GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Crusadius]

If the GM has prepared things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, they're the jerk. If you get to the table without first having a discussion about what to run, and getting buy-in, the GM is the jerk.

So it's also OK for the GM to have buy-in on what characters the Players have? "You want to play an elf ranger? How about a human thief? No? What a jerk."

 

[Ovinomancer]

So it's also OK for the GM to have buy-in on what characters the Players have? "You want to play an elf ranger? How about a human thief? No? What a jerk."

Sigh. No. It's an exercise in consensus seeking. If the player really one thing A, but the GM doesn't, then there needs to be negotiation. If negotiation fails, then no game. If a sufficient majority opinion forms, that's the ticket -- dissenters can then agree or go their separate way. In all of this, the GM is not privileged. The very question you pose assumes the GM has some moral authority they should wield here, when what should be happening is a group of players picks the game they all most want to play together.

The very idea that the GM has authority over this negotiation is edging towards abusive. It's the GM acting as dictator over something outside of the game -- the very choice of game to begin with. In this, the GM's opinion is equally valid as the players. Or, in other words, there's nothing special about the GM's creative vision that makes it better than anyone else's. In fact, the only leverage a GM actually has is the threat to not run a game. This is usually coupled with long indoctrination that running games is hard, so players shy away from it, closing the gates to more GM's and allowing the existing GM to threaten to remove access to force their way on the group. If you think this is an okay way to act, well, we're just probably going to disagree.

Once buy-in is achieved, if a player goes against the agreed to framework, they're the jerk. And, not everyone has to buy-in, if the group majority wants Game A, and the dissenters Game B, they can go find it somewhere else. This is just like deciding to go bowling with a group of friends, but one begs off because they're just not feeling bowling tonight.

 

[Lanefan]

Daenerys' experience was never made clear; it hinted at incense or gas as much as illusion.

I've always read it as either illusion or compulsion.

The most obvious examples in Westeros itself of outright magic use are the various revivals from death that take place. Well, that and the ongoing creation of all those undead north of the Wall....something's getting them upright, and it ain't ordinary physics.

It certainly bears no resemblance to D&D's ever-present and endless magic.

Agreed; any GoT-based campaign would have to severely tone down arcane magic use, as I think I posted upthread.

That said, just like in Dragonlance there's no deities yet; in Westeros there isn't much magic - yet.

If magic is returning to Westeros, however, one could run a hella good D&D campaign set 25-50 years after the end of the TV series; where magic (particularly divine magic) has more-or-less returned and the various houses are starting to conveniently forget old treaties and are going back to war with each other...

 

[Jd Smith1]

So it's also OK for the GM to have buy-in on what characters the Players have? "You want to play an elf ranger? How about a human thief? No? What a jerk."

'Buy-in'? Not familiar with the term.

I set out what races and classes out of the PHB are available.

 

[Jd Smith1]

If the GM has prepared things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, they're the jerk. If you get to the table without first having a discussion about what to run, and getting buy-in, the GM is the jerk. It's a pretty simple concept -- ask, don't demand. It's also called the Golden Rule -- if you're going to be upset that others aren't agreeing with you, then you should recognize they may be upset if you don't agree with them. Instead, maybe adopt an attitude where you talking to people instead of expecting them to roll over because you invested some time in your pet project.

What a judgmental attitude.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What a judgmental attitude.

Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship. I agree!

 

[Maxperson]

I've always read it as either illusion or compulsion.

The most obvious examples in Westeros itself of outright magic use are the various revivals from death that take place. Well, that and the ongoing creation of all those undead north of the Wall....something's getting them upright, and it ain't ordinary physics.

And the wall itself. Full of old spells it is.

 

[Lanefan]

And the wall itself. Full of old spells it is.

Yes, but old magic isn't in question: the entire setting seems to have had loads of magic a long time ago; and the Wall is what, 700 years old?

It's present-day magic that's rare, but slowly returning as the series goes along.

 

[macd21]

Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship. I agree!

A power relationship can be unequal without it being dysfunctional. When it comes to defining the setting of a campaign, the GM has more authority than the players. Earlier you said that if a sufficient majority opinion forms, 'that's the ticket,' and dissenters can leave, but that's not true, because if the dissenters include the GM, the game doesn't get played. It only works if the majority includes the GM.

The GM has more power in this relationship because they're the one who will be doing the heavy lifting, and without them the campaign doesn't happen. That's not dysfunctional, and in my experience it's a relationship dynamic that players are happy to accept (as it means they get to play without having to come up with a campaign themselves).

 

[Aldarc]

A power relationship can be unequal without it being dysfunctional. When it comes to defining the setting of a campaign, the GM has more authority than the players. Earlier you said that if a sufficient majority opinion forms, 'that's the ticket,' and dissenters can leave, but that's not true, because if the dissenters include the GM, the game doesn't get played. It only works if the majority includes the GM.

Then one of the previous players decides to GM, and the game goes on, though maybe with a different setting or even game. "Life finds a way."

The GM has more power in this relationship because they're the one who will be doing the heavy lifting, and without them the campaign doesn't happen. That's not dysfunctional, and in my experience it's a relationship dynamic that players are happy to accept (as it means they get to play without having to come up with a campaign themselves).

A lot of that heavy lifting is optional, self-inflicted, and built on the backs of what @Ovinomancer talks about with the whole myth constructed around all the hard work of GMing: e.g., campaign/adventure prep, world-building, etc. This is particularly true if you are running something basic like Dungeon World or using no myth roleplaying techniques.