GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Lanefan]

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.

Fair point; but if the player base is that small chances are everyone already knows each other anyway, and what to expect.

 

[Lanefan]

So, you're just going to get more ridiculous? No thanks. This line of argument is just spewing nonsense...

You may say it's spewing nonsense but I've in fact been involved in discussions not too dissimilar from the example given by @embee : one player* squeezes in an exception and suddenly everyone wants one. The example given merely strips away the niceties and lays it out bare, but the end result is the same.

* - me, in at least one instance I can think of.

 

[MGibster]

The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.

But the pitch was "you're vampires..." not "you're supernatural creatures." If I had pitched a game by saying, "you're all creatures from the World of Darkness who have banded together against a mysterious force that threatens you all" then a mage, werewolf, changeling, or even a mummy would be acceptable. But the pitch was vampires.

Of course another clue is "We're playing Vampire the Masquerade." There shouldn't be any expectation of playing a werewolf in Vampire the Masquerade.

 

[GrahamWills]

The goal of a campaign is for everyone to have fun. It's not a contract, it's not adversarial, and it's not going to work if you treat it as such.
Compromising so that everyone can enjoy the result is just normal behavior -- nothing game-specific about it. Yo talk it over and decide what will work for everyone. The GM has exactly the same priority as anyone else. Like everyone else, she expects to have fun playing and shouldn't have any burden on her to play a way that will make her not have fun. Like everyone else she should compromise to help others have fun.

If you have a GM who cannot have fun running a campaign with an elf in it, and you have a player who cannot have fun without playing an elf then:

1. This is a sad state of affairs for adults to be in.
2. You will not be playing together

Should you make accommodations to one player and not others? Of course! If a player always plays elves, loves elves and really wants to play an elf, then the GM should try and accommodate that. It doesn't then meant that everyone then has a free "I get a special thing" card. If there's something someone else wants that would make them super-excited, sure, try and work it in, but it's not a legal "everyone gets one exception" thing.

If I'm cooking a dinner and I plan for Indian food, and someone says that they are allergic to cardoon and will die if they eat it, then obviously I'm not going to use cardomon. If they say they cannot eat cumin, then I might just abandon plans to cook Indian because I cannot imagine trying to cook that way (it would be no fun for me). If someone says they absolutely love chocolate cake and would really love to have some, then sure, I'll add one to the menu, if it means that much to them, because it doesn't lower my fun much and it means a lot to them.

TLDR: Be excellent to one another

 

[aramis erak]

That isn't germaine to the interaction you're replying to, though. If the three cannot be thought of as part of the same "world" in terms of character options, then the original example I replied to wasn't valid in the first place. If they can be, and thus the example is valid, then my counter-question is equally valid.

The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.

If we are treating the three as separate games, then the example is uselessly absurd, and in no way comperable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game.

The mechanics for werewolves are different to those for vampires. And both are different to Mages. And all three to those for wraiths or changelings.

The systems are close enough that, if you have the corebooks for both, you can mix them, but you need each type's corebook to do it properly.

 

[MGibster]

Should you make accommodations to one player and not others? Of course! If a player always plays elves, loves elves and really wants to play an elf, then the GM should try and accommodate that. It doesn't then meant that everyone then has a free "I get a special thing" card. If there's something someone else wants that would make them super-excited, sure, try and work it in, but it's not a legal "everyone gets one exception" thing.

I will certainly agree that a GM should try to accommodate any reasonable request made by a player. However, asking to play an elf character in a setting with no elves is an unreasonable request. Try as they might, a DM isn't always going to be able to accommodate a player's request. "Sorry, choomba, this is Cyberpunk 2020 not Shadowrun. But if you want to play a character that's been modified by a ripperdoc to sport pointy ears and elfin features, knock yourself out."

If I'm cooking a dinner and I plan for Indian food, and someone says that they are allergic to cardoon and will die if they eat it, then obviously I'm not going to use cardomon. If they say they cannot eat cumin, then I might just abandon plans to cook Indian because I cannot imagine trying to cook that way (it would be no fun for me).

If you're cooking for one that seems very reasonable. If you're having a dinner party it would be unreasonable to expect you to scrap your entire menu in order to accommodate one person unless that individual is the person you're throwing the party for.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You may say it's spewing nonsense but I've in fact been involved in discussions not too dissimilar from the example given by @embee : one player* squeezes in an exception and suddenly everyone wants one. The example given merely strips away the niceties and lays it out bare, but the end result is the same.

* - me, in at least one instance I can think of.

Oh yeah? You’ve had allowing an elf lead to allowing stuff that isn’t even player options? Really?

I really doubt it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The mechanics for werewolves are different to those for vampires. And both are different to Mages. And all three to those for wraiths or changelings.

The systems are close enough that, if you have the corebooks for both, you can mix them, but you need each type's corebook to do it properly.

Okay?

 

[macd21]

That isn't germaine to the interaction you're replying to, though. If the three cannot be thought of as part of the same "world" in terms of character options, then the original example I replied to wasn't valid in the first place. If they can be, and thus the example is valid, then my counter-question is equally valid.

The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.

If we are treating the three as separate games, then the example is uselessly absurd, and in no way comperable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game.

It’s comparable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game with no elves.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair point; but if the player base is that small chances are everyone already knows each other anyway, and what to expect.

I've played with the same extended group for literally decades; I've still found out the hard way about things on occasion. As I noted, among other things, people's tastes and expectations change, and you might not get much warning until you walk into it.