GM Styles, Collaborative vs. "Benelovent Dictator" Options

[Cantankerous]

One thing to an idea stated above, that GMs are more valuable because the game ends with them. Sorry, no.


I don't know how many times my Players who were also in other games, or friends of theirs who were gamers talked about a GM/DM/Whatever throwing a fit and leaving and the Players picking it right up from where he left off and going on as though nothing had happened...

... except that usually the prima donna wasn't invited to join in the "new game".

If only the GM owns the core books for a system I can see this. But unless the Players are ALSO fed up and don't want to go on, someone else just grabs the mantel up and ... game on!


Isshia

[noonesshowmonkey]

I agree mostly with Max's position (surprise).

The fundamental driving elements for GM impartiality is that we do indeed preside over a cast of characters and not a single character. This is clutch. When a player has a single role to play they have a clear line of advocacy, they have an agenda and their only responsibility is to see to that agenda's completion (whilst having fun, hopefully). A GM, on the other hand, does not have the luxury of a single point of view. As a GM I have to be responsible for the intelligable and reasonable actions, intentions and reactions of a whole host of characters who range from totally uninvolved with a central plot to the plot's instigators or antagonists. In this way I must cultivate impartiality else my NPCs no longer fall into the realm of the reasonable and the game collapses like a flan in a cupboard due to the failure to suspend disbelief.

While a GM may indeed have a bias towards a given story, so does the player. As a GM I prepare a story with the explicit goal of having that story be entertaining to my players. Likewise, as Max pointed out, my players are giving up certain amounts of power or freedom to be a part of that story. Our roles, however, are not equal, can never be truly equal and would generally suffer from any lies of equality in a game not mechanically set up to support said egalitarian play. Wushu and Capes et. all can get away with their methods because the game itself arbitrates through a cold, unfeeling rules set that determines "yes, you can do that" instead of asigning that responsibility to a player. As to the assinine assumption that players desire this kind of control or responsibility I have only to say that most players that I have known are far more happy to not have to worry about such responsibility but instead just play their characters. Regardless, there is a mechanical method of arbitration in all games as games themselves derive their enjoyment from the resolution of conflict, player or GM driven, and that resolution must have an element of chance and failure in it to wield the sense of fear and elation that we all crave when we play.

The idea that a GM and a player are the same in a conventional RPG is blatantly just an opinion and hardly any measure of fact, regardless of how many posts Cain makes on the subject. No player is expected to have to prestidigitate entire conflicts, whole unwashed masses of NPCs just out of thin air. They do not have players ask, cracking a wry grin, 'what exactly is my contact's phone number?' and then make something up on the spot. Those instances certainly happen as players but they, as per the above comments on singular vs. multiple roles, are dealing with those questions from a monocentric point of view.

Some games allow for a democratic method of play. Others can allow some levels of consensus to be used to determine how rules are handled... All games rely on consensus to suspend disbelief. In this last statement lies the key to why a GM is important, and above all an Arbitor. Take a room of five people and show them a piece of media and ask them to write down what they saw - you will likely as not have five different answers. Apply this same methodology to what players do / want / see in their games. Consensus and deliberation are all well and good but I do not live in a world full of carebares and unicrons (yes, crons). My players do not agree and they do not have to agree all of the time. We don't need to have a little pow wow mid game every time there is a slight disagreement about this or that - instead we have agreed before we started playing that we will give up a certain amount of control, a given amount of agency, for the greater interest of a story. One of the primary driving forces behind a conflict is that a conflict requires antagonists and protagonists - players responsible for the agenda of their characters (even if those same players still want to participate in an overarching story - thus the same goal) are still not garaunteed to produce a believable or interesting conflict. Excellent players can do that and more power to them. As a(n impartial) GM our job is to insert antagonists to drive protagonists towards a climactic moment. How hands on or hands off this process is often left in the questionably capable hands of players. Without an element of chance or unknown your players can just as easily agree to win (the implicit goal at all times, even if 'winning' means 'dying in a badass way') as to lose (not get their way) - in fact they will (almost) always choose to 'win'.

If playing a game where you, just you, always win all of the time is interesting to you then whoopty do. Go check out a game besides Shadowrun if that is the top item on your agenda.

