| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liken the GM's authority to the ruler's "mandate of heaven" in Chinese philosophy.
In short, the ruler has absolute power, but is obligated to use that power in a wise and virtuous way or else the people will revolt and he will have nothing.
Just for fun, I will answer with the number as the OP asked.
I think the best GMs I have played with were somewhere in the 6 range. They were in charge but not dictators by any means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say a six.
I like to run more open and player choice driven games, but I've learned that sometimes you have to drop a dungeon in the path and firmly suggest everybody needs to go in.
7,5
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to hover at a 4, but I've seen DMs run good games while acting in manners all over the spectrum (excepting the extremes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4 or so. A GM should use as much power as necessary, and no more. If you don't like some aspect of RAW, make a house rule and give it to players before a single die is rolled. Now your house rules are the new RAW.
A softer version of 7 is where I am... so 6.
7 makes it sound like you shouldn't care about RAW... A good GM should always strive to understand both RAW and RAI. They are the ultimate authority sure but they are trying to create an enjoyable experience one the players can relate to and have fun with.
None of your descriptions fit what I like. How do I pick a number?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have to say that I'm in the 6.6 to 6.9 range as a DM. There has to be an overall storyline and purpose to my games. Having the players show up at the table and indicate that my world and word be damned and they are going to play something else that I am going to run on the fly without any prep time seems like a bizarre time waste. Having players help me with mechanics when we collectively get stuck is fine. Having them rewrite my NPCs and tell me how to run them isn't going to work for me. The game is co-operative, but without a DM providing conflict and challenges for the players, you might as well be playing angry Barbies.
Oh, how a subject heading like this one makes the philosophical mind take flight. How much authority does a DM/GM have? Only as much as the unwritten social contract of the table allows, e.g. as much or as little as those playing the game with them make available to them. Power and authority in any unwritten situation is an unbalanced equation, or more appropriately a tug-of-war, where each side decides what they want to take, and what they are willing to give.
This is why I love the OP's post. It shows an actual number line of authority given, and authority taken. Good show Jaelithe.
So what's my opinion? The GM's amount of authority should sit somewhere within the number line that Jaelithe so articulately explained. No amount of authority is right or wrong. Any amount of authority could be right or wrong for your table, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(9) - Given the caveat that if you do a bad job or make rulings in a manner that is frustrating or unentertaining to your players that your game will consist solely of yourself.
I also think it's VERY important to set player expectations up ahead of time with exactly what sort of campaign you are planning to run it and how you are planning to run it and what feel it is going to have. So the players are interested in playing the type of game/campaign that you are interested/comfortable with running.
If not, everyone is likely to have a bad time.
None of your descriptions fit what I like. How do I pick a number?What you like as a player or what you run as a GM?
Mostly as a GM. None of those fit what I enjoy. But those also don't describe very well what I like from GM's as a player either.
It should also be noted, I tend to prefer a very different style of game than what is considered normal on these boards.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think example (9) is a strawman, or at least, is inadvertently confusing two unrelated topics, as though they were inherently inseparable. I'll give the original poster the benefit of the doubt.
Having the ultimate say in what rules and house rules are used at the table, does not in any way, have to go hand in hand with sudden, arbitary rule-changes.
Every GM who has ever decided to run a non-vanilla setting, or focus on a non-standard theme, is going to trend toward the higher end of the above scale.
Some rules often have to be altered, to bring about the desired change in play-style or experience.
Does that mean every world-builder GM is a bullying tyrant?
Golarion includes firearms, robots, spaceships, planetary travel, Lovecraftian beasts, haunts, abstract kingdom-building systems, summoners, maguses, oracles, witches, and many more elements that were never part of core 3rd Edition D&D vanilla-settings.
Does that mean anyone using these new elements must therefore also display blatant favouritism to one player over the others, and/or be a retconning cheat, as per the given example?
Of course not. You can change or add as many rule subsystems as you like, port over material from whatever 3rd party publisher you like, or make up your own, change the default setting from the typical mock-RenFaire, to fit whatever genre you like, you can have the PCs be prehistoric cavemen, or futuristic Matrix-dwelling intelligent programs, and still be a calm, fair, even-handed GM, by advising your players what you're doing, why you're doing it, and setting out the changes ahead of time for all to see.
