GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[prabe]

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.

So, there's a difference between "I want total control of my fantasy world" and "I don't want something in my fantasy world."

 

[embee]

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

You didn't really answer the question.

Look, I'll be the first to say that a bad day at the beach beats a nice day at the office. But the GM doesn't want what appears to be a fairly by the book FR campaign.

You had suggested

If we shift the goal to "Play an RPG everyone will enjoy" then the solution is obvious. Throw some elves and guns and orcs in there, or play something else!

Yes. That is what the GM had tried to do. A human-only GOT campaign. Which is something that P4 would not enjoy. At the same time, P4's suggested modifications to the campaign wouldn't be something that the GM would enjoy. So why force one upon the other?

GM should be able to say, "Yeah, I get that's what you want to play but that's not the kind of campaign I'm looking to run right now. It's probably not going to be a good fit. But hey, when I'm done with this campaign, can I give you a holler?"

It comes down to tact and communication. There may have been some kind of communication breakdown here leading to flared tempers and wounded pride.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

"Inviting collaboration" and "having some borders on the permitted in the campaign" are not mutually exclusive.

 

[tetrasodium]

You didn't really answer the question.

Look, I'll be the first to say that a bad day at the beach beats a nice day at the office. But the GM doesn't want what appears to be a fairly by the book FR campaign.

You had suggested


Yes. That is what the GM had tried to do. A human-only GOT campaign. Which is something that P4 would not enjoy. At the same time, P4's suggested modifications to the campaign wouldn't be something that the GM would enjoy. So why force one upon the other?

GM should be able to say, "Yeah, I get that's what you want to play but that's not the kind of campaign I'm looking to run right now. It's probably not going to be a good fit. But hey, when I'm done with this campaign, can I give you a holler?"

It comes down to tact and communication. There may have been some kind of communication breakdown here leading to flared tempers and wounded pride.

Your really going hard on this... have you A: watched the GoT tv series? or more importantly B: read the novels to understand what people are taling about when they point at unsullied varys dothraki high valaryan bloodlines children of the forest varys & so on? I think the answer is important for seeing where the disconnect is

 

[macd21]

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.

Because the GM wants to have fun too. Adding orcs and elves to a GOT-style campaign would massively change the nature of the setting, and that would spoil my fun. If I wanted to run a game with elves and orcs, I’d run a FR or Eberron campaign.

Likewise, if Player 4 wanted to run a game where everyone played elves, I wouldn’t object.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Your really going hard on this... have you A: watched the GoT tv series? or more importantly B: read the novels to understand what people are taling about when they point at unsullied varys dothraki high valaryan bloodlines children of the forest varys & so on? I think the answer is important for seeing where the disconnect is

As far as I could tell from watching the TV show (never read the books) every character except the Children of the Forest are humans. The Forest Children also barely featured in the show at all.

 

[BookTenTiger]

"Inviting collaboration" and "having some borders on the permitted in the campaign" are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah but arguing the middle ground is no fun!

My client, Player 4 aka Elflover deserves representation. I will fight for their right to play an elf until the butter end!

 

[BookTenTiger]

You didn't really answer the question.

Look, I'll be the first to say that a bad day at the beach beats a nice day at the office. But the GM doesn't want what appears to be a fairly by the book FR campaign.

You had suggested


Yes. That is what the GM had tried to do. A human-only GOT campaign. Which is something that P4 would not enjoy. At the same time, P4's suggested modifications to the campaign wouldn't be something that the GM would enjoy. So why force one upon the other?

GM should be able to say, "Yeah, I get that's what you want to play but that's not the kind of campaign I'm looking to run right now. It's probably not going to be a good fit. But hey, when I'm done with this campaign, can I give you a holler?"

It comes down to tact and communication. There may have been some kind of communication breakdown here leading to flared tempers and wounded pride.

Player 4: I want to play an elf.

DM: See ya next campaign!

Player 2: I want guns.

DM: See ya next campaign!

Player 3: Shadow Monk!

DM: See ya next campaign!

Player 4: Let's start at Level 5!

DM: See ya next campaign!

DM sitting at empty table: Finally, the perfect GoT campaign!

 

[tetrasodium]

As far as I could tell from watching the TV show (never read the books) every character except the Children of the Forest are humans. The Forest Children also barely featured in the show at all.

that's like pointing at an xmen comic where almost everyone in it is human unless it's one of the storylines where aliens are involved & saying everyone is a human. While they cut a ton of stuff in the tv series...

daeneryis(sp?) has a high valaryan bloodline which is a big part of why she survived the bonfire.. Purple eyes & silver hair is hardly screams "human", but there is a race that tends to sport that kinda eye/hail color.... I feel like it starts with an e
Dothraki? They gloss over it in the tv series sure, but they are pretty much darksun style elves minus the ears but in a sea of grass instead of sea of sad & built like the spartans from the300 with some vague implications of magic in the blood & such.
Unsullied?... what happens to them is wayyyy beyond just getting snipped with some vague implications of potions/old magic.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Because the GM wants to have fun too. Adding orcs and elves to a GOT-style campaign would massively change the nature of the setting, and that would spoil my fun. If I wanted to run a game with elves and orcs, I’d run a FR or Eberron campaign.

Likewise, if Player 4 wanted to run a game where everyone played elves, I wouldn’t object.

In your argument, you are saying the only way for the GM to have fun is for all the other people at the table to bend to their vision.

I just don't think it's fair to prioritize one person's vision over everyone else's. Player 4 is not refusing to play, they just want their voice heard, their portion of the creative process respected.

In my opinion, this GM should realize that to play in a collaborative game means being willing to collaborate.