GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Minigiant]

I didn't expect Human Rayla to show her head. But I also might have.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There is no question here. The DM runs the game. If the player wants to play an elf they can wait for the next game. The DM is the one that has to do the work.

I don't understand this (seemly resent) notion that players can treat DMs like video game systems.

//Panjumanju

It's not really new, and it goes to a bad take by the gaming community at large that privileges the GM over players. The reality is that gaming is a social hobby, and should be between peers. The GM has a responsibility, socially, that doesn't sit well with demanding authority over the social contract as well as over the game (assuming a GM-directed game has been selected, of course). There's a rather bad take where this is assumed because the GM puts in more work, but that's a choice by the GM and shouldn't create social privilege in a healthy social group.

The OP, though, features a social group negotiation. The OP had already pitched one game, and not succeeded, but on the second pitch, the only a minority didn't buy into the game, which included a restriction on races available. I have no problem with restrictions that serve a theme, and this one player did lose out on the negotiation. This is a healthy interaction (although the framing of who's right is another bad take) in a social space to determine a leisure activity. Had more players disagreed with one or more of the concepts pitched, then this discussion should have turned out differently.

That said, no player is required to play a game they do not want to. This includes GMs. This shouldn't privilege GMs in the social negotiation any more than players, though.

 

[Panjumanju]

It's not really new, and it goes to a bad take by the gaming community at large that privileges the GM over players. The reality is that gaming is a social hobby, and should be between peers. The GM has a responsibility, socially, that doesn't sit well with demanding authority over the social contract as well as over the game (assuming a GM-directed game has been selected, of course). There's a rather bad take where this is assumed because the GM puts in more work, but that's a choice by the GM and shouldn't create social privilege in a healthy social group.

The OP, though, features a social group negotiation. The OP had already pitched one game, and not succeeded, but on the second pitch, the only a minority didn't buy into the game, which included a restriction on races available. I have no problem with restrictions that serve a theme, and this one player did lose out on the negotiation. This is a healthy interaction (although the framing of who's right is another bad take) in a social space to determine a leisure activity. Had more players disagreed with one or more of the concepts pitched, then this discussion should have turned out differently.

That said, no player is required to play a game they do not want to. This includes GMs. This shouldn't privilege GMs in the social negotiation any more than players, though.

I think we must fundimentally disagree.

Yes, the GM does have the authority, because they have to do the work. If you have a group where multiple people want to run, and few people want to play, I suppose that would form a different dynamic. But typically there are more than enough players for any GM. This excludes a GM-less model, of course.

A GM has to put in a lot more work than any player, at the table and when not at game. The power dynamic is not equal because the role is not equal, the work is not equal, and the expectations are not equal. The GM is not there to entertain you.

Expecting a GM to run a game for you that they're not into running is a presumption of great privilege, not to mention a grossly unhealthy social inequity.
//Pamjumanju

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think we must fundimentally disagree.

Yes, the GM does have the authority, because they have to do the work. If you have a group where multiple people want to run, and few people want to play, I suppose that would form a different dynamic. But typically there are more than enough players for any GM. This excludes a GM-less model, of course.

A GM has to put in a lot more work than any player, at the table and when not at game. The power dynamic is not equal because the role is not equal, the work is not equal, and the expectations are not equal. The GM is not there to entertain you.

This is a bad take. The dynamic isn't equal in the game, yes, but this doesn't translate to social authority outside the game. This is really just attempting to leverage one authority into a greater authority, and it's usually not used in a healthy way.

Expecting a GM to run a game for you that they're not into running is a presumption of great privilege, not to mention a grossly unhealthy social inequity.
//Pamjumanju

On this we absolutely agree -- and I said as much in the post you're responding to. No one, GM included, should be playing a game the do not want to. The difference, here, is that you seem to think it okay for one person to dictate these terms to others -- ie, that the GM can dictate to players what game they can play, and that this is then the player's problem rather than a social one demanding negotiation.

 

[Panjumanju]

This is a bad take. The dynamic isn't equal in the game, yes, but this doesn't translate to social authority outside the game. This is really just attempting to leverage one authority into a greater authority, and it's usually not used in a healthy way.

