor of keeping a session flowing the GM will eventually just make a ruling. Our GMs have reversed those decisions between sessions after discussing it further as a group. So yes the GM can do anything he wants regardless but we trust he/she will at least listen to what the players have to say before doing so.
Do you think the GM has the right to do anything he wants? If so Why?
I put my trust in the GM with a social contract when we agree to game together. I hope the GM is kind enough to offer up a summary of the game they wish to run. Along with that summary a list of rule deviations from core is also appreciated. I give GMs the benefit of the doubt when it comes to doing as they will. I trust the decisions they make will be for a better game.
Personally I think the game is a collaboration between the players and the GM. If the GM wants to change something he not only has to tell his players but also get them to agree on the change.
Also! Most if not all changes should be discussed before the campaign begins and not added in between or in the middle of adventures.
I agree gaming is a two way street. However, I think players are sometimes a little too entitled and hold the GM hostage with the rules. If you dont trust the GM then you may not be compatible gamers. Now trust is earned and it can certainly be abused that's where being a perceptive GM comes in. Both the GM and players need to have fun. I agree being upfront as much as possible is ideal but sometimes changes are not realized until a game is well under way. If and when a GM decides to make changes I believe they should tell the players why. Listen to players feedback its their game too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question:Can a GM do anything he wants at anytime regardless of the players decisions or input?
CAN he? Sure.
SHOULD he? That's the real question.
Do you think the GM has the right to do anything he wants? If so Why?Personally I think the game is a collaboration between the players and the GM. If the GM wants to change something he not only has to tell his players but also get them to agree on the change.
I agree to a degree.
One of my GMs calls it the player/GM contract. I could go into depth into what it means but basically it's that the player and the GM agree to communicate their needs to each other, give each other feedback, and overall don't behave like dicks to each other.
Both sides require give and take. For a healthy game, the GM does need to communicate clearly and make sure players are on board with what he wants to see happen.
But at the same time, for that to really work, the players also need to be willing to give the GM the power to make calls on tough decisions and trust their decision is for the best of everyone involved. Sometimes there is going to be a rule or interpretation of a rule that is simply contentious, and consensus will not be achieved. In these cases, the GM needs to be trusted to make a decision and stick with it, and the players need to be trusted to accept that call even if they personally disagree for the benefit of the flow of the game. This also of course means that the GM needs to be trustWORTHY of course.
Players also need to respect when the GM says no, and GMs need to respect the Players enough to find good, real reasons as to why they cannot say yes.
It's just like any healthy social relationship or working relationship--there's a point where people have to let people work in their role and be respectful of each other.
Also! Most if not all changes should be discussed before the campaign begins and not added in between or in the middle of adventures.
I would say all house rules the GM knows he is going to implement, he makes sure everyone is aware of before character creation. That's for both his and the players' benefit.
However, sometimes an issue comes up in the middle of the game that needs to be house ruled. The GM can't foresee everything. But in this case it works like everything else above--the GM discusses it with the group and makes sure everyone is aware of any new ruling made and that they are cool with it.
For example, late in a game I ran, we experienced waves of exhaustion as both a spell cast by the PCs on enemies and as a spell cast by enemies on PCs, and after those experiences, we all talked about it and decided it was too powerful a spell to have no saving throw. I as the GM proposed that it allow a save to be fatigued instead of exhausted, and the players agreed that allowed both me and them to use the spell effectively without feeling totally defeated by it. All was well. But we didn't know it was going to be a problem until well into the game. If it was considered unacceptable to make that house rule mid game, then it would have left us in a frustrating situation, so it was better to be able to make the change mid-game. The key again though is communication. :)
|
I think the GM can do whatever he or she pleases in the campaign world, and, to a degree, the rules. However, i think there is a blurb about houserules in the introductory chapter of the core rule book...something about GM and players being on the same page with any changes to cut down on confusion and arguments? GM fiat has been a longstanding rock to hide behind for GMs making questionable or iffy decisions about rules and campaign development alike. If a GM wants to abuse that, then I guess he's going to abuse it. Now, that having been said, whether or not that GM will have regular players for any length of time is another matter entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe To have it any other way than a Collaborative process would just feel like I was gaming under some fascism regime.
