GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Minigiant]

My point was that there are a number of non-class based systems that did not seem to lack the tools you were talking about, so I needed to see if I had to disagree with you. Since you were talking in the context of class based systems, I didn't need to do that.

My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box.

So without giving a specific system, chances are Player 2 will be more work to deal with than Player 4.

Because games tend to need to be specifically made to balance a Jamie Lannister type PC with a Cersei Lannister type PC and a Tyrion Lannister typed PC.

 

[aramis erak]

amazing. This is literally a simple yes or no question.

But one without a neat and tidy real world stable answer of either boolean choice.

The answer depends on many factors.

My natural inclination is with the GM, but only because in most games and most groups the GM does 90% or more of the work needed for a game to happen.

At the same time, tho', players are a major part of the game - without players, the GM's not getting the game on. If most of the players are uninterested, the GM should offer something else. If it's just one, well, "hey, either don't play, or play within the set parameters."

Especially if the GM is pulling it together at the request of other players.

Anyone with a solid always one side is at least part of the time being a jerk.

 

[macd21]

My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box.

So without giving a specific system, chances are Player 2 will be more work to deal with than Player 4.

Because games tend to need to be specifically made to balance a Jamie Lannister type PC with a Cersei Lannister type PC and a Tyrion Lannister typed PC.

In the scenario presented by the OP, player 2 isn’t the problem. Maybe that’s because the GM is using a system that suits GoT, or because he’s houseruled in a noble class, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. The problem is player 4.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Because I'm playing the game system? Because we didn't decide to be freeform roleplaying?

"I know you just bought $100 of books but we aren't using any of them to play System X. It'll be fine. Trust me. So you in".

Nah boss.

You don't have to use the game system for everything. Sure, system is essential for things like combat and magic, but you don't have to roll dice for things like social skills or walking, things players know how to do in RL.

But hey, game how you will.

 

[Jd Smith1]

My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box.

So without giving a specific system, chances are Player 2 will be more work to deal with than Player 4.

Because games tend to need to be specifically made to balance a Jamie Lannister type PC with a Cersei Lannister type PC and a Tyrion Lannister typed PC.

For much of the books, Jamie's abilities were not much different than anyone else's because of the loss of his hand.

Game designers are not magic. There's a very good reason why so many GMs have house-rules, or even entire home-brewed systems.

After all, we've got how many sub-forums here discussing how to improve the base product of game designers?

 

[Minigiant]

In the scenario presented by the OP, player 2 isn’t the problem. Maybe that’s because the GM is using a system that suits GoT, or because he’s houseruled in a noble class, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. The problem is player 4.

You need additional info to deem player 2 not a problem by default due to the lack of clarity of the DM scenario. So Player 4 deserves the same leeway. Fair is fair.

Therefore using player 2 as evidence to say the DM is right is unfair to player 4 unless you treat the 2 players equally.

 

[tetrasodium]

You need additional info to deem player 2 not a problem by default due to the lack of clarity of the DM scenario. So Player 4 deserves the same leeway. Fair is fair.

Therefore using player 2 as evidence to say the DM is right is unfair to player 4 unless you treat the 2 players equally.

I'm going to agree with this. the OP setup the description to read just shy of "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions so the elf pc looks bad making a lot of things dubious about it. It's not like GoT is without things the PC could call elf-like when it's got people still getting born with (high)vvalarian bloodlines, chldren of the forest, dothraki, children of the forest, unsullied, & even poor bastards experimented on by wizards/sorcerers like varys they or the gm could have argued made reasonable standins for elf with a (big) twist. We don't know if the player tried to make those points but we can safely guess that the gm sure as heck didn't because there was no bragging about the attempt before showing how terrible the elf player was being.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box.

And I kind of disagree. Most full-featured multipurpose systems absolutely have the tools for that to one degree or another. I think you're overgeneralizing from looking only at the class-and-level game sphere.

 

[Crusadius]

That's a lot of assuming you are doing. The DM didn't mention a system or any of the tweak they are don't, or if the style of game the campaign will be.

Style of game was one of the first things mentioned: "Game of Thrones". It might be not clear what that means to someone unfamiliar with the franchise, but as a person who has not watched the TV series (I have read some plot synopsis of the series, and did read the first 3 books of the novel series) I would interpret that to mean gritty, feudal, human-only, with politics.

And as pointed out, the Player was corrected when they first presented their character concept. The original post even mentions the Player using the rulebook as justification for why they should be allowed it, meaning there must have been a system mentioned beforehand.

The enthusiasm of the players mental the elf player is comfortable with the GM or there is a lot of naive thoughts at the table. To me, as both a player and DM, Player 2 is a bigger issue than Player 4.

Not sure why someone wanting to play a Lady Noble is an issue. Game of Thrones had several noble ladies running around doing stuff. But then again, the original post is probably trying to be humorous in describing the situation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If I want to run a setting that excludes elves, the entire group should agree that they want to play such a campaign first. Once that is agreed upon, character creation should be no issue. So I side with neither.

You can have a read of the post that the GM thought he was doing that, but that Player Five didn't see it that way; that the GM thought it was obvious from his presentation that nonhumans would be outside the barrier, and Player Five did not understand that assumption, or didn't see it as significant.