On this we absolutely agree -- and I said as much in the post you're responding to. No one, GM included, should be playing a game the do not want to. The difference, here, is that you seem to think it okay for one person to dictate these terms to others -- ie, that the GM can dictate to players what game they can play, and that this is then the player's problem rather than a social one demanding negotiation.

Your in-game against out-of-game distinction does not make any sense to me. The decisions you make about what the game is going to be has a pretty huge impact on when you're playing the game. If you mean that the fact that few people want to GM shouldn't impact what the players get to play...then I don't know what to tell you. It takes a lot of effort to run a game. It takes almost nothing to play. The least deference you could give to a GM is to let them run the show.

The GM (in this hypothetical situation) is not dictating what a player can play. There will always be other games were an elf PC is more appropriate. This is just not one of them.

Yes, I think it's entirely okay (and expected) for a GM to dictate these terms. "This game everyone is playing elves who have never seen anyone other than an elf having to venture beyond the woods because all their apples have rotted." Sure, okay. Don't want to play that? Okay, well if nobody wants to play it then the game isn't going to happen, but if one person in the group does not want to play an elf, that does not mean the GM's game concept has to change in any way. It means that player does not have to play. Maybe they can run the game they want to be in when this set of sessions is over?

All the player has to do is show up, and be as engaged or disengaged as they want to be (depending on the mechanical expectations of the system.) With a middling amount of variation, the GM absolutely has to be gunning for this game. I'm sorry, but if you're going to put in the 4 or 5 hours a week prep necessary to make a game happen, you should at least be able to work within the framework that got you excited to run something in the first place. I'm not advocating for the model of players having to follow along with GM's story - players find enough interesting ways to blow the heck out of whatever the GM has planned. But the basic premise should at least start in agreement.

Otherwise, you're just expecting the GM to be the dancing monkey for the player's enjoyment. (You in general - conceptually - not you specifically.)

//Panjumaju

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your in-game against out-of-game distinction does not make any sense to me. The decisions you make about what the game is going to be has a pretty huge impact on when you're playing the game. If you mean that the fact that few people want to GM shouldn't impact what the players get to play...then I don't know what to tell you. It takes a lot of effort to run a game. It takes almost nothing to play. The least deference you could give to a GM is to let them run the show.

The GM (in this hypothetical situation) is not dictating what a player can play. There will always be other games were an elf PC is more appropriate. This is just not one of them.

Yes, I think it's entirely okay (and expected) for a GM to dictate these terms. "This game everyone is playing elves who have never seen anyone other than an elf having to venture beyond the woods because all their apples have rotted." Sure, okay. Don't want to play that? Okay, well if nobody wants to play it then the game isn't going to happen, but if one person in the group does not want to play an elf, that does not mean the GM's game concept has to change in any way. It means that player does not have to play. Maybe they can run the game they want to be in when this set of sessions is over?

All the player has to do is show up, and be as engaged or disengaged as they want to be (depending on the mechanical expectations of the system.) With a middling amount of variation, the GM absolutely has to be gunning for this game. I'm sorry, but if you're going to put in the 4 or 5 hours a week prep necessary to make a game happen, you should at least be able to work within the framework that got you excited to run something in the first place. I'm not advocating for the model of players having to follow along with GM's story - players find enough interesting ways to blow the heck out of whatever the GM has planned. But the basic premise should at least start in agreement.

Otherwise, you're just expecting the GM to be the dancing monkey for the player's enjoyment. (You in general - conceptually - not you specifically.)

//Panjumaju

Well, yes, it appears we have some fundamental differences in game experience, as this is entirely from a D&D centered, traditional, GM gatekeeping point of view. I'd recommend branching out a bit, you might notice some differences. Or not, if your friends and fellow hobbyists are fine with you using your position as GM to leverage social authority over them, that's cool. I just think that it should be a group decisions, not a unilateral, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum by one person, especially when they're so very sensitive to a reversed position.

