GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Thomas Shey]

D&D doesn't handle characters geared nearly completely to lore and social checks well at all..

That always falls down a rabbit-hole about how people feel about social mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
@Istbor

Mocking use of the laughing emoji is not cool. While in many cases it goes unnoticed, unreported, or unprovable, when you do that to a moderator it is pretty darned unwise.

Don't do it again, please and thank you.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I tend toward being on the GM's side in such situations. They put in the most work so they should get the most say.

That being said - player buy-in is wonderful. You'll never get a better game than one with enthusiastic player buy-in. If I have to compromise a little to get that, then all well and good.

Next campaign I run (not sure when that'll be, I'm running 2 games and playing in 2 others) I intend to make the session 0 a big ol' round-robin sort of game in itself. I'll get all the players to write ideas of the things they want to see in game on the palm cards. Then we read of them. Vote on the ideas, keep what's liked, throw out what's not. Then, with people hopefully inspired by other people's ideas, do another round. Carry on like this until everyone is satisfied or we run out of cards. Then I take the mess away and come up with a campaign. Will it work? No idea. But it should at least be fun.

 

[ccs]

D&D doesn't handle characters geared nearly completely to lore and social checks well at all..

I won't dispute that D&D always does combat better than anything else as far as it's own rules go.
But my practical experience with non-combat stuff - spanning 1e/2e/3x/PF1/5e, decades, numerous players/DMs - doesn't lead me to share your conclusion at all.

{shrugs} Perhaps the difference lies in who we've played with.

 

[Jd Smith1]

D&D doesn't handle characters geared nearly completely to lore and social checks well at all..

No game does. You need players who are good roleplayers and who are invested in the setting to run that sort of campaign properly, because it is based on ideas, innovation, and value judgements, not pluses or advantages.

Which is why the OP's situation is so clear: the GM is offering a campaign of nuance and thinking, and Player X wants to run an Elf. It's a clear situation of a player who is not suited for the type of game proposed.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, but D&D is very unsuited to actually running a campaign at all like ASOIAF, what with its mostly human population, low magic, no magical items, very few monstrous creatures and a ton of politics.

Except that it has magic, just not all that much in Westeros, and it has magic items(Horns of Dragon binding and more), and monstrous creatures, but not south of the wall on Westeros and in more extreme places on the other continent.

It would be low magic compared to most D&D games, but it would work fine.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

I don't think it is a no-win argument. What I would do if I were running a Game of Thrones game with D&D and a player wanted to be an Elf(Child of the Forest), would be to offer a compromise character. I would tell the player that Children of the Forest are not available, as they have not been seen in centuries, and then suggest that the player create a human scholar(perhaps a Maester or failed Maester) who focused on the Children of the Forest as one of his areas of knowledge. He would have the goal of finding them and persuading them to return and interact with the world. If he could do it, and success or failure would not be predetermined, he would be allowed to play one as his next character.

 

[tetrasodium]

The guy who does those crap guide to dnd videos did one recently for being a gm & the way it falls apart/ends is probably going to be good for the op

 

[zarionofarabel]

The guy who does those crap guide to dnd videos did one recently for being a gm & the way it falls apart/ends is probably going to be good for the op

I'm not sure how this video is relevant to a player rejecting the premise of a campaign. Also, after 30+ years of DMing, I promise you I don't ever under any circumstances use plots, or planned scenes of any kind. I am all improv all the time, and run as much of a player driven narrative as I can.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

I think in this instance the GM has a pretty specific vision, and the player in question is definitely asking for something that doesn't really fit. Were I another player in the group, I would hope for this player to be the one to compromise, because this is clearly a concept campaign, and an easy way to kill a concept campaign is to make characters outside the concept. It is similar if you run something that is genre. If I make a campaign that is spy thriller and a player wants to play a vampire, that is an unreasonable expectation and well outside genre.