GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[tetrasodium]

With this I agree. That's why I am so very confused by the vehement negative reaction many seem to have with me limiting playable races. If they are far from the most important thing on the character sheet, what does it matter if they are limited. After all, that still leaves all the things that are not the character's race.

As others pointed out, your blazing spotlight of inexperience is the only reason you might be claiming that d&d is not "default" for ttrpgs with playable elves in core. There are other systems with elves in core like pathfinder shadowrun & so on... but even one of those doesn't change the more important part about the initial poor handling. The fact that your playing "you don't know what system I'm running, it could be important" is another tick in the inexperienced column. If it wasn't d&d or it was some ultra-obscure niche setting where it might matter rather than d&d or some d&d in all but name system you'd just name the sytem & people would agree if it needed more clarification all but outright confirms it.

It's ok that you made a newbie mistake as a newbie gm, it won't be your last The important part is that you learn from it, unfortunately for the long term health of your group it seems that you are insulted by any advice & take the very idea that there are things you could do better as an insult to your authoratah. People are saying you were wrong because instead of expending even the tiniest effort working with player4 to find out what about an elf interested them & redirecting that interest to one of the many things that do or could exist within your setting capable of wearing that interest of player4's towards the elf. Much like your choice to play the you don't know the system card without giving details your lack of detail in the player trying to work with cartman posing as cartman speaks volumes about your failings there.

It's ok to say x race is not accceptable & I'm sure there are several I refuse with the following house rule

Spoiler

• Allowed races: limited to those in Rising from the last war &those in exploring Eberron, the phb’s variant human is not allowed.
• Allowed backgrounds Oracle of war, Adventurer’s almanac, & if applicable ExE backgrounds.

but when a player says "can I play a tabaxi" I'm not above saying "they aren't really a thing but znir pact gnolls are" prior to gnoll being added in one of those & give a quick 30 second rundown on them to see if there is interest in the player saying "wow cool I wanna be a znir pact gnoll" as the player did before denying it. Now I'd probably deny it now on the grounds that the double move it has destroys the already mostly destroyed tactical elements within 5e. I've also said "firbolg aren't a thing in eberronm, here's 30 seconds about them" before following it with "but... they are a pretty cloe match for a lot of the orcs in eberron, I'd let you use that statblock instead of the god awful orc one if you want to say your an orc."

 

[Crit]

Not everyone games with friends.

I know, but I wouldn't be mean to strangers either. If anything, I'd try harder to be fair and reasonable. If DnD is a transaction of effort, time and enjoyment, I would want to come to agreements with them so we all get as much positiveness out of the experience. No matter who you're with, there's no reason not to open with them on some level.

I think, for most, the player gets more fun out of X than the DM looses from its inclusion. To a DM, they have the freedom to make things work with their creativity, or they could just ignore that the player is a (insert race or class) and let the player enjoy it.

I think restrictions are fine, but any situation is worth a cost-benefit analysis, and that includes either accepting limits or neglecting them.

 

[zarionofarabel]

As others pointed out, your blazing spotlight of inexperience is the only reason you might be claiming that d&d is not "default" for ttrpgs with playable elves in core. There are other systems with elves in core like pathfinder shadowrun & so on... but even one of those doesn't change the more important part about the initial poor handling. The fact that your playing "you don't know what system I'm running, it could be important" is another tick in the inexperienced column. If it wasn't d&d or it was some ultra-obscure niche setting where it might matter rather than d&d or some d&d in all but name system you'd just name the sytem & people would agree if it needed more clarification all but outright confirms it.

It's ok that you made a newbie mistake as a newbie gm, it won't be your last The important part is that you learn from it, unfortunately for the long term health of your group it seems that you are insulted by any advice & take the very idea that there are things you could do better as an insult to your authoratah. People are saying you were wrong because instead of expending even the tiniest effort working with player4 to find out what about an elf interested them & redirecting that interest to one of the many things that do or could exist within your setting capable of wearing that interest of player4's towards the elf. Much like your choice to play the you don't know the system card without giving details your lack of detail in the player trying to work with cartman posing as cartman speaks volumes about your failings there.

It's ok to say x race is not accceptable & I'm sure there are several I refuse with the following house rule

Spoiler

• Allowed races: limited to those in Rising from the last war &those in exploring Eberron, the phb’s variant human is not allowed.
• Allowed backgrounds Oracle of war, Adventurer’s almanac, & if applicable ExE backgrounds.

but when a player says "can I play a tabaxi" I'm not above saying "they aren't really a thing but znir pact gnolls are" prior to gnoll being added in one of those & give a quick 30 second rundown on them to see if there is interest in the player saying "wow cool I wanna be a znir pact gnoll" as the player did before denying it. Now I'd probably deny it now on the grounds that the double move it has destroys the already mostly destroyed tactical elements within 5e. I've also said "firbolg aren't a thing in eberronm, here's 30 seconds about them" before following it with "but... they are a pretty cloe match for a lot of the orcs in eberron, I'd let you use that statblock instead of the god awful orc one if you want to say your an orc."

I started running RPGs in 1988 with D&D Red Box.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I know, but I wouldn't be mean to strangers either. If anything, I'd try harder to be fair and reasonable. If DnD is a transaction of effort, time and enjoyment, I would want to come to agreements with them so we all get as much positiveness out of the experience. No matter who you're with, there's no reason not to open with them on some level.

I think, for most, the player gets more fun out of X than the DM looses from its inclusion. To a DM, they have the freedom to make things work with their creativity, or they could just ignore that the player is a (insert race or class) and let the player enjoy it.

I think restrictions are fine, but any situation is worth a cost-benefit analysis, and that includes either accepting limits or neglecting them.