If you're in a group where the GM shows blatant favouritism or vendetta to certain players; where the DC of a task jumps up by 10 when you attempt it, but drops by 10 when his best buddy attempts it; where your spell requires a roll vs full AC, but when his girlfriend casts the same spell, she's told she should roll vs touch AC; where your declared actions are ignored; where your attempts to befriend NPCs are met with derision, but they bend over backwards to fawn over the PCs who abuse them....
then you have a problem.
But that problem is nothing to do with the GM having a greater investment of time and effort in the setting.
The problem is that that particular GM is a gigantic dick.
And they would be just as much of a dick, if they were running a vanilla setting under core rules only, a diceless game, LARPing, or Monopoly.
The kind of person described in example (9) is an Eric Cartman, a spoilt little bastard, who can't play well with others.
They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the GM chair, but why would you let such a person be a player? Or socialise with them at all?
Right, I think (9) is presented in a push-poll sort of way. The ultimate goal of the GM is to make sure EVERYONE, including themselves has FUN.
In order to do that, I believe the GM has to be able to function as absolute authority over the rules and the campaign. This is particularly true if you want to present a campaign with a particular falvor, atmosphere and setting that is different then the standard Pathfinder published stuff....or if you want to handle stuff that is not handled particulary well by the RAW....or in cases where a little Deus Ex Machina will enhance the players experience of the campaign. This is not done AGAINST the players but usualy FOR them.... even when some rulings might SEEM like they are made against the players... the motivation is/should be to enhance thier play experience and thier FUN within the campaign.
Players who go the "Rules Lawyer" route are actualy wrecking thier own experience of the game and that of thier fellow players...and the GM's as well. Which is why I usualy make it very clear that's not the type of game I run from the start. In fact, in describing a Campaign I usualy make a statement to the order of "A homebrew, loosely based off the Pathfinder Ruleset and using them as a guideline", just so there is no misunderstanding about the style of play expected.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liken the GM's authority to the ruler's "mandate of heaven" in Chinese philosophy.
In short, the ruler has absolute power, but is obligated to use that power in a wise and virtuous way or else the people will revolt and he will have nothing.
I both love and hate when you say it so much better :)
6 is, I think, an ideal.
8... Would be 9 but I don't like groveling. Libations of tea, pepsi/cola/fruit juice and occasional rum with cola and other sacrifices are appreciated as well as worship from the female part of the crew...
With the caveat that Evil Lincoln is right and it is absolute power to be used for fun of all under the threat of players seeking their god-king-emperor-GM somewhere else and directing their offerings and worship to him or her instead of you.
Two cents, wisdom 11 check.
Although I am typically the dm, I support player power and player choice over dm tyranny and using the dm chair to be a dick. Running the game by your modified rules, making it a difficult game is not being a dick, killing players without malice is not being a dick (I play it old school).
It is far more moral to support the curtailing of your power and those like you than to argue for more of it; that players should be beneath one so lofty and high.
Some dms are a bit too full of themselves, maybe age will mellow them out.
3 & 5 for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A DM should have ultimate power, and wield as little as possible.
Wise sage Gaekub. You just became an npc in my setting, congrats.
Personally I consider the 1-5 range ideal. IMHO, having to run in the 6-10 range means you either
- have a lot of troublemakers at your table and need to lower the boom on them to keep them in line
- have a lot of unresolvable disagreements about nuanced rule interpretations and require someone to have the power to put a nail in the coffin just so the game can progress.
- have a gm with a horrible case of the P(ower) T(rippin) B(****) syndrome, who loves running games because he loves being 'in charge and having powah.
There may be other reasons to have a gm in the 6-10 range, but I've never found a gm who felt the need to run in the 6-10 range that didn't have one of these problems at the table just waiting to break loose the second he lets his guard down.
YMMV
None of those fit what I enjoy. But those also don't describe very well what I like from GM's as a player either.If you'd care to provide said description, it'd be welcome, Irontruth. I tried to be comprehensive, but ... evidently you have something to add. Please do so, if so inclined.
It should also be noted, I tend to prefer a very different style of game than what is considered normal on these boards.Is the style you prefer something you can summarize and post here? It might be off topic, but you have me intrigued.
