GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[zarionofarabel]

"because the core book says Elf is a playable race"

It may not have been D&D you were going to use (although I think you confirmed it later) - but there was a system attached to the pitch and it was one where elves were playable or this would have been meaningless. There are admittedly a few systems like Shadowrun or MERP to which this could also apply.

Age of Shadow, OpenQuest, Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, The One Ring, among others. No way anyone should assume that it was D&D.

Was that your DM's evil laugh as confirmation?

Nope. I was laughing at the idea that because you posit that by limiting playable races I would somehow want the players to be limited in any other fashion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Age of Shadow, OpenQuest, Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, The One Ring, among others. No way anyone should assume that it was D&D.

D&D is bigger than all those systems combined, alas. "RPG" by default means D&D. "Fantasy RPG with elves"?

The thing is this doesn't matter. You pitched a system where elves were part of the playable core - then expected people to magically intuit that this wasn't to be a thing. There is nothing that makes an elf more special than a noble in almost any setting I can think of - quite the reverse.

Nope. I was laughing at the idea that because you posit that by limiting playable races I would somehow want the players to be limited in any other fashion.

So what's so special about playable races in your mind? Because they are far from the most important thing on the character sheet.

 

[macd21]

Why is it not appropriate? This is where I have a problem with the GM's approach. The GM's pitch, as I have mentioned, does not explicitly say "human only". Indeed it implies it isn't because it's D&D.

There are also "everyman" character concepts that fit Game of Thrones and actually work better in a fantasy setting if the character is a non-human even if the setting is human dominated - in particular characters from far away lands who are getting mixed up in this stuff. I've already given the example of ambassador's secretary Vir Koto in Babylon 5 who's a Centauri (which could easily translate to elf with the mix of arrogance and fading empire) - and is one of the two most ordinary characters in the setting (the other being Zack Allen). Being a literal non-human allows an outlander to be a visible outlander while having notable cultural traits that aren't (normally) real world traits that would require research. And outlanders generally aren't less of normal characters than lords or knights.

Literally the only reason given in this thread that the character concept was not appropriate has been "Because I am the DM and that is not 100% how I pictured things and I am utterly inflexible on this." Now it doesn't say anything better about the player that they went in with a "the rules say I can because it's core" than that the DM went in with "The rules say I can overrule the rules and because I'm the DM it's my way or the highway regardless of how it works with what I actually pitched." (But only one of them actually has absolute control over the game).

On the contrary. The only one expecting other people to be the dancing monkey is the DM.

It’s inappropriate because the setting the GM is using does not have elves, or elves are NPC only. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that. The GM wants to run a game with certain tropes, themes, features etc. Maybe he wants the game to seem more grounded, maybe he wants elves to be a mysterious ‘other’ that the players encounter, maybe he wants elves to be homicidal monsters, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they’re not a PC choice in his campaign. That they’re an option in the core is irrelevant.

 

[Lanefan]

Valaryan steel was absolutely magical. There were only a tiny number of smiths even capable of forging a blade with it, the blades were shaper lighter & so on than any other weapon... and critically later on it hurts white walkers. Just about everything valaryan was magical & usually of the artifact grade. The fact that an extremely skilled & specialized smith could melt down the two handed sword ice & forge two smaller swords from it doesn't change that.

There's also dragonglass weapons, which very neatly brings in the idea of special (i.e. like-magical) weapons without having to resort to magic, simply by having them made of a different and unusual material.

Valaryan steel is another take on the same concept but - unlike dragonglass - comes across more as magic in everything but name.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Without malice, I think your implicit expectation that the GM should accomodate whatever conflicting concept you bring to a game by changing a fundimental aspect of what they wanted to run in the first place is not very appreciative of the work that the GM has to go through to bring you a night of gaming.

I'm sorry, but why are we privileging the GM choosing to do unasked for work? If I brought you food over that you didn't want and sat there expecting you to eat it, who's the jerk?

I'm don't have to be the GM in this situation. If someone is good enough to put in the work necessary to run a game, I'm on board with whatever concept is going, unless it is of exceptional disinterest to me. I would never feel the need to shoehorn what I want to do as a character concept into a game where it does not belong, and I wouldn't expect anyone at my table to behave that way, either.

It's entirely your call to feel like you need to eat what's put in front of you. I'd like a discussion first, and an agreement.

With concerns to your accusation of gatekeeping: if this point of clarity matters at all (and if only in the hope we could maybe get on the same page?) I'm usually game for anything. You want to run a bunny rabbit that has come to life and summons snowballs? Sure, we'll figure out a way to do that. But if the rules of the universe are "no horses", I am not going to be flexible to someone saying they need a horse because it's what they get at level 3 or whatever. I'd suggest a giant lizard, or whatever is within the setting. I am not GMing to fulfill player fantasies. We're all trying to have a good time together. I don't think one player's personal mission should overturn a game.

It isn't, because you can change your mind at any time and leverage the assumed social authority of the GM.

Also if it's anything we can establish common ground over, I rarely run D&D. I run a lot of strange systems with strange power dynamics between GMs and players, some of them GMless, but, if I have to run D&D - damn it if D&D and things like it aren't a tonne of work to set up week after week. If someone wants to play an elf in my human-centric game, flat-out "No elves. You can do an elf in just about any other D&D game. Let's stick to theme."

