How Accommodating to Player Preferences Should the GM Be?

[grankless]

No. Just plain no.

My first duty as a GM is to have fun¹ myself. If I'm not having fun, the games on a fairly short calendar.²
My secondary duty is to ensure no player is actively preventing others from having fun¹.
My tertiary duty is to be fair with the rules.
My quaternary obligation is to provide opportunities for story that meshes with player desires.

I'm not responsible for them having fun - that's on them.
I expect them to let me know if they aren't. And I do ask from time to time. I try to provide the opportunities they asked for, when it doesn't interfere with my fun. And when it does, I let them know. But at the end of the day, if they don't take the opportunities, that's on them. If they aren't honest about what they want in the game, that's on them.

My players definitely have the right to vote with their feet.
They don't have the right to interfere with others fun, and my wed group has had to bounce two players for interfering with other players' fun. That's over the last 7 years... and none of the originals are left. But the second gen are... and go back 5 years or so. One of the two was fun to boardgame with, but not a good RPG player. Then again, that's because the originals weren't townies, and when they graduated or dropped out of OSU or LBCC, moved away.

-=-=-=-
¹: Noting that Fun in this case means whichever of pathos, enjoyment, catharsis, or struggle as desired for the combination of characters and setting.
²: When I'm getting paid, in money and/or product, I can run most things short term - 2 to 4 sessions. When I'm not getting paid, the equivalent is getting enjoyment. I killed off one campaign last month because I was no longer having fun. After 3 sessions in a row where it felt more like a chore, I was at my limit. It wasn't the players fault, per se, but it was a case of the players requested goal at outset had been met, I was no longer having fun, and remembering why I quit GMing that way.

Yeah, god forbid people in a group support each other, huh? Good thing that's not the foundation of society or anything.

 

[Umbran]

I hope you can learn to do the same one day.

Mod Note:
Hey, can we not make this personal?
The snarky insult doesn't actually support your point.

 

[Committed Hero]

The more information the GM provides up front, the less this should be an issue. They can provide a list of classes and races, or spell out the background so players know what's on the table.

It will probably go a long way if the GM can articulate why a particular PC won't fit, too.

 

[Umbran]

... or else they are twinks ...

Mod note:
It may not have been your intent, but that word is used as a homophobic slur. Maybe don't use it? Thanks.

 

[Committed Hero]

Out of curiosity, why? Is "it's cool" not a good enough reason?

It's as useful as the GM saying, "I'm going to run you through this encounter because it's cool."

 

[Umbran]

If the rest of the group follows suit, its a sign of bad faith to me, and that doesn't mean I should give up on my own ideas and embrace whatever it is they want at this moment.

Bad faith? Nonsense! It is a sign that, from the player's point of view, the situation has changed. Because it has!

 

[Celebrim]

Mod note:
It may not have been your intent, but that word is used as a homophobic slur. Maybe don't use it? Thanks.

Apologies. I had no idea. The only usage I was aware of was for an immature or young player. See Twinking.

Interesting etymology to that one - I had always erroneously assumed it was a formation from 'tweak'. I wonder when it entered the RPG community in the 80s.

 

[Umbran]

The GM is the one in the position to judge whether accommodation will improve the game, have no measurable impact either way, or detract from it — and GMs are in fact always in that position, not just when delineating character creation options, but also whenever they worldbuild or make a table-ruling or really whenever they effect any sort of outcome in the game. It's a basic element of the job description.

So, the GM is (in traditional RPGs, anyway) in the position of authority to judge.

That doesn't mean they are in a position of knowledge and understanding to judge.

So, the question is really, "What is usually the best way to exercise that authority?"

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Let's say the Gm decides they want to run a relatively standard medieval fantasy campaign focused on exploring a frontier region that was once part of an ancient, long collapsed arcane empire (so lots of the usual exploration, dungeon crawling, and finding of magical loot). Everyone is in and positive about the premise.

However, one player really wants to play a very non-standard character. In this example, we'll use a person from our world portal-fantasied into the campaign, but it could be anything (a weird species, a more steampunk or sci-fi character concept, or whatever). This was not something the GM had considered and isn't something the setting is "built" to accommodate, but it also isn't something that inherently "breaks" the setting or rules either.

In your opinion, how accomodating should the GM be to the player with the unusual request? Does it depend on the player? What if the other players, seeing the possibility, also have unsual character ideas? Have you allowed this? How did it go.

NOTE: The presumption in this discussion is that the player with the unusual request is making the request in good faith, and is still "in" for the declared premise of the campaign (exploring land and ruins, looking for loot while dealing with monsters etc).

It depends on the game.

If it is historical fiction and not fantasy, why does the player make such a choice.

D&D? There is so much room for stuff…barrier peaks anyone?

The way I roll is pretty liberal. Basically I know generally what my world is like when I DM. However, there are unexplored regions I don’t have planned out. I think there may be some dragon people that live there…the people in town have never seen one before and you are the first!

BUT…if I said let’s do dark age flavor with common races only…let’s say full plate is not a common thing at all…and here are the available races…no artificers this time unless potion maker/alchemists…

My friends would abide by that. They just would.

When it’s my turn to DM though I am about making things open for the players fun but somewhat fiction consistent for mine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Bad faith? Nonsense! It is a sign that, from the player's point of view, the situation has changed. Because it has!

I don't see how. The premise they all agreed to hasn't changed.