GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Jd Smith1]

Then who does GOT revolve around?

Because that's a conversation many have. And depending on who a person chooses determines where the foci of the game is.

It revolves around the 'game of thrones' and, much more indirectly, the potential conflict between the last dragons and the White Walkers. Although the latter has yet to manifest itself in the books.

It is a tales of an age, not of individuals.

 

[prabe]

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

There's nothing to be said your prefered PCs couldn't also be heroic (though I realize that's not exactly how your table plays), and the same applies to NPCs and villains, IMO (which you didn't mention--I'm not saying we disagree here).

 

[Jd Smith1]

There's nothing to be said your prefered PCs couldn't also be heroic (though I realize that's not exactly how your table plays), and the same applies to NPCs and villains, IMO (which you didn't mention--I'm not saying we disagree here).

I get your point. They could, and sometime are, but as a general rule enlightened self-interest is what motivates people in my campaign.

Part of it, I believe, is my narrative style. When a band of PCs has walked past numerous hungry, sick, and destitute beggars on their way to meet an important NPC who is concerned because EVIL FOLK #23 have abducted six healthy, pretty farm girls, it's tough to maintain the standard-issue heroic persona with a straight face.

Most fantasy settings conveniently ignore the sort of issues any community of people has.

 

[prabe]

I get your point. They could, and sometime are, but as a general rule enlightened self-interest is what motivates people in my campaign.

Part of it, I believe, is my narrative style. When a band of PCs has walked past numerous hungry, sick, and destitute beggars on their way to meet an important NPC who is concerned because EVIL FOLK #23 have abducted six healthy, pretty farm girls, it's tough to maintain the standard-issue heroic persona with a straight face.

Most fantasy settings conveniently ignore the sort of issues any community of people has.

Yeah. I think we're disagreeing more around the edges than in the middle, here.

 

[Minigiant]

It revolves around the 'game of thrones' and, much more indirectly, the potential conflict between the last dragons and the White Walkers. Although the latter has yet to manifest itself in the books.

It is a tales of an age, not of individuals.

That's not a "who" and pushes the point that there really aren't PCs in the base story. The story and setting is based on ages and one of the ages contains elf-like beings.

GM Authority revolves around GM Clarity. Especially when GMs uses ideas and concepts created by others that players could read on their own.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That's not a "who" and pushes the point that there really aren't PCs in the base story. The story and setting is based on ages and one of the ages contains elf-like beings.

GM Authority revolves around GM Clarity. Especially when GMs uses ideas and concepts created by others that players could read on their own.

The ages did not contain elf-like beings. Again, you're projecting assumptions.

I don't think you've really grasped the core nature of the novels; stop trying to fit it into some neat fantasy niche.

GM authority resides in the office. What the GM says, is.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

What are you going on about? Cersi was basically one of the kardashians thrown in charge of kings landing who went around having sex & backstabbing people over petty slights till it finally collapsed around her with every bridge burned. She was the quivilant of the pc that constantly sabotages a campaign & says "I'm only playing my alignment"

 

[Lanefan]

GOT has no PCs. That's the point of the setting.

I disagree with that. GoT is crawling with PCs, or at least great ideas for same.

(dibs on Bronn!)

 

[Lanefan]

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.

There's 80, obviously. Well, actually more like about 50 - some relatively major characters are clearly NPCs e.g. Tywin Lannister.

There are so many important characters of power and skill that it would be difficult to say which ones where being played.

This is different from the older eras where who was the PCs would be obvious.

This assumes only a very small number of PCs in the campaign. I love the way GoT has lots of 'em, coming and going and having their storylines interweave at different points.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think you could run a game where all of those characters are PC's. You'd have to run multiple games with multiple groups to make that argument valid. It's a really big stretch. big world wide stories with people spread out all over them just don't really work for an RPG setting. Now DM can change up other parts of the world as the PC's progress giving a campaign that feel that there are other movers and shakers.

Er...just among my four active players, my current campaign setting has something like 20-25 living PCs in it (and that number is very likely to grow by a few either tonight or next weekend). If I add in the PCs of players no longer active that number gets well into the 50s at least.

Double or triple (or more!) those numbers if you want to count dead PCs as well.

Obviously they don't/didn't all get played at once - but as time goes on they do/did all get played.