I like exploring the story within the game as a group. Regardless of whether I GM or play, I like experiencing surprise twists and what not. As a GM, I don't just want to be surprised by player actions, I enjoy being surprised at how the story can develop.
That doesn't mean I go into a session not know what could happen. It means I like leaving room for improvisation and player input.
I have a con scenario I run for a different game (not PF). The players make characters together at the table, it takes about 30-40 minutes. I've already told them who the Big Bad is going to be and a little about him. At the end of character creation, I pick a player and ask them to tell me specifically why they think the Big Bad deserves to not only die, but be erased from history.
After they describe their chosen reason, I then interpret their response into a 'weapon' that he will use (special ability, henchman, item, etc). Every game, he turns out a little different, he becomes the players vision of what he is. His actions and personality in the final fight are extremely influenced by what they tell me about him.
Now, that game, more than any other, I describe my role less as Game Master, and more as Narrative Butler (term courtesy of one of Paizo's new editors).
When I play other games, I adopt more of a Game Master role, but I still lean on the players for input about things in the game. They get to determine facts and concepts about the game world and I incorporate those things into the adventures.
The nice thing about doing that, having ceded some of my authority over the broader aspects of the game, when I have ideas about their character, it tends to be received more positively. They are less likely to jealously guard control over their characters when they have access to authority over the campaign world.
|
|
I usually fall into a 6 myself. More due to the fact that if a rules call has to be made it has to be made swiftly. Also with my group if I let them discuss it we could lose an entire game session with them arguing how a spell or combat maneuver works.
Otherwise the game runs with me soothing anger, calming people down, and simply clarifying the rules. Especially as lately when they ask me to review a ruling I made it comes back as I made the accurate call. I always review my rulings and my players accept them since I review them. When I made a wrong one I admit it to them and tell them the accurate one for future reference.
I liken the GM's authority to the ruler's "mandate of heaven" in Chinese philosophy.
In short, the ruler has absolute power, but is obligated to use that power in a wise and virtuous way or else the people will revolt and he will have nothing.
That kind of mentality is (in my opinion) one that all DMs should strive for.
As a DM, I'd say I'm probably a 4 for a majority of the time, but I will shift gear all the way to 7 when needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, me and my group play somewhere between a 4 and 6... but, our group comes up with the oddest things to do, and sometimes it requires a quick firm answer. And dear sage Gaekub, my friend, you hit I think the best point. Not sure you want to be in my campaign i building, most of the ones i am building are not destined for a lot of greatness, but I might put you into the backstory somewhere.
|
|
I was attempting to portray the level of authority possessed, not assert that such authority would necessitate the attitude my illustration presented. I used Trelane as my example more for its amusement value, and as a good representation of an extreme. Sorry if that caused some ambiguity.
No problem. Like I said, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt, that it was an unintentional correlation.
I've always enjoyed tinkering with game rules; as a child, I would create variant rules for boardgames, or combine tokens, boards, cards and money from multiple games, to make a composite mash-up game.
Cluedo was jazzed up, by the inclusion of a murderous rubber monster, and the investigators ran round the house, experimenting to find which weapon was most effective against it. Would the creature's otherworldly hide prove impervious to bullets? Take your shot, draw from the damage deck, and find out. Would it have a secret allergy to brass, so the candlestick in the conservatory dealt the magic d20 damage?
If I sounded exasperated, it was because there is a faction of gamers who often perpetuate a similar myth, the Stormwind Fallacy, in which being at all interested in the mechanical elements of character building makes you a poor roleplayer/unable to empathise with others/no imagination/unable to improvise.
The implications of the example (9) in the first post seemed to follow that faulty logic.
In my role as parent and carer for an autistic boy, I get sick of hearing relatively normative (but socially awkward) behaviours conflated into 'proving' a prescence on the ASD spectrum.
Both Stormwind (), and its GM-equivalent () remind me far too much of the tired old cry "Ooh, you're good at math? You must be autistic!", which gets my goat.
Shrug...I vary. Though this is purely in relations to the rules. I.E even in my most 1 moments my NPCs will act according to character no matter what the players will think will make the 'best story'.