Adamantine Dragon I disagree with you, but we are not that far off from each others viewpoints. You seem to be an exception because you brought up the consistency issue.
If the GM needs to change things to make some cool scene happen that just wouldn't go with the rules as written than that's fine... That is story telling. BUT changing things is a slippery slope my friend.
When does it stop?
If you just flip flop rules whenever it suites you how am I so posed to feel like I can control a situation?
And how am I not going to feel Like I was somehow cheated a victory.
This is just my feelings on it.. s&!+ I could be wrong. lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your GM is the pope, then yes.
LOL..
IronTruth.. U Critical.. roll to confirm.
lol
GM fiat has pissed me off to no end. Especially when the rules are changed without notice.
Sadist dms, also avoid those.
Hmm, children treating it like an ant farm, avoid those too.
Everyone makes mistakes, but with dm bull, you can either deal with it, get along with it, turn the players against the dm to try and rein them in, or walk. Seen them all a bit.
Switching mindsets *puts brain in jar, takes out other one*.
I have got very tired of players where everything is an argument, and their faces are scrunched up in a constant winge-visage. Chill the f*** out boyo.
Ha ha, KR, not to reference real-world culture? But they are Jewish right? These are clearly Jews (or insert any copy-pasted civ and peoples).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Down here, a GM is always right until you beat them in holmgang. We fist fight on a carpet made of the skin of a dead cow until there is only one victor, wherein the winner gains the right to the GM table and first slice of the pizza.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Down here, a GM is always right until you beat them in holmgang. We fist fight on a carpet made of the skin of a dead cow until there is only one victor, wherein the winner gains the right to the GM table and first slice of the pizza.
Can I come?
If you have to ask, you're doing it wrong!
*****
Anyway, this kind of reminds one of college, except the skin of a dead cow was replaced with a wading pool filled with jello.
I don't remember a GM, though. Hm.
|
|
As a GM I reserve the right to make house rules and have final say on them. But I will always document them and make these written house rules available to the players. If they have objections or suggestions, I'll consider those, and if they're right, put them into the next version.
If I make a ruling on the spot because I don't know the official rules, I say "This is how I'll do it right now. If someone comes up with an official rule we'll use that from then on forward."
I really try to avoid "invading" someone's character. Players should be as autonomous as possible in their character. However, when I have something in mind as regards campaign theme, I'll make that clear beforehand; "please keep in mind this is a viking campaign, so make a character that makes sense in such a setting". When they they make something weird after all, I'll let them, but they'll also have the consequences of their choice. For example, one of my players made a mobility/Acrobatics focused cleric of a really sword&shield-hold-the-line, bulwark-for-the-meek kind of god. His fellow clerics are going to give him strange looks, but I won't stop him playing that character and using Protection and Travel domains to do it.
I also don't like interfering with the aesthetics of a character; how a character looks is important to the player. So I won't inflict scars, instead I'll say "that wound is nasty, and if you don't take steps, it's going to scar over." If the player instead wants a badass scar, well, now he can get one. But if he finds the nearest cleric to heal him, he'll be fine.
---
Anyway, the GM certainly can't do everything he wants to the players...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely no, I have always been against GM Fiat. Is not the GM game, is the game of all. I also think the game is a collaborative thing.GMs are the authority at the table. IF those GM's are PFS GM's than they have guidelines they need to follow. If you feel that a GM is in violation you can appeal to the covention coordinator or your local Venture officer.
For Home games, GM's are aboslute dictators. Players on the option always have the choice to leave.
You seem to have a rather pessimistic view on home game DMs. Pathfinder (and D&D) is a group game, and the DM has to play with the group, not against the group. I had to call out my DM on so many foul moves, but up until recently those complaints fell to deaf ears. Only because the rest of the group noticed his behaviour (putting characters in traps which they knew to avoid and then deciding NOT to correct the mistake he made, putting new house rules up without asking for the consent of the players among other things) and began to call him out on the foul play as well do we have a better atmosphere at the table. The players feel like they're less in a chokehold and more like they are playing a fun game. Though I wonder if the DM feels sour about us not letting him be a complete control freak.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Home games, GM's are aboslute dictators. Players on the option always have the choice to leave.
