My GMing philosophy, Spliting Options

[LurkerOutThere]

I was mid typing when the other thread got locked, in the effort to avoid some of the problems in another thread I'll only say this is what seems to work for me and my crew;

What works for me:

I'm going to shift topic here slightly as it's a possibility to discuss GMing philosophy which is one of my favorite RPG topics as it's more or less universal where as player philosophy can vary a lot from game to game.

Now separating all functions of scenario design, which is a major bit of the GM experience a GM is first and foremost a leader, good or ill, their a leader for the table. Now as far as I am concerned there is only one good style of leadership those who lead by example. A good leader takes the counsel of their subordinates but ultimately accepts that the responsibility is theirs alone. A good leader doesn't play favorites, just rewards performance in the hope that it fosters further performance. They are the soul of courtesy and integrity and and it matches their actions accordingly.

Why is the GM the final authority: Compartmentalization and respect. In order for a gaming scenario to be fun there has to be a certain amount of hidden element if players have full knowledge and control there's no uncertainty, situations without uncertainty are boring in my experience. The GM has to come up with that uncertainty so they have to have a high degree of control, even if it's somethign as simple as saying "This bad guy or group of bad guys can do somethign special snow flake that no one else can do without studying their methodology." Sometimes that's just required to make things work. Further it's just needed to arbitrate when players are doing something otuside the strict rules or translating their actions back into strict rules. I tell my players over and over again, don't tell me what you roll, tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what you roll, although in many cases it's pretty straight forward.