GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[embee]

My your giving the gm lots of credit that his look at how terrible pc4 hitpiece of a story hardly justifies. It's not about just an "exception", it's the fact that a good gm needs to work with their players to help them fit the campaign in ways that makes everyone happy & it does not appear that the gm in question made even the slightest attempt at any of the simple ways he could have done so that have been raised through the thread. I'm pretty merciless at importing FR stuff into my eberron campaigns, but if a player comes to me with an idea rooted in FR I'm not above listening to the idea and telling them about some eberron specific things that might be similar enough to easily incorporate. The OP just aid no suck it & came on here to tell us how terrible PC4 was without mentioning if either of them tried to find a workable compromise that fits or even spotlights some part of the setting

No. I'm breaking it down into contractual terms.

1) GM offers the GOT campaign

2) Players 1, 2, 3 accept that offer.

3) Player 4 says I will accept if I may play an elf.

And that last step right there is a counteroffer. Which the GM may or may not decide to accept.

The GM didn't say "suck it." The player said "I propose this additional term to your offer." To which the GM said no.

Inside of every counteroffer is a rejection. A counteroffer is a "No, but..."

And as far as I can see, this was the attempt to find a workable compromise. What was detailed was a negotiation. Not all negotiations result in a consummated deal. Some result in the parties going their separate ways. I don't think it's a failing on the GM's part because that was not the setting that s/he wanted. It's just parties failing to agree upon terms.

The GM was equally able to say no, just as the player already had.

 

[Imaculata]

Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?

If you have to resort to absurd fictional examples, then you have by definition lost the discussion, and there is no point continuing the discussion with you. We have seen this plenty of times on this forum. I am kind of done with it too.

 

[zarionofarabel]

That path leads to madness.

That path leads to the GM being forced to run a game they don't want to run. And how can that be even remotely fair?

I think the disconnect is that certain players think the GM is obligated to run what they want only. Like the GM is supposed to be a "dancing bear" there only for the players entertainment.

The GM should get to have fun too!

If you have to resort to absurd fictional examples, then you have by definition lost the discussion, and there is no point continuing the discussion with you. We have seen this plenty of times on this forum. I am kind of done with it too.

Well my OP was a "based on real events" kind of thing. I'll give you a hint, Player #4 isn't playing in my GoT inspired pastiche campaign.

 

[zarionofarabel]

No. I'm breaking it down into contractual terms.

1) GM offers the GOT campaign

2) Players 1, 2, 3 accept that offer.

3) Player 4 says I will accept if I may play an elf.

And that last step right there is a counteroffer. Which the GM may or may not decide to accept.

The GM didn't say "suck it." The player said "I propose this additional term to your offer." To which the GM said no.

Inside of every counteroffer is a rejection. A counteroffer is a "No, but..."

And as far as I can see, this was the attempt to find a workable compromise. What was detailed was a negotiation. Not all negotiations result in a consummated deal. Some result in the parties going their separate ways. I don't think it's a failing on the GM's part because that was not the setting that s/he wanted. It's just parties failing to agree upon terms.

The GM was equally able to say no, just as the player already had.

This is the essence of it isn't it. The disconnect is that some players are of a mindset that there must always be a compromise. That is simply an unrealistic view of, well, how the world works. Especially with something like someones hobby and personal entertainment.

 

[tetrasodium]

No. I'm breaking it down into contractual terms.

1) GM offers the GOT campaign

2) Players 1, 2, 3 accept that offer.

3) Player 4 says I will accept if I may play an elf.

And that last step right there is a counteroffer. Which the GM may or may not decide to accept.

The GM didn't say "suck it." The player said "I propose this additional term to your offer." To which the GM said no.

Inside of every counteroffer is a rejection. A counteroffer is a "No, but..."

And as far as I can see, this was the attempt to find a workable compromise. What was detailed was a negotiation. Not all negotiations result in a consummated deal. Some result in the parties going their separate ways. I don't think it's a failing on the GM's part because that was not the setting that s/he wanted. It's just parties failing to agree upon terms.

The GM was equally able to say no, just as the player already had.

We can safely say that there was no negotiation or attempt to find a solution other than this because of how the OP has acted in the thread & the fact that attempting to work with the players is a topic that came up multiple times without them clarifying all the things they did trying to find a workable solution or guide the player to something that exists which could make them both happy. Finding a middle ground doesn't always mean relenting. a compromise could have been as simple as pointing the player to dothraki high valaryan bloodline, people like varys, unsullied, children of the forest & many other things

 

[zarionofarabel]

We can safely say that there was no negotiation or attempt to find a solution other than this because of how the OP has acted in the thread & the fact that attempting to work with the players is a topic that came up multiple times without them clarifying all the things they did trying to find a workable solution or guide the player to something that exists which could make them both happy. Finding a middle ground doesn't always mean relenting. a compromise could have been as simple as pointing the player to dothraki high valaryan bloodline, people like varys, unsullied, children of the forest & many other things

Well, the RL negotiation happened pretty much the way I laid it out in my OP.

 

[embee]

a compromise could have been as simple as pointing the player to dothraki high valaryan bloodline, people like varys, unsullied, children of the forest & many other things

"You can't play an official elf. But I will let you play a eunuch with pointy ears. But no darkvision or bonus to perception. Your character can be 150 years old but look 30. S/he'll still need to sleep. And no bonuses against Sleep or Charm."

 

[prabe]

Well, the RL negotiation happened pretty much the way I laid it out in my OP.

That may be, but your OP still reads like something of a hit piece. That's probably because it's ... emphatically from a point of view--the hit piece feel could well be an unintended consequence.

And that's coming from someone who believes GMs should be able to establish parameters for campaigns--so I should in theory be on your side ...

 

[MGibster]

You guys got it wrong! No special snowflakes are allowed in this fictional world!

In most games, especially fantasy games, the PCs are special snowflakes. It's just that we're so used to playing these particular snowflakes we no longer think of them as being very special. In defense of a lot of players, it's likely they just don't think of an elf as special and it's odd to them they couldn't play one in a fantasy game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?

I have no respect at all for the rhetorical tactic you employed, so I'm not engaging with it. Please stop trying to drag me into an argument I've told you I'm done with.