GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Imaro]

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.

If we accept that it's a collaborative endeavor at what point do you feel the player should modify their own expectations around character creation to better accommodate a DM's campaign/adventure/game concept? What I see in this example is a single player who wants to play something that, at least insofar as the DM described his campaign concept... at the very least grates against the theme of a GoT-esque style game and could actually subvert them. One of the things that makes the non-human in GoT so terrifying is the mystique and lack of knowledge around them... Once a player can play a Child of the Forest, Walker, Valyrian, etc. that goes out the window. Moreso it also opens up the window for other players to make such requests as why should only one player get to play a non-human?

EDIT: Also I see alot of answers revolving around what the group wants and in this example it seems all of the group except this one player are ok with the parameters of the campaign... wouldn't that be an argument for that single player to adjust in order for the group to enjoy the campaign premise everyone else has agreed to play?

 

[nevin]

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.

I would always side with GM. It's thier game. If I don't like thier game I find another.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I would always side with GM. It's thier game. If I don't like thier game I find another.

In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.

The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.

This is a ridiculous and flawed anecdote because it ignores that D&D is a collaborative game. The OP's story would be more realistic if the DM was a video game designer and the players had bought the game.

It's a no-win argument. Either you agree with the biased situation that the OP set up, or you have to side with the player who is breaking the social contract.

Here's a more realistic situation:

A group of friends play D&D each week. One friend has put a lot of work into a Game of Thrones style campaign, something they are very passionate about. Part of the DM's vision is that this is a human-only campaign. The campaign does not fit the play style of all the players. One player, for example, really loves to play as elves, and wants to find a way to play as an elf in this game.

Whose job is it to compromise?

When designing a campaign, should the DM focus on their own vision, or adapt to the preferences of the group?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Here's a more realistic situation:

A group of friends play D&D each week. One friend has put a lot of work into a Game of Thrones style campaign, something they are very passionate about. Part of the DM's vision is that this is a human-only campaign. The campaign does not fit the play style of all the players. One player, for example, really loves to play as elves, and wants to find a way to play as an elf in this game.

Whose job is it to compromise?

When designing a campaign, should the DM focus on their own vision, or adapt to the preferences of the group?

But that's not very complicated, or morally difficult (IMO).

Again, who is being the jerk? The DM who wants to try a new campaign with definitive themes (and homebrewed restrictions and additions) that the rest of the table has bought into, or a single player, who demands to play an elf?

If this is a group of friends, the compromise seems obvious for the elf-lover. "Sure, I'd love to play in your campaign that you seem so invested in and that everyone else wants to play! That seems awesome. So awesome, in fact, that I can put away my unhealthy and unnatural elf-obsession for one campaign. Next campaign, of course, I will be playing Legolas XCVII, because there ain't no party like a Legolas party, because a Legolas party don't stop. Good?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

In general, I'm willing to run a lot of different things. But once I'm going to run something in a particular vein, I'm often actually pretty particular about what its going to be. I'm more prone to running something completely different than modifying it beyond certain limits.

As an example, I'm coming to the end of a semi-historical fantasy game set in Britain right after the Romans left. No nonhuman player-characters were possible, not because they didn't exist but because the conflict with their return was one of the three central threats of the campaign. In theory some sort of contrivance could have been made to make a sidhe or wulver PC possible--but I'd not have been interested in doing so because it would have required changing campaign assumptions enough that it just wasn't the campaign I was interested in running.

Obviously, different kinds of campaigns can have more flexibility than the above, but there's almost always some sort of perimeter to the permitted concepts in the campaign that is a no-man's land beyond which I'd really rather run a different campaign than violate. Not everything is intended to be a kitchen sink superhero campaign.

 

[Zsong]

Because it’s not very good. Just like the Wheel of Time roleplaying game isn’t very good.

That game was great.

 

[Zsong]

amazing. This is literally a simple yes or no question.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

That's absolutely true, but there's a caveat there: how much do they want you to run? They absolutely have no obligation to play what doesn't interest them just because you spent a bunch of time on it, but there's no particular obligation on your part to put together something else because they don't like it, either.

(As I noted earlier, there can be all kinds of power dynamic complications with this, to the degree I think people are too off-hand in how they treat player objections in a lot of cases (because while its possible for the player to be the one who has the power, but that's not usually the smart way to bet given how things usually shake down, but it still pretty much has to be the rest state).

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.

This, though, I agree with. I've referred to it as a lese majesty reaction on some GM's parts.

 

[Imaro]

In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.

The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.

This is a ridiculous and flawed anecdote because it ignores that D&D is a collaborative game. The OP's story would be more realistic if the DM was a video game designer and the players had bought the game.

It's a no-win argument. Either you agree with the biased situation that the OP set up, or you have to side with the player who is breaking the social contract.

Here's a more realistic situation:

A group of friends play D&D each week. One friend has put a lot of work into a Game of Thrones style campaign, something they are very passionate about. Part of the DM's vision is that this is a human-only campaign. The campaign does not fit the play style of all the players. One player, for example, really loves to play as elves, and wants to find a way to play as an elf in this game.

Whose job is it to compromise?

When designing a campaign, should the DM focus on their own vision, or adapt to the preferences of the group?

But it's not the group... it's one player just as it's one DM... why does that player warrant more consideration around preference than the DM?

 

[BookTenTiger]

But it's not the group... it's one player just as it's one DM... why does that player warrant more consideration around preference than the DM?

Consideration is not a limited resource that has to be shared fairly.

The point is neither side is right or wrong. This is an inflammatory example meant to push people to extremes.

The solution is super simple: have a conversation about what's fun for everyone. No human being on earth is so caught up on playing an elf that they will sacrifice their friends for it, but at the same time the DM should abdicate some creativity and world-building to the players who are going to be participating.