"When I close my eyes... all I see are chubby girls in corsets... and all I hear is shrill whining... Where are my pills?!?"

All true, but the point is, after a certain point you stop planning for it and just brace yourself for anything.

We never know for sure what our players will like or dislike, or what twisted path they might decide to take through the latest adventure. You can take your best guess, and feel safe that you won't screw things up; but that's not the same thing as "knowing what's best". That's where Max and I are disagreeing: I think the "play it as it goes" approach is better, while he apparently prefers "Father knows best".

On another note: yes, I did do the Cam for a little while. And dabbled with the SCA. The mental scars may never heal.

Edit: And incidentally, my usage of the name "Cain" predates the existence of the World of Darkness, and Shadowrun for that matter. Just a history tidbit.

Knowing my opinion would imply reading and comprehending the things I have written. Since you haven't done this, is should be little surprise that you characterize my opinion incorrectly.

Oh, I think I've got the gist of it. How many times did you say: "I know what's best for my group"? "They have a tendency towards Monty Haulism, so I have to keep things in check for their own good"? Etc, etc.

Hmm... well a quick check back shows I never once used either of those phrases. What I said on multiple occasions, yet you never seemed to grasp, is that the group knows what best for itself. Which for some groups means appointing a leader to rule over its desires in some cases. Yet you cannot seem to grasp the important distinction contained there-in. If I ever implied that I know better than my players did in any situation, my right to make those decisions against there will came from the fact that they had appointed me to do so.

But hey its good to know your always there to prove my point for me. At least when my point is, "Cain doesn't listen to what anyone else has to say."

Here's just one I found in less than ten seconds. I can dig up more, if you like:

The order of arguments wrong is. Not confusing me after looong days you should.

Ryu, have you by chance ever spent a long period of time in the Degobah system?

Yes, how did you tell?

Go right ahead. I'm pretty sure you will continue to ignore the context in which I make my statements, such as this provison in which I made the last one in.

The key provision which you like to ignore is that I didn't just appoint myself GM because I think I know better then the players. The group appoints a GM because they trust his judgment to overrule their desires from time to time. Its not just the GM thinking he knows better than the players. It the players also trusting his judgment over their own in certain situations. Why else would they appoint him as the games arbitrator, if not to arbitrate? Why appoint him the leader if not to lead? Why give him authority if not to use it? You obviously can't stand this concept, but its clear that for most well functioning groups, the GM get authority not because he thinks he knows best, but because the group as whole thinks he knows best. Better even then themselves in situations, which is why they choose to value his opinion on his own.

Anyways, I hope you enjoyed that response, as I've risen to your bait for the last time. Your on my ignore list know, so I will no longer be tempted to pay any attention to the crap that you say. You can attack your strawmen of my position just as well without my input really. Now, if only real life had a GM who could have smacked me in the head and had me do it a lot sooner. Ah, to bad life is not as easily governed as RPG are.

See, there's the very thing. Who appointed you leader of the group? They might have voted you in as GM, but I doubt they voted you in as "El Presidente for life". You're assuming authority where none exists.

A GM is definitely not the leader of a group. Most gaming groups don't even *have* a leader, one person who decides everything for them, trusting in him to have their best issues at heart. Instead, good groups run on open communication and majority decision. And you know what? It works a heck of a lot better than the "Daddy knows best" mentality.

Strange! I don't automatically define 'leader' as meaning 'El Presidente for life', or assume that 'leader' necessarily means 'person who decides everything for them', or even associate the word with the '"Daddy knows best" mentality'. But I guess that's just me.

Sorry for butting in on your argument but I disagree here. There is ALWAYS positions of power. Usually the GM has the stronger position, the players often have an almost equal position, while sometimes one or more players have a greater position through influence.

There are many ways to work this out, democratically or representative, but in the end the power ultimately lies in who can destroy the game. The Gm needs the players, the players needs the gm or a good replacement. They may all disagree with a rule but abide by it to continue the game or they can use their "veto" power, same with the GM. A single player is seldom necessary to continue the game and have fun.

Or is this just a case of semantics?