I think LazarX has the right of it.
GMs are not always right, but they are always in charge.
If you cannot get them to agree with you, your only options are to leave or take over.
For Home games, GM's are aboslute dictators. Players on the option always have the choice to leave.I think LazarX has the right of it.
GMs are not always right, but they are always in charge.
If you cannot get them to agree with you, your only options are to leave or take over.
Which means they aren't absolute dictators.
A better analogy is a TV show writer/director/producer. A GM is in charge, but only as long as he maintains his audience.
When Kim Jong Un is your GM, you aren't allowed to leave the table.
You seem to have a rather pessimistic view on home game DMs. Pathfinder (and D&D) is a group game, and the DM has to play with the group, not against the group. I had to call out my DM on so many foul moves, but up until recently those complaints fell to deaf ears. Only because the rest of the group noticed his behaviour (putting characters in traps which they knew to avoid and then deciding NOT to correct the mistake he made, putting new house rules up without asking for the consent of the players among other things) and began to call him out on the foul play as well do we have a better atmosphere at the table. The players feel like they're less in a chokehold and more like they are playing a fun game. Though I wonder if the DM feels sour about us not letting him be a complete control freak.Definitely no, I have always been against GM Fiat. Is not the GM game, is the game of all. I also think the game is a collaborative thing.GMs are the authority at the table. IF those GM's are PFS GM's than they have guidelines they need to follow. If you feel that a GM is in violation you can appeal to the covention coordinator or your local Venture officer.
For Home games, GM's are aboslute dictators. Players on the option always have the choice to leave.
Jerks can be found on either side of the DM screen. But that's irrelevant to your question, unless your base assumption is that all GM's are ego driven jerks out to screw around with their players. IF that's the case than maybe you have some trust and or control issues you need to work out. What your describing is a specific extreme case and I don't think that gaming principles should be based on extremes.
Learn the difference between gaming issues and people issues.
I only spoke of one specific person and here you are showing how arrogant and ignorant you are, thinking I need to learn something. All I was saying was that some DMs are dictators, but you should NOT let them get away with foul behaviour or abusing the power that might have very well corrupted them into such in the first place. And yeah, he's kind of a jerk even outside the table, but that's not something I felt was needed to be said. Also, learn to think before you type something in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which means they aren't absolute dictators.
Never said they were, friend. You're welcome to argue semantics with Lazarx however. Let me know how it goes.
Leaders are perfectly capable of being wrong. Be it a president or a GM, they are still in charge until they are removed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM first and foremost serves the players. He invests hours of preparation in the spirit of comraderie, knowing that players take hours of their time to be at this particular gaming table, time that may be precious due to busy work schedules, school, and family. His pleasure derives from the player's enjoyment of the game. His "right" to run the game as he pleases is derived from the expectation of his friends around the table in having a good time. Abusing that right insults those around him and the investment they have made that day. If the question is being asked by players whether the GM should have absolute authority, it likely derives from a breach in trust and expectation. A good GM will listen. A poor GM will find himself rolling the dice alone.
A GM's authority: Should be absolute in areas of game world, what character types allowed, what feats and items allowed, reactions of NPCs, in-game rules calls, and occasional dice-fudging to make the game interesting. Players should be consulted in advance if the particular game setting or any rule changes are ones they would like to try.
A GM's authority should not: Interfere in how a player runs his character, favor one player over another, force someone to make choices the GM prefers, alter the rules without notice to players, ignore rules that the players rely upon (unless there's a plot reason for such), or in any way diminish the fun of the entire group.
|
"Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing!"
There's nothing a DM can't do within the context of the rules, however: within the context of the object of the game itself, he or she cannot develop a purely antagonistic relationship with the players. The DM cannot "win" the game against the players, just as the players cannot "win" the game against the DM.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I always explain it to my players is sort of like this:
"Look, if I am going to be the GM of a game for this group, that means I'm going to be investing a huge amount of my time, creative energy and even financial resources to making the sessions fun.
