# GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)



## zarionofarabel (Dec 13, 2020)

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.


----------



## rgoodbb (Dec 13, 2020)

I would probably ask the plyer what it is specifically about playing an elf that interests them so much in a world of humans so as to generate further discussions.

The poll is too difficult for me to answer at the moment without more information.

Edit.
Although without any further information/discussion, looks like the player might not be right for your campaign.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Dec 13, 2020)

I just don't get why you would use D&D rules to play a Game of Thrones setting as opposed to... the RPG designed to run it. (ASOIAFRPG)


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 13, 2020)

Probably the player, because the GM was far too vague with their initial pitch, particularly the whole "the players will be regular people" bit.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 13, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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 decision is one for the group as a whole, but the GM has a veto if the game is traditional mode.


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 13, 2020)

I'd say "influenced by Game of Thrones" isn't immediately the same as "identical to GoT". Even so, if the player particularly wants to play an Elf, I'd refluff a group of Wildlings or Crannogmen to have Elf stats.


----------



## John Dallman (Dec 13, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Probably the player, because the GM was far too vague with their initial pitch, particularly the whole "the players will be regular people" bit.



The whole premise seems weird: I thought, reading the question, that the issue was going to be that knights and nobles aren't "regular people."

I'd say, that in this case, the GM has done so bad a job of explaining their premise, that the only thing is to scrap the conversation and start again with a clearer idea.


----------



## Older Beholder (Dec 13, 2020)

Half-elf seems the obvious compromise.


----------



## TheSword (Dec 13, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> I just don't get why you would use D&D rules to play a Game of Thrones setting as opposed to... the RPG designed to run it. (ASOIAFRPG)



Because it’s not very good. Just like the Wheel of Time roleplaying game isn’t very good.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 13, 2020)

Okay the example is bad, and the pitch could have been better worded with a bit more discussion to establishe the Human only frameworl,  but on the prinicple its the GM who has agreed to host the game, the players ought to fit in to the GMs premise.

so unless the wife/gf/significant other wants to be the Elf, tell your player to suck it up or shove off


----------



## TheSword (Dec 13, 2020)

It’s not the DM kicking the player out of the group. It’s the table.

If all the other players really want to do the campaign and it’s just the elf player being entitled then they should sit this one out if they refuse to accommodate the wishes of the majority.

If the other players are lukewarm and one player is vociferously against playing a human then the DM should find another campaign or let someone else DM.

In my experience though, most players are good to follow whatever campaign suggestions are made that aren’t onerous. I would be very wary of players that make demands like that.

On the flip side a good friend in our group really dislikes far eastern settings. He tried a campaign once and didn’t enjoy it. So now we don’t play those campaigns. Irrespective of how much I’d like to DM one, as the other players don’t mind.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Dec 13, 2020)

TheSword said:


> Because it’s not very good. Just like the Wheel of Time roleplaying game isn’t very good.




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.


----------



## TheSword (Dec 13, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> 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.



So change it. AIME managed it.

Though a campaign can be like ASOIAF without being exactly like it.

Birthright for instance that was published before Game of Thrones had its own Iron Throne and vying noble families, in a D&D setting.


----------



## Dragonsbane (Dec 13, 2020)

This is an easy one. No elf for the player, but don't kick him out. He can leave if he wants, or compromise.

DMs have every right to say which classes or races or whatever are in the game because of a game setting. Some gameworlds are like the new one, Wildermount? that have many strange races, there you go. Others are only humans, others might be like mine (no half-elf or half-anything, due to how the races formed in the distant past). It depends on the setting, which could change any rules because of story (like no armor for casters in my world).

The DM could ask which setting the players want to play in, perhaps a compromise there. But if he made a whole campaign already, I would say just stick with that. Not every player understands the work that goes into preping a game.

Does the player want to play the elf because of story? That would be strange if he now knows there are no elves, does he want to be the only elf in the world? Or is it because of his "build"? If it is that I would certainly say no chance sowwy!


----------



## Dragonsbane (Dec 13, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> 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.



IIRC 5e assumes no magical items lol.  5e is suited to any campaign as long you players are not married to certain builds. Any gameworld can be played, and without much trouble TBH.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 13, 2020)

It depends on the social situation you have going on. Is this group of strangers recruited for a Roll20 campaign? Is it a group of friends with whom you've gamed for 20 years? My game, which may differ to yours, is one in which the GM is ultimately responsible for what goes into a campaign, but the group as a whole decides on what to play. Obviously the GM doesn't have to run something they're not into, but similarly it sounds like in this case at least one player isn't into the concept the GM is proposing.

Assuming the premise that this is a group of friends who want to game together (though other social dynamics do exist for TTRPGs) and having one leave isn't a desirable outcome, you should all discuss what type of game you want to play. Hopefully you can all agree on something that the GM wants to run and that all the players want to play.

