GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Thomas Shey]

That pitch could use some work, and I don't find that player as particularly realistic in this situation. So I can't really answer. It's an absurd reaction, and if it isn't that absurd from that player, why the heck did the GM think this idea was going to fly?

You've never found out the hard way a player has a particular--shall we say--thing about something all of a sudden without warning? You're a lucky person. I've found out players I've played with for decades hate a particular thing without getting the faintest hint of it previously, and had a player suddenly absolutely fixate on doing something I'd never have assumed they'd care about.

It is a weird scenario. If I was confronted with this, I would just be, alright, Elves are all the knock-off Bravosi. You are Dravosi now, you came to this strange land which is home to so very few of your kind.

And that's a really damn good way for the campaign to suddenly be all about that particular character even if not intended.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The problem is that neither side is correct, but the OP presented is as an either-or decision.

Don't think I've even vaguely defended the presentation.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree about the presentation. But I don't agree the scenario itself is particularly unrealistic. I've seen the equivalent before.

I've seen similar things happen too, but the scenario as presented by the OP practically characterizes the player and GM leaving both sides looking bad. I'm inclined to say that whatever role the OP took in the example was the biggest problem simply because the question is so loaded. Is @doctorbadwolf said though, the scenario presented is simply not a believable representation of a group of people

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've seen the equivalent before.

I'm sure you have, by a generous interpretation of the OP's scenario and what qualifies as "equivalent". If you've seen the exact behavior, then you've experienced something so rare and melodramatic that it isn't valid as a general case example of a dichotomy to use as the foundation of a proposed quandary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

le sigh, whatever man. I'm not interested in word games of any kind.

And I'm kind of annoyed when someone seems to imply I'm either a liar or deluded. So here we are.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And that's a really damn good way for the campaign to suddenly be all about that particular character even if not intended.

BS.

There is absolutely nothing about that proposed solution that leads to what you suggest. If that occurs, it's because that individual player is a spotlight hog, and it would have happened had they played a hunter conscripted into service from one of the River Houses, a guard from Winterfell, a retainer to another character's scion of one of the great houses, or an assassin posing as any of the above.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And I'm kind of annoyed when someone seems to imply I'm either a liar or deluded. So here we are.

Where are we? I have no clue, because I didn't do what you're accusing me of.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Perhaps if one were to assume that the participants in the example are not friends the example would make more sense?

Say, maybe it was a bunch of random people that met over MeetUp, or that met via Facebook, or even met on an online gaming website. Would that help?

Also, what happens if the GM and Players #1, #2, and #3, really are interested in playing said human only GoTish game? Why does Player #4 get to dictate that four other people must cater to Player #4? What makes Player #4 so special? Especially if they are five strangers gaming together.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen similar things happen too, but the scenario as presented by the OP practically characterizes the player and GM leaving both sides looking bad. I'm inclined to say that whatever role the OP took in the example was the biggest problem simply because the question is so loaded. Is @doctorbadwolf said though, the scenario presented is simply not a believable representation of a group of people

I quite agree the question is pretty loaded, but other than the arch depiction of all the players responses, I'm still going to say when stripped of the language, its functionally identical to things I've seen which adds up to: GM: This is the campaign, where everyone plays X; Plaryers: 1; Variation of X; 2: Variation of X; 3: Variation of X; 4: Variation of X; 5: Special snowflake Y that looks like it belongs in another campaign, sometimes even another genre.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Where are we? I have no clue, because I didn't do what you're accusing me of.

You: This post is unrealistic; Me: I've seen the equivelent; You: I disagree. So you disagree I've seen the equivalent. There's only a few ways to read that.