Just a general discussion on how individuals believe a GM should communicate with their RPers and vice-versa.

I am of the belief that RPers should be open to question and argue rules, settings, and plots with the GM. Now, I would like to clarify that "argue" does not mean "condescend, antagonize, or berate." Arguing, in this sense, is civil and constructive. Anything outside of that and you have poor relations and nonconstructive behaviors. However, should this be at every point, then the RPer should just make their own RP. But in the case of a rule, a plot devise, or even another character, I believe the field should be open for discussion (which is really just a replacement word for "argument" given the initial definition).

I've had difficulty finding a balance between leisure and strictness when it comes to others attempting to argue their opinions and ideas onto my RP. I don't believe it should be dictatorial but I also don't believe a completely open world is very constructive either (unless you have responsible and fair RPers, which we know to not be may (though this might be accidental/unintentional in some cases)).

If you're always having to argue with someone every time you bring a point up, maybe that RP is not for you. Differences of opinions happen, but I don't think it's a good idea to stick around if it's going to happen all the time. That drama gets old for everyone. If a GM is that inflexible about how you should play a character, usually where I feel like I'm playing to a very specific script, then I roll. If I am the GM and a player is giving me an argument every time I try to turn something down, then I have them roll (politely.)

I didn't bring this up because it happens all the time. In fact, I haven't had this happen often. It was just something I was curious about.
One particular example is someone not liking a particular rule that has little to nothing to do with the RP experience itself (of course, that might be debatable since it's in the RP to begin with). If they were to bring up the fact that they don't like the rule and don't wish to follow it, should that rule be reevaluated or should it be imposed regardless?

What about things like the requirement of using the exact CS format suggested/requested by the GM. Should a differing CS format, that has all the same information, be rejected?

You know, stuff like that. One time things that might come up occasionally.

Also, should RPers be free to suggest how one might run the RP or even the way a plot develops? How far is too far for an RPer to "go against" the GM?

Phoenix said
I didn't bring this up because it happens all the time. In fact, I haven't had this happen often. It was just something I was curious about. One particular example is someone not liking a particular rule that has little to nothing to do with the RP experience itself (of course, that might be debatable since it's in the RP to begin with). If they were to bring up the fact that they don't like the rule and don't wish to follow it, should that rule be reevaluated or should it be imposed regardless?What about things like the requirement of using the exact CS format suggested/requested by the GM. Should a differing CS format, that has all the same information, be rejected?You know, stuff like that. One time things that might come up occasionally.Also, should RPers be free to suggest how one might run the RP or even the way a plot develops? How far is too far for an RPer to "go against" the GM?

I think most rules should have a good justification; and when one of mine gets questioned, I can usually explain myself. If a sheet has it all in there, I'm cool with it. And if RP'ers suggest plot hooks, I'll definitely consider them and usually work hard to bring that into the story line. It's so rare to get that anyway that it seems a shame to waste it.

Where I draw my line with players 'going against' a GM tends to be the point where you are polite, say no, have your reasons, explain them and still get a lot of pushback, or where you're just always having to do a struggle with the same player over every detail -- that's when it's time for them to run their own RP.

But all of this varies from GM to GM. It's a matter of the individual involved.

I'm of the opinion that the GM is equivalent to about half of the community. Or rather, the GM should have an equal amount of power as the entirety of his lower RPers. Of course, when it comes to GMing, you ultimately need to rule by love, anyways.

Otherwise, you're stuck with an empty table, and then you're not even really a GM anymore...

Hey Seuss: Why is it so individualized? Is any one method of conduct better than another? Is the relationship truly up to the GM? Or are you specifying the incident of conflict?

Protagonist: So if all players want something but you're not keen on it, then is it changed? If one person bring up a valid complaint, is it ignored? What is "love" in this case? Is there any case in which love might be counter-productive?

Phoenix said
Hey Seuss: Why is it so individualized? Is any one method of conduct better than another? Is the relationship truly up to the GM? Or are you specifying the incident of conflict?Protagonist: So if all players want something but you're not keen on it, then is it changed? If one person bring up a valid complaint, is it ignored? What is "love" in this case? Is there any case in which love might be counter-productive?

Each GM runs their own roleplay as they see fit. Some get lots of people and do well, others don't. It depends on the personalities involved. So yes, the GM can make the rules, but the player can choose whether they want to play with that GM or not. That's why I feel it's an individual thing -- people have different tolerances.

On the other hand, the advice about ruling with love is essentially the way forward. If you're going to be a tremendous douche, word will get around.