I find the notion of relativism in any form - especially in applied democratic process - to be abhorrent. The inability of players in a game to participate in a meaningful fashion without having to hold hands and sing kum-by-yah together is laughable. I do not feel as though a GM should ever feel shameful or as a failure for enforcing continuity, sometimes by any means necessary. When a player decides 'screw this, im jumping off of a building' or decides to wear a bomb-vest to kill the whole party for no reason, I take issue. When reckless, assinine decisions instead improve the game they are no longer assinine but creative - someone has to make that call. The player making the decision obviously things its a good one - not everyone will agree and I don't think that mid game is the time or place to call a 'time out' and try to share our feelings about what we want out of this encounter. This derails the entire suspension of disbelief - my sworn enemy.

[TheGothfather]

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if I interpret anyone's statements wrong.

From what I've read, I think that the problem isn't whether or not Shadowrun can or should be played collaboratively. I know it can be, because I've done it. Personally, it was a much more satisfying both for my players (I know, because I asked) and myself as a GM. That's not saying that everyone will like playing it that way. It's just my preferred mode of GMing.

I think that most of the arguments here come from the idea that the adventure/run/campaign is set up in a particular way. The normal assumption is that the GM creates a scenario, then the players independently create their characters to play in that scenario. Sometimes the GM sets some conditions - lower BPs, different Availability caps, etc. - and the players create characters within those guidelines.

It is, in my experience, very difficult to run a collaborative game like Cain is advocating under this mode, because you've already created a situation where the GM has a stake in the story.

On the other hand, I get the impression that there's the perception that, if the GM doesn't have absolute control over the story/setting, then you're left with chaos because players are expected to whip up NPCs and conflicts, or they can just declare themselves the "winner" without actually playing the game, and screw all the preparation and time and tears that the GM put into the game, because the players are equally important and have just as much right to influence the setting. I don't think that's what's actually being advocated.

Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. What if your group decides they want to start a new SR campaign, and instead of the GM going, "Okay, go roll up your characters. I'll go work on the plot," everyone sits down and hashes out the details of what's going on in the campaign? What city are you playing in? What factions/organizations/individuals are the major players and what do they want? How do the PC's fit in to the situation? What are their goals and motivations? How do they know eachother? What are their relationships like? What's the power level? What kind of gear is available? How are we going to handle obviously vague rules? Are there any houserules that we want? Once all that's decided, then the players make their characters - preferably together at the table - and the GM starts coming up with NPC's and plots, and hooks and all that good stuff. Now you've got a collaborative situation, with everyone's input equally valued, but you've still got the traditional GM/Player structure.

I'm also of the opinion that, while the GM certainly has more responsibilities, he's not necessarily more important than the players. I view it as everyone at the table's job to make sure that the game is as enjoyable as possible, which puts everyone on equal footing as far as importance goes.

[Malachi]

The root of all RPG problems comes from an attitude of opposition or antagonism between the GM and the non-GM players (to sidestep Cain's "the GM is a player" issue). If the Players feel like the GM isn't out to "get them" or that his precious NPCs or plot is more important than them, then they should be accommodating of the GM's rulings. Reciprocally, if the GM truly weaves the story around the PC's and believes they are (in the end) the central catalyst in the plot, he will listen to what they are saying and in turn accommodate them.

[masterofm]

Yes communication is a nice thing. For some reason a GM who does not want to listen to their players and make their rulings and tough cookies towards the players it reminds me of the south park episode where a character kept saying "I am above the law!" Neither side is bad, and both can have their follies and pitfalls. Can't we just leave it at that?

[Pendaric]

Well that was a long read.

The term Benevolent Dictator, I have found that most do not understand the context that Machavelli used it in.
Consequently it's misunderstood when applied to anything else.

As ref is given authority to have final rules call to facillate a good game. A ref creates plots to facillate a good game. A ref is both opporsition and allies to the PC's. he/she is called god because they run the world to facillate a good game..

Benevolent Tyrant is an oxymoron that alludes to the complex state of not being too harsh and not being too lenient for the best result in every long term situation when place in a position of responsiblity.

A vital part of this is working with your friends the players. The term Benevolent Dictator as used by its orginator means non absolutism.

I believe that in part this discussion is based on the perception of the grey area of what defines a ref/GM/DM/ST/director etc responsibilities and so we are actually just discussing different takes on the same truth (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) .

