GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)
- Thread starter zarionofarabel
- Start date
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
Back in day I would have voted for the GM, no question. These days I kind of side with the player. Not because I would want an elf in the game (I barely want them in my much more traditional D&D game 
), but because I think the GM needs to make more of an effort to get the player to buy in and make some compromises. If the game is GoT like, why couldn't some mostly human-looking person hail from the lineage of the "children of the forest" or whatever and make discovering that part of their background and entwine it into the campaign? Perhaps the even begin to change as they grow older and/or visit sacred sites or meet others of their kind, etc. . .?
In my current game, the handout I made explaining stuff before character creation detailed how in the setting half-orcs are ultra-rare (orcs themselves were the victims of genocide 10000 years ago) and I said that "tiefling are myth." There is a tiefling and a half-orc in the group! I just shook my head and said, "Let's work it out." And we did.
Oh and as for the ridiculous question about if you can play a GoT style game with 5E, the fact that I ran one with 3E suggests to me that it is totally possible. Then again, regardless of the system it is all "D&D" to me the way all instamatic cameras are Polaroids, regardless if they actually are or not.
), but because I think the GM needs to make more of an effort to get the player to buy in and make some compromises. If the game is GoT like, why couldn't some mostly human-looking person hail from the lineage of the "children of the forest" or whatever and make discovering that part of their background and entwine it into the campaign? Perhaps the even begin to change as they grow older and/or visit sacred sites or meet others of their kind, etc. . .?In my current game, the handout I made explaining stuff before character creation detailed how in the setting half-orcs are ultra-rare (orcs themselves were the victims of genocide 10000 years ago) and I said that "tiefling are myth." There is a tiefling and a half-orc in the group! I just shook my head and said, "Let's work it out." And we did.
Oh and as for the ridiculous question about if you can play a GoT style game with 5E, the fact that I ran one with 3E suggests to me that it is totally possible. Then again, regardless of the system it is all "D&D" to me the way all instamatic cameras are Polaroids, regardless if they actually are or not.
Last edited:
Imaro
Legend
I'm not seeing how any of that makes D&D unsuitable? You have humans in D&D. The number and frequency of magical items and creatures is up to the GM... and I'm not so sure GoT is low magic
The 5e engine?? You mean D&D (at least in its current rules iteration) right?
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Not voting, because neither side acquits themselves well. The DM doesn’t do anything to actually establish buy-in, and the player goes full passive-aggressive right from the start.
The correct approach would be for the player to say something like “I’m really not feeling a human-only campaign, is there some sort of compromise where I play something a little different?”
This is also why it’s a good reason as a DM to not put weeks into fleshing out a campaign before you’ve even run the idea by the players yet. The more pre-work you’ve done, the more a compromise feels like a capitulation.
The correct approach would be for the player to say something like “I’m really not feeling a human-only campaign, is there some sort of compromise where I play something a little different?”
This is also why it’s a good reason as a DM to not put weeks into fleshing out a campaign before you’ve even run the idea by the players yet. The more pre-work you’ve done, the more a compromise feels like a capitulation.
Adding to this... it feels like the summary is missing too much to stack the vote against the player
Rune
Once A Fool
Back in the 2e era, I was going to run a game for one player who was really into anime (and associated aesthetics) and wanted her character to have purple eyes. I wouldn’t have it. And that game never happened.
Was I in the right? I sure thought so at the time. But I definitely didn’t win.
I’ve learned since that it is the DM’s responsibility to get the players’ buy-in before starting the game. Any parameters the DM wants to establish need to be clearly communicated for that buy-in to happen.
If not everyone buys-in, it’s time for compromise. You’ve got to ask questions to find out why people want to play what they want to play (and that means all the players, not just the ones who haven’t bought-in). Then, ideally, find a way to work it in that works with your conception of the campaign.
Which should be fluid, by the way. If it isn’t, you are effectively saying that your vision is the only one that counts and that is...not a good way to keep players interested. Pro tip: players are more invested when they feel some ownership in a campaign.
With that said, the DM shouldn’t feel pressured into running a game they don’t feel excited about. That way lies burnout and disappointment for all.
At the last, if no consensus can be found, it is the DM’s responsibility to say, “Look. I really have no interest in running the game you want to play, for all the reasons I’ve already put forth. And I’m definitely not going to pour a bunch of time and energy into a running a game that doesn’t interest me. Someone else should DM.”
Was I in the right? I sure thought so at the time. But I definitely didn’t win.
I’ve learned since that it is the DM’s responsibility to get the players’ buy-in before starting the game. Any parameters the DM wants to establish need to be clearly communicated for that buy-in to happen.
If not everyone buys-in, it’s time for compromise. You’ve got to ask questions to find out why people want to play what they want to play (and that means all the players, not just the ones who haven’t bought-in). Then, ideally, find a way to work it in that works with your conception of the campaign.
Which should be fluid, by the way. If it isn’t, you are effectively saying that your vision is the only one that counts and that is...not a good way to keep players interested. Pro tip: players are more invested when they feel some ownership in a campaign.
With that said, the DM shouldn’t feel pressured into running a game they don’t feel excited about. That way lies burnout and disappointment for all.
At the last, if no consensus can be found, it is the DM’s responsibility to say, “Look. I really have no interest in running the game you want to play, for all the reasons I’ve already put forth. And I’m definitely not going to pour a bunch of time and energy into a running a game that doesn’t interest me. Someone else should DM.”
Last edited:
TheSword
Legend
In the absence of someone else to DM. What happens then? Four people miss out?
BookTenTiger
He / Him
I voted for the Players because I will always side with the people against an authoritarian ruler.
Rune
Once A Fool
If no one else is willing to DM, the group is just going to have to decide whether they’d rather play the DM’s vision or not at all. And if it’s just one player holding the game hostage, the group needs to collectively decide how to proceed. Or not.
But the point of the majority of my post was that it absolutely should not get that far, if all parties genuinely want to play a collective game. And if they don’t, it’s probably not going to be a fun experience, anyway.
I've been thinking about this, and I think I have an aversion to the term "authority". The GM is the in-game arbiter of rules and guides the narrative for the duration of the game session, but doesn't rule the social group like some kind of weird dictator unless they're in some Jack Chick comic strip. In this context, the GM has no 'authority'; they're just one person in a negotiation about what to play next.
