GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Lanefan]

a) so? and b) so? Both of these go to different social interactions -- I should be thankful that GM is providing play tools, and probably pitch something in. Similarly, I should be thankful the GM is hosting, polite when being hosted, and look to pitch something in.

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.

c) is also pointless, as I've said above. I could slave for days on a meal of tofu and coffee grounds, you're not required to accept it, eat it, or like it because I spent time on it. The reality is that maybe I should have asked before cooking.

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)

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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nope. RPG does not mean D&D. To you maybe, but you are not everyone. I know that because I am not you, nor am I as limited in my thinking as you are, obviously.

The default RPG is D&D. It's far from all I play or run - but it is the default and overwhelmingly more popular than anything else.

Again. Your limited experience is telling. You should expand your horizons.

Quite the reverse. It's your limited experience that is illustrating that you do not know how dominant D&D is over the RPG marketplace - and that it is the default. There are many games I prefer to it - but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and defy reality and claim it's not the default. (And the last game that wasn't a flavour of D&D to challenge it was back in the 90s and didn't really have elves).

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.

If you consider race unimportant then why are you bothering to restrict them? After all it's unimportant which just makes this a pettier move.

Meanwhile certain aspects of characters are important to players because it ties in with them. If it's not important to me and is important to them then I'd consider it a jerk move to ban.

 

[Lanefan]

Nope. RPG does not mean D&D. To you maybe, but you are not everyone. I know that because I am not you, nor am I as limited in my thinking as you are, obviously.

Thing is, in this aspect, system matters; as some systems are more finely-tuned than others as to what PCs may be.

If you'd said "D&D" instead of "RPG" then absent other info a player trying to insert an Elf makes sense, as Elves are a long-established part of D&D and it's on the GM to ban them if they don't fit that campaign's particular setting.

Which means, the fatal flaw in the game pitch is that it doesn't include any suggestion as to rules system.

(side note: I do think Elves could be made to fit GoT after a fashion, but if the player had tried to insert something like a Gnome or Tiefling it'd be a hard no)

 

[macd21]

The setting doesn't exist before the game starts. All that exists is a draft; the setting is what hits the table.

At least it doesn't if you aren't using a licensed setting. And if it's a homebrew setting then so what if elves didn't exist? Unless you're running a bottle show then if you've written the entire setting and it's not an explicit bottle setting you've seriously overcommitted yourself.

None of which changes the fact that if the GM doesn't want elves to be a playable race, elves aren't a playable race. The setting doesn't exist before the game starts - and when it starts, elves won't be a playable race if the GM doesn't want them to be. If the player doesn't like that, then the player doesn't have to play the game.

Assuming it's a homebrew setting, the fact that elves don't exist might be an important element of the setting, or a minor one. Either way, it's the GM's decision. Hell, it doesn't even have to be true of the setting for the GM to disallow elves as a character concept. If I want to run a Forgotten Realms or a Lord of the Rings campaign where everyone has to play humans, I can do so, as long as I have players who are willing to go along with it. If they aren't, then I just won't run the game. If I want to run a game of DnD where no one plays wizards, I can do so. A GM is under no obligation to let a player have whatever character they want, regardless of rules or setting elements.

 

[Jd Smith1]

My recent 5e campaign I banned half the races and several classes from the PHB, and only allowed material from the PHB, no splatbooks.

While using a modified Sword Coast setting (never again).

A GM determines what the 'reality' of the campaign world will be.

 

[Panjumanju]

Yup, a discussion and agreement within the social group is what I think it healthy. Not the GM showing up with whatever they wanted and telling players "it's my way or the highway."

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

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

 

[Crusadius]

Yup, a discussion and agreement within the social group is what I think it healthy. Not the GM showing up with whatever they wanted and telling players "it's my way or the highway."

Except, in the end, this is what will happen.

A GM does not have to run a game they don't want to run. A Player does not have to play a game they don't want to play. If after everyone has had their say and the GM still doesn't want to allow non-human characters, either the Player leaves or the GM leaves.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Yup, a discussion and agreement within the social group is what I think it healthy.

'Healthy'? This is a gaming group, not group therapy. Or a day care.

 

[Crit]

'Healthy'? This is a gaming group, not group therapy. Or a day care.

Way to take such a neutral statement and interpret in a way that suggests toxicity is the norm. It's good to hear that you think mutually beneficial social interactions are for kids.

Discussion and agreement are for everyone's benefit. If it can be taken, it should, compared to fighting your friends when it's not necessary. If someone doesn't do that, then surely they will be a problem player/friend in the future.

 

[zarionofarabel]

The default RPG is D&D. It's far from all I play or run - but it is the default and overwhelmingly more popular than anything else.

I don't think there is a default RPG. D&D being more popular, yes, but default, no.

Quite the reverse. It's your limited experience that is illustrating that you do not know how dominant D&D is over the RPG marketplace - and that it is the default. There are many games I prefer to it - but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and defy reality and claim it's not the default. (And the last game that wasn't a flavour of D&D to challenge it was back in the 90s and didn't really have elves).

I know how popular it is. That still doesn't mean it's the default. I know I haven't used D&D since the mid 90s.

If you consider race unimportant then why are you bothering to restrict them? After all it's unimportant which just makes this a pettier move.

Uh...okay. Well, you were the one that pointed out that it was unimportant so...okay. I also restrict my games to humans only as I have found this helps prevent players thinking that their characters are deep or interesting simply because they are elves or whatever. It helps promote deeper characterization because all the characters are human, and making a character interesting happens through action within the narrative, not because the player can keep repeating "but my character is so deep and interesting because ELF!" over and over again.

Meanwhile certain aspects of characters are important to players because it ties in with them. If it's not important to me and is important to them then I'd consider it a jerk move to ban.

If it is so very important for a player to play an Elf, they are free to play said Elf in a game I am not running. I won't hold it against them. I've never wanted for players, I usually have to turn them away.

Way to take such a neutral statement and interpret in a way that suggests toxicity is the norm. It's good to hear that you think mutually beneficial social interactions are for kids.

Discussion and agreement are for everyone's benefit. If it can be taken, it should, compared to fighting your friends when it's not necessary. If someone doesn't do that, then surely they will be a problem player/friend in the future.

Not everyone games with friends.