[Method]

I was going to comment on this last night, but I decided not to. I guess since the discussion has come to this organically I'll throw it out there:

In my experience 9 out of 10 problems in any game boil down to interpersonal friction between the people sitting at the table. Sometimes I think there is a super secret rule hidden in the bowels of the BBB that forbids players to speak openly about how to resolve a given issue in a transparent way. Because the fact is the answer to most (9 out of 10) problems is to just talk to the players involved and come to a consensus. If everyone at the table is there with the goal of having fun, a consensus should be easy. If not, then you should examine the motives of the people you play with because your game is "sick" (to use Cantankerous' very apt term) and you should probably put it down.

Also, I've noticed an interesting theme. I'm curious why so many people automatically assume that the GM is de facto the best person to arbitrate rules disputes. My general impression is that the GM is usually the guy that happens to own the most books. But I've been in a few games where everyone at least has the BBB and sometimes more experience running a game. Lets just assume for a minute that coming to a consensus is beyond the realm of human possibility and you actually need a single authoritative rules arbitrator. Shouldn't that job go to whatever player knows the rule set the best? The one who can best appreciate the implications of the decision to be made and the effects it will have on game balance? I guess the obvious answer would be that a player might be biased and make decisions that unduly benefit his PC. But a GM on the other hand needs the freedom to modify the rules in order to keep the game from derailing, right? I guess thats all good if you happen to trust the guy who happens to own the most books. But if not maybe you should ask your self why the rules should or should not apply equally to the GM...

[Cain]

While a GM may indeed have a bias towards a given story, so does the player. As a GM I prepare a story with the explicit goal of having that story be entertaining to my players. Likewise, as Max pointed out, my players are giving up certain amounts of power or freedom to be a part of that story. Our roles, however, are not equal, can never be truly equal and would generally suffer from any lies of equality in a game not mechanically set up to support said egalitarian play.

Most games, and gaming groups, are actually set up for collaborative decision-making. You tend to decide on things as a group-- what game you'll play, when you'll meet, how long the games will be, and so on and so forth. A lot of groups also decide on setting notes together, discuss house rules, and many other things. If you take a look at your group, you may realize that you're more collaborative than you think.

Our roles, however, are not equal, can never be truly equal and would generally suffer from any lies of equality in a game not mechanically set up to support said egalitarian play. Wushu and Capes et. all can get away with their methods because the game itself arbitrates through a cold, unfeeling rules set that determines "yes, you can do that" instead of asigning that responsibility to a player.

Actually, the GMing duties are shared in both those games. Questions like: "Is there a chandelier I can swing from?" is answered in both games, by either assumption or consensus. Those responsibilities are, in fact, assigned to players. It's traditional games that provide constraining rulesets.

For example, I've GMed Shadowrun Missions at conventions. During those games, I am basically forced into obeying everything that is in the RAW: the setup allows no house rules whatsoever. That's a great deal more constraining than anything a collaborative game could ever produce.

The idea that a GM and a player are the same in a conventional RPG is blatantly just an opinion and hardly any measure of fact, regardless of how many posts Cain makes on the subject.

Hardly.

Let me put it to you this way: Do you agree that a GM has the right to enjoy a game he runs?

And then, the counter-question: Do you agree that players have the right to enjoy the same game?

Now, for the kicker: Who has a greater right to fun?

The correct answer is, of course, *No one*. Neither the GM nor player has any more right to have fun than the other. We all know what happens when GMs run games for their personal amusement. And we've all got stories about problem players who hog the spotlight and make things unfun for everyone else. These are actually the same problem: one person is ruining the fun for everyone else. No one, GM or player, deserves to be treated like that.

It is a fact that we all game to have fun. And it is a fact that we all have the exact same right to have fun, otherwise the game begins to break. The players and players who GM are absolutely equal.

Without an element of chance or unknown your players can just as easily agree to win (the implicit goal at all times, even if 'winning' means 'dying in a badass way') as to lose (not get their way) - in fact they will (almost) always choose to 'win'.

You don't play a RPG to "win" or "lose". You play a RPG to have fun.