But there's a caveat to that. And that is that if I am going to spend that much time and effort into creating the world, then it's my world. That means the world works the way I say it does. That may mean that my world has different deities than you are used to. It will almost certainly mean that there are custom spells, monsters and races to encounter. It may mean that some things won't always work exactly the way you expect.
On the other hand, you have my promise that you run your own character. I won't tell you what your character thinks, does or plans. The sole exception to this is if your character falls under the control of an NPC through the same sorts of magic or manipulation that your character could perform on an NPC. But otherwise it's MY world, but it's YOUR character."
That seems to have always worked out.
LOL, ninja'd by LazarX and the actual rulebook.
|
|
I don't have issue with this, only to point out that respect works both ways. and that a GM is due some amount of deference given the work he or she is doing so that players can have their fun.
Agreed, players who routinely show up late, who are constantly unprepared, who don't bother paying attention, or who intentionally undermine story plots are abusing their "player fiat" to "game as I see fit" rather than remembering it's a group game. Everyone should go home having said they had a good time that day, even the GM.
It is a group game. For the benefit of the GROUP the DM fiat exists. "The umpire is always right, even when he's wrong" is the way I've always played; the DM has the final word and is not obliged to explain himself. However, the DM should take care his decisions make the game better for everyone, or he will soon preside over an empty table.
The best games are founded on trust and goodwill on all sides.
Listen, I dont mind if you say elves died out, or the lands are different, or gods had died and have now been replaced by your own creations.. That to me is story telling.
Perfectly fine.
I guess for the crutch of this discussion really comes down to the "rules" portion. If you change the rules on a whim or use a rule wrong and it effects me in a way that is significant I cant help but call b##!$~!& on it.
Like being hit by an arrow because my friend does not have precise shot.
some exceptions.. sure, if you botch bad, ect but it has to make sense. If you friend has a higher AC than the enemy how is it realistic that you hit him when you missed the enemy? Sure you can weave a BS story to make it happen but is it fun for the players? Hell no..
All of you seem to be all good people and have the common sense to take suggestions when It comes to things like this. It Looks like so far only a small minority has the attitude of "deal with it of gtfo" and that makes me happy that we are going into a future where the "GTFO" people are dying off.
Regardless of the situation I always recommend to bring these things up after the encounter or even after the game. If It is not dire then dont slow down the game with it.
thanks guys for sharing your thoughts It has been great reading your opinions.
Is this a trick question? Of course the gm has the final say in everything. He is, for all intensive purposes, god in the world you play in. True enough there are GMs out there that are unreasonable and abuse said privilege. However, these certain GMs tend to have short lived games. No one wants to play with a prick.
Personally, i have no problem taking criticism, but only after the game. Otherwise, i feel it interrupts the game itself. Also, if i make an unintentional error in the game i appreciate and welcome correction. Although, when it comes to ARGUING with me about something, for example, let's say... the player does not like an NPCs reaction to his behavior, well that's tough. If the player makes an error he will receive a consequence. On top of that, a GM always as the right to fudge to an extent as long as it's not abused.
A good GM balances out the good with the bad in any game. The main objective is to entertain, above all else. Any negativity should encourage a player to do better, NOT piss them off. Don't be too much of a prick, but always remember this is YOUR world ( well...normally your world ).
P.S. As far as the "collaboration" aspect of the discussion, i disagree. I prefer playing rather than GMing for one specific reason, it's time consuming to gm. Gming is ten times more difficult than playing. That alone should give him/her the right to veto anything in the game. Thats just my opinion.
No, the GM cannot do whatever he wants. However that does not mean that players get to argue with the GM when something happens that they do not like. If there is an obvious rules violation that actually has an effect on the players, many that I run with would call me on it quite quickly. When a new GM is in charge this tends to get ignored, and teaches them bad habits.
It is a trust between the GM and the players. The GM agrees to do his/her best and to not cheat the players. In turn the players agree to play the game and have fun and not cheat their rolls.