Cain, this may be hard to grasp, but for *his group* their chosen method of letting a GM override personal desires has worked for them and has produced fond memories.

Stop telling them that their own personal experiences are invalid and wrong. He's not assuming anything. He's presenting anecdotal evidence from his own gaming experiences. That evidence doesn't match yours, fine. That doesn't give you grounds to keep saying he's wrong based on his own personal experience.

You telling someone they're wrong when they're speaking from personal experience is absolutely no different than flat out calling them a liar. Unless you have personal experience in HIS group where you can counter his information *with relation to THAT group* then you seriously need to back off. You've made your point relevant to your own experience. Pounding it home even further isn't doing anyone any good.

Cain has had some really awful experiences with GM's and CANNOT under ANY circumstances agree that a GM has any kind of authority or responsibility, or that the two go hand in hand when GM'ing. It works for him and his group it would seem, even if it is an alien concept to the game system. He can't understand this, he won't understand this, and he will fight bitterly to his dying breath to say "GM'S ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME." And that's ok.

Actually, only a handful of GM's have been awful, and one of the biggest offenders was me. Way back in the day, I thought like Max did. I didn't realize until much later that people could have fun any other way than me being the absolute god and king of all I surveyed.

What did I learn? A Gm has responsibility, but not authority. He has influence, and that's it. Just like the President has no authority over Congress, he nonetheless has a lot of influence. GM's don't have any actual authority, but they have a lot of influence that some people mistake as authority. IMO, that's one of the first signs that things are going to their head, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the GM only has as much influence as the group lets him have, and zero actual authority.

But you have to realise that there are gm's out there who have both, and it has not gone to their head, and they don't abuse the rules or screw over their players. You sound like a cop who say's "everyone here is just a criminal waiting to happen." Were not all Agent Smiths, were good GM's who do it a way different than you, and don't get caught up in the "I am GOD" like you did.

You can see that right? Tell me you understand what I am saying.

I see what you're saying, BUT....

It's all a matter of degree. Just because a bad habit isn't causing major issues doesn't mean it's not a bad habit. Demanding authority, no matter how nicely, is a bad habit. You can do without the authority, you can rely on the influence you gain by being a good GM. Your players will come to respect you, and that community of mutual respect will do more for creating a fun game than any amount of "I'm the GM, it's because I say so."

Wether you demand the authority, or people give it to you, you still have it. How you use it defines if your a good GM or not.

Players seldom, IME actually give you authority. They give you influence and respect. Treating that as authority is, again IME, a bad thing. How bad depends on how well you handle other aspects of the game, but it's one more bad habit GMs can do without.

What exactly is the difference between giving someone influence and respect and giving him authority?

Influence: You listen to someone because he's proven himself to be wise.

Respect: You look up to someone's advice because it's proven good in the past.

Authority: The ability to deliver proclamations and back them up forcibly.

I'm glad you posted that, because I don't think anyone, but you, were using that definition of authority throughout this discussion. And I think it is all because of "back them up forcibly." I don't know if any below average to good GM would try and back up any proclamation with force (unless you consider smacking player's heads with a heavy book).

Now, if you take out the forcibly part, I think that is what the rest of us have been associating with authority, deliver a proclamation and back it up (with rule citations, reasoning or sometimes in-game railroading).

I found 13 definitions for authority on dictionary.com and only one used the word "force". And it was a synonym for "persuasion". I don't know where anyone would get the idea that a GM has absolute rule. It's the game's host who has more (*ahem*) authority than the game master.

Depending on the playstyle of the group, GM authority usually IS pretty important. (But without the forcing of course)

Players/Characters are usually not aware of all that is going on around them, they might not have the exact stats, dice pools, Force, spells, ... of opponents. Sometimes all they have is a 'proclamation' by the GM that something happens the way he describes it (after rolling the dice). And they either accept it or there will be a conflict.

An example might help: (not the best example but should get the point across)
Think of the gunbunny scoring lots of hits while shooting at a mark.
Only to be told by the GM that as he squeezes the trigger, his target moves out of his crosshairs and his bullet misses and impacts millimetres from the guys' head.

