GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[macd21]

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.

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. As demonstrated by the OP: player 4 ended up not playing, but the campaign went ahead.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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. As demonstrated by the OP: player 4 ended up not playing, but the campaign went ahead.

No, the ultimate decision doesn't lie with the GM. The game not being played is not a bad thing if there's no consensus. This is case 1. The OP ended up in case 3, and everything was hunky-dory. What you're talking about is some case 4, but the GM has some magical ability to force everyone else to play what they don't want to play. That doesn't exist. The GM has as much authority as anyone else in these discussions.

Does the GM (or any player) have authority over their pitch? Absolutely, and no one else can force them or require them to change anything. But, they have no authority to see that their pitch is accepted for play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Sure, or elf-like people of one kind or another, or a culture that is tuned toward what the player wants out of playing an elf. No way to know without having the conversation.

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.

Yeah, refusing to even have a conversation that might end in a slightly different outcome than one originally intended is childish. Pathetically so.

 

[Lanefan]

That heavy-lifting is the campaign. Ovin doesn't grasp that, and neither do you.

Good GMs invest time, thought, and prep into a campaign, particularly one that is intended to run for 50-70 sessions,

Heh - try one that's intended to run for 500-700 (and is now in the 870s).

My quickie rule-of-thumb is prep time before the campaign starts wants to be about 10% of the projected time the campaign will run. So, for a projected 10-year campaign, a year of prep is justified. If the campaign's projected out for 10 months, a month of prep will do.

I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.

Worth asking about. Who here has run any campaign that's gone longer than five years or 300 sessions?

For those who said "me", is/was this your usual MO or is/was it an exception?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Sure, or elf-like people of one kind or another, or a culture that is tuned toward what the player wants out of playing an elf. No way to know without having the conversation.

The player insisted they be able to play an elf. They refused a human with elf-like tendencies. The setting was humans only so no other elf-like people were available, just humans. They insisted they be allowed to play an elf because the core rules of the system we were tentatively supposed to use has elf as a playable race. The player completely refused to play a human, they would only play an elf.

What compromise could there be?

Don't worry I'm happy with the outcome as the player displayed several personality traits that lead me to believe they would be a "problem player" in the future. The other players confirmed my suspicions in later conversations after the player stormed off.

Bonus for me as I easily convinced the group to abandon D&D and use a different system more suited to running a GoT pastiche. The only hangup is that I now have a group that is unfamiliar with the system I will be using. Bonus though, as I find those new to a system can often be convinced to just ignore it and focus on describing what their character is doing. We will see I guess, two of the players have some familiarity with non-D&D games, so at least the whole group won't be stuck in a D&D only mindset.

Another bonus is that the ousted player already found a spot in a different game and, I was told, really is going to play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle! Honestly I don't think I could run a D&D game with a Turtle Person in it and not constantly be laughing and making TMNT jokes.

So good for the ousted player, they will be far happier in their new group! Good for me cause I avoided having to use D&D, a system I really do not like! Good for my group as we can now play the campaign we all wanted to! Good for everyone!

See, sometimes not compromising and giving a player the boot works out for the best! Yay!

Also, I did compromise on my "no magic users" policy. I didn't want to have the PCs using magic right away. However one of the new players really likes mages, so we compromised. He agreed to only have subtle magical abilities that could not be used in a combat situation, so I allowed him to play a magic user. Bonus Fact, the magic user in my group is also the second best swordsman, second only to one of the Knights, but ahead of the other Knight and all the Nobles! Yay! Not using D&D opens up a whole world of character possibilities that absolutely can't happen in a D&D game. Yay! Diversity!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Don't worry I'm happy with the outcome

Respectfully, I wasn’t worried. The thread has grown into a discussion that is much bigger than the OP example.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Respectfully, I wasn’t worried. The thread has grown into a discussion that is much bigger than the OP example.

Well in that case I'm glad I posted this so it could foster a deeper discussion. Yay me!

 

[Umbran]

I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.

"You've just never had it done right," is one of the most condescending approaches to get people to accept a proposition ever devised. It works as well for gaming as it does for, say, durian.

Singular views of "proper" amount to OneTrueWayism. There are more ways to play the game well than are dreamt of in your philosophy.