Over on TBP, they have a thread about "What makes a bad GM", and in it some asswipe named Spinach Baron has suggested that any GM who believes in the idea of having power for its own sake is a bad GM, "no matter how good they may be at their chosen art".  

So, hold it... a GM that believes that GMs should be the ones with the power in the game are ALWAYS bad GMs, even if they run the game fairly, have a waiting list for participation in their campaigns, successfully run decades of campaigns, run characters so real that players talk about them like they were alive, and plotlines so stunning that they make the angels themselves weep?  They can do all that, but in your petty little fucking mind they are automatically BAD GM just because.. what? Because you say so, you fucking nonentity, you pisslapping cunt?!

How about this: the mere fact that you make such a claim tells me right away that YOU are a bad GM,and therefore mentally and morally incapable of making any judgements about what would or would not make a good GM, since you clearly wouldn't know what makes for a good GM if a gang of them came round your place and beat you to within an inch of your life with Spiked Baseball Bats of Great Justice.

In addition, anyone who claims that the GM should NOT believe that he should be the one with the power for its own sake is a bad GM.

Any GM who feels the buck does not stop with him will automatically be a pantywaist weakling of a GM that will run a bad game. He will fail to be able to keep his players from running roughshod over the campaign, obviously, but he also obviously lacks the fortitude to be able to manage to present a plotline that will amaze, he'll lack the convictions to be able to create NPCs that seem real, and he'll obviously lack the sense of justice and structure to be able to be fair to all the players.

In other words, any GM who believes that the GM should not be in charge will suck massive ass.

It shouldn't shock me that of course, over on that thread, no one had the brains or the spine to disagree with mr.asswipe spinach's statement. So, I'm taking that thread away from them and bringing it to theRPGsite.  They don't deserve it.

I'm also posting this on theRPGsite as a seperate thread, for those who might wish to discuss the themes specifically brought up by my rebuttal.

RPGPundit

Look, RPGPundit is excluding the middle again!  Nothing to see here, folks.

Overall, I tend to side with the idea that the GM should be in control of specific aspects of the game, namely, the Back Story (World/Setting), the running of NPCs, and rules adjucation.   The Players should be, in my opinion, in control of their Characters actions (not necessarily their pre-play history) and ideas.   For me that's always made for the possibility of great games.  Now some GMs and some Players are not up to the task, but this is not a fault of the game, just as the fact that some people are not suited for basketball is a fault of the game.   It's a game, and some people can play it well, and others can't.   I for one am A-OK with that concept.   Carry on.

Why did you post 2 threads about this?  I suggest you lock one so that discussion stays focused in one thread, rather than back and forth across two.

And I'm just going to start attacking you for keyboard courage.  You use language online that you would never use to someone's face.  I suggest you start toning it down, because it's weak.

For instance, you should only call someone a "pisslapping cunt" to someone's face if that person is your friend or you are prepared to physically fight them.  At least that's the world I grew up in and I suspect we grew up in very similar worlds.

Quote from: walkerpFor instance, you should only call someone a "pisslapping cunt" to someone's face if that person is your friend or you are prepared to physically fight them.  At least that's the world I grew up in and I suspect we grew up in very similar worlds.

I don't believe I've ever even seen/heard someone called a "pisslapping cunt".

Quote from: StuartWhy did you post 2 threads about this?  I suggest you lock one so that discussion stays focused in one thread, rather than back and forth across two.

oooo... your new avatar is very becoming!   Thank you for sparing my sanity this week.  

Quote from: VBWyrdeoooo... your new avatar is very becoming!   Thank you for sparing my sanity this week.  

Agreed.  Stuart's avatars were getting more and more disturbing each changeover.

You mean getting better.  :haw:

Obviously I haven't read the thread you're talking about, since you didn't provide a link, but based on this:

Quoteany GM who believes in the idea of having power for its own sake is a bad GM,

and your paraphrasing of it:

Quotea GM that believes that GMs should be the ones with the power in the game

It seems you've misinterpreted the original statement. There's a huge line of difference between thinking GMs should have power and wanting power for its own sake.

Perhaps we could get a link so we could see his entire statement and not your five word quote coupled with a rephrasing that doesn't seem to match it?

Pundit, I have to agree with everyone who thinks you're misinterpreting the status. I personally consider it important to have the "power" over the campaigns I run - I don't want to spend time running a campaign I'm not enjoying, after all, and someone needs to have the authority to make rulings and keep the game moving - but that power is a means to an end (running a fun campaign that everyone enjoys), not an end in itself.

James makes a good point.  The exact phrase and context matters.  GMs IMHO should have power.  They are the ultimate arbitrators in game.  But GMs who seek power over other people (and get their rocks off that way) in a RPG setting by being dictatorial dicks are true pisslapping cunts.

That's because this thread has very little to do with GM power.  It's main raison d'etre is for Pundit to spout off on a straw man so he can push forth his agenda (which at this point has become so muddled, I think it basically boils down to ego masturbation).

I agree with the thread title. If a GM usurps player power (takes over char gen, dictates what LG alignment "really" means, mega houserules the system and reveals original content on a need to know basis) I think "Hmm, is he a great GM?" If he is, then I gladly hand over the keys and buckle up for awesome. If not, then I torpedo the campaign 'cause nothing bites worse than spending good RPG time with in a game where power has absolutely corrupted the GM.

There is, as Pundy implies, no middle ground.