Phoenix said
Protagonist: So if all players want something but you're not keen on it, then is it changed? If one person bring up a valid complaint, is it ignored? What is "love" in this case? Is there any case in which love might be counter-productive?

Well, the general goal of a GM is to make the narrative of his RP go from start to finish as he wishes it. The general goal of the Roleplayer is to roleplay their character from start to finish, as they wish it to occur. These two goals can come into conflict, but it is strictly not a zero-sum game. The GM technically has total control within his game, but the roleplay has the ability to simply leave. As such, for the GM to meet his own goals, he has to compromise. It's simply in his own interests. However, if the GM has no power, then the RP will certainly go on without any rhyme or reason or direction, possibly leading to a decay in quality.

As for valid complaints, what is a valid complaint is for the digression of the GM to figure out. Again, this is not a zero sum game. For the GM to win, the RPers usually have to win as well. So, it's simply in the interests of the GM to change according to complaints, and it's even more in their interests to accept proposals they believe to be good ideas.

Phoenix said Just a general discussion on how individuals believe a GM should communicate with their RPers and vice-versa.

A two communication based on civility and creativity. I've had GMs I've conflicted with in the past; I'm a bit of a diva as a RPer, so that's no surprise. Just as I've had players I've come into conflict with as a GM in the past, which is much more rare. But it happens. And when it happens it's usually over something small that shouldn't be as big a deal as it is. But either I blow it up into something more, or they do. But even at my worst I'll simply leave a game, instead of flame it out or berate anyone. It's still civil, usually. I rarely, rarely, RARELY critique someone as a GM over OOC or IC issues in public. To me that should always be kept to PMs. Much easier to keep things from blowing up into something larger that way.

Something I'll do as a GM is feedback. Let your players know you read and enjoyed their posts. I typically give feedback, much like a director will to an actor. "Say, your character was really laid back the last few turns. Maybe show me some intensity for this scene?" Even if it's something simple and small like, "I love it!"

I'll even give feedback on their writing if they've expressed an interest in 'getting better' to me. But that's not exactly inherit to GMing.

I think Players should question the reason for a rule, but not try and argue against it. The GM made the thread, so in my opinion, it's their rules to choose.

As a GM, I talk to my players like I talk to anyone. Half the time it's joking death threats, keeping people up to date on what's going on, and most of all, keeping them engaged and interested in the RP. The moment you let them wander off, and your OOC starts to become sluggish, you've probably lost them.

As someone who GM's often, here's my take on it;

Players should definitely be able to question things, including the GM's choices (in fact I kind of encourage it a lot of the time) but so long as the GM and the players can discuss things, the players should respect the GM's final decision on something, be that the rules of the canon or the rules of how the RP is run.

In return, the GM should try to consider what decisions would be best for the player base; make rules that make sense, build a world that's easy to RP in, etc.

I also think the GM should have every right to remind players to make posts and/or tell them to change things if the need arises, but they should always be reasonable about it and, simply put, just be a decent human being. If someone has a good excuse for being offline or having trouble posting regularly, be mindful of that.

Also, if a GM feels the need to remove someone's character from an RP, they should at least send out a warning saying they're considering it, and wait a reasonable amount of time (variable depending on the speed of the RP) before going ahead without an answer. If it does come to that, however, the GM does have the right to remove characters.

Also, the GM should take into consideration any factors that may keep people from RPing as well as what direction(s) the players want the RP to go in, and any other important thoughts the players have about the RP. In order to do that, though, the players need to be open with their thoughts - either posting on the OOC or messaging the GM privately if they have any concerns.

Tl;dr - I think GM-RPer relations are all about communication, common decency, and respect. The GM and players need to be open with each other about the reasoning behind their actions. so that they can properly discuss things like decent human beings. Providing that the GM can make reasonable decisions, the players should respect the GM as somewhat of an authority figure and respect said decisions. Both GM's and players are responsible for smooth relations between the two groups.