I wasn't being mean, nor do I consider dropping a player from a group that wants to play a campaign they are obviously not interested in to be a mean thing. Now, forcing a player to play in a campaign they don't want to be a part of would be a mean thing. Or even worse, saying it's okay they play an Elf then killing their character right away would be a mean thing.

Personally, I think it's far meaner to deny three players the opportunity to play in a campaign they want to play just to keep one player happy.

You know, cost-benefit and all that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about GM authority.

Nope. I prefer social situations where the people involved treat each other with dignity and respect, and a healthy dose of taking the mick. That's doesn't have anything to do with GM authority in the game.

All RPGs come out of collaboration, involve discussion, and a continually evolving social contract. Sure. Players will always find a way to derail the GM's machinations; that's a good thing. But so far as a pitch goes; at very least the players shouldn't be looking to undermine a GM's basic world concept. That's no different than the GM overruling a player's character concept part-way through a game. "Oh, you wanted to be an orphan? Well, you're not" is a dick move by the GM. Can people compromise? Certainly. But even so: "Oh, you wanted a world without elves? I'm playing an elf" is a dick move by a player.

//Panjumanju

The terms you're using here are loaded. Asking for some consideration because it's something you like isn't "undermining" the GM's pitch. And, if no compromise can be met, fine and good -- not every table sits down to play with the first people invited, or with the first idea pitched. No problem with not agreeing and going separate ways.

The issue I'm pointing out is the toxic assumption that the GM wields outsized authority in these social interactions. They are just another player trying to sit a game. There's nothing unique about being the GM -- it's just another player role. The myth that's been built up around GMing is one that's actively toxic to the larger community -- that GMs are special and deserve outsized social clout because of the unique and special thing they do. Thing is, it's not that special, but oh, man will so many GMs tell you how hard it is to do. How many hours have to be put in; how difficult it is to deal with the players derailing your machinations . It keeps more people from trying the role, and even more that do try think they're bad at it. Some are, but a lot aren't but think they are because of this pervasive myth told to aggrandize those of us that sit the GM's chair. I've been my group's primary GM for quite some time, and prior to that had one other player who would swap with me. I'm starting a 5e, AP game in January, voted for by my group. I don't have a problem running D&D as a GM, I don't have a GM authority problem, I have a problem with thinking that extends outside of the game because of the work or role within the game. That's silly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Keep in mind that in many cases the GM is also a) provider of most of the materials needed to run/play the game (and thus has most likely borne greater expense be it monetary from purchasing said materials or time from making them), and b) acting as the out-of-game host.

“Many” is a basically meaningless term, here, because it could mean anything from 1% to 99% percent of groups.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But so far as a pitch goes; at very least the players shouldn't be looking to undermine a GM's basic world concept.

And that's the point. As presented in the OP the player didn't. The DM suggested a system with elves in the core rules and just said normal people and GoT themed. An average elf is far more a normal person than a noble and does not conflict with GoT theming where the core rules have elves.

That's no different than the GM overruling a player's character concept part-way through a game. "Oh, you wanted to be an orphan? Well, you're not" is a dick move by the GM. Can people compromise? Certainly. But even so: "Oh, you wanted a world without elves? I'm playing an elf" is a dick move by a player.

But that's not the order of events presented in the OP. Which is the GM saying "Oh, you wanted to play an elf and submitted an elf character concept in good faith. I'm the DM and I say no. Sucks to be you." That was a dick move by the GM. The player then returned the dickery by reaching for the rulebook but the dickery as presented started from the DM side - and as the one with more power dickery from the DM side is worse.

A better solution would have been one asking the other when someone dug in "what about elves is it that you really want/hate?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good on you for seeing it that way.

Still doesn't speak to those things giving the GM some authority both socially and table-wise.

Because they don't. Or, at least, they don't if you're interested in not being a jerk. "Sure, I'll host, but you have to play what I want or you have to leave." Possible, but jerky.

Not quite. You slave for days on your tofu-coffee-game creation, then invite people to eat-play it. With luck, some will. If not, then sure, the work goes to waste; but IME unless your game concept is completely wacko there's people out there who will play it. (and our crew are all friends anyway, so we more or less know what to expect)

I play with friends as well, which inclines me to be even more careful in seeking consensus on the next game that not. Even though we've been playing together for years, in some cases going on two decades, and I know them very well, I still ask.

Only it's not days, IME campaign prep takes months; and asking people what they want now doesn't speak to what they might want several months or even a year from now.

Don't really care how long you spent on your personal passion project -- it doesn't empower you in any way.

 

[Panjumanju]

The issue I'm pointing out is the toxic assumption that the GM wields outsized authority in these social interactions. They are just another player trying to sit a game. There's nothing unique about being the GM -- it's just another player role. The myth that's been built up around GMing is one that's actively toxic to the larger community -- that GMs are special and deserve outsized social clout because of the unique and special thing they do. Thing is, it's not that special, but oh, man will so many GMs tell you how hard it is to do.

If you want to make some argument about the pervasive malevolence of toxicity inherent to (a certain kind of?) GMing, the onus is on you. I'd suggest that's beyond the scope of this thread. You should start another topic.

Also, if you were trying to demonstrate you don't have a chip on your shoulder...

//Panjumanju

 

[Ovinomancer]

@zarionofarabel

To clarify, I think your situation resolved just fine -- a discussion was had, a majority sufficient to play was formed, and the other player did not want to compromise, so left the table. This is a good social interaction.

However, I do not agree with your phrasing of GM vs player. This is harmful. No one 'won' or 'lost', a consensus was formed and the dissenter left -- that's not a win or lose, it's just a group deciding to do a thing together. It's no different from talking with friends and deciding to go bowling (if that's your thing), but Bob doesn't want to go bowling so he says he'll catch you next time and goes home to play Cyberpunk.