GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Not everyone has the luxury of a pool of players to fish in. Some have the players they have and that's pretty much it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

It sounds harsh but consider that the GM has (hopefully) already put in some work to prep the campaign. One player having enough veto-power to require a total reworking of the campaign is both inconsiderate of the GM's job responsibilities and a reversal of the role dynamics.

It doesn’t sound harsh, it sound ridiculous. I am not my players’ parent, and when one of them DMs, they are not mine. Any attempt to behave as if they are would be met with a hard stare and a firm, “No.”

Hell, I’m not a kid, either way. If my Dad tried to tell me what I was going to do, he’d get the same response. And he’d recognize that he was in the wrong, because he didn’t raise me to be the sort of person that accepts an external expectation of obedience.

Obedience is not a virtue.

 

[embee]

It doesn’t sound harsh, it sound ridiculous. I am not my players’ parent, and when one of them DMs, they are not mine. Any attempt to behave as if they are would be met with a hard stare and a firm, “No.”

Hell, I’m not a kid, either way. If my Dad tried to tell me what I was going to do, he’d get the same response. And he’d recognize that he was in the wrong, because he didn’t raise me to be the sort of person that accepts an external expectation of obedience.

Obedience is not a virtue.

Let's play this scenario out...

GM "I would like to play a campaign influenced by Game of Thrones. It will still have magic and monsters but the characters will be regular people in a medieval land.

P1 "Nice. I will play Sir Knight the Knightliest of Knights!"

P2 "Sure. I will play Lady Noble the Noblest of Nobles!"

P3 "Sweet. I will play Sir Sneak the Sneakiest of Sneaks!"

P4 "Okay. I will play Sir Elf the Elfiest of Elfs!"

GM "No. I just said it's a human-only campaign"

P4 "Well, if I'm going to play, I want an exception. I'm an elf. So I get darkvision, get +2 to perception checks, have advantage on Saving Throws against being Charmed, and sleep won't work on me because I don't need sleep."

GM "Fine. I want to keep the group together so you can be an elf."

P2 "Hey, if he gets an exception, I want one too. She's a noble and likes hunting. So I want her to have a rifle. And she's going to be a variant human and I'll take Gunner as a feat."

P1: "My knight's backstory is that his family was killed by orcs. So put in some orc encounters for him."

P3: "Can we start out at level 5? I want my character to multiclass as a shadow monk/rogue so I can have a Batman build."

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

It sounds harsh but consider that the GM has (hopefully) already put in some work to prep the campaign. One player having enough veto-power to require a total reworking of the campaign is both inconsiderate of the GM's job responsibilities and a reversal of the role dynamics.

I'm going to agree with @doctorbadwolf that your examples sound pretty rediculous. It's more like your kid asking "can you make Moroccan cinnamon chicken"(it's got cinnamon), "can we have that persian rice with the cinnamon, raisins, & carrots?"(sweet and has chicken)... or you as an adult knowing how to make those & having made those not being able to tell your kid "no you can't have those, but I can make that Persian rice or we can put your chicken fingers on a bun so you can eat it like a hot dog since you don't want rice" to see if there is a happy middle that meets both goals. You only need to look as far as the OP's response to a video that ends with some advice about how the gm is not god of the players & how working with the players is an important skill for a gm hoping for a healthy game to see the failure.
as to your "playing it out" in post 263 that's just as absurd as the OP but by now people have pointed out all the elf-like things in GoT that an elf could be reflavored into... a competent could have trivially handled it like this
P4 "Okay. I will play Sir Elf the Elfiest of Elfs!"

GM "I just said it's a human-only campaign in westeros, there are no elves but there are dothraki, unsullied children of the forest, people with high valerian bloodlines, & people like varys who were experimented on by a sorcerer but managed to survive.. lets talk about some of those & see which of those things that could stand in for an elf interest you"

Spoiler: 1-5min

GM: "Hey guys, PC4 is an unsullied & he's literally owned by one of you! PC2 I think it would fit well with your noblest of nobles..."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let's play this scenario out...

GM "I would like to play a campaign influenced by Game of Thrones. It will still have magic and monsters but the characters will be regular people in a medieval land.

P1 "Nice. I will play Sir Knight the Knightliest of Knights!"

P2 "Sure. I will play Lady Noble the Noblest of Nobles!"

P3 "Sweet. I will play Sir Sneak the Sneakiest of Sneaks!"

P4 "Okay. I will play Sir Elf the Elfiest of Elfs!"