I would be interested in some of my "GM fiat" rules that I've done in the past, more or less in order of when I did them:
1. My first campaign did not allow dwarves. There are two reasons for this. One is that I wanted to have a truly epic campaign with huge consequences for the players. To do that I created a war that crossed continents, worlds and even planes. One result of that war was a genocide that wiped out the dwarves. The whole purpose of the first campaign was to restore the race of dwarves. About halfway through the campaign the first ancient dwarven tomb was discovered and the first dwarves were raised from the dead. At that time the player who always wanted to play dwarves switched to play one of the newly raised dwarves as his ongoing character. The other reason I didn't want dwarves is that one of my players was in love with dwarves and another was in love with elves, and BOTH players believed that "role playing" a dwarf or elf meant endless inter-player conflict between their characters and I was determined to get past that. By the time the dwarves were raised and the campaign continued on, all that was forgotten and the party had no elf-dwarf stereotypical conflict.
2. In that same world there are major disruptions to the magical "fields" that permeate the continuum. There are reasons for those disruptions that are also tied to that same inter-planar war. The in-game consequences is that there are some places where magic is weak, some places where it is strong and some places where it is wild. Among other things that this allows, it provides certain encounters where the martial characters truly shine.
3. There are limits to the effectiveness of divination spells. They mostly work as expected, but there are special spells and devices in my world that specifically complicate or obfuscate divination magic.
4. Many magic items are not static. They will "attune" themselves to a character and will grow as the character grows. These sorts of magic items are perhaps more like artifacts than like normal magic items. As an example, a rogue might have a dagger that has several possible powers that will manifest depending on what the rogue does as he/she levels up.
5. Magical energy is detectable over extremely long distances. In effect magic use creates ripples in the magical field which can be detected. The world's pre-eminent mages guild has devices situated throughout the world to monitor magical emanations. Think of it like the US Navy's Sonar Array in the ocean. While normal magical use will be detectable by the array, there are thresholds of magical use which will trigger different levels of scrutiny from the mages guild. Casting a fireball most likely would not raise an eyebrow, but casting "wish" would absolutely be something that would attract attention. Of course, there are ways to disguise this, if the caster is knowledgeable and clever enough.
6. As much as I have been able, I have extended all 2D rules into three dimensions. That includes rules for flanking, movement and range.
Those are the "GM fiat" things I remember.
#2 may be the one that some people would find the most troublesome. If you are casting in a wild area, your spell may well function quite differently than you expect. I have a random table of spell effects. For example, your "fireball" may do exactly the same damage in exactly the same area, but it might do sonic damage instead of fire. Or it might expand its radius, or change the number of damage dice. A buff spell might cause a character to grow horns. In an extreme case a character might even have a spell backfire. However, in those areas the same effects are possible for ANY caster, whether the caster is a PC or an NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I house rule a ton of things as GM, but the players always know in advance. As has been mentioned above, I also run my own campaign worlds, so not everything works how it does in PFS.
As for rules problems that come up in the middle of campaigns, I generally get player input on resolving them, but always keep them aware that whatever the ruling is works teh same for npc's as players.
Other times, if we can't quickly find an answer to a rule, I will rule on it and say 'that's the way it's going to work until someone can provide a ruling that says otherwise.' That's the closest I really come to ruling one way with no argument, generally to get back to moving a session along.
The GM *CAN* do anything he wants... if he does this may very well be an abuse of his power however.
You state in the OP that you think it's a collective dynamic and everybody has to agree to everything in advance or at least as part of a process. You're wrong. It never said that anywhere and in fact if any great number of people could consistently do that you might not even need a GM at all or at least in the way it is required with this particular game as it is played.
If your GM is not a total tool, I would simply remind you to remember your place, fall back in line, and thank your GM and your lucky stars that you have one -- and in the event you still cannot abide not having editorial control of everything that happens (or can happen) I humbly suggest you instead take up the mantle of GM and enjoy the powers of that office.
