GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[tetrasodium]

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.

No the ops presentation is practically improv skit level absurd. I only meant that I've seen GM and players disagree on a campaign. For example, just a few months ago the player who has been running a game (mostly online) during covid wrapped up that campaign. People talked about an interest in oota someone hadand something else. I offered to run oota on athas if anyone was interested... couple players were curious and a third didn't want to play a dark sun game so offered ro run something else.. everyone shrugged and decided that it sounded good when the other possible GM on the group said it could be fun... but the ops story is absurdly unbelievable

 

[Thomas Shey]

P

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.

I do have to point out that only presenting it as a conflict between the GM and the one player with no discussion of the other players feelings in the original post did your point no favors.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

jfc no. That isn't what happened. I'm sorry you misread the interaction, but I'm making that not my problem anymore. We won't be able to interact for a while. I told you I'm not interested. I don't care how bad you're itching for a dumb internet fight, I'm not going to entertain you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

If you wanted to make an argument, you should have just done that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No the ops presentation is practically improv skit level absurd. I only meant that I've seen GM and players disagree on a campaign. For example, just a few months ago the player who has been running a game (mostly online) during covid wrapped up that campaign. People talked about an interest in oota someone hadand something else. I offered to run oota on athas if anyone was interested... couple players were curious and a third didn't want to play a dark sun game so offered ro run something else.. everyone shrugged and decided that it sounded good when the other possible GM on the group said it could be fun... but the ops story is absurdly unbelievable

I was replying to someone other than you.

You and I are on the same page, here, far as I can tell.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

It's absolutely not BS if the GM pays the least attention to the fact that one character is an odd man out from everyone else. I've seen it happen any number of times and seen even more people report it. And its pretty hard to engage with the character on anything but the most superficial way without that happening, especially in a campaign that's going to have a lot to do with social relationships.

 

[Thomas Shey]

jfc no. That isn't what happened. I'm sorry you misread the interaction, but I'm making that not my problem anymore. We won't be able to interact for a while. I told you I'm not interested. I don't care how bad you're itching for a dumb internet fight, I'm not going to entertain you.

I don't think I'm the one who came in trying to start one of those, but whatever.

 

[Mallus]

I DM only with the consent of the amused.

So I side with... well... I'd work with the player so they could play an elf or something elf-analogous in my faux-Westeros setting. If the player wanted to run Tars Tarkas and swing six swords at a time (how many arms does that sucker have, again?), I'd probably say no.

The point being, I'd try to reach a compromise, maybe even expand my initial setting parameters a bit, because it's a fun creative challenge to reconcile different people's aesthetic preferences. It stops being my world as soon as I agree to let players into it.

(ie, in the context of an RPG campaign, the world is never really mine)

 

[Thomas Shey]

And to make it clear if anyone has read the last couple pages differently: I'm not a big fan of GM-authority-uber-alles. I just think one needs to realize not all campaign concepts have the same amount of give, and don't find people who are unwilling to accept that any more reasonable than GMs who have a leave it or take it attitude.

 

[Minigiant]

Why? Theres nothing going on in GoT that D&D can't handle

D&D doesn't handle characters geared nearly completely to lore and social checks well at all..