GM "No. I just said it's a human-only campaign"

P4 "Well, if I'm going to play, I want an exception. I'm an elf. So I get darkvision, get +2 to perception checks, have advantage on Saving Throws against being Charmed, and sleep won't work on me because I don't need sleep."

GM "Fine. I want to keep the group together so you can be an elf."

P2 "Hey, if he gets an exception, I want one too. She's a noble and likes hunting. So I want her to have a rifle. And she's going to be a variant human and I'll take Gunner as a feat."

P1: "My knight's backstory is that his family was killed by orcs. So put in some orc encounters for him."

P3: "Can we start out at level 5? I want my character to multiclass as a shadow monk/rogue so I can have a Batman build."

So, you're just going to get more ridiculous? No thanks. This line of argument is just spewing nonsense until the other person gives up on trying to actually have a discussion. I'll save us both time. I'm done.

 

[embee]

It's more like your kid asking "can you make Moroccan cinnamon chicken"(it's got cinnamon), "can we have that persian rice with the cinnamon, raisins, & carrots?"(sweet and has chicken)... or you as an adult knowing how to make those & having made those not being able to tell your kid "no you can't have those, but I can make that Persian rice or we can put your chicken fingers on a bun so you can eat it like a hot dog since you don't want rice" to see if there is a happy middle that meets both goals.

Well that depends. On me. As the dad. Because I might just say, "No. I know what I said but you're really pushing it there. I just worked 10 hours today, I worked 10 yesterday, and I'm going to work 10 tomorrow and I get 5 hours of sleep a night. I love you and bust my hump for y'all but don't go adding to my workload. Work with me here."

The GM came up with the campaign which s/he presumably put some time and effort into setting up. S/he made the offer. Players 1, 2, and 3 accepted the offer. Player 4 said no and made a counteroffer. The GoT setting but with elves. The GM doesn't have to accept the counteroffer. Especially because it introduces mechanics that s/he's now going to have to go back and figure out how to work around.

The GM preps the campaign. S/he preps for every session and tries to keep things entertaining and balanced.

The players don't do that. They show up.

You know what? Here's my solution...

GM: "Okay. You can play an elf. You have the exact same racial abilities as a human. No added bonuses or flaws that an elf would have. Except you're a little taller and have pointy ears."

And now, the player gets to play an elf and the GM doesn't have to rework every night or underground encounter to take into account that one player can see just fine in the dark and doesn't need sleep.

 

[embee]

So, you're just going to get more ridiculous? No thanks. This line of argument is just spewing nonsense until the other person gives up on trying to actually have a discussion. I'll save us both time. I'm done.

Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?

 

[tetrasodium]

Well that depends. On me. As the dad. Because I might just say, "No. I know what I said but you're really pushing it there. I just worked 10 hours today, I worked 10 yesterday, and I'm going to work 10 tomorrow and I get 5 hours of sleep a night. I love you and bust my hump for y'all but don't go adding to my workload. Work with me here."

The GM came up with the campaign which s/he presumably put some time and effort into setting up. S/he made the offer. Players 1, 2, and 3 accepted the offer. Player 4 said no and made a counteroffer. The GoT setting but with elves. The GM doesn't have to accept the counteroffer. Especially because it introduces mechanics that s/he's now going to have to go back and figure out how to work around.

The GM preps the campaign. S/he preps for every session and tries to keep things entertaining and balanced.

The players don't do that. They show up.

You know what? Here's my solution...

GM: "Okay. You can play an elf. You have the exact same racial abilities as a human. No added bonuses or flaws that an elf would have. Except you're a little taller and have pointy ears."

And now, the player gets to play an elf and the GM doesn't have to rework every night or underground encounter to take into account that one player can see just fine in the dark and doesn't need sleep.

My your giving the gm lots of credit that his look at how terrible pc4 hitpiece of a story hardly justifies. It's not about just an "exception", it's the fact that a good gm needs to work with their players to help them fit the campaign in ways that makes everyone happy & it does not appear that the gm in question made even the slightest attempt at any of the simple ways he could have done so that have been raised through the thread. I'm pretty merciless at importing FR stuff into my eberron campaigns, but if a player comes to me with an idea rooted in FR I'm not above listening to the idea and telling them about some eberron specific things that might be similar enough to easily incorporate. The OP just aid no suck it & came on here to tell us how terrible PC4 was without mentioning if either of them tried to find a workable compromise that fits or even spotlights some part of the setting

 

[hawkeyefan]

You guys got it wrong! No special snowflakes are allowed in this fictional world!

The world IS the special snowflake!

 

[Jd Smith1]

Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?

That path leads to madness.