GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[BookTenTiger]

I've been thinking about this, and I think I have an aversion to the term "authority". The GM is the in-game arbiter of rules and guides the narrative for the duration of the game session, but doesn't rule the social group like some kid of dictator unless they're in some Jack Chick comic strip.

I side with Greenleaf!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I said the GM here, but I have to do so with caveats.

I think its entirely fair for a GM to set parameters for a campaign, and insist on people staying within them. On the other hand, at the point the campaign parameters are set, I think its perfectly legitimate for a player to say he doesn't find the parameters acceptable as-is. I think at that point there's a potentially irreconcilable difference in what the GM wants to run and what the player wants to play. Neither of them is intrinsically wrong to stick to their guns.

Of course the power dynamic of the situation can end up putting a thumb on the scale in all kinds of ways. The classic is for the player to simply decide that game is not for him and not play, and the GM to concur. But there can be reasons that's not an acceptable solution for one or both. Maybe the resistant player supplies the play space for the game, and without him there's no game, or the GM only finds running campaigns in general viable with a minimum number of players, and he's already there with the player with the issue. Maybe at the other end, even though the player really dislikes some of the parameters, the gaming populace is so small that this is literally the only game in town, and he'd really like to play something.

There may be compromises that can be reached, or one or the other may have to give (and I don't consider it automatically terrible if its the GM, though there are cases where giving in may change the campaign so radically as to be uninteresting to him, and at that point he has no obligation to run).

I do generally concur that this sort of problem should be sorted out before the campaign choice is firmed down though. There are absolutely campaign ideas I know will not fly with either of my groups (in some cases because of one specific player in each group) and I shrug and just move on to other things.

 

[Jd Smith1]

As a GM, if I put the work and money into a campaign, that's the campaign I'm running. If a player can't get on board with the campaign concept, there's the door. I'm not re-writing months of work for one player. He can go out and find a group that suits his needs.

This goes back to the core GM responsibility of managing expectations. Everyone at the table needs to be on the same page; if someone isn't, they need to leave.

In the OP scenario, the GM wants GoT, a player wants something that is clearly not GoT. There's no common ground. Moving forward together is simply going to lead to conflict. The player is trying to force the GM to run a game which the GM does not want to run.

Again, its basketball and baseball.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not seeing how any of that makes D&D unsuitable?

I don't know if any of that makes D&D unsuitable.

D&D isn't particularly suitable because it has no inherent mechanics to handle political power, dreadfully few to handle social interaction linked to political power, and not a whole lot for handling armies and mass combat, all of which play major roles in the fiction.

 

[billd91]

In which case it stops being D&D, which supports @QuentinGeorge's assertion.
.

Baloney. D&D is no less D&D just because it uses a subset of PC races, classes, and monsters.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not re-writing months of work for one player.

Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work before getting buy-in from the players?

In the OP scenario, the GM wants GoT, a player wants something that is clearly not GoT. There's no common ground.

We don't know how much common ground might have been present, because the description of the interaction is far too vague and incomplete.

 

[Imaro]

I don't know if any of that makes D&D unsuitable.

D&D isn't particularly suitable because it has no inherent mechanics to handle political power, dreadfully few to handle social interaction linked to political power, and not a whole lot for handling armies and mass combat, all of which play major roles in the fiction.

I'd bet money DM's Guild has supplements for all of those...

 

[Shiroiken]

GM, pretty much every time. The balance of a game is primarily on the DM's side, but the players have the ultimate power of veto. If a player doesn't want to accept the premise of the game, they're free to simply leave. An overly strict/severe GM might end up with only a few players, if any at all. A reminder to all that no gaming is better than not-fun gaming.

 

[billd91]

Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work before getting buy-in from the players?

Because then you can start right up if the players buy in to it. No delays. If they don't, you can shelve it for later.

 

[Umbran]

Because then you can start right up if the players buy in to it. No delays. If they don't, you can shelve it for later.

That doesn't tell me why you can't ask the players before you begin those months of work.

Are you actually investing that amount of time and energy before you know who is going to play the thing? If so... you must have way more spare time than I do.