Where GMs fall down is when the exceptions or inconsistencies they include create a confusion as to what the rules actually are, or if they are arbitrary -- or if the GM is more in love with what he can make his creations do than respecting what characters within the established system can do to counter it. There are a million other things a GM can do to alienate his players but that one is personally where I walk. There was a post a couple of weeks ago about I guy who was so in love with a particular final fantasy character he was home brewing powers for it that rivaled and in no way resembled anything in pathfinder... or anything the pathfinder characters tasked with stopping him would ever have. (Barf!)
So... if it's unbearable, I'd say I'm on your side and I'd advise you to walk and find another GM or gaming group, or suggest somebody else take the reigns in the next adventure as GM (or if you are up to the task, show them how it's done)....
But if it's not unbearable, RAW and RAI state to exhaustion and distraction that the players don't get to rub the GM's Rhubarb with cries of how things should be, especially if the GM insists. He likely has knowledge (mechanically, story-wise, balance-wise, fun-wise) that rivals your concerns (however passionate) for the situation at hand. Even if he doesn't -- he has respect and rights accorded to him so he can do his job, and have fun while making the game fun for others. If you are constantly fighting with your GM... you might want to question if you are worried enough about whether they in fact are having a good time...
Remember my place? Fall back in line? Thank stars for having any GM?
Are you insane dude? lol If someone told me that.. .. man.. that s#@$ is just dickish. If that was said to me in person.. .. Those words would result in an immediate slap to the face.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say then just shut your mouth.. maybe I go to far.. but your tone just erks me.
At this point Vicon you seem like your defending yourself. Rather than trying to have a discussion.
You talk as if the GM is this almighty thing. A GM has no real power the same thing for the players.. The GM is there to tell a story. He is there to give you a challenge. To guide you. To make final ruling on behalf of the players. If the players have a problem with a ruling then accommodations/discussion should be made either during or after an adventure.. The only "power" The GM has is given to him from his players.
This is the reason following the rules as written as much as you can is important, because no one feels cheated. No one feels like they are getting the shaft. The GM has his tools the players have their tools. Both sets of tools rarely change and therefor can be relied upon.
SO I will agree on one thing. Can a GM do anything he wants? Sure..
but He will not have a game with me or anyone with self respect.
Also, making up sephiroth's, final fantasy characters.. ect these kinda things are kiddy things and the concept is really just stupid.
Vicon.. awesome making friends with ya man *sarcasm*
lol
EDIT: Vicon sorry for trashing ya a little bit man. I think I know what you are saying and I respect your opinion. Its just I think you should have said it in a different way. No hard feelings ok? I dont want this thread to get derailed by stupid bickering. thanks for your input. Thx
Remember my place? Fall back in line? Thank stars for having any GM?
Are you insane dude? lol If someone told me that.. .. man.. that s$!+ is just dickish. If that was said to me in person.. .. Those words would result in an immediate slap to the face.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say then just shut your mouth.. maybe I go to far.. but your tone just erks me.
At this point Vicon you seem like your defending yourself. Rather than trying to have a discussion.
You talk as if the GM is this almighty thing. A GM has no real power the same thing for the players.. The GM is there to tell a story. He is there to give you a challenge. To guide you. To make final ruling on behalf of the players. If the players have a problem with a ruling then accommodations/discussion should be made either during or after an adventure.. The only "power" The GM has is given to him from his players.
This is the reason following the rules as written as much as you can is important, because no one feels cheated. No one feels like they are getting the shaft. The GM has his tools the players have their tools. Both sets of tools rarely change and therefor can be relied upon.
SO I will agree on one thing. Can a GM do anything he wants? Sure..
but He will not have a game with me or anyone with self respect.Also, making up sephiroth's, final fantasy characters.. ect these kinda things are kiddy things and the concept is really just stupid.
Vicon.. awesome making friends with ya man *sarcasm*
lol
+1000, playing RAW the rules, avoiding GM Fiat and metagaming is the best approach you can take.
It's TOTALLY ok Null -- emotions run high in the forums especially on issues that are exceedingly prescient and close to home for the OP, or people who have their own passionate investment in their viewpoint. I'll concede I could have been better at marketing my point - but I'm glad you were able to dig far enough down to see it wasn't entirely a bag of iron-filings for you to eat.
