GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[macd21]

That doesn't tell me why you can't ask the players before you begin those months of work.

Are you actually investing that amount of time and energy before you know who is going to play the thing? If so... you must have way more spare time than I do.

Yes? I’ve put time and money into dozens of campaigns, most of which I’ll probably never run. Whenever I’m in a position to start a new campaign, I consider the various ones I’ve been working on and decide which one to run next.

And then I tell the players ‘this is what I’m running next.’ If some of them aren’t interested, that’s fine. But I set the parameters of what is or isn’t in the campaign.

 

[D1Tremere]

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.

The group gathers to play a new campaign...

The GM "I would like to play a campaign influenced by Game of Thrones. It will still have magic and monsters but the characters will be regular people in a medieval land."

Player #1 "Nice. I will play Sir Knight the Knightliest of Knights!"

Player #2 "Sure. I will play Lady Noble the Noblest of Nobles!"

Player #3 "Sweet. I will play Sir Sneak the Sneakiest of Sneaks!"

Player #4 "Okay. I will play Sir Elf the Elfiest of Elfs!"

The GM "No wait..."

Then the argument starts. The Player insists that they should be able to play an Elf because the core book says Elf is a playable race. Round and round it goes with The GM explaining that the campaign they want to run won't include Non-Human characters, the only intelligent race is Humans. The Player insists that The GM must compromise and allow them to play an Elf, because that's what they want to play, period. After arguing for a time The GM realizes that no agreement can be reached. Either the premise of the campaign gets scrapped and The Player gets to play an Elf, or The GM must kick The Player out of the group.

Should The GM be forced to accommodate The Player? Or is The Player going to have to find a different campaign where they can play an Elf?

Who would you side with?

The Player, who then gets to play an Elf.

OR.

The GM, who will kick the player out because they won't play a Human.

GM Authority is a lot like presidential authority, meaning it is as absolute as the people are prepares to allow. A gaming group ultimately has more power than a single GM. Why? Because there are enough people that a group can always play with another GM, either by finding one or someone stepping into the role. They only have to replace one person, while the GM has to build a whole new group. Even worse if their reputation is damaged by the experience, possibly causing other groups or individual players to see them as someone who can't work well with others.

In your specific example I would allow the player to play an elf. Why? Because it takes no real effort to accommodate one member of a rare or unusual race into such a game, and it helps the player have fun. Adding this elf could even plant the seeds of future campaign material, as they wish to explore and search for more of their kind and the history of the world suddenly becomes very interesting to the players on a personal level. Feature, not bug. Opportunity, not problem. The only time I may tell a player no is if their request would truly hurt the groups ability to enjoy the game and no compromise can be reached.

Can a DM tell the player no to their elf? Yes. Will it cause any major issues? Depends on the group. If they are mostly on the players side of the argument it could reduce the whole groups buy in. If they are not then it could really make the one player feel alienated even if they accept the DMs judgement.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Yeah, OP's example is clearly incomplete, and is probably trying to erect a straw man of some kind.

Also the approach of the GM making a campaign by themselves for months on end before even finding players is completely alien to me. I'd much rather get buy-in on a loose pitch from my players - or even create a scenario in tandem with them - before getting to work on the details (or don't, if that's what the system we're using recommends!).

Also, yeah, system matters. It almost feels like a uselessly obvious tautology that shouldn't have to be said at this point, but apparently it does! Maybe the issue with your campaign pitch is that the game system you're proposing for it is completely incompatible.

Can't really grasp the inflexible attitude being put forward in the thread. Is it really that big a deal to you all? Are you really that attached to your initial ideas?

 

[zarionofarabel]

So would you argue then that Adventures in Middle Earth is Dungeons & Dragons?

That's what I think. It uses all the same mechanics that D&D does, and while I've never run it, it reads like a D&D game with LotR window dressing. It sure ain't The One Ring or Burning Wheel, two systems that do a decent job emulating the source material. Adventures in Middle Earth reminds me of the old D20 games that had major IPs attached to them. Just D&D with the names of some things changed, but everything still worked exactly the same as D&D. Bootstrapping an IP to a system in no way means the system is suddenly magically capable of emulating said IP!

