Game Masters and Players: Some Thoughts

I once got in a dispute with someone over just how important the Game Master was vis a vis the Players. My position was that the Game Master owns the game and calls the shots, and if the Players don't like it, they can eat shit. (I actually said, " . . . they can eat shit.") The other person's position was that when they ran a game, their job was to facilitate fun, and that the game didn't belong to them as much as to the Players.

This particular dispute jumped back into my brain recently, and has been hopping around for about a week now, so I've decided to clarify my position.

The Player's job is to play his character.

The GM's job is to 1. Play NPC's. 2. Provide a setting, whether that means buying a book or inventing one. 3. Adjudicate rules. 4. Provide plot, whether that means buying one or making one up.

In light of that, should the GM's vote be equal to that of any of the Players?

If the GM's views are no more important than anyone else's, how can said person do #3?

The very existence of #3 implies that the GM's views are more important than the Players. So why shouldn't the GM get a greater share of the votes?

I've seen games grind to a screeching halt over disputes between Players and GM's. Usually, one Player and the GM. Trust me when I say this ruins the fun for those not involved in the dispute. (Unless they're assholes.) So, doesn't it facilitate fun to let the GM, you know, run the game?

To sum up: When the Game Master owns the game and calls the shots, and if the Players don't like it, they can eat shit, actually makes things run more smoothly, which makes the game more fun for everyone involved. (Except the assholes.)