GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[embee]

Oh yeah? You’ve had allowing an elf lead to allowing stuff that isn’t even player options? Really?

I really doubt it.

P4 is bringing in an elf. So why not orcs too? P1 isn't even asking to play an orc, just that orcs exist and that there be orc encounters. Firearms are in the DMG and shadow monks are in the PHB.

 

[embee]

In your scenario, it's obvious that the GM and players don't want to play the same game.

Then why should they? Why is no considered a fail-state and not a valid option?

 

[BookTenTiger]

P4 is bringing in an elf. So why not orcs too? P1 isn't even asking to play an orc, just that orcs exist and that there be orc encounters. Firearms are in the DMG and shadow monks are in the PHB.

GOT equivalents...
Orcs = wildlings (misunderstood as all barbarians before characters get to know them better)
Elves = Ancient royal family, very few true elves still exist but lots of people claim a bit of elven blood
Firearms = if there are dragons and fire magic, firearms do not seem far off. Make them a technology from across the narrow sea.
Shadow Monk = Arya Stark and the Faceless Men. That one's easy!

The characters start at Level 5 because they are knights and high ranking people.

None of this actually sacrifices what the DM wants to run, it adds to it. And it gets the players involved!

Then why should they? Why is no considered a fail-state and not a valid option?

Why is saying Yes a fail state and not a valid option?

I don't see these as an either-or argument. Neither the GM nor the player are in the right. Instead, the question is "Does one collaborator's voice count more than others?"

I would argue that not only is the answer a big, strong NO, but the RPG experience is improved when more participants are given more creative power!

 

[tetrasodium]

Then why should they? Why is no considered a fail-state and not a valid option?

It's not. The cartmanesque path taken to that fail state is more the issue.

 

[billd91]

None of this actually sacrifices what the DM wants to run, it adds to it. And it gets the players involved!

In your opinion, none of them sacrifice what the DM wants to run. But that's just it - that's your opinion and it may not be the GM's opinion.

 

[BookTenTiger]

In your opinion, none of them sacrifice what the DM wants to run. But that's just it - that's your opinion and it may not be the GM's opinion.

The GM is fictional.

 

[macd21]

GOT equivalents...
Orcs = wildlings (misunderstood as all barbarians before characters get to know them better)
Elves = Ancient royal family, very few true elves still exist but lots of people claim a bit of elven blood

If a player wants to play a wildling or a member of an ancient royal family, he can do so - but that’s not the same as an orc or an elf.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The GM is fictional.

From the OP's elaboration, not so much.

 

[BookTenTiger]

If a player wants to play a wildling or a member of an ancient royal family, he can do so - but that’s not the same as an orc or an elf.

Why not? If the GM wants a GoT style game and the players want elves and orcs, why not do both?

The GM is not an immaculate artist whose vision must be protected at all costs. The GM is one of many collaborators sitting around a table telling a story.

 

[BookTenTiger]

From the OP's elaboration, not so much.

Well in my elaboration, the GM takes a step back, takes a deep breath, and realized that they should write a novel if they want total control of a fantasy world. Then they invite collaboration from the players and have a blast.