Is the GM ALWAYS right?

[Fenris2020]

Ever been in a group where the GM is always right, and can't even be corrected on word pronunciation by speakers of the language in question?
On the flip-side, have you ever been in a group where the GM had no control of the game at all, especially as regards the Significant Other?

[darthauthor]

Yes

and

Yes

Aside:

I have been a GM and wrong.
I admitted it.

I have also change things sort of on the fly.
Couple of problems of players without Lore skills or such commenting aloud about what the NPC can and can't do.
I'll admit to it.
I made the human NPC vagabond into a escaped T-man slave with 7+ tattoos so he'd be MD.
Players were trigger happy and I wanted to level the playing field.
Felt like I 'd the players had gone murder hobo.
Part of me understood but another part was like, "Okay. Its your character, you can choose to do that. Now your alignment is Diabolic. The BOTH the Cyber-knights and the CS are now hunting you for your villianous deeds.

[drewkitty ~..~]

For the games the GM runs...
Rule one: The GM is always right.
Rule two: if the GM is wrong, see rule number one.

As in the GM has the final say in things about His/Her game.

What I hate here is when people say their House rules are 'The Canon Rules'. especially when their house rules say something completely different than what the game books literally say, I've had a poster get mad that I kept saying what the book rule said and would not agree with him that what he argued what the rule 'should be' was what was canon. Finally telling me not to be so OCD about what the canon text said. All that poster had to say was he was talking about his house rules and I would of gladly discuss his house rules, as his house rules.

And another time the other poster In a topic I created to ask a question, literally said, 'boasted', that he edited out some of the canon text from his equations about what the RAW said, and stated them as if his house rules were canon. (He stated his house rule because using his house rule the question I asked was moot.) And then he kept insisting that his house rules were canon, in multiple posts after he was corrected. Like he was pushing a "Big Lie" full boar.

[Dash]

If you think your GM can't make sensible rules interpretations and that frustrates you- leave.

It's a game stop doing it if the fun is outweighed.

I usually GM in a cooperative setting, so in my case- it's the head GM that's always right.

And anywhere where I can at least debate the sensibility of house rules (that are required to fill in the gaps in Palladium's actual systems and rule sets) outside game time- that arrangement is fine with me.

Retroactive bad call adjustment is the worst. If your GM made a rule on the fly don't nitpick to retcon that session. Just work with a better understanding moving forward.

[Warshield73]

Can the GM make a temporary but binding decision on the rules for the purpose of moving a game along? Yes.
Does that make them always right? Goodness no.

It is important when a group is started to establish norms and one that I always insist on if I'm the GM is that if there is a disagreement regarding rules during a game I, the GM, can make a call on that which applies for that game. After the game we can discuss it and if I made a mistake or the player makes a compelling argument then the rule changes going forward. Most of the time this works out well.

[glitterboy2098]

always right? no
but a Gm ruling is always final. at least for the session you are in. between sessions is the time to debate over stuff.

[Fenris2020]

For the games the GM runs...
Rule one: The GM is always right.
Rule two: if the GM is wrong, see rule number one.

As in the GM has the final say in things about His/Her game.

What I hate here is when people say their House rules are 'The Canon Rules'. especially when their house rules say something completely different than what the game books literally say, I've had a poster get mad that I kept saying what the book rule said and would not agree with him that what he argued what the rule 'should be' was what was canon. Finally telling me not to be so OCD about what the canon text said. All that poster had to say was he was talking about his house rules and I would of gladly discuss his house rules, as his house rules.

And another time the other poster In a topic I created to ask a question, literally said, 'boasted', that he edited out some of the canon text from his equations about what the RAW said, and stated them as if his house rules were canon. (He stated his house rule because using his house rule the question I asked was moot.) And then he kept insisting that his house rules were canon, in multiple posts after he was corrected. Like he was pushing a "Big Lie" full boar.

Funny, I always thought it went, Rule One: Have Fun.
Guessing you're a GM I wouldn't stick around with.
As an occasional GM myself, I carefully read over the game rules before running, come up with "house rules" that I print out, as well as which contradictory rule I use in a game system (a thing that happens more with Palladium games than any other).
If a player has a problem with something, I hear them out. Once a player gets screwed over, how do you unscrew them?