GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[TheSword]

It’s not the DM kicking the player out of the group. It’s the table.

If all the other players really want to do the campaign and it’s just the elf player being entitled then they should sit this one out if they refuse to accommodate the wishes of the majority.

If the other players are lukewarm and one player is vociferously against playing a human then the DM should find another campaign or let someone else DM.

In my experience though, most players are good to follow whatever campaign suggestions are made that aren’t onerous. I would be very wary of players that make demands like that.

On the flip side a good friend in our group really dislikes far eastern settings. He tried a campaign once and didn’t enjoy it. So now we don’t play those campaigns. Irrespective of how much I’d like to DM one, as the other players don’t mind.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Because it’s not very good. Just like the Wheel of Time roleplaying game isn’t very good.

Yeah, but D&D is very unsuited to actually running a campaign at all like ASOIAF, what with its mostly human population, low magic, no magical items, very few monstrous creatures and a ton of politics.

 

[TheSword]

Yeah, but D&D is very unsuited to actually running a campaign at all like ASOIAF, what with its mostly human population, low magic, no magical items, very few monstrous creatures and a ton of politics.

So change it. AIME managed it.

Though a campaign can be like ASOIAF without being exactly like it.

Birthright for instance that was published before Game of Thrones had its own Iron Throne and vying noble families, in a D&D setting.

 

[Dragonsbane]

This is an easy one. No elf for the player, but don't kick him out. He can leave if he wants, or compromise.

DMs have every right to say which classes or races or whatever are in the game because of a game setting. Some gameworlds are like the new one, Wildermount? that have many strange races, there you go. Others are only humans, others might be like mine (no half-elf or half-anything, due to how the races formed in the distant past). It depends on the setting, which could change any rules because of story (like no armor for casters in my world).

The DM could ask which setting the players want to play in, perhaps a compromise there. But if he made a whole campaign already, I would say just stick with that. Not every player understands the work that goes into preping a game.

Does the player want to play the elf because of story? That would be strange if he now knows there are no elves, does he want to be the only elf in the world? Or is it because of his "build"? If it is that I would certainly say no chance sowwy!

 

[Dragonsbane]

Yeah, but D&D is very unsuited to actually running a campaign at all like ASOIAF, what with its mostly human population, low magic, no magical items, very few monstrous creatures and a ton of politics.

IIRC 5e assumes no magical items lol. 5e is suited to any campaign as long you players are not married to certain builds. Any gameworld can be played, and without much trouble TBH.

 

[Morrus]

It depends on the social situation you have going on. Is this group of strangers recruited for a Roll20 campaign? Is it a group of friends with whom you've gamed for 20 years? My game, which may differ to yours, is one in which the GM is ultimately responsible for what goes into a campaign, but the group as a whole decides on what to play. Obviously the GM doesn't have to run something they're not into, but similarly it sounds like in this case at least one player isn't into the concept the GM is proposing.

Assuming the premise that this is a group of friends who want to game together (though other social dynamics do exist for TTRPGs) and having one leave isn't a desirable outcome, you should all discuss what type of game you want to play. Hopefully you can all agree on something that the GM wants to run and that all the players want to play.

Generally speaking, though, I think the player sounds like they're being a bit obstinate in this particular situation. Hard to tell without being there!

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

That said, I don't know the social dynamic there. In my game I can't kick a player out, because it's a group of old friends whose shared hobby is gaming and it's just how we choose to spend our Thursday nights and who we choose to spend them with. In other situations (gaming in stores, or clubs, or online games with people you don't know well) kicking people out might be a more viable option. I'm not personally comfortable with group dynamics where one member has actual social power over other people in the group, but that's just me and an assumption that this is a group of people who know each other.

 

[Aldarc]

So change it. AIME managed it.

In which case it stops being D&D, which supports @QuentinGeorge's assertion.

Generally speaking, though, I think the player sounds like they're being a bit obstinate in this particular situation. Hard to tell without being there!

Also, given the GM-centric discourse of this forum, player behavior that somehow rubs against the GM is generally not framed in the most favorable light, and the language of @zarionofarabel's framing of the situation is far from neutral.

 

[Li Shenron]

There is no question. I side with the DM and answered the poll even before reading the OP.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me it's always the DM's decision on stuff like this, even if I think the way the "conversation" went in the initial post is exceedingly unrealistic and made to make the DM look like potentially the bad guy.

No DM who actually has an idea for a particular type and style of game waits until the entire group is together and then casually tosses off their idea in a sentence or two, with all the players then chiming in immediately with "I'm gonna play X!" To me, that kind of convo doesn't happen. And if by some chance it does happen... it means the DM doesn't really take their campaign design seriously and thus really shouldn't have such hardline ideas about what should or shouldn't be in it.

But a DM who is designing a specific campaign with a specific type and style should always have all of their choices and house rules (involving character creation especially) written down, made explicit, and given to the players in plenty of time before the first session so that any potential players know going in what is to be expected of them (and preferably, so they can ask any questions and bandy character ideas with the DM before the first session) . And that also then gives the players the choice to decide not to play in the game if they aren't into the idea for the campaign.

 

[TheSword]

In which case it stops being D&D, which supports @QuentinGeorge's assertion.


Also, given the GM-centric discourse of this forum, player behavior that somehow rubs against the GM is generally not framed in the most favorable light, and the language of @zarionofarabel's framing of the situation is far from neutral.

If I play a game and the players chose, fighters, rogues, rangers and Paladins swapping their spells for a feat at levels 6 and 10 and 14 is it still d&d? I would say it is.

Not to mention the fact that Birthright is Game of a Thrones in D&D so clearly possible.