GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[prabe]

Italics: This sort of heresy can only be atoned for with blood.

I figure it's something like apostasy, then, if I mention the only things Martin's written that I care for are a couple short stories from the early eighties.

It probably doesn't help that I don't care for unfinished stories, and my exposure to A Song of Ice and Fire was through my past job recording talking books--practically no large novel survives hearing ~50 pages, then two weeks later hearing another ~50 pages that are ~200 pages later. Of course, I kinda detested Armageddon Rag, so there's a good chance I'm not his market.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not going to read the books because I don't like Martin's writing style, same reason why I'm not going to read Tolkien. Sorry that some players think they should always get to play whatever character they want no matter what, I clearly disagree with that position. Lucky for me there are no RPG police that are going to make me game the way you and others like you want me to game. As a bonus for you there are no RPG police that will force you to game the way I like to game. We all get to game the way we want! Yay for diversity!

If it makes any of the anti-me folks feel better, Player #4 got a slot in a kitchen sink D&D game at the shop cause I stole two players from that game. Apparently my new game is popular!

As a bonus for me especially, Player #4 was the only "D&D only" player, so I have also convinced the group to switch to a system that is not D&D! Yay! Diversity!

You should probably pick some other setting in that case since you are so against learning it & seemingly incapable of steering a player towards something that fits into your narrow subset of a subset of the source material but were so outraged at your failure you came here for support ad reinforcement of your rightness. Take this set of failings n your part as an inexperienced gm and grow from it so you can do better in the future.

@Crusadius "Like “game of thrones” does not mean ”is the game of thrones”." cuts both ways and even justifies an elf with the same veracity you are asserting it to exclude an elf. The problem is not refusal to include an elf. The problem is the inept cartmanesque handling of player4 who seems to knw the setting better than the gm wanting to run it

@Jd Smith1 that is muddled valaryan bloodline, there is one person of full high valerian blood in the series. That person silver hair, purple eyes, & quite a bit of not so human going on.

 

[Jd Smith1]

You should probably pick some other setting in that case since you are so against learning it & seemingly incapable of steering a player towards something that fits into your narrow subset of a subset of the source material but were so outraged at your failure you came here for support ad reinforcement of your rightness. Take this set of failings n your part as an inexperienced gm and grow from it so you can do better in the future.

I've been GMing since 1979, and he's right. This is a hobby, not guidance counselling. Boot the troublesome player.

@Jd Smith1 that is muddled valaryan bloodline, there is one person of full high valerian blood in the series. That person silver hair, purple eyes, & quite a bit of not so human going on.

'Not so Human'? What does that even mean?

There is nothing in the books that establishes a non-Human aspect of the Valerian. You're just projecting assumptions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sorry, but given that the vast majority of people's exposure to Game of Thrones is the HBO series is there a serious claim that you must read the books to be able to run a GoT game?

Color me unconvinced.

 

[zarionofarabel]

You should probably pick some other setting in that case since you are so against learning it & seemingly incapable of steering a player towards something that fits into your narrow subset of a subset of the source material but were so outraged at your failure you came here for support ad reinforcement of your rightness. Take this set of failings n your part as an inexperienced gm and grow from it so you can do better in the future.

Well. I am not, nor did I claim, to be running GoT. I did say "like GoT" as opposed to "like LotR/Hobbit" or "like Harry Potter" so players would have an idea of what kinds of stories, plot lines, scenes, and characters, might be included. To then jump to the conclusion that some tiny element of the TV show is to be featured at the forefront of the game's narrative seems like quite the leap of logic to me.

@Crusadius "Like “game of thrones” does not mean ”is the game of thrones”." cuts both ways and even justifies an elf with the same veracity you are asserting it to exclude an elf. The problem is not refusal to include an elf. The problem is the inept cartmanesque handling of player4 who seems to knw the setting better than the gm wanting to run it

For some reason I doubt that very many people would see it this way. The results of the poll is evidence enough for me to believe that only GoT fanatics or those with the erroneous belief that GMs should cater to a player's every demand would see it that way. The language and insults you use in your response proves it to me.

@Jd Smith1 that is muddled valaryan bloodline, there is one person of full high valerian blood in the series. That person silver hair, purple eyes, & quite a bit of not so human going on.

Human with magic, is human with magic, NOT an elf. Sorry, but not everyone is inclined to read so much into the material as presented. As far as I can tell from the TV show as presented, all the human characters are humans. A handful of non-human characters exist and feature as vestigial support characters at best. Even the dragons and giants and undead guys are no more than window dressing. The TV show was about the human characters.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well. I am not, nor did I claim, to be running GoT. I did say "like GoT" as opposed to "like LotR/Hobbit" or "like Harry Potter" so players would have an idea of what kinds of stories, plot lines, scenes, and characters, might be included. To then jump to the conclusion that some tiny element of the TV show is to be featured at the forefront of the game's narrative seems like quite the leap of logic to me.