If it's any consolation (or enlightening) you could see in my recent thread history that I got into similar friction for holding a stance very similar to yours in a different situation (a situation where a GM was utterly and unrepentantly hijacking the rules to basically turn his players into a backdrop for his antagonists, rather than the other way around.
But all that being said -- and I'm sorry it's harsh -- but there are REAMS AND REAMS of unambiguously worded language that contradict your agency as a participant to what a GM can decide. Thoughtful GMs will consider their players and do their best to make for a good time -- but they run the show. This hasn't truly been up for debate... like ever. The players should not, and nowhere does it say they should, form committees to debate whether what a DM is doing is fair. Bad DM? Fire him.
But these forums are full of bad participant threads. Sometimes it's the GMs that are being jerks, more often though I see threads about individual (or a couple) of bad players with too big a sense of entitlement or an inability to think outside the box of their own enjoyment... Perhaps you see something some way, not just because it gives you a mechanical advantage -- but because you actually are firmly behind the logic of it. However, the GM sees it differently, and instead of your minor (or major) mechanical advantage he has to see the entire game through the headache-inspiring ripple effect of just what his capitulation means in the grand architecture of the entire ruleset. We all got read "If you give a mouse a cookie" in nursery school. Welcome to the minute to minute life of a GM trying to make everyone happy while at the same time trying to be creative on the fly, while still somehow trying to manage to maintain their dignity AND have as good a time as their players at the same time.
If your GM is a tyrant, go ahead and smack him -- Hell, maybe you're right and we'd never get along at the same table -- maybe I'd drop the charges after you assaulted me if we tried.
BUT... if your (specifically YOUR) GM is not a tyrant... give him a break -- you'll never know how many breaks he'll have given you before the end of the campaign, not the least of which is adopting so much more responsibility than any other single player.
So yeah... I'll do my best to see past your "trashing" me, though for somebody with a position so strong towards allowance for revision where you want it and editorial approval you certainly didn't remove any of your vitriol when you edited your post.
It's true my argument is blunt, but it's backed up on paper and your viewpoint, while valid in instances of abuse, is not. I hear your point, but I've DMed for the better part of 20 years... Even when players have disagreed with me (sometimes passionately) I've never been smacked, and in my historical gaming group everyone always preferred that somebody like me drive the bus. Not because everything is subject to interpretation, but because I see plans within plans and I can write stories on the fly that are worthy of player effort and make for satisfying adventures that are worth remembering. Also, my (really any good GM's) time/mental investment is often higher than most players are willing to put in and it's generally acknowledged that my (really any good GM's) work-product as a GM is something to be thankful for, and worthy of a break or two where there are points of contention.
Try GMing for a few years, long enough to get really good at it, and see how you feel. Or since RPGs are just big mental exercises, just imagine if it was suddenly all of your character's jobs to be punching bags for all the other characters, and that if you did your job wrong you would actually win instantly, and if you do your job well you've managed to lose by the absolutely smallest margin in a ridiculously complex system. Then you'd know what it's like to have forty metaphorical plates balanced and not be up to, or perhaps even able to move one of the middle ones even if it makes you upset.
This post is utterly devoid of sarcasm... though puns may have been intended. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only spoke of one specific person and here you are showing how arrogant and ignorant you are, thinking I need to learn something. All I was saying was that some DMs are dictators, but you should NOT let them get away with foul behaviour or abusing the power that might have very well corrupted them into such in the first place. And yeah, he's kind of a jerk even outside the table, but that's not something I felt was needed to be said. Also, learn to think before you type something in.And I also said that as a Player, you have the ultimate veto power. For a GM without players is only talking to himself.
Beyond that, your problems with your GM are social/interpersonal problems well outside the context of a gaming forum. This is not the place for learning basic social or interpersonal skills.
As a unified group, the players have immense power, far above that of a dm. They could even dump the dm outside if he was a visitor to the house of one of them, and completely run the game with a new dm or rotational situation right then and there, at any time. Some dms don't get that, and some are better at being bullies than others, turning players against each other and running their awful games.