Play “under” a GM? Not “with”?

I’ve probably gone on about this before, but I’ve seen the term “play under a GM” used to talk about playing with a (given) GM in a few forum threads lately and that usage has always rubbed me the wrong way. I once voiced this opinion in a forum post and most of the responses indicated they’d never head the term being used and thought it was really curious or I was just seeing things.

No. It’s out there. People use it, often, online and in person. Google it up, you’ll find it.

What bothers me is the phrase’s straight up positioning of the GM above the players. I’m sure the people that use it don’t think much of it, if they think of it at all, but to me, it indicates that person has put the role of the GM on a pedestal. There’s also the image I get of the players being under the GM’s thumb, like he’s the cruel oppressor.

Yes, the GM naturally has a certain amount of narrative authority, but as far as I’m concerned it’s more of the “governing with the consent of the governed” variety than some sort of iron-fisted tyranny. I think I also bristle at the implication that the GM is simply there to entertain the players and it all flows from him. Everyone has a role at the table and everyone is responsible for each others’ fun. The GM’s role is different from the players’ in a trad RPG but any good gamer knows it’s not all on the GM to bring it.

I never say “I play under a great GM” or “He’s the best GM I’ve played under”. You’ll always hear me use “with” instead of “under”. Whether I’m playing in a game, or running one, everyone there at the table is with me – no one is under me nor above me.

I suppose this makes me some sort of gaming communist, but there you go. Don’t let me hear you saying you’ve played “under” me!!