Your argument basically amounts to: "I need to be an absolute tyrant to prevent bad players from ruining the game." Well, first question: If they're such an irredeemably bad player, why are you still playing with them? Second question: If your players are not irredeemably bad, why aren't you taking the time to educate them? Surely showing them how to be better players is better than smacking them down every time they get out of line.

The bottom line is, you do not need to resort to GM tyranny in order to stop bad players. Most of the time, a few words will suffice. When stronger measures are called for, a group intervention is better than a GM faceoff: they won't see this as the GM-Player antagonism that is the root of so many problems, and they're less likely to continue to view the game that way. I saw this method work not that long ago; a player changed his behavior almost instantly. Isn't it better to handle things through democracy and diplomacy than tyranny, "benevolent" or otherwise?

[Cantankerous]

There is never a period where a game suffers from Player input unless the GM is inflexible, or inflexible enough to be in some manner threatened by the process, if the GM and Player both act in an adult manner. Let me say that again, because I hate the word in almost every context: NEVER!

But for this part of the discussion I would rather ask a question that might throw some light on the whole situation.


MUST THE CHARACTERS ALWAYS (USUALLY OR ALMOST ALWAYS) SUCCEED FOR THE GAME TO BE A SUCCESS?

Let me elaborate on that question a bit. First, note the use of the word CHARCTERS there, not players. Secondly it is important to understand what success is for you as Players or GMs. So maybe a few further questions will help out.

It is important to you GMs out there that the Characters succeed on a given mission? Is that "winning" the game?

I bring this up because the more I read these responses and others on the board that are tangential to this question, it seems to be the consensus of opinion that if the characters fail at a mission that the session (at least) was unsuccessful. Is that an accurate perception? Is it the way most of you view the situation?


Isshia

[Cantankerous]

One other thing here, and I think this one is huge.

There are NO FACTS when it comes to any part of this discussion except what we have each perceived...and those are only facts for the person who perceived them.

Outside of that there are ONLY OPINIONS. There is no right or wrong way to GM. Some ways may work better than others, ATLEAST TO THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE GIVEN PERSON, but even that is only, EVER, opinion.


Isshia

[psychophipps]

Your argument basically amounts to: "I need to be an absolute tyrant to prevent bad players from ruining the game." Well, first question: If they're such an irredeemably bad player, why are you still playing with them? Second question: If your players are not irredeemably bad, why aren't you taking the time to educate them? Surely showing them how to be better players is better than smacking them down every time they get out of line.

The bottom line is, you do not need to resort to GM tyranny in order to stop bad players. Most of the time, a few words will suffice. When stronger measures are called for, a group intervention is better than a GM faceoff: they won't see this as the GM-Player antagonism that is the root of so many problems, and they're less likely to continue to view the game that way. I saw this method work not that long ago; a player changed his behavior almost instantly. Isn't it better to handle things through democracy and diplomacy than tyranny, "benevolent" or otherwise?

Good stuff here, Cain. Thanks for posting it for the rest of us to digest and see where we fit into this scenario.

My only issue with this post is the caveat that "GM has final say and it should be dropped unless it's very important to the whole group right at that very instant." I'm sorry, but taking that last shot at the Big Bad (or not) shouldn't be such an overwhelming game issue that the group devolves into a snarling mess. Of course, this is the type of situations where players who think that they're so close to "winning" (and after a long run against this guy it's hard not to take it a bit personal if you're really into the game like my players and I tend to be) that they forget the rules of RPGs (namely, you can't really "win") and start a shouting match while shoving books at the GM with fingers pointed direct-like at page X, paragraph Y, and sentence Z.

[nezumi]

I think Pendaric hit the nail on the head. Some people (specifically Cain and the Gothfather) seem to feel that "benevolent dictator" means you as the GM always demand you get precisely what you want. That isn't what it means at all. Benevolent dictator means you have the POWER to demand whatever it is you want (within the context of the game, obviously), but that you choose to only wield that power when necessary. There is nothing preventing a benevolent dictator from being collaborative (and in fact, generally the benevolent dictator will be very collaborative; taking the opinions of those he is in charge of, adding in his own education and background knowledge, drawing on what those people don't know, to make a fair decision, even if the decision is contrary to his personal desires or even his opinion as to what is the 'best' option).