At this point the player/shooter has no way of knowing the guy he's shooting at is a mage with both Deflection and Combat Sense active with a pretty high Reaction who just spent Edge and whose DP to dodge was actually higher than the shooter.

- If the player/GM trust isn't there, some players might think that the GM is railroading them to keep the guy alive, and start complaining.
- On the other hand, if the player trust IS there, it might lead the shooter to believe there might be something special about the guy he just tried to shoot.

*Anyone* can do that, not just the GM. In-game railroading is the only one reserved for the GM, and we all agree that's A Bad Thing.

When I say "forcibly", I mean backing up a proclamation by something like denying a character XP because of a "Problem player", or worse, threatening to end a session because "It takes the plot in a direction I'm not prepared for." Taking a break to rethink things is fine. Saying: "Do it my way or no game" is force.


Exactly my point! There's certain people here who think the GM has, and should have, absolute tyrannical power. In reality, however, they never do-- the host has more authority. The GM has influence, and respect, going for him. Trying to wrangle that into authority is a bad habit GM's can do without.

MaxMahem...um, I mean certain people, never said that GMs should have, absolute tyrannical power. Based on my reading of his posts, he said that HIS GROUP wanted the GM to have absolute tyrannical power and HIS GROUP wanted him to be the GM. All he has been saying is that it hasn't ruined his group and they have a lot of fun.

I've never played in a group that had all the players tell the GM that they wanted him to control everything and anything he said, regardless of rulebooks. I could see doing that with a couple of my friends, but not many. But I could see the group trying to see how it would go...but again, with the right GM.

I normally try to GM close to RAW and only adjust when things don't make sense, are unclear or someone, GM or player, comes up with a better idea that our group likes.

I've played with GMs that mandated RAW only and the only discussion was if there was debate on the intention of the books. No one was allowed to come up with a cool new rule or way of doing things, even if everyone agreed.

I've played in games that the GM was the authoritative law (these have been times when I joined a FLGS game and may not have known anyone) and if someone questioned them with RAW, they said, "Well, this is my game and it doesn't work that way." This is not usually a game I would stick with if too many things get altered unannounced.

And I've also played with GMs that kinda just winged everything and if a rule came up that contradicted something he just did, he'd kinda go, "Oh, I didn't know that," and adjust his game to accomodate.

Any of the above can work or fail, obviously. But the thing I think you continue to overlook is that if the said group all chooses one of these methods for their own group, well, that pretty much overrides anything outside of their group. If the group gives their GM authority, then they have authority.

Cain once again you sight an example that leave me believing you had a GM who would use corporal punishment if you didn't do what he said. Your definition of Authority is inaccurate. And again, it is what the GM's does with said authority that makes him good or bad, having it doesn't make him good or bad. Having the Authority to moderate the game and control the storyline isn't a bad thing. When you use it to railroad people or chase the 'fun' out of the room, that is bad. In my experience though, players do that more than GM's.

Most 'Bad' gm's I have played with can be summed up in a few quotes...


"I don't even know why I bother bringing books"
"Your not going to need any dice tonight"
"She is so much more powerful than you, you are awed just to be in her presence"
"Ok you escaped the orc gang, fought your way through the tunnel, and got the package to the address. The old man next to you on the street turns into a dragon and eats you."


These were all from game sessions by GM's that I did not return to.

Another one, that can't summed up in a quote was when I was playing in the "Weird West" campaign setting. I had set my guy up to be a gunfighter, there were these neat intricate rules for gunfighting and I wanted to try them out. This was the fourth session I think. I was in a bar and there was a loud mouth being mean to some girl, I walked up to him and slapped him around.

The gm looked at me and flat out said, "what are you doing". My reply, "I want to do a duel! Ok, you duel him, he's dead, are you happy now you bloodthirsty dick."

I kid you not. The GM thought I was some kind of monster for wanting to duel someone in the weird west. The worst part was she totally bypassed the awesome dueling rules.

