GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[macd21]

To me it seems silly to side with either one of them. If you want to run a GOT campaign with no elves, you get your players to agree to play "a GOT campaign with no elves", and not just "a GOT campaign". The problem here, in my view, is with agreeing on what sort of campaign everyone wants to play before you move on to character creation.

I think, again, that’s exactly the scenario the OP is proposing. The GM wants to run a GOT campaign with no elves, but the player won’t play unless he can play an elf. They want to play different kinds of campaign. So should the GM let the player be an elf, or not?

 

[Imaculata]

You decide as a group what sort of campaign you all want to play. If the player insists on playing an elf, either the DM allows it, or you agree with your group to play something else. There is no single answer here. What matters in the end is that the whole group is on the same page, whatever they end up deciding.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay. I don't get it at all, but you seem to have a very strong preference here.

I mean telling me it's a type of game is more important than yelling me it's human only.

Because each of the Stark kids more or less play like different games.

This goes to clarity. If the GM isn't clear about what he's intends, you can get someone asking to be an elf. So it's all based on how clear the GM was.

 

[Jd Smith1]

You decide as a group what sort of campaign you all want to play.

At your table, perhaps. Not at any table I've GM'd at. I prepare a campaign, and the group can take it or leave it.

I've never had problems filling a table.

 

[Aldarc]

I'd say it's because without these type of stats to inform one's character and-or personality a bit, the risk is that many (most?) players will just default to - for both better and worse - playing themselves.

So what?

 

[Imaculata]

At your table, perhaps. Not at any table I've GM'd at. I prepare a campaign, and the group can take it or leave it.

I've never had problems filling a table.

But you could easily have problems filling a table that way. If you say, prepare a scifi campaign, and it turns out your players aren't interested in playing a scifi campaign at all, then you're done. It is not exactly the best approach, unless you happens to have a group who is okay with anything you run.

If instead you first ask your players if they would be interested, and give them a rough outline of what they can expect, you would be far more likely to get everyone on board. You would be far more likely to avoid that type of conflict, like someone insisting on playing an elf, and you'd save yourself a lot of work in the case that they are not interested.

 

[Jd Smith1]

But you could easily have problems filling a table that way. If you say, prepare a scifi campaign, and it turns out your players aren't interested in playing a scifi campaign at all, then you're done. It is not exactly the best approach, unless you happens to have a group who is okay with anything you run.

If instead you first ask your players if they would be interested, and give them a rough outline of what they can expect, you would be far more likely to get everyone on board. You would be far more likely to avoid that type of conflict, like someone insisting on playing an elf, and you'd save yourself a lot of work in the case that they are not interested.

Could, but don't. And if a player insists on something that isn't campaign-appropriate, then they get shown the door. Gaming is my hobby, and I'm not interested in mixing my hobby with prolonged conflict resolution.

And like I said, I've never had a problem filling a table. I'm had people who played the previous campaign decide the new one isn't for them and depart, but that's how things go. You pull in replacements and press on. My current group has been gaming weekly since 2002.

 

[jasper]

GM.

GM said it's a GOT-type setting with no non-human playable races. If the party is on board with this and buys in, then they've bought in. It's take-it-or-leave-it on that and it's well within the GM prerogative to limit playable races.

The books are a grocery store. I tell my kids that we're having chicken for dinner, with a veg and a starch. If one kid says she wants to have a hot dog with broccoli and a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, I say no. Sure, I could buy the hot dogs and cereal at the store. But that's not the choice I gave and, at the end of the day, I am the arbiter of choice.

MOM. MOM MOm MOm. Look what I found . Look what I found. CHICKEN HOTDOGS ONLY 99 CENTS. YOU SAID CHICKEN. AND THIS IS CHICKEN.
Yes I am wrong. But so is chicken hotdogs at any price!

 

[macd21]

But you could easily have problems filling a table that way. If you say, prepare a scifi campaign, and it turns out your players aren't interested in playing a scifi campaign at all, then you're done. It is not exactly the best approach, unless you happens to have a group who is okay with anything you run.

If instead you first ask your players if they would be interested, and give them a rough outline of what they can expect, you would be far more likely to get everyone on board. You would be far more likely to avoid that type of conflict, like someone insisting on playing an elf, and you'd save yourself a lot of work in the case that they are not interested.

First, that’s simply not how I (and I suspect, many GMs) approach campaign prep. I prepare campaigns because I enjoy preparing campaigns. It’s fun in and of itself. I don’t discuss which campaigns I’m going to prep with my players beforehand. And like Jd Smith1, I’ve never had trouble filling a table - but if I did propose a sci-do campaign only for the group to turn it down, I’d just shrug, offer to run something else, and keep working on the sci-if campaign.

If I offer to run a campaign and one player insists on playing an inappropriate character, then either that player changes his mind or doesn’t play the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Indeed, there are systems other than D&D that are better suited for that sort of campaign. However, you can run a political intrigue campaign with D&D rules just fine. Its not like the rules get in the way.

No, but they're also singularly irrelevant to providing any support. You might as well be doing so freeform.