[masterofm]

The only thing I think Cain has been saying is that the whole idea of the GM as a "benevolent dictator" is somewhat flawed. Where most players have had their problems with games is where a GM abuses their power because they are viewed in such a light and the game is run in such a way that the players do not have any fun. The GM just ends up being a little bitch and everyone just really wants to go home after an hour and a half of pain. What I think he is saying is that when he has sat down and done a consensus based game and everyone is on board with that then it has never gone wrong for him. So based on his experience consensus based games work better whereas he has had problems before with GMs who got too power hungry and went from the image of the "benevolent dictator" to just a plain dictator. For my experience in gaming all the "benevolent dictator" GMs I have had sucked and now that I am in a consensus based game it's the most fun I have ever had. My experience tells me that consensus games might suck, but hell for what our table has been doing it is ten times better then anything I have ever had before.

Again since I feel like I am flogging a three month old rotten baby horse with maggots bursting out of every orifice every time I take a swing at it. This whole damn thing is arbitrary and since neither side will budge this topic I fear will not bear any more fruit.

[Cain]

I think Pendaric hit the nail on the head. Some people (specifically Cain and the Gothfather) seem to feel that "benevolent dictator" means you as the GM always demand you get precisely what you want. That isn't what it means at all. Benevolent dictator means you have the POWER to demand whatever it is you want (within the context of the game, obviously), but that you choose to only wield that power when necessary.

That's exactly what "Benevolent dictator" means, though. It means you always demand that you get precicely what you want; it's just that what you want is usually, in your opinion, what's best for the game.

You actually don't need that authority. Instead of demanding, you can ask. Just say something like: "This is how I'd like the story to go, is everyone willing to play along?" Most of the time, players will say yes. If one or two say no, then you can warn them that they might get left in the cold. If a lot of players say no, you know you're on the wrong track, and should probably change up your game.

Asking the players and taking a vote uses up less than 30 seconds of gaming time. It's also a more fair way of handling disputes that leads to less hard feelings. And it gives the GM valuable feedback about their game. Much, much better than: "I'm the GM, it goes my way!"

[Pendaric]

The point is, Cain, if your doing your job right as a Benevolent Tyrant, you have already asked.

The problem here is that a lot of bad ref (power hungry or misguided) people use a term that means one thing to justify something else entirely.

[TheGothfather]

I think Pendaric hit the nail on the head. Some people (specifically Cain and the Gothfather) seem to feel that "benevolent dictator" means you as the GM always demand you get precisely what you want. That isn't what it means at all. Benevolent dictator means you have the POWER to demand whatever it is you want (within the context of the game, obviously), but that you choose to only wield that power when necessary. There is nothing preventing a benevolent dictator from being collaborative (and in fact, generally the benevolent dictator will be very collaborative; taking the opinions of those he is in charge of, adding in his own education and background knowledge, drawing on what those people don't know, to make a fair decision, even if the decision is contrary to his personal desires or even his opinion as to what is the 'best' option).

That's not exactly my position. I think that a happy medium can be achieved by frontloading the complexity of the game's storyline before the first session of actual play, thus preserving the traditional role of rules arbitration and primary narration of the GM, while simultaneously allowing a measure of player/GM collaboration, which then promotes player buy-in and cohesion.

[Cain]

The point is, Cain, if your doing your job right as a Benevolent Tyrant, you have already asked.

The problem here is that a lot of bad ref (power hungry or misguided) people use a term that means one thing to justify something else entirely.

Even if you've already asked, do you need to dictate the results and set them in stone?

If you're a tyrant, benevolent or otherwise, you're demanding final say. My point is that tyranny isn't needed at all. A more fair and democratic process works better, and also teaches the players better gaming habits.

[Cantankerous]

Even if you've already asked, do you need to dictate the results and set them in stone?

If you're a tyrant, benevolent or otherwise, you're demanding final say. My point is that tyranny isn't needed at all. A more fair and democratic process works better, and also teaches the players better gaming habits.

Far better gaming habits. When you treat the Players like children that you have to ride herd on, it encourages them to act that way, to see how much they can get away with. If you treat them like adults and make THEM responsible for the way their characters act and how they as Players act you loose that "what can I get away with" attitude that leads to rules lawyering and trying to bend the rules to benefit themselves. Instead THEY try to suggest fixes for rules that need help or clarification and simply don't exploit the ones that are still in place.