Generally speaking, though, I think the player sounds like they're being a bit obstinate in this particular situation. Hard to tell without being there!



> The GM, who will kick the player out because they won't play a Human.




That said, I don't know the social dynamic there. In my game I can't kick a player out, because it's a group of old friends whose shared hobby is gaming and it's just how we choose to spend our Thursday nights and who we choose to spend them with. In other situations (gaming in stores, or clubs, or online games with people you don't know well) kicking people out might be a more viable option. I'm not personally comfortable with group dynamics where one member has actual social power over other people in the group, but that's just me and an assumption that this is a group of people who know each other.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 13, 2020)

TheSword said:


> So change it. AIME managed it.



In which case it stops being D&D, which supports @QuentinGeorge's assertion.



Morrus said:


> Generally speaking, though, I think the player sounds like they're being a bit obstinate in this particular situation. Hard to tell without being there!



Also, given the GM-centric discourse of this forum, player behavior that somehow rubs against the GM is generally not framed in the most favorable light, and the language of @zarionofarabel's framing of the situation is far from neutral.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 13, 2020)

There is no question. I side with the DM and answered the poll even before reading the OP.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 13, 2020)

For me it's always the DM's decision on stuff like this, even if I think the way the "conversation" went in the initial post is exceedingly unrealistic and made to make the DM look like potentially the bad guy.

No DM who actually has an idea for a particular type and style of game waits until the entire group is together and then casually tosses off their idea in a sentence or two, with all the players then chiming in immediately with "I'm gonna play X!"  To me, that kind of convo doesn't happen.  And if by some chance it _does_ happen... it means the DM doesn't really take their campaign design seriously and thus really shouldn't have such hardline ideas about what should or shouldn't be in it.

But a DM who is designing a specific campaign with a specific type and style should always have all of their choices and house rules (involving character creation especially) written down, made explicit, and given to the players in plenty of time before the first session so that any potential players know going in what is to be expected of them (and preferably, so they can ask any questions and bandy character ideas with the DM _before_ the first session) .  And that also then gives the players the choice to decide not to play in the game if they aren't into the idea for the campaign.


----------



## TheSword (Dec 13, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> In which case it stops being D&D, which supports @QuentinGeorge's assertion.
> 
> 
> Also, given the GM-centric discourse of this forum, player behavior that somehow rubs against the GM is generally not framed in the most favorable light, and the language of @zarionofarabel's framing of the situation is far from neutral.



If I play a game and the players chose, fighters, rogues, rangers and Paladins swapping their spells for a feat at levels 6 and 10 and 14 is it still d&d? I would say it is.

Not to mention the fact that Birthright is Game of a Thrones in D&D so clearly possible.


----------



## kenada (Dec 13, 2020)

I voted for the GM, but I think I’d rather abstain now if I can’t vote for “neither”. This is a failed pitch. People have different understandings, so you should pitch other things until everyone shares the same understanding of and enthusiasm for the proposed campaign. Maybe that’s a variant of the current pitch that allows elves, or maybe it’s something else.

Personally, I lean on my players heavily to determine what we’re going to do. They’re the ones that are going to be playing. I have some boundaries as a GM in terms of setting and system, but it’s far easier if they all tell me what they want rather than for me to throw ideas at them until they are happy (or just decide to run something only for it to fizzle out after a few or several sessions).


----------



## p_johnston (Dec 13, 2020)

So in this case it sounds like i side with the DM but as others have pointed out it depends on context. In this context it seems like the player is insisting that anything in the handbook should be allowed no matter what to which the reply is rule 0.

That being said the only reason I've ever had to kick players was having to many (8). As a DM i will usually try and have a few options for games ill have fun running. If the group doesn't want any of them then its probably time for someone else to try DMing and I'll get a rare chance to play.

If a players working in good faith work with them and the group till everyone is able to have fun. If they're just being a jerk work with the group till everyone is able to have fun even if the group ends up being one smaller.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Dec 13, 2020)

It's the GM who puts the most work into the setting. If a player does not want to adapt and just wants to argue, they're gone.
Besides, the Children of the Forest are the elves in GoT.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 13, 2020)

TheSword said:


> If I play a game and the players chose, fighters, rogues, rangers and Paladins swapping their spells for a feat at levels 6 and 10 and 14 is it still d&d? I would say it is.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that Birthright is Game of a Thrones in D&D so clearly possible.



This seems like moving the goalposts of the debate, as you initially compared the degree of changes to AiME (a non-D&D using the 5e engine) and now are saying that it's simply swapping spells out and using a limited range of pre-existing class.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 13, 2020)

If you held a pickup game of basketball and one guy showed up and demanded to play baseball, he would be out of line.

