GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

Who would you side with?

  • The Player

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • The GM

    Votes: 58 85.3%

no you proved nothing with your claim. "some groups" & an anecdote is not proof of anything. You claimed that the type of behavior displayed by Cersi would be ok in a PC because there might be "some groups" with a gm so oblivious to a problem player's toxic antics that other players in the group were forced to resort to "PvP" to keep a player like that from destroying the campaign they feel forced to continue in for whatever reason instead of finding a different gm who may or may not be in the area & social circles they have access to.
If someone wanted to play a character with a Cersei-like personality and outlook I'd allow it without a second thought. That said, I'd warn the player that it might not go over that well and that having a second character on standby might be a good idea. :)

And one or more of several things would happen:
--- the other PCs would be on board with the Cersei-type, likely leading to an evil campaign
--- the other PCs would put up with her but not necessarily support her or condone what she does (e.g. turn a blind eye)
--- the other PCs would run her out of the party
--- the other PCs would kill her, or get someone else to do it.

Chances are, you'd get two or three of those reactions within the same party: some would like 'Cersei', some would oppose her, etc.
We haven't had kender protected by weasel wording & absolute morality for decades due to that exact reason. That's an experiment that was tried during 2e & recognized as a massive failure.
By some. Not by all.
No I summarized this atrocity. I may not be an "arbiter" but I can point at how the sort of toxic behavior cersi displayed towards other wound be players if she were a pc that were the sort of thing to drive groups apart & damages the experience of the other players or how kender were excised with extreme prejudice for all of those reasons while you & max can only say that it might be ok for "some groups" & cite anecdotes.
Cersei herself, as portrayed in the books and TV series, wouldn't really work as an adventuring PC; not because of her personality or anything like that, but because she doesn't really do any adventuring. But an adventurer with Cersei's personality etc.? Bring it on! :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


which goes back to the original "GoT has no PCs" that @Maxperson was arguing against by holding up cersi among others.
I don't care.

It's a novel. It's an entirely kind of story, and an entirely different kind of story-generation. Novels have protagonists. TRPG campaigns have PCs. They're different. @Maxperson was absolutely correct, regardless of any characters' behaviors.
 


no you proved nothing with your claim. "some groups" & an anecdote is not proof of anything. You claimed that the type of behavior displayed by Cersi would be ok in a PC because there might be "some groups"
I absolutely proved that you were wrong. You claimed an absolute. When you do that, if even one single table doesn't do it that way, you are wrong. I have a table that embraces that sort of play when it comes up. Therefore you are wrong with your claim.
with a gm so oblivious to a problem player's toxic antics that other players in the group were forced to resort to "PvP" to keep a player like that from destroying the campaign they feel forced to continue in for whatever reason instead of finding a different gm who may or may not be in the area & social circles they have access to. We haven't had kender protected by weasel wording & absolute morality for decades due to that exact reason. That's an experiment that was tried during 2e & recognized as a massive failure.
So you have no idea how our table does things, so you are blindly talking out of your rear here. Nobody in that group is toxic and the Dm is not oblivious to anything. Nor are the players killing that player to keep the campaign from being destroyed.

How about you keep your One True Wayism to yourself and just accept that people can enjoy things that you clearly don't.
 

Absolutely, cersi is a character from the novels & tv series so we can point at that as the campaign if she were a pc. She repeatedly engages in petty backstabbing of everyone who could be considered a pc in that campaign to the point where the whole thing eventually collapses. If a player's "fun"involves backstabbing the other players and derailing the campaign then it is absolutely badwrongfun
Not if the other players are also having fun. You just claimed that an entire table and DM who are all enjoying themselves are having badwrongfun. You don't see a problem with that?
 




If you define PC as protagonist, then GOT has no protagonist as there are no "leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text". The number of important characters are so many that none of them can could as leading.

If a PC is just any viewpoint character, then GOT has many PCs as it has many viewpoint characters.

My point is and always has be that the DM was very unclear which viewpoint character he was mimicking his or her campaign around. If I was expecting a Robb Stark game and got a Cersei Lannister game, I'd be very mad. Such lack of clarity is how you get elves.
 

Remove ads

Top