Isshia

[nezumi]

That's exactly what "Benevolent dictator" means, though. It means you always demand that you get precicely what you want; it's just that what you want is usually, in your opinion, what's best for the game.

If you really want to go with Cain's understanding and not Machiavelli's, go ahead. It would appear you're not alone, so I won't argue. But understand, when talking to people who have actually read and studied Machiavelli, you're coming off as a little naive.

Asking the players and taking a vote uses up less than 30 seconds of gaming time. It's also a more fair way of handling disputes that leads to less hard feelings. And it gives the GM valuable feedback about their game. Much, much better than: "I'm the GM, it goes my way!"

A benevolent dictator can and should do that, when appropriate. I consider myself a "benevolent dictator" GM and I do that - when the game allows. However, sometimes I don't. For instance, when talking about an NPCs reaction, or whether a shot hits or not. This is especially true in regards to story-related things, since the players don't know the plot or what other NPC players are involved, and I do. If I say "sorry, the truck already left", or "the matrix host suddenly goes on lock-down", I say that for a reason, and I'm not open to a vote on it. If the players decide they'd like to vote on the plot, they're welcome to - in their own game.

I've never dumped a player, and I've never had anyone complain about my GMing style (except insofar that sometimes I focus too much on the technical side, or too much action vs. social stuff, etc., none of which is related to whether I take votes or not, I think. I do adjust my games to meet the goals of my players, but also try to advertise beforehand what sort of game *I* like to play, so they know what they're getting into and I don't have to sacrifice my fun because of what is simply different preferences.)

[Fortune]

I don't presume, or even desire to teach my players anything. I'm there as a GM to run the game.

[Cantankerous]

I don't presume, or even desire to teach my players anything. I'm there as a GM to run the game.

That is kind of sad. I learn from my Players all the time. I would hope that they can likewise learn from me.


Isshia

[noonesshowmonkey]

Most games, and gaming groups, are actually set up for collaborative decision-making. You tend to decide on things as a group-- what game you'll play, when you'll meet, how long the games will be, and so on and so forth. A lot of groups also decide on setting notes together, discuss house rules, and many other things. If you take a look at your group, you may realize that you're more collaborative than you think.

You are quite right here. All my games involve a collaborative character creation process between myself as the GM and my players. I encourage players to collaborate between themselves to avoid obvious group cohesion processes (such as two racist dwarves who hate elves in a group 40% made of of elves...) but I do not demand it. Regardless, this level of collaboration is to enforce continuity and gameplay more than anything else.

Further, I don't call my gamers and say "Hey, ya know that villain? You guys really pissed him off and he is likely going to try and kill you. Is that ok? How do you feel about that? Would you rather have a pie eating contest with him? Discuss!" I will ask them what they want to accomplish before and even during the game, but I ask in broad strokes. If my players say "I want a really big sword, a ham sammich and to fuck the queen!" how entertaining is it when they get what they want in its entirety, for no reason. If you want to run a game based around ham sammiches, or whatever the fancy of your players is regardless of other people's desires, interests or the overall feelings of continuity in the game world, then that is your perrogative. I honestly have no idea what you do with your games and you should probably try not to presume what I do with my own.

Actually, the GMing duties are shared in both those games. Questions like: "Is there a chandelier I can swing from?" is answered in both games, by either assumption or consensus. Those responsibilities are, in fact, assigned to players. It's traditional games that provide constraining rulesets.

I have had this issue with you in the past. You just re-wrote what I said. The game system itself is built to arbitrate those decisions which normally are assigned to the GM - if the game assigns them into portions to other players or offers a situation where they can weigh in that responsibility is not abdicated, it is delegated.

Your argument basically amounts to: "I need to be an absolute tyrant to prevent bad players from ruining the game." Well, first question: If they're such an irredeemably bad player, why are you still playing with them? Second question: If your players are not irredeemably bad, why aren't you taking the time to educate them? Surely showing them how to be better players is better than smacking them down every time they get out of line.

The bottom line is, you do not need to resort to GM tyranny in order to stop bad players. Most of the time, a few words will suffice. When stronger measures are called for, a group intervention is better than a GM faceoff: they won't see this as the GM-Player antagonism that is the root of so many problems, and they're less likely to continue to view the game that way. I saw this method work not that long ago; a player changed his behavior almost instantly. Isn't it better to handle things through democracy and diplomacy than tyranny, "benevolent" or otherwise?

