Search results

Sorry, but I’m not going to dig out my VtM supplements from 20 years ago to provide quotes. Though you could always just google image the covers of Nights of Prophecy or San Francisco By Night for particularly blatant examples of the phenomenon. I have no idea what Justin Achilli said or tried...

Something I’ve always found odd about the ‘Superheroes with fangs’ or ‘trench coats and katanas’ cracks: IMO both the background and ruleset pointed towards such types of play, so I tended to wonder what game critics of such a style were playing, because it wasn’t VtM. Sure, 1st Ed seemed to be...

I’m guessing it’s benefited from Lovecraft Country.

But it is different from the other players’ authority in the discussion, because ultimately the decision lies with the GM. The GM has a veto on anything being included in the campaign, the individual players do not. The game can continue without a given player, it can’t continue without the GM...

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...

Because when the group is discussing what game to play, the range of options is first defined by what the GM is willing to run. Players can ask the GM to include or exclude certain elements, but the decision is the GM’s. If a player doesn’t like it, they can exit the discussion.

I'm aware of the post. Nothing in it changes the fact that the GM gets to decide what will or won't be included in the campaign. Ovinomancer's belief that players have been 'indoctrinated' to believe GMing is hard (a stance I find nonsensical) doesn't change the fact that the campaign doesn't...

At which point that GM will be the one with the authority to decide what is in the game. The role of GM has moved, and the authority has moved with it. The fact that any of the heavy lifting is optional and/or self-inflicted is irrelevant - it's still heavy lifting. And even a game with 0...

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...

None of which changes the fact that if the GM doesn't want elves to be a playable race, elves aren't a playable race. The setting doesn't exist before the game starts - and when it starts, elves won't be a playable race if the GM doesn't want them to be. If the player doesn't like that, then the...

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...

And despite all of the above, I would assume that a GoT inspired game featuring regular people would not include elves, unless the GM specifically said otherwise. Just as I would assume it wouldn’t include Vulcans or vampires as player characters, until the GM said otherwise. A GoT inspired...

‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.

Not really? Assuming the limited information from the OP was all the players had, then sure, a player might have made a Cersei character when the campaign assumes Starks, or vice versa. Either would have been acceptable character choices, given the GM’s pitch. But while both of those concepts...

No? The player insisted on playing an elf, in a game without elves. The GM explained to him that it was an all human game, but the player wouldn’t change his mind. There’s nothing to work out.

Given Player 4 demanded to be an elf in a GOT-like setting, he clearly either knows nothing about GOT, or else just doesn’t care. Players 1-3 picked some pretty standard GOT character concepts, Player 4 just wanted something weird. That could be explained by the GM not going into enough detail...

In your argument, you are saying that the only way for Player 4 to have fun is for the GM to bend to their vision. The GM is not refusing to let Player 4 play, hejust want his voice heard, his portion of the creative process respected. Refusing to allow an elf character does not mean the GM is...

Because the GM wants to have fun too. Adding orcs and elves to a GOT-style campaign would massively change the nature of the setting, and that would spoil my fun. If I wanted to run a game with elves and orcs, I’d run a FR or Eberron campaign. Likewise, if Player 4 wanted to run a game where...

If a player wants to play a wildling or a member of an ancient royal family, he can do so - but that’s not the same as an orc or an elf.

And that’s great, if that works for you and the campaign you’ve created. But I’ve run campaigns where that simply wouldn’t have worked for me. And based on the description of the OP’s campaign, that would be of the kind where it wouldn’t work.