Its the same with gaming: you conform to the campaign as intended, or leave.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 13, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> If you held a pickup game of basketball and one guy showed up and demanded to play baseball, he would be out of line.
> 
> Its the same with gaming: you conform to the campaign as intended, or leave.



I'm not sure if this analogy is really comparable to the initial case. For starters, the GM is making a pitch to the players about what to play rather than a guy who shows up to play a different game than the one everyone else did. Presumably the GM and Players have already agreed what system they are playing with, very likely D&D given the case study. So really it's not about guy showing up to basketball demanding to play baseball, but something more akin to a guy showing up to play basketball and debating which rules of basketball or equipment will be in play.


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 13, 2020)

If you’re playing a GOT type game you should be playing something else so...


----------



## ccs (Dec 13, 2020)

So I'm not clear on when this hypothetical debate is occurring.
Is this in the session where ideas of what to play are kicked around?  If so, no one to side with.  DM has purposed an idea.  Clearly not everyone is on board (yet).  Negotiations continue until everyone's on the same page.
Is this session one and and NOW someone wants an elf?  After having signed on to playing a game where the only choice is Human?  Then I side with the DM & other players.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 13, 2020)

I'm siding with the DM here, but only based on the racial limitation being undeniably fundamental to the specific setting., there being, it seems, general group buy-in to that setting, and it being a setting the DM may not feel complete authority to change. I am not necessarily going to side with the DM who has a complete kitchen sink setting full of outlandish races and refuses to accommodate one more race a player happens to be fixated on because they just don't feel like being accomodating. Not to say I'm necessarily on the player's side there either.

Even with that caveat I would have to say that the effect of allowing full core D&D magic in the pretty damned low magic setting of Westeros is going to alter the setting much more radically than one guy having pointy ears and darkvision, so it seems like a silly line to draw in the sand.


----------



## ccs (Dec 13, 2020)

cmad1977 said:


> If you’re playing a GOT type game you should be playing something else so...




Why?  Theres nothing going on in GoT that D&D can't handle


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 13, 2020)

I didn't answer the poll because I really could see it going either way. Without knowing any specifics about the group dynamics, my first suggestion would be to talk it out. See if the GM can clarify what his intentions are for the campaign, and why an elf may not be the most suitable choice. 

On the other hand, maybe the player can explain why they think an elf would be an interesting choice, and why they want to play one in this campaign. 

I honestly don’t think that just picking one side or the other is the best way to handle this. 

Sure, maybe the player is being entitles and forcing an issue that really shouldn’t be that big a deal. I’m reasonably sure that they could play a similar character that’s a human. 

On the other hand, maybe the GM’s being an unbending tyrant who’s unwilling to accept that his precious setting isn’t all that original and the  addition of an elf doesn’t change that much.  

In either extreme case, these don't really sound like people worth playing with. Which is to say, it’s not really about GM or Player....it’s about someone (or both) being a jerk.


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 13, 2020)

ccs said:


> Why? Theres nothing going on in GoT that D&D can't handle




Sure. But there are better systems for it.


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 13, 2020)

This sounds most to me like a weird and unimaginative DM. Lacking in communication skills. I certainly don’t blame the player for being told that they’re playing D&D/GoT and coming to the table with an elf. I would have assumed that the greater families/houses would be based upon a particular race. Lannisters are high elves, Starks are dwarfs etc.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Dec 13, 2020)

cmad1977 said:


> This sounds most to me like a weird and unimaginative DM. Lacking in communication skills. I certainly don’t blame the player for being told that they’re playing D&D/GoT and coming to the table with an elf. I would have assumed that the greater families/houses would be based upon a particular race. Lannisters are high elves, Starks are dwarfs etc.



Turning what was essentially a political conflict into a racial one...


----------



## aco175 (Dec 13, 2020)

GOT already has elves..


----------



## ccs (Dec 13, 2020)

cmad1977 said:


> Sure. But there are better systems for it.




In your opinion & the opinion of those publishers....
Me?  I dont need to invest time/$ into another entire system to exclude elf PCs, run Humans only, or to make some political or lower fantasy based adventures in a medevial setting.

Now if it comes to running massed battles between armies?  Then yes, there are any # of miniature wargame systems thatd work better than any edition of D&D for those sessions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 13, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



I would definitely side with the GM here. Everyone else appears to be on board with the campaign premise except one player. One player insisting they can play an elf, when everyone else is on board, is obnoxious. My feeling is, as a player, if the GM is taking the time to develop the campaign material, as long as the campaign is an interesting one, I will be on board with what the GM wants. A player who is as insistent that they get their way as the one in this example is a pretty big red flag for me. I am there to game with people who are there to have a good time, not fight. Now, that said, as a GM, if we talked it over as a group and most people felt they wanted game of thrones but they wanted it with the traditional DND races and classes available, I could accommodate that. Also there is something to be said for fidelity