GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[tetrasodium]

Or hear them out and decide that the suggested input doesn't work, also like an adult.

Your version & the one you quoted are not mutually exclusive. it's been pointed out many times over the last 31 pages that the apparently very experienced gm failed because of the poor pitch lack of knowledge in the improperly chosen setting, & cartmanesque handling of what should have been a trivial matter for someone who as as much experience as the OP claims to have.

 

[billd91]

That isn’t a distinct suggestion from the one I made. I implied no outcome.

Compromise is a result (just not a specific one) in contrast to the GM's initial pitch. And by adding "like an adult" you implied that not doing so would be not like an adult.

If you meant "discuss it and potential compromises in good faith like an adult", that's not what you wrote.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Compromise is a result (just not a specific one) in contrast to the GM's initial pitch. And by adding "like an adult" you implied that not doing so would be not like an adult.

If you meant "discuss it and potential compromises in good faith like an adult", that's not what you wrote.

To compromise is to discuss the situation in good faith with a willingness to accept some degree changes on your end, even if no agreement is ultimately reached. Failure to do so is childish.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

not every game operates this way. Plenty of groups are okay with the GM sayin no to things because they don't fit the setting

For me, both as a player and a GM, being wiling to make characters who fit the campaign concept are pretty much a starting point. If people are going to fight to bring in something that just doesn't fit the campaign, I honestly would not want to game with that person (as a player or as a GM)----and I have only ever encountered one or two such people in 30+ years of gaming

 

[doctorbadwolf]

not every game operates this way. Plenty of groups are okay with the GM sayin no to things because they don't fit the setting

For me, both as a player and a GM, being wiling to make characters who fit the campaign concept are pretty much a starting point. If people are going to fight to bring in something that just doesn't fit the campaign, I honestly would not want to game with that person (as a player or as a GM)----and I have only ever encountered one or two such people in 30+ years of gaming

It seems like you're jumping to an extreme of player behavior that no one is advocating.

Rather, a player is likely to really want to play an elf ranger with a longbow and a wolf, and the DM can either seek compromise and, if elves really somehow don't "fit the setting", then they should go over what things do fit the setting, talk about what the player likes about elf rangers with wolves so much that they're so bummed out by the thought of not getting to play one, and try to work something out.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Your version & the one you quoted are not mutually exclusive. it's been pointed out many times over the last 31 pages that the apparently very experienced gm failed because of the poor pitch lack of knowledge in the improperly chosen setting, & cartmanesque handling of what should have been a trivial matter for someone who as as much experience as the OP claims to have.

Well let's see. I started with the Red Box (BECMI) in 1988 after my aunt got it for me for a Christmas present. Then in 1989 she got me the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB, DM Guide and Monsterous Compendium Binder. In 1992 I got the WEG Star Wars 2nd Edition and switched mostly to that as my group preferred Star Wars to D&D. In 1994 I discovered Vampire the Masquerade and added several White Wolf games to the mix. After graduating high school in 1996, I moved out of my little home town to a much bigger city that had an actual games store that stocked a multitude of RPGs. This allowed me to greatly expand my gaming experience with such amazing titles as Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel. Though for many years I stuck with hacking the White Wolf games as I preferred that system for it's ease of use. More recently I discovered Runequest 6/Mythras which quickly became my darling system as it really hits all my bells and whistles. Though with the plethora of systems that now exist my gaming library has expanded tenfold. Some of my favorites include, Chronica Feudalis, Far Trek, Ubiquity (Hollow Earth Expedition and All For One: Regime Diabolique), and a swath of various Runequest/BRP games. I also have Marvel Heroic Roleplaying as my favorite Supers game, along with several other Cortex and Cortex Plus titles. Most recently I have acquired Mongoose Traveller 2nd Edition and Tribe 8, both games I hope to try out in the coming year. Luckily I have avoided having to play D&D 5th Edition as I have no interest in it and managed to convince my new group to get away from the D&D family. Though for nostalgia sake I do want to try running a short lived OSR BECMI clone just for fun.

So yeah, been around the block a time or two.

Also. Get off my lawn!

 

[zarionofarabel]

It seems like you're jumping to an extreme of player behavior that no one is advocating.

Rather, a player is likely to really want to play an elf ranger with a longbow and a wolf, and the DM can either seek compromise and, if elves really somehow don't "fit the setting", then they should go over what things do fit the setting, talk about what the player likes about elf rangers with wolves so much that they're so bummed out by the thought of not getting to play one, and try to work something out.

I did. The Player wanted to play an Elf in a setting where there are no Elves. What would the compromise be, allow them to play an Elf?

Bonus for the player, as they then became free to find a group where they can play a Teenager Mutant Ninja Turtle!

Even better, the group that took in said player shed two other players who were tired of playing in a game with rubber forehead aliens. Those two players then joined my human only game where it's okay to play a noble or landed knight.

Now I have Lady Noble, Sir Sneak (disguised as Sir Noble), Sir Knight #1, Sir Knight #2, and Man Of The Cloth (a cleverly disguised magic user). Yay! Compromise!

 

[macd21]

Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.

Sure, they could - if they want to. But that’s the GM’s choice. If they don’t want to compromise, they don’t have to. There’s nothing childish about doing so, just as there’s nothing childish about a player deciding the game isn’t for them and playing something else.

Adults recognise that sometimes compromise isn’t possible. Not every game can be hammered into a shape that everyone will be happy with. You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, they could - if they want to. But that’s the GM’s choice. If they don’t want to compromise, they don’t have to. There’s nothing childish about doing so, just as there’s nothing childish about a player deciding the game isn’t for them and playing something else.

Adults recognise that sometimes compromise isn’t possible. Not every game can be hammered into a shape that everyone will be happy with. You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

100%. The point I've been trying to make is that this is no different from any other player's authority in the discussion. Sometimes the pitch fails or someone else GMs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It seems like you're jumping to an extreme of player behavior that no one is advocating.

I was responding directly to what the previous poster stated. Everything is based on the wording of that post.

Also what you are suggesting isn't compromise. A compromise is the player wants something, the GM wants something else, so the GM agrees to change some things to give the player some things they want. What you are saying is just helping to guide the player to an option that fits the setting. Based on what the poster said, this wasn't how I was reading their statement.

The point I am trying to make is for a lot of groups, the integrity of the setting matters. And a lot of players, not just GMs, get annoyed when players make special requests that clearly don't fit the setting (especially if they are taking a position that a compromise must be made). Now, I am not saying there can't be other approaches. But in any game, sport or activity with roles, it is fair to carve out who has power over what in order to make the game fair and fun. And for people like myself, giving the GM authority over the setting is important to enhancing play (and importantly that applies to the step of character creation).