GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[macd21]

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.

Not really? Assuming the limited information from the OP was all the players had, then sure, a player might have made a Cersei character when the campaign assumes Starks, or vice versa. Either would have been acceptable character choices, given the GM’s pitch. But while both of those concepts would be appropriate for a generic GOT-campaign, ‘elf’ isn’t.

And again: even if that was the case, the GM then explained what he was planning in more detail, at which point the player should have chosen an appropriate character concept.

 

[Minigiant]

Not really? Assuming the limited information from the OP was all the players had, then sure, a player might have made a Cersei character when the campaign assumes Starks, or vice versa. Either would have been acceptable character choices, given the GM’s pitch. But while both of those concepts would be appropriate for a generic GOT-campaign, ‘elf’ isn’t.

And again: even if that was the case, the GM then explained what he was planning in more detail, at which point the player should have chosen an appropriate character concept.

My point is any character concept is appropriate until the GM clearly states it isn't. If the GM isn't clear, you get a person wanting to be a Child of the Forest or a Essos Mage.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

This was also the point where I quit ASOIAF, and I likewise have not watched the series. For me it was the point where I said, "I'll come back once you are ready to write a focused narrative that respects my time as a reader more than your self-indulgence in side plots and characters." And considering that I had also dumped Wheel of Time after a similar problem, this has since shaped my reading and viewing preferences since then.

My point is any character concept is appropriate until the GM clearly states it isn't. If the GM isn't clear, you get a person wanting to be a Child of the Forest or a Essos Mage.

Others in this thread have suggested Birthright for running a GoT inspired D&D game. But that's a game of elves and dwarves. A lot of people online have commented that Matt Colville's D&D games feel inspired by GoT. But it's also a world of playable tieflings and dragonborn. So saying "I want to run a game inspired by GoT" is definitely vague.

 

[macd21]

My point is any character concept is appropriate until the GM clearly states it isn't. If the GM isn't clear, you get a person wanting to be a Child of the Forest or a Essos Mage.

‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.

 

[Jd Smith1]

‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.

Exactly.

 

[Minigiant]

‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.

You forgot the "but with magic and monsters".

That defaulted me to Age of Heroes style GOT. I'd personally still be a human but it is possible that a ASOIAF superfan might get confused.

 

[tetrasodium]

‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.

Thst case isn't so slam dunk when "Sir Knight the Knightliest of Knights" & "Lady Noble the Noblest of Nobles" are deemed "regular people". Even if you wanted to argue reasons why a child of the forest isn't "regular" there were absolutely regular people among the essos mages including examples far more regular than either of those two going back to the poorly framed pitch you are using regular people to argue against.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have a question regarding the extent of GM authority. I would like people to answer this poll to see what the gaming community thinks should happen in a particular situation.

What are we playing? Because there is seriously a lot of difference between games. And an elf is not out of line with the pitch of "D&D regular people, game of thrones".

If we are playing D&D or another explicitly kitchen sink fantasy game then I seriously question whether Sir Knightliest of the Knights and Lady Nobliest of the Nobles are any more "regular people" than the elf and I wonder which the DM is objecting to (and whether the elf is a wood elf or a high elf). And we have a case of the DM having decided that in their fantasy Game-of-Thrones, despite being D&D it's not just all races on the continent that are human it's the entire world. The DM clearly isn't flexible enough to even cope with the idea of a visiting merchant or ambassador (or, more likely, ambassador's secretary)* and the game is therefore going to be ... frustrating. Neither the player nor the GM come out well at all but the GM loses hard.

If we are playing Apocalypse World the players all ask the MC why the hell they started world building before Session Zero anyway.

If we're playing WFRP the big question is "which type of elf and what are they doing there? And are they anything to do with the Wood Elves setting themselves up as the Lady of the Lake?"

If we're playing Fate, again the question is "what does being an elf mean?" Strange foreigner from far away is one thing, ambassador of the Seelie court is another.

If the pitch is Mechwarrior with court politics I wonder what planet the player is from when they want to be an elf. Here I'm on the DM's side - as I am in any system that does not by default include elves.

The game matters.

* If the pitch is either "Fantasy Londo Molari or, better yet, Fantasy Vir Koto dropped into this place on the far side of the world to keep them out of trouble" I'm immediately on the player's side. Vir Koto is absolutely a regular person dropped into a Game of Thrones-like situation.

 

[Jd Smith1]

You forgot the "but with magic and monsters".

That defaulted me to Age of Heroes style GOT. I'd personally still be a human but it is possible that a ASOIAF superfan might get confused.

In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game. Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters. GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.

 

[Minigiant]

In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game. Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters. GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.

Again the DM didn't state the time period of the universe they were basing it on PostRR, RR, PreRR, Targaryen Civil War, Landing of First Men, Age of Heroes.

Then they didn't specify tone nor genre.

Then they weren't clear on their tweaks.

That's why I don't GM many games based other others IP unless it's very specifically understood where we are coming from.