Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8154693" data-attributes="member: 16814">It's not really new, and it goes to a bad take by the gaming community at large that privileges the GM over players.  The reality is that gaming is a social hobby, and should be between peers.  The GM has a responsibility, socially, that doesn't sit well with demanding authority over the social contract as well as over the game (assuming a GM-directed game has been selected, of course).  There's a rather bad take where this is assumed because the GM puts in more work, but that's a choice by the GM and shouldn't create social privilege in a healthy social group.The OP, though, features a social group negotiation.  The OP had already pitched one game, and not succeeded, but on the second pitch, the only a minority didn't buy into the game, which included a restriction on races available.  I have no problem with restrictions that serve a theme, and this one player did lose out on the negotiation.  This is a healthy interaction (although the framing of who's right is another bad take) in a social space to determine a leisure activity.  Had more players disagreed with one or more of the concepts pitched, then this discussion should have turned out differently.  That said, no player is required to play a game they do not want to.  This includes GMs.  This shouldn't privilege GMs in the social negotiation any more than players, though.</blockquote>