But I have put rulings up to the group to discuss(which pisses of the rules lawyer if nothing else) and have gone with what they think is best. Usualy when I personaly could see it go either way. Example I once created a half-fiend Treant. A PC critted it. Now with 3.0/.5 rules the half-fiend changed the creatures type to outsider...so such a creature would have lost it's immunity to crits and sneak attack by RAW. But it kinda make sense it would have still been plant based...so I put it to the group. The decided it should retain it's immunity to crits. That how we played it.
Other times I have have not put it up to discussion. Though I would say I tend to the low side...and never go as high as 9 or even 8...I vary...sometimes within the same session.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
9 and 3 combined. :D
Before the game starts, the GM has complete say what classes, races, feats, spells etc are allowable in his world, and what house rules there are, and they should be given to players upfront (this is 9). If the GM says no dwarves, there are no dwarves and no one argues the point. He doesn't have to justify his decisions. No characters are created before the GM and players get together and the GM gives the players his guidelines.
Once the game starts, within the boundaries that were set by the above, he is a rules adjudicator sometimes, but usually just a three in your examples.
So a 9 setting up what is what in the game before it begins, then a 3 after while playing in that world.
I remember a game back in 1st edition D&D. The guy ran his own NPC called Nicron 99 and he carried a "Kill-o-zap" gun. If anyone in the group got out of control there was a Hairy lightning bolt that hung over his or her shoulder. When asked how much damage it did, they were told "Enough". We played high level characters in those days and people had unique weapons. There was a guy who played a Silver Dragon, so we needed a DM like that to keep us in line. Not sure where he fits in your descriptions.
You also don't have "owner of the house" on that list. We have a GM that has threatened a PC recently to kick him out....Maybe that fits Trelane, I'm not sure.
Humm...
Been thinking about this and I would say I am a solid 6.
It's just the fact that "The plays the thing!"
I make calls in game and that is how things are.
Until of course you can prove me wrong during a break, after game, or within 30 seconds of my call.
No retconns, and lets keep the story moving.
After all I feel that the players all deserve to have fun and my job is to provide a stable rules base, an engaging world, and a fluid experience.
All rules are of course open to debate, just not during game, and the group consensus will be followed 99% of the time, unless their is an overwhelming in-game reason as yet unknown to the players that will increase table enjoyment.
Just my play style.
How much authority does a GM actually have?
I think ciretose said it best.
Authority is an illusion.
So the answer is 1 at best.
|
|
And if as a player, you aren't willing to give a GM the power to run the game, you shouldn't let that person be the GM.
I feel that this stance (or maybe just this sentence) is too black and white for my taste.
What if I am willing, as a player, to give my GM the power to run an enjoyable game but not to run roughshod about my expectations for my character ?
In other words, is it okay for players to attract the attention of their GM to the fact that they are still by and large okay for him to continue to GM but that they do not like such and such point about the way he does it ? And to expect said GM to take their opinions into account and change the way he GMs so that they can all keep on having fun ?
|
|
I GM usually around 4, sometimes as low as 2 and other times as high as 8. Note that the 8 is similar to the 9 but with the addition of "for everybody's fun".
I expect my GM to do the same.
My very worst gaming experience was playing under a 0-authority GM.
This guy, while a very nice person, was ABSOLUTELY opposed to any sort of conflict between him and any of the players. One of the players (who was their usual GM) took huge advantage of this so that our adventure quickly turned to "his way or the highway". Up to forcing a player to leave, after a single session of play, by escalating the threats to raping and killing her PC (through email exchanges with the whole group in copy). And at no point did the GM act to stop this from going further by simply using some authority.
I left as soon as I read the whole story.
Of course, the main fault resided with the jerk player (and usual GM of that group), but I was also angry at my GM friend for not having imposed peace at his table and letting his game devolve into this.
During play? I am a 3, except more in line with running a sandbox, so maybe 2.
I both love and hate when you say it so much better :)I liken the GM's authority to the ruler's "mandate of heaven" in Chinese philosophy.
In short, the ruler has absolute power, but is obligated to use that power in a wise and virtuous way or else the people will revolt and he will have nothing.
I hang around in the five to seven point five range. And like the above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run it like a 7, but try to make it appear as a 5. :)