What's that? you as the hopeful GM failed to convey the game you wanted to run? Topped it off with another failure to apply GM skills needed to correct the view by directing a player towards things that do exist within the very limited subset of a poorly described game you want to run rather than throwing a fit about how you don't want to learn the source material you poorly referenced when presented with deeper knowledge?

Sometimes a player just isn't interested in a game, but all indications see to indicate that your failures were the larger problem. Take your lesson & do better in the future.

 

[zarionofarabel]

What's that? you as the hopeful GM failed to convey the game you wanted to run? Topped it off with another failure to apply GM skills needed to correct the view by directing a player towards things that do exist within the very limited subset of a poorly described game you want to run rather than throwing a fit about how you don't want to learn the source material you poorly referenced when presented with deeper knowledge?

Sometimes a player just isn't interested in a game, but all indications see to indicate that your failures were the larger problem. Take your lesson & do better in the future.

Well, one out of three players got it wrong, the other three got it right. Player #4 was given the chance to get on board and decided not to, do you still think one player's wants outweigh what the other four participant's want? If yes, then why am I as the GM the one that must lose out? Because I'm the GM? That seems unfair. It would also seem unfair to force the other three players that were on board with the original premise to give that up to please Player #4. What makes Player #4 so special?!?!?!?

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, one out of three players got it wrong, the other three got it right. Player #4 was given the chance to get on board and decided not to, do you still think one player's wants outweigh what the other four participant's want? If yes, then why am I as the GM the one that must lose out? Because I'm the GM? That seems unfair. It would also seem unfair to force the other three players that were on board with the original premise to give that up to please Player #4. What makes Player #4 so special?!?!?!?

No I think player4 probably knew more about the setting you incorrectly declared the source & you acted towards him as you've acted in the first 15-20 pages of this thread when your athoratah was challenged with setting. knowledge about the setting you poorly referenced that you were uninterested in. Also I already pointed out how players 1 & 2 were already playing an exception you rubber stamped. Cartman is rarely a good example to follow when disagreement over something is encountered & that particular Cartanism is probably the worst thing you could ever do in any situation.

 

[zarionofarabel]

No I think player4 probably knew more about the setting you incorrectly declared the source & you acted towards him as you've acted in the first 15-20 pages of this thread when your athoratah was challenged with setting. knowledge about the setting you poorly referenced that you were uninterested in. Also I already pointed out how players 1 & 2 were already playing an exception you rubber stamped. Cartman is rarely a good example to follow when disagreement over something is encountered & that particular Cartanism is probably the worst thing you could ever do in any situation.

Well in the context of the show, Players #1, #2, and #3 definitely chose concepts that aligned with the characters that featured in the main storylines. GoT, the TV show, is not at all about the peasants, it's about the Knights and Nobles, at least the show I watched was.

Sorry that you don't like how I handled the situation but Player #4 was unwilling to buy into the premise. Players #1, #2, and #3 were on board from the get go. So I as GM should, what, kill the campaign to make Player #4 happy? If that were the case, then all four players would have to find new games as I have zero interest in running the kitchen sink fantasy Player #4 was looking for. As GM I am only interested in running games I am interested in and will not be forced to run a game I have no interest in running. Being GM is not a job, I don't get paid to do it, I do it for fun. I don't have fun running kitchen sink murderhobo fantasy adventure games. I haven't had fun running those games in decades. I won't ever run a kitchen sink murderhobo fantasy adventure game ever again. Lucky for me there are lots of players that are willing to play the kinds of games I want to run.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No I think player4 probably knew more about the setting you incorrectly declared the source & you acted towards him as you've acted in the first 15-20 pages of this thread when your athoratah was challenged with setting. knowledge about the setting you poorly referenced that you were uninterested in. Also I already pointed out how players 1 & 2 were already playing an exception you rubber stamped. Cartman is rarely a good example to follow when disagreement over something is encountered & that particular Cartanism is probably the worst thing you could ever do in any situation.

I've seen some people really double down on a wrong take, but this is pretty impressive! You're now claiming that it was the 4th player -- the one that wanted to play an elf in a setting that doesn't have them, books or movies -- that had the best take on the setting because you've imagined they've read the books? As if, again, reading the books makes one an expert on what GoT conveys when the vast majority of people (gamers included) have only ever interacted with the series? I mean, there's a huge dose of imagination here, alongside some serious elitism, all to try to definitively claim that you understand the situation that you weren't a part of better than the person who told you about it to begin with? Wow, man.