Your reliance on straw-men is insulting to your intelligence. First and foremost, I do not believe in out and out tyrrany. I do, however, believe that most games rely on a dynamic wherein one person is vested with the responsibility to maintain a certain trajectory, feel and dramatic tension - all of which dissipate when too many hands touch the core inner workings of the game. Asking players for input in between sessions, factoring in their goals etc. is a certain amount of collaboration but ultimately I make the shit up and put it out there for them to work with. Even in the most sand-box orriented games, which Shadowrun often is, the tools and features bepopulate of that sandbox are there for a reason - I saw a need, a purpose or a neccessary reason for them and placed them there to be used by my players. To a certain extent is an awful lot like being a producer-director: you gather the necessary elements of talent, drama, story etc. and put them in a fish bowl of your own making and sometimes you go hands off and let it all boil over. Other times you have to go hands on and do your job. A good day is when the result is an interesting story wherein the players enjoy themselves. Most games do not achieve this through 100% democratic process and associating collaboration on elements of the game with collaborating on running the game is in pretty grevious error.

[sk8bcn]

One thing to an idea stated above, that GMs are more valuable because the game ends with them. Sorry, no.


I don't know how many times my Players who were also in other games, or friends of theirs who were gamers talked about a GM/DM/Whatever throwing a fit and leaving and the Players picking it right up from where he left off and going on as though nothing had happened...

... except that usually the prima donna wasn't invited to join in the "new game".

If only the GM owns the core books for a system I can see this. But unless the Players are ALSO fed up and don't want to go on, someone else just grabs the mantel up and ... game on!


Isshia

This is definitely not the culture in my gaming groups. I would not pick up the slack of my gamemaster and continue what he was doing.

I would start a new bunch of characters and start something anew.

[sk8bcn]

There is never a period where a game suffers from Player input unless the GM is inflexible, or inflexible enough to be in some manner threatened by the process, if the GM and Player both act in an adult manner. Let me say that again, because I hate the word in almost every context: NEVER!

But for this part of the discussion I would rather ask a question that might throw some light on the whole situation.


MUST THE CHARACTERS ALWAYS (USUALLY OR ALMOST ALWAYS) SUCCEED FOR THE GAME TO BE A SUCCESS?

Let me elaborate on that question a bit. First, note the use of the word CHARCTERS there, not players. Secondly it is important to understand what success is for you as Players or GMs. So maybe a few further questions will help out.

It is important to you GMs out there that the Characters succeed on a given mission? Is that "winning" the game?

I bring this up because the more I read these responses and others on the board that are tangential to this question, it seems to be the consensus of opinion that if the characters fail at a mission that the session (at least) was unsuccessful. Is that an accurate perception? Is it the way most of you view the situation?


Isshia

Ahhh interesting!

I do think that beeing succesfull makes the game fun. Better said, a failure is neither a pleasure for the GM nor the players. And if it is, it denotes that something is wrong.

However, I do think that, failures should happen if the players does things wrong. So that, if they succeed, they know they succeeded because they were good. Railroaded successes sucks.


Of course, by failure, I really think of a scenario where they couldn't solve it. Not the kind of they were supposed to fail (for a dramatic arc)

[sk8bcn]

That's exactly what "Benevolent dictator" means, though. It means you always demand that you get precicely what you want; it's just that what you want is usually, in your opinion, what's best for the game.

You actually don't need that authority. Instead of demanding, you can ask. Just say something like: "This is how I'd like the story to go, is everyone willing to play along?" Most of the time, players will say yes. If one or two say no, then you can warn them that they might get left in the cold. If a lot of players say no, you know you're on the wrong track, and should probably change up your game.

Asking the players and taking a vote uses up less than 30 seconds of gaming time. It's also a more fair way of handling disputes that leads to less hard feelings. And it gives the GM valuable feedback about their game. Much, much better than: "I'm the GM, it goes my way!"

But if you think you're arguing with a bunch of GM that acts this way, you are wrong.

I really do believe we think the same about GMing. The point of disagreement is what to do when we reach an extreme case.