Kaga said
As someone who GM's often, here's my take on it;Players should be able to question things, including the GM's choices (in fact I kind of encourage it a lot of the time) but so long as the GM and the players can discuss things, the players should respect the GM's final decision on something, be that the rules of the canon or the rules of how the RP is run.In return, the GM should try to consider what decisions would be best for the player base; make rules that make sense, build a world that's easy to RP in, etc.I also think the GM should have every right to remind players to make posts and/or tell them to change things if the need arises, but they should always be reasonable about it and, simply put, just be a decent human being. If someone has a good excuse for being offline or having trouble posting regularly, be mindful of that.Also, if a GM feels the need to remove someone's character from an RP, they should at least send out a warning saying they're considering it, and wait a reasonable amount of time (variable depending on the speed of the RP) before going ahead without an answer. If it does come to that, however, the GM does have the right to remove characters.Also, the GM should take into consideration any factors that may keep people from RPing as well as what direction(s) the players want the RP to go in, and any other important thoughts the players have about the RP. In order to do that, though, the players need to be open with their thoughts - either posting on the OOC or messaging the GM privately if they have any concerns.Tl;dr - I think GM-RPer relations are all about communication, common decency, and respect. The GM and players need to be open with each other about the reasoning behind their actions. so that they can properly discuss things like decent human beings. Providing that the GM can make reasonable decisions, the players should respect the GM as somewhat of an authority figure and respect said decisions. Both GM's and players are responsible for smooth relations between the two groups.

Kaga says everything I want to. I don't like the idea of the GM as the Supreme Overlord, but rather as the benevolent dictator who holds court in the marketplace.

Captain Jordan said
Kaga says everything I want to. I don't like the idea of the GM as the Supreme Overlord, but rather as the benevolent dictator who holds court in the marketplace.

That's the perfect way to put it. Well said.

I don't mind them being Supreme Overlords, I am coming into their home, and throwing my hat into the ring knowing their rules. If they want to be benevolent, that's on them - but at the end of the day, I know your rules before I walk in, so I don't have much ground to argue on.

Rule of thumb for player input; ideas and questions are great, but pushing is not.

For example, I run an RP with quite a lot of fantastical elements, but it's a setting with only humans as and where castes don't matter. I've had people who wanted to create elves or nobility. I didn't want to deal with race balancing (running a stat-system makes attracting players hard enough, so it's kept as simple as possible) or characters being viewed as more important because of their birth (would bring in an unwanted social dynamic between players.) Some people managed to work around that, like having a summonable spirit with elvish features. I even had a player whose family brainwashed itself thinking their family name meant shit in the world (but OOC acknowledged it didn't.) ie, adapting an idea to fit with the pre-enstablished borders was fine. I've also had players who kept pushing for elves and nobles after telling them why they couldn't. Those were outright declined, because they didn't want to fit an idea into a setting, they wanted to force an unwanted change in the entire RP.

Rilla said
I don't mind them being Supreme Overlords, I am coming into their home, and throwing my hat into the ring knowing their rules. If they want to be benevolent, that's on them - but at the end of the day, I know your rules before I walk in, so I don't have much ground to argue on.

I agree. I read what is posted, acknowledge the rules established and ultimately make the conscious choice to join the role-play. If the GM turns out to be a douche bag, I can simply bow out and make a mental note to not join another role-play by that GM.

Guess I could throw in my two cents. *Speaking from the perspective of a GM*

... Biggest thing that comes to mind is tone. A GM is a person who runs a world, NPC's, and plot. While they wield power, their role is not to antagonize or attack their players. Their role is to use their power to provide entertainment for the players and themselves, maybe by providing a challenge, maybe by weaving a story, etc. Compromising on minor points helps, be humble, and be inclusive: Actively plan with players, if you say no to something (like an item or power) see if there isn't a way to weaken it instead of outright throwing it away, or making it something to be earned as part of the journey. Actively try to incorporate the player character's history, look for tie-ins... A significant way you can convey this is with the tone of your writing.

There's a significant difference between the following two statements, for example.

"You're wrong, this is my RP, and your character is rejected." Versus... "I like your sheet! Though this one part here could be touched up, here's a couple suggestions. Thanks for your interest!"

The first sentence is aggressive and authoritative. The second sentence is positive, complimentary, cooperative, and constructive.

Seriously do this. This alone probably doubled my player count. It also makes players feel welcome, which is what you should be aiming for in a successful RP.

As for players, make requests, not demands. You are not entitled to jack shit in another person's RP. You're not even entitled to being there, you could be kicked out or your character rejected. Treat the GM with the same respect you expect to be treated with: If you want the GM to be informative, return that kindness. If you want your GM to be active, you should also be active.

Ideally, there shouldn't even be an "us versus him" mentality between the players and the GM. You could even compare it to a job if you want: The players are employees, their characters are their resumes and acts on the job, and the GM is the one assigning tasks and managing their department. Sure, everyone can fight and be distrustful and make demands and go nowhere, or everyone can work together, be cooperative, learn how to talk like a decent human being, make requests instead of demands, compromise...

tl;dr: Be a decent human being regardless of whether you are in power or feel offended. Everything else tends to fall in line after that.