 

[Panjumanju]

Well, yes, it appears we have some fundamental differences in game experience, as this is entirely from a D&D centered, traditional, GM gatekeeping point of view. I'd recommend branching out a bit, you might notice some differences. Or not, if your friends and fellow hobbyists are fine with you using your position as GM to leverage social authority over them, that's cool. I just think that it should be a group decisions, not a unilateral, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum by one person, especially when they're so very sensitive to a reversed position.

Without malice, I think your implicit expectation that the GM should accomodate whatever conflicting concept you bring to a game by changing a fundimental aspect of what they wanted to run in the first place is not very appreciative of the work that the GM has to go through to bring you a night of gaming. I'm don't have to be the GM in this situation. If someone is good enough to put in the work necessary to run a game, I'm on board with whatever concept is going, unless it is of exceptional disinterest to me. I would never feel the need to shoehorn what I want to do as a character concept into a game where it does not belong, and I wouldn't expect anyone at my table to behave that way, either.

With concerns to your accusation of gatekeeping: if this point of clarity matters at all (and if only in the hope we could maybe get on the same page?) I'm usually game for anything. You want to run a bunny rabbit that has come to life and summons snowballs? Sure, we'll figure out a way to do that. But if the rules of the universe are "no horses", I am not going to be flexible to someone saying they need a horse because it's what they get at level 3 or whatever. I'd suggest a giant lizard, or whatever is within the setting. I am not GMing to fulfill player fantasies. We're all trying to have a good time together. I don't think one player's personal mission should overturn a game.

Also if it's anything we can establish common ground over, I rarely run D&D. I run a lot of strange systems with strange power dynamics between GMs and players, some of them GMless, but, if I have to run D&D - damn it if D&D and things like it aren't a tonne of work to set up week after week. If someone wants to play an elf in my human-centric game, flat-out "No elves. You can do an elf in just about any other D&D game. Let's stick to theme."

//Panjumanju

 

[Neonchameleon]

The GM (in this hypothetical situation) is not dictating what a player can play. There will always be other games were an elf PC is more appropriate. This is just not one of them.

Why is it not appropriate? This is where I have a problem with the GM's approach. The GM's pitch, as I have mentioned, does not explicitly say "human only". Indeed it implies it isn't because it's D&D.

There are also "everyman" character concepts that fit Game of Thrones and actually work better in a fantasy setting if the character is a non-human even if the setting is human dominated - in particular characters from far away lands who are getting mixed up in this stuff. I've already given the example of ambassador's secretary Vir Koto in Babylon 5 who's a Centauri (which could easily translate to elf with the mix of arrogance and fading empire) - and is one of the two most ordinary characters in the setting (the other being Zack Allen). Being a literal non-human allows an outlander to be a visible outlander while having notable cultural traits that aren't (normally) real world traits that would require research. And outlanders generally aren't less of normal characters than lords or knights.

Literally the only reason given in this thread that the character concept was not appropriate has been "Because I am the DM and that is not 100% how I pictured things and I am utterly inflexible on this." Now it doesn't say anything better about the player that they went in with a "the rules say I can because it's core" than that the DM went in with "The rules say I can overrule the rules and because I'm the DM it's my way or the highway regardless of how it works with what I actually pitched." (But only one of them actually has absolute control over the game).

Otherwise, you're just expecting the GM to be the dancing monkey for the player's enjoyment. (You in general - conceptually - not you specifically.)

On the contrary. The only one expecting other people to be the dancing monkey is the DM.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Why is it not appropriate? This is where I have a problem with the GM's approach. The GM's pitch, as I have mentioned, does not explicitly say "human only". Indeed it implies it isn't because it's D&D.

Where in the OP does it say the system being used is D&D?!?

On the contrary. The only one expecting other people to be the dancing monkey is the DM.

Hahahahahahaha!!!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Where in the OP does it say the system being used is D&D?!?

"because the core book says Elf is a playable race"

It may not have been D&D you were going to use (although I think you confirmed it later) - but there was a system attached to the pitch and it was one where elves were playable or this would have been meaningless. There are admittedly a few systems like Shadowrun or MERP to which this could also apply.

Hahahahahahaha!!!

Was that your DM's evil laugh as confirmation?