There's a big, BIG, BIG difference between a GM who is a "tyrant" (ie: brutal, harsh and unrestrained by rules) and a GM who utilizes autocratic control. A properly autocratic GM is willing to allow his singular authority, in regards to refereeing/overseeing/resolving the game, to be revoked by players. A tyrant can only be put down by a players-strike or some other sort of dramatic confrontation. An autocratic GM is aware that his authority is a result of the trust and respect of the players. A tyrant GM is a Doug Douglasonian nerd-thug.

If a GM can be voted down by his players, or even just one player who isn't having fun, then he's not being autocratic, is he? "Autocratic", IIRC, means "Rule of One", which puts just one person in command.

At any event, even that degree of autocracy is unnecessary. There's a world of difference between: "I think it'd be better if things went this way" and "Because I'm the GM and I said so!". The first relies on influence and respect. The second relies on authority. See what I'm getting at?

No, I don't see what you're getting at. Your examples are that of a diplomatic GM and of a nerd-thug GM. Neither has to do with autocracy. An autocratic GM makes game decisions at the behest of the players at the leisure of the players. An autocratic GM makes informed, reasonable decisions for what's best for the group. Tyranny doesn't fit into the equation.

Both rely on authority, just different types. Uchicago: Max Weber

Really? Care to give some hints as to who these people are, because I haven't seen evidence of this being true about anyone from my reading of the posts related to this topic.

Why is this still be discussed?
Who ever it is who keeps bring this up, get there faster.
Appreciate and consider the different opinions and view points, make a descision that works for you and let it go.

There's a lot of value in discussing these subjects, precisely because there are multiple ways of effectively running games, and getting those techniques out there can only help peoples' games.
But, I do agree that the GM authority topic has been kind of beaten to death, so let's shift it a little. I'll probably open up a can of worms here, but I haven't really seen it discussed on DS yet, so I'm gonna do it anyway, and maybe even get back to the original topic a little (although it may be a little too late for that).

It's kind of hard to talk about mistakes being made by "less skilled" roleplayers without knowing what a player's responsibilities are in the first place. The BBB doesn't really delineate what they are. I'm guessing that most people have different ideas about what a player is supposed to do at the table, so I'm thinking that it could be useful to figure out what, specifically, GM's should expect from their players.

Ok kids, the circle keeps going round and round and this argument never gets anywhere. We all know it so let's just do the "agree to disagree" at this point. Cain, no rehashing, others, no poking the Cain to bring it back up. This has been your official Mod warning, as the GM thread isn't the player thread (even if it started out as a player post) As others have pointed out there are constructive ways to get this back on track, lets try and use them

I generally tell the GM "I don't mind if you're changing the rule, but you DO know you aren't following the rulebook, right?" Or alternately "Sounds good, let's do it that way" which my current GM has now come to realize means he's got the rule wrong. Often he asks what the rule actually is, but sometimes he just runs with it - and I'm ok with that. Rule #1 as a GM: Know The Rules. Rule #2: Once you know them, and why they are there, feel free to change them.

- Losing focus on the GAME and instead concentrating on the antagonism of the 'GM out to get you'.
- Mary-Sue Syndrome (I can do everything and everyone loves me)
- Forgetting that it is /flaws/ that make a character interesting and memorable. (Except for Master Chief... cause dude... he killed them with their own bomb by blowing it out an airlock. Some certain levels of bad-assery are game defining.)
- Not bothering to read what they're buying, and needing to change it every time they sit down at the table.
- An inability to have an idea of what to do before their own turn, thus slamming everything to a halt when instead those moves should have been pre-planned while the Sam was taking his third and fourth passes.
- Playing one dimensional characters. (I R Lyek 2 Fite!)
- Passive Aggressive Out of Character Whinging to attempt to control the ST.
- Spotlight Hogging, and Spotlight Avoiding

**Deleted by poster due to over-argumentative responses**

**Rest deleted due to getting to end of thread and seeing the Mod Post. hehe** Two for two, good ratio tonight


And on topic:

The only thing that really bothers in roleplaying is playing out of genre. That's one reason a love ShadowRun, not much is out of the genre.

One dimensional characters can be okay. Like the Master Chief, from your example.