GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Thomas Shey]

-A D&D campaign in the style of GOT, focusing on a part of GOT, such as mostly political intrigue and less on combat and magic.
-A D&D campaign that literally takes place in Westeros, featuring characters from the show/books, and excluding any D&D races, and limiting (or downright removing) the use of magic. This last one could be a new plot entirely, or follow the plot from the books/show closely.

I've got to say though, these two versions strike me as likely using the wrong tool for the job, particularly the first.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd say it's because without these type of stats to inform one's character and-or personality a bit, the risk is that many (most?) players will just default to - for both better and worse - playing themselves.

I never saw much sign that wasn't true with those stats. Especially since they'd often be pretty middle-of-the-road.

 

[Lanefan]

I never saw much sign that wasn't true with those stats. Especially since they'd often be pretty middle-of-the-road.

Fair, but at least having one or more of those stats be noteworthy could tend to encourage a little creative thinking...maybe?

 

[Crit]

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 saw the title of this thread, and I knew exactly what was coming, as much of this seems to be your perception of the Fantasy Races thread.

In this EXACT PRECISE scenario, the GM is ""right.""

 

[zarionofarabel]

I saw the title of this thread, and I knew exactly what was coming, as much of this seems to be your perception of the Fantasy Races thread.

In this EXACT PRECISE scenario, the GM is ""right.""

And the opposite of this scenario, where the GM says...

GM "Hey players, what do you want to play in the next campaign?"

Player #1 "A Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle!"

Player #2 "A Klingon!"

Player #3 "A Krogan!"

Player #4 "A Purple Catfish that can fly and poop fire!"

Pondering for a moment, the GM then laughs.

GM "You players suck! We will play a human only GoT inspired campaign or we will play nothing because I am the GM and I can lord my power over all of...wait...where'd everyone go?!?!?"

...Is exactly what I would expect to happen!

I was never advocating for the GM to be a jerk. I was advocating for the GM's desires to be taken into consideration. Sometimes maybe the players can just do what the GM wants because the GM, as others have said, usually does a heck of a lot more work. Maybe, sometimes, the players should say "Hey GM, what do you want to do with the campaign?" I know if they did that I would have been able to run the frikin Great Pendragon Campaign instead of always settling for something not GPC because I've never convinced a group to play it with me!

Oh well. At least I can convince a group of strangers (or most of them anyway) to play a human only GoT pastiche with me.

I miss my old place of residence only for the group I lost. Other than that, it sucked!

 

[Maxperson]

Late still counts & he'd certainly do it.
And I can envision making a character "inspired" by him who achieved "Sir" earlier.

There were a number of knights of questionable origins.

 

[Imaculata]

Sometimes maybe the players can just do what the GM wants because the GM, as others have said, usually does a heck of a lot more work. Maybe, sometimes, the players should say "Hey GM, what do you want to do with the campaign?"

I don't think it should work that way. The question you should be asking is: "What sort of campaign do WE want to play as a group" or "Hey guys, I have an idea for this campaign, would you be interested in playing that?"

 

[Imaculata]

I've got to say though, these two versions strike me as likely using the wrong tool for the job, particularly the first.

Indeed, there are systems other than D&D that are better suited for that sort of campaign. However, you can run a political intrigue campaign with D&D rules just fine. Its not like the rules get in the way.

 

[macd21]

I don't think it should work that way. The question you should be asking is: "What sort of campaign do WE want to play as a group" or "Hey guys, I have an idea for this campaign, would you be interested in playing that?"

My reading of the OP’s scenario is that the latter is exactly what’s happening, but the response from one player is ‘sure, as long as I can play an elf.’

The question is whether the GM should accommodate the player, or the player accommodate the GM.

 

[Imaculata]

My reading of the OP’s scenario is that the latter is exactly what’s happening, but the response from one player is ‘sure, as long as I can play an elf.’

The question is whether the GM should accommodate the player, or the player accommodate the GM.

To me it seems silly to side with either one of them. If you want to run a GOT campaign with no elves, you get your players to agree to play "a GOT campaign with no elves", and not just "a GOT campaign". The problem here, in my view, is with agreeing on what sort of campaign everyone wants to play before you move on to character creation.