//Panjumanju

Yup, a discussion and agreement within the social group is what I think it healthy. Not the GM showing up with whatever they wanted and telling players "it's my way or the highway." And not that anyone can force anyone else to play anything they don't want to. The OP has a good example of this kind of negotiation -- a failed pitch followed by a majority coming together. Yes, it features a player that didn't want to agree, and no compromise was reached, but one was attempted. Had not the other players been interested in the pitch as presented, this pitch would probably have foundered as well. That's as should be.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It’s inappropriate because the setting the GM is using does not have elves, or elves are NPC only. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that. The GM wants to run a game with certain tropes, themes, features etc. Maybe he wants the game to seem more grounded, maybe he wants elves to be a mysterious ‘other’ that the players encounter, maybe he wants elves to be homicidal monsters, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they’re not a PC choice in his campaign. That they’re an option in the core is irrelevant.

The setting doesn't exist before the game starts. All that exists is a draft; the setting is what hits the table.

At least it doesn't if you aren't using a licensed setting. And if it's a homebrew setting then so what if elves didn't exist? Unless you're running a bottle show then if you've written the entire setting and it's not an explicit bottle setting you've seriously overcommitted yourself.

And if the GM wants elves for something else then there are half a dozen other elf-like races where you can file the serial numbers off.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a bad take. The dynamic isn't equal in the game, yes, but this doesn't translate to social authority outside the game. This is really just attempting to leverage one authority into a greater authority, and it's usually not used in a healthy way.

On this we absolutely agree -- and I said as much in the post you're responding to. No one, GM included, should be playing a game the do not want to. The difference, here, is that you seem to think it okay for one person to dictate these terms to others -- ie, that the GM can dictate to players what game they can play, and that this is then the player's problem rather than a social one demanding negotiation.

Keep in mind that in many cases the GM is also a) provider of most of the materials needed to run/play the game (and thus has most likely borne greater expense be it monetary from purchasing said materials or time from making them), and b) acting as the out-of-game host. Add to that another clause c) that the GM has quite likely also done and will do far more work on the game than have any of the players.

It's b) above where much of the social authority comes from, just as it would were the same people visiting for any other activity. It's a) and c) that in my view support the table authority, along with the whole 'referee' bit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Keep in mind that in many cases the GM is also a) provider of most of the materials needed to run/play the game (and thus has most likely borne greater expense be it monetary from purchasing said materials or time from making them), and b) acting as the out-of-game host. Add to that another clause c) that the GM has quite likely also done and will do far more work on the game than have any of the players.

It's b) above where much of the social authority comes from, just as it would were the same people visiting for any other activity. It's a) and c) that in my view support the table authority, along with the whole 'referee' bit.

a) so? and b) so? Both of these go to different social interactions -- I should be thankful that GM is providing play tools, and probably pitch something in. Similarly, I should be thankful the GM is hosting, polite when being hosted, and look to pitch something in.

c) is also pointless, as I've said above. I could slave for days on a meal of tofu and coffee grounds, you're not required to accept it, eat it, or like it because I spent time on it. The reality is that maybe I should have asked before cooking.

 

[zarionofarabel]

D&D is bigger than all those systems combined, alas. "RPG" by default means D&D. "Fantasy RPG with elves"?

Nope. RPG does not mean D&D. To you maybe, but you are not everyone. I know that because I am not you, nor am I as limited in my thinking as you are, obviously.

The thing is this doesn't matter. You pitched a system where elves were part of the playable core - then expected people to magically intuit that this wasn't to be a thing. There is nothing that makes an elf more special than a noble in almost any setting I can think of - quite the reverse.

Again. Your limited experience is telling. You should expand your horizons.

So what's so special about playable races in your mind? Because they are far from the most important thing on the character sheet.

With this I agree. That's why I am so very confused by the vehement negative reaction many seem to have with me limiting playable races. If they are far from the most important thing on the character sheet, what does it matter if they are limited. After all, that still leaves all the things that are not the character's race.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm sorry, but why are we privileging the GM choosing to do unasked for work?

Let's for a moment assume things are to the point where everyone's sitting down at the table for session 1. At that point the GM's work is no longer 'unasked for'; and further, at and after that point if the GM stops participating the game ends.

In that regard, both the GM's work and the GM's presence become rather essential.

If I brought you food over that you didn't want and sat there expecting you to eat it, who's the jerk?

False analogy. If you're at my table it's because a) I invited you there and b) you accepted; which means by analogy we're already in agreement on the type of food being served.

It isn't, because you can change your mind at any time and leverage the assumed social authority of the GM.

And players can always leverage their continued participation.

Yup, a discussion and agreement within the social group is what I think it healthy. Not the GM showing up with whatever they wanted and telling players "it's my way or the highway." And not that anyone can force anyone else to play anything they don't want to.

Ideally the invite-acceptance process has cleared all this long before everyone sits down at the table: the GM has outlined the my-way highway during the invite process, and each player present has chosen to accept that.