GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Umbran]

If we accept that it's a collaborative endeavor at what point do you feel the player should modify their own expectations around character creation to better accommodate a DM's campaign/adventure/game concept?

I think there should be a conversation when a GM pitches a game, and folks should come out of it with expectations around character creation, rather than go into it with them. The player being inflexible here is just as problematic as the GM being inflexible.

What I see in this example is a single player who wants to play something that, at least insofar as the DM described his campaign concept... at the very least grates against the theme of a GoT-esque style game and could actually subvert them.

Sure, but 1) I don't think we can trust that OP to give us a really good idea of how things were presented, or what was in the conversation. "I want it to be like GoT," doesn't actually tell you much. Like GoT in what ways? More important to my point here, however is, 2) Being confused, frustrated, or indignant at someone merely asking means you probably weren't going into it open to collaboration.

And again, if your marketplace of players is large enough, maybe you don't need to collaborate so much. And that's fine. But one should realize that's an element of your situation, not a general entitlement GM's get to have.

 

[Umbran]

But it's not the group... it's one player just as it's one DM... why does that player warrant more consideration around preference than the DM?

I am not sure anyone's saying that one warrants more consideration than another, really. They are in different roles, and have different concerns - they call for different consideration.

 

[practicalm]

So much of this is context dependent.
In a situation where the gaming group is a group of friends and the code is that no one can be excluded then the GM and the players need to compromise on their visions to find common ground. The example doesn't show this happening.

I prefer to put a bunch of campaign ideas I'm interested in running and let the players vote. This way other people interested in running a game can also put their ideas out and the players can vote for the ones they want to play. If none of the games are interesting to a specific player, they need to find something else to do.
This can happen when the group is large enough to support a couple of games or people with enough time to be in multiple games.
There might be some negotiation with players around the different ideas but the GM needs to provide some solid details on what is expected from the players. And players interested need to follow those guidelines.

 

[jasper]

Kick the player from the table. He is welcome to play Uno with the non playing spouses. And welcome to Taco Tuesday. Unless it is Jimmy then Jimmy can stay home or go for burgers on Tuesday since he hates tacos.

 

[macd21]

In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.

The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.

This is a ridiculous and flawed anecdote because it ignores that D&D is a collaborative game. The OP's story would be more realistic if the DM was a video game designer and the players had bought the game.

It's a no-win argument. Either you agree with the biased situation that the OP set up, or you have to side with the player who is breaking the social contract.

Here's a more realistic situation:

A group of friends play D&D each week. One friend has put a lot of work into a Game of Thrones style campaign, something they are very passionate about. Part of the DM's vision is that this is a human-only campaign. The campaign does not fit the play style of all the players. One player, for example, really loves to play as elves, and wants to find a way to play as an elf in this game.

Whose job is it to compromise?

When designing a campaign, should the DM focus on their own vision, or adapt to the preferences of the group?

In that circumstance, the player should either agree to play as a human, or bow out of the game. Alternatively the player could offer to run something themselves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have a question regarding the extent of GM authority. I would like people to answer this poll to see what the gaming community thinks should happen in a particular situation.

The group gathers to play a new campaign...

The GM "I would like to play a campaign influenced by Game of Thrones. It will still have magic and monsters but the characters will be regular people in a medieval land."

Player #1 "Nice. I will play Sir Knight the Knightliest of Knights!"

Player #2 "Sure. I will play Lady Noble the Noblest of Nobles!"

Player #3 "Sweet. I will play Sir Sneak the Sneakiest of Sneaks!"

Player #4 "Okay. I will play Sir Elf the Elfiest of Elfs!"

The GM "No wait..."

Then the argument starts. The Player insists that they should be able to play an Elf because the core book says Elf is a playable race. Round and round it goes with The GM explaining that the campaign they want to run won't include Non-Human characters, the only intelligent race is Humans. The Player insists that The GM must compromise and allow them to play an Elf, because that's what they want to play, period. After arguing for a time The GM realizes that no agreement can be reached. Either the premise of the campaign gets scrapped and The Player gets to play an Elf, or The GM must kick The Player out of the group.

Should The GM be forced to accommodate The Player? Or is The Player going to have to find a different campaign where they can play an Elf?

Who would you side with?

The Player, who then gets to play an Elf.

OR.

The GM, who will kick the player out because they won't play a Human.

This isn't a realistic or reasonably presented scenario.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This isn't a realistic or reasonably presented scenario.

While its overly simplistic, its not far enough from realistic (people deciding they're going to fit their square peg character concept into the round holes in a campaign concept no matter what) to not be to some extent on-point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.

The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.

This is a ridiculous and flawed anecdote because it ignores that D&D is a collaborative game. The OP's story would be more realistic if the DM was a video game designer and the players had bought the game.

It's a no-win argument. Either you agree with the biased situation that the OP set up, or you have to side with the player who is breaking the social contract.

Here's a more realistic situation:

A group of friends play D&D each week. One friend has put a lot of work into a Game of Thrones style campaign, something they are very passionate about. Part of the DM's vision is that this is a human-only campaign. The campaign does not fit the play style of all the players. One player, for example, really loves to play as elves, and wants to find a way to play as an elf in this game.

Whose job is it to compromise?

When designing a campaign, should the DM focus on their own vision, or adapt to the preferences of the group?

Absolutely right about the OP.

In your scenario, which isn't set up like a loaded question designed to lean toward a single outcome, the DM should have included the players in the early stages of development, and taken what they want out of playing fantasy ttrpgs into account, instead of acting like a self-important auteur that blames uncultured fans when their work gets a cool reception.

It isn't hard to simply ask your friends, "is there any interest in a humans-only campaign inspired by works like Game of Thrones?" and adjust when one or more of your friends says, "ugh I really don't see the value of humans-only dnd games. I don't play dnd to pretend to be a human." or "You know I don't like grimdark 'everyone sucks and the guys that don't suck die because the guys that suck are smarter and more vicious' media, Mike. Can we please not?"

Adding elves to Game of Thrones wouldn't even meaningfully change the story, unless you wanted it to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While its overly simplistic, its not far enough from realistic (people deciding they're going to fit their square peg character concept into the round holes in a campaign concept no matter what) to not be to some extent on-point.

A scenario presented like a loaded question (Do you prefer Coke like an adult, or are you a crude, uncultured, idiot that thinks they prefer Pepsi?) is not a valid scenario upon which to base a question.

 

[Istbor]

Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work before getting buy-in from the players?

I mean... I have done it because it is fun. I like making worlds.

I however am under no delusion that people playing with me will only ever love and accept my ideas.

I also am not some weird GM that is a 'My way or there is the door'. That sounds like a bowl of laughs.

If an idea I spent time on doesn't get picked, maybe I will try it later, or with different people sometime, but I have other stuff I can do that others may enjoy more in the present.