 

[John Dallman]

I'd bet money DM's Guild has supplements for all of those...

How about betting a little time, finding them, and posting the links? Personally, I reckon there might be ones for armies, but since political power and social interactions under political pressure are (a) hard to make feel fun and (b) likely to undermine player freedom, there likely are no supplements for them.

 

[ccs]

Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work before getting buy-in from the players?

Because I like 3d terrain/miniatures in the game.
Well, even with all the resources out there nowdays, this stuff still doesn't just spontaneously design/build/paint itself.
So the more "set pieces" I have in mind? The earlier I need to get working.

 

[Imaro]

How about betting a little time, finding them, and posting the links? Personally, I reckon there might be ones for armies, but since political power and social interactions under political pressure are (a) hard to make feel fun and (b) likely to undermine player freedom, there likely are no supplements for them.

No need to look on DM's Guild for me...

Advice for creating factions and organizations, tying backgrounds to them to connect to characters along with rules for perks for rank, downtime activities, gaining renown and renown benefits, (including rules for renown affecting social interactions with organization members) are already detailed in the DMG. Tasha's further expounds on this by fleshing out group patrons and tying them to organizations. Talislantsa 5e (a setting for D&D 5e) has mechanical rules for creating & stating tribes that the PC's belong too which can easily be reskinned as "Houses" and it contains rules to cover how PC actions can affect their organization's Mass actions and Mass combats. Can you tell me what other rules you would need to run a GoT-esque D&D campaign. Honestly one of the biggest advantages to running D&D is the multitide of options both published and homebrewed lone has access too in order to shape their campaign. IME it's much easier than learning a new rules set and then having to teach said rules set to players.

 

[TwoSix]

1) I think there's a big difference between groups where there's a permanent DM, and ones where the DM duties rotate. If I suggested a game idea to most of my groups that they weren't interested in, other people have ideas they would want to run instead. None of my groups save one are hurting for DMs.

2) Even in the group where I'm the permanent DM, I still get table buy-in for any of my campaign ideas, simply because they're my friends/family and making any decision unilaterally would be weird. It's different in an organized game where the DM is simply searching for players, and the focus is on the game moreso than the group. That's the one condition where I think a DM can act more unilaterally.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe because some of us enjoy writing campaigns.

There is nothing wrong with writing a campaign and seeing if you can find players who want to play in it. You don't have to have the players before you start working on the campaign.

Sure, that's fine. But it is then important to remember that how many months it took to do the work is not relevant to the players, when they didn't ask you to do that work.

Let us look again at how this thread and question was framed:

"I offered up a campaign, and this jamoke doesn't want to play it exactly as I want it! Who should give in?"

I reject the implicit question of dominance present in the initial framing of the scenario. Instead, I note that the situation in the scenario exists because the creation process didn't start with the players in mind.

Now, if you happen to have the happy situation of having a large pool of players to draw from, that may still work out for you, and that's cool. But that doesn't justify the implicit affront some of these threads have shown at a player asking for a variation. That comes off like some cooks I know who gasp and flutter their hands when a diner asks for table salt. "That dish is as I intended it!" they cry, "How dare they ask for a modification!"

RPGs are, ultimately, a collaborative endeavor. If you put off that collaboration, you're setting yourself up for friction late in the process, where it is harder to adapt.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It is very difficult to take the topic of "DM Authority" seriously, because when I read it, all I can see is ...

5e is very much about "rulings not rules" and tends to privilege DM agency. Which is good, for the games I play. It also allows for easy modification and homebrew, which, again, great for DM agency.

I just think that most people come in to these arguments already loaded for bear. In the end, the person who seeks to enforce their will on the unwilling is the jerk. If the DM is running a campaign that the players don't want to play, then the DM is the jerk. If a player reads a pitch for a campaign that says, "No elves," and their only feedback is, "Sure, but what if my PC was ... AN ELF?" then the player is the jerk.

Don't be a jerk.