Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="zarionofarabel" data-source="post: 8147160" data-attributes="member: 7026405">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.</blockquote>

Verification