GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

Who would you side with?

  • The Player

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • The GM

    Votes: 58 85.3%

Your apology is accepted.

However, even using the dumbed-down, simplistic garbage that is the HBO version, there's no Elves.
Meh, I read the books up to Feast of Crows, and that's when I realized GRRM's boundless capacity to personally hate his fans. Like, personally and individually. I opted out. Haven't even watched the HBO series. The writing was good, but not super. The main claim to fame the books have is that the author kills main characters for the shock value and to play against tropes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Your honor, my client, Player 4, claims they were acting in a spirit of collaboration by making a "yes, and" statement. Player 4 already agreed to play in a GoT style game. By stating they wished to play an elf, Player 4 communicated that the addition of elves did not alter their own concept of what constitutes a "GoT style game."

In the case of GM vs Player 4, the defense asks that the jury side with the party who makes the effort to add collaboratively through "Yes, and" statements, rather than the party guilty of "no" statements.
Judge, "We agree. Yes but player 4 must play the DM $100 per session with an $1000 not returnable advance. Defense will pay court fees, gm lawyer fees, and gm missing work fee. " Case close.
 

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.
Guess I am forger gamer now. I only read the hobbit and the other three. When I was interested in reading the other works, well I just listened to the fan people about the rest of the series and quickly gave a pass because I was not going to be one of those people.
At 14 I learn why some books are called armchair books, because you have to read them in an armchair or fall asleep. Reading in an armchair, at least you would wake up when the book hit the floor.
 

The Prattville School of Elmore County Alabama USA will be having American baseball tryouts.
Coming out the dung out wearing an American Football helmet and carrying a hockey stick, Fernis- 77, " I want to play coach!"
Everyone in the crowd, "Let him play."
Jasper, " Is okay if I shot the ball with my shotgun?"
Everyone in the crowd, "Let him play."
Ooaft, "Can I use a basketball instead when I pitching"
Everyone in the crowd, "Let him play."
Word Nerd, "Well the announcement did not mention the kids couldn't change the game. I think the coach should have posted session 0 posting before the posting. In fact in need a neg 1 posting about session o posting."
 

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.
Plus you got to watch the making of game of thrones costumes.
Plus you have read ALL Martin's writings about GOT.
Plus we have Martin's GOT notes when he threw in a trash can and toss the can out but the fans save the notes.
Plus you have read any and every letter Martin every wrote about GOT. Including the infamous, "I was high on MAD DOG 20/20 and free basing a turkey" Letter.
Plus you have to read the 14 volume set of Oofta's "Martin Writing GOT to AD copy."
Plus you have to read.....
 

It's less about the high mortality rate as much as the show and the books lack a single focal points. There are so many stories going on that are interconnected that it would you would have to say their are 80 PCs or 0 PCs.
Pfft, all you have to realize is that this is a version of troupe play and that the PCs are not all at the table at the same time.
 

The hit piece this started with in the OP and complete lack of detail to some of the claims that would support the OP if it were as you say suggests that player4 was probably the one who tried working with the gm and through inexperience the gm refused to even attempt to direct a willingness to work with him towards something fitting.
No? The player insisted on playing an elf, in a game without elves. The GM explained to him that it was an all human game, but the player wouldn’t change his mind. There’s nothing to work out.
 

It has PCs. Anyone who read the books or watched the series can see that. They are the ones that the focus is on. Cersei, Bronn, Tyrion, etc. They just have a very high mortality rate in that setting.
If Cersei was a PC, her class was "dating the gm", her pettiness fueled incompetence rose to astounding levels & if not for varys/littlefinger/tyrion/queen of roses kings landing would have torn itself apart long before it finally fell. There is no way a group playing anything but maybe fiasco would tolerate such a PC
 


If Cersei was a PC, her class was "dating the gm", her pettiness fueled incompetence rose to astounding levels & if not for varys/littlefinger/tyrion/queen of roses kings landing would have torn itself apart long before it finally fell. There is no way a group playing anything but maybe fiasco would tolerate such a PC

Seriously? Its called playing a role. Where is it written that PCs MUST be heroic, competent, or even sane? What an inflexible view of the hobby; I mean, there's no wrong way to play, but IMO a party of colorless PCs would be pretty pointless to GM. It would rank up with a group made of random strangers who meet in a tavern and are hired by a mysterious stranger to get a powerful widget from a nearby, illogically-placed ruin.

I much prefer a group of PCs with individual backstories, personalities, foibles, and natures as compared to cookie-cutter stereotypes.
 

Remove ads

Top