GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Minigiant]

And I kind of disagree. Most full-featured multipurpose systems absolutely have the tools for that to one degree or another. I think you're overgeneralizing from looking only at the class-and-level game sphere.

There is no mention that the system chosen is multipurpose. The majority of games are tailored to specific styles, tones, genre, and challenge foci.

If a DM came to me with a GOT pitch in a system that has elves, magic, and monsters in the core book and doesn't immediately hand or mention to me a list of houserules, homebrews, and/or additional book to alter the game...

...I am going to assume he or she has NO IDEA what they are doing despite wanting to play. And some people mention ask to be an elf to test or troll him/her/them.

 

[Minigiant]

Not sure why someone wanting to play a Lady Noble is an issue. Game of Thrones had several noble ladies running around doing stuff. But then again, the original post is probably trying to be humorous in describing the situation.

Many games with elves, magic, and monster with heavy rulebooks are either not made to have noncombatant and combat warriors both in the hands of players, expects a minimum level of prowess in each area of challenge, or assumes going fulling one way as abnormal.

Games that allow for Lord, Lady, Sage, Knight, Peasant, Merchant, and Outlaws in ASOIAF's style are specifically designed to do that because modifying other games is often a handle and games that allow for it all often dull those experience down to basic mechanics with little depth.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Because for all I know, if I get buy-in from the players first and then do the months of work, by the time I'm finished those players may no longer be interested and-or may have found another game in the meantime.

Campaign/setting design first, then player recruitment, then drop the puck.

 

[macd21]

You need additional info to deem player 2 not a problem by default due to the lack of clarity of the DM scenario. So Player 4 deserves the same leeway. Fair is fair.

Therefore using player 2 as evidence to say the DM is right is unfair to player 4 unless you treat the 2 players equally.

No, you don't need additional info. The OP DM doesn't have a problem with the character Player 2 wants to play. That's all we need to know. Player 2 has declared that they want to play a character that conforms to the GM's campaign pitch, and the GM is happy with it, player 4 has not.

There is no mention that the system chosen is multipurpose. The majority of games are tailored to specific styles, tones, genre, and challenge foci.

If a DM came to me with a GOT pitch in a system that has elves, magic, and monsters in the core book and doesn't immediately hand or mention to me a list of houserules, homebrews, and/or additional book to alter the game...

...I am going to assume he or she has NO IDEA what they are doing despite wanting to play. And some people mention ask to be an elf to test or troll him/her/them.

I think you are completely missing the point of the OP's scenario. It is a hypothetical situation. You're introducing factors that are not part of the scenario. The system being used is completely irrelevant, beyond the fact that it has magic and monsters, and you'd usually be able to play an elf. Maybe it's DnD, maybe it's WFRP, maybe it's a homebrew - it doesn't matter.

You could simplify the scenario down to this:

The GM "I would like to play a campaign in a pseudo-medieval setting. It will still have magic and monsters but the characters will be humans in a medieval land."

Player #1 "Nice. I will play a human."

Player #2 "Sure. I will play a human."

Player #3 "Sweet. I will play a human."

Player #4 "Okay. I will play an elf."

 

[Lanefan]

No human being on earth is so caught up on playing an elf that they will sacrifice their friends for it, ...

Are you really sure about that?

Expand it to 'game system' instead of 'elf' and examples are abundant.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The biggest problem with running a Game of Thrones style game is that for the first three adventures you need to set up really amazing stories, and then in the 4th and 5th adventures you need to have everyone roll up 5 more characters and just completely lose track of the plot.

Then you need to adapt your adventures to TV, again starting off super promising until it's very apparent that the DM is just tired of running the campaign at the end of 8 seasons - er, I mean adventures.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Are you really sure about that?

Expand it to 'game system' instead of 'elf' and examples are abundant.

Expand it to "territory" or "resources" and the examples are even more abundant!

 

[Imaculata]

You can have a read of the post that the GM thought he was doing that, but that Player Five didn't see it that way; that the GM thought it was obvious from his presentation that nonhumans would be outside the barrier, and Player Five did not understand that assumption, or didn't see it as significant.

To me it sounds like a session 0 problem. That is what a session 0 is for: to get everyone on the same page.

When I asked my players if they would like to play a pirate campaign, I gave them the following guidelines that I had in mind:

• D&D rules, but with firearms
• No characters that can innately fly or breath underwater, with the exception of magic or shape shifting.
• No evil characters.
• The pcs are all part of the same pirate crew.

I also explained to my players why I felt these rules were important for the sort of campaign I wanted to run.

Once I got all my players on board with this idea, they started making characters. I find it unlikely that after agreeing to those rules, any player would insist on making a character that goes against those very rules that they just agreed to.

I think clear communication is key here. I wouldn't just propose a GoT campaign, but I would also explain what that means in my opinion. Because you would want your players to know exactly what they are getting into.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Wow, this moved fast so a couple things I noticed. From memory so forgive me if I got the ideas a little wrong.

No Sneak?!?!? In GoT?!?!? What was Arya then? Cause from my viewing she was in no way a Knight or Noble.

Sansa Stark sure don't need "domain control" or "mass combat" rules. Maybe near the end of the show, but that assertion would be dubious at best.

As for not using D&D to play GoT because it's "the wrong game" well, I won't necessarily disagree. However, the D&D fans always claim the D&D can be used to play any kind of campaign, at least till you say you want to use it to play anything other than kitchen sink fantasy murderhobo adventure. So, which one is actually true? Can D&D be used to run anything, or is it limited to a very narrow genre particular to D&D itself?

As far as my own capabilities as a DM I am confident in saying that many RPGs could be used to play a GoT campaign. Some may need me to create stats for things like dragons, but not much else.

Out of the box systems that could be used for GoT include: Burning Wheel, Mythras, BRP Gold Book, The Age of Shadow, OpenQuest...and supposedly, D&D!

 

[billd91]

No human being on earth is so caught up on playing an elf that they will sacrifice their friends for it,

Perhaps not, but they might dig their heels in trusting to their friendships to bend their way rather than break. You see this kind of thing a lot. It may be a bit dysfunctional, but it's common.