GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

Who would you side with?

  • The Player

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • The GM

    Votes: 58 85.3%

A human with magic is not an elf. I also said Game Of Thrones, not A Song Of Ice And Fire or whatever the book series is called. The TV show does deviate from the books as I was told, and TV and movies often don't contain all the details the books do. From my viewing of the TV show, almost the entire cast of characters are human. Maybe some humans with magic (which the campaign premise included) but humans none the less. Humans aren't Elfs, if they were, the player would have just played a human!

:eek:

You are trying to argue the point without having read the books?!!?!?!?!

That is a terrible thing. Terrible. Sackcloth and ashes terrible.

And not to upset the Legolas fan club, but 99% of the time, race is virtually indistinguishable at the table. The other 1% of the time, its not all that evident, either.

We now return you to your regularly programmed thread.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It makes mixed parties require multiple rulebooks, and that is often a problem. Not always, but often. Also, a Mage is way disproportionate to anything else in power level. And mummies really only have to fear magi, as anything else can only inconvenience them for a few decades. Magi can do nastiness to mummies.
Okay?

Thread moves fast, so you may have missed it, but I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t care at all about this line of discussion. WoD was either an invalid example because it’s really 3 games and thus objectively not comparable to expecting to be able to play an elf in a D&D game, or we are ignoring the mechanical issues to treat them as one game and thus a comparable case, and there is no hard reason a werewolf or mage couldn’t be in a vampire game.

Either way, the particulars of the WoD mechanics (which I’m very familiar with, and need no lesson of any kind on) are a topic that I am wholly uninterested in.
 

Tried. Failed. Much like Tolkien, I can't stand Martin's writing style. Oh crap, I just revealed that I've never read Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Does that destroy my GM credentials? How about if I've never read Lewis or Pratchett? Does it help if I read Feist? What about Elizabeth Moon?


Your GM credentials? You've discredited your right to be called a gamer. :mad: ;)

I admit, I did not care for Tolkien's writing style, but I did joylessly slog through his full set of works.

GoT is dry, but the next two books are pure heaven. Prachett was awesome for two books, good for several more, and then just another hack mis-using the genre for soap-boxing.
 

Thread moves fast, so you may have missed it, but I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t care at all about this line of discussion. WoD was either an invalid example because it’s really 3 games and thus objectively not comparable to expecting to be able to play an elf in a D&D game, or we are ignoring the mechanical issues to treat them as one game and thus a comparable case, and there is no hard reason a werewolf or mage couldn’t be in a vampire game.
The OP never never specified what system the campaign was using. I think because we're all so used to D&D we jumped to conclusions.
 

Never read the books. Did read alot of FR books in my youth.

EDIT: Do the Children of the Forest feature as viewpoint characters in the series? Are they like, main characters, that have whole chapters (perhaps several) dedicated to them? Or are they just secondary (or support) characters?
Depends.

The Children of the Forest are not promenient at all in the modern eras of Westeros.

If you play in ASOIAF in the earlier times like the Age of Heroes, then CotF is one of the major 4 races along with giants and white walkers.

So technically by stating "GOT campaign with magic and monsters", a ASOIAF fan could think it is Age of Heroes and want to play a CotF.
 

This is what session zero is about - and actually even before that. As a GM your invitation should define what the game is all about. If this invitation clearly says that this is a world of only humans, a player insisting on playing an elf is either willfully ignoring the premise or hasn't read the invitation. If no accord can be reached and this game cannot proceed without the willful player, I suppose that game will never be.

If an example on what the GM is right is needed, just assume that the invitation states that this is a Star Trek game - and the player still wants to play an elf. After having been offered the option of Romulan or Vulcan still inists on being an elf... I think the point is clear.
 


This is what session zero is about - and actually even before that. As a GM your invitation should define what the game is all about. If this invitation clearly says that this is a world of only humans, a player insisting on playing an elf is either willfully ignoring the premise or hasn't read the invitation. If no accord can be reached and this game cannot proceed without the willful player, I suppose that game will never be.

If an example on what the GM is right is needed, just assume that the invitation states that this is a Star Trek game - and the player still wants to play an elf. After having been offered the option of Romulan or Vulcan still inists on being an elf... I think the point is clear.
Actually if you combine the hit piece of snow OP, details that came up throughout the thread, knowledge of the setting and the OP's general behavior in ot there is good reason to make it look like the elf pc may have been one of the ones who knew more about the setting than the OP and wanted to play something that elf fits better
 

If my pitch says humans only, to which you agree, and then you insist on an elf or a gnome or some nonsense, you can get the heck out of my basement. I have no time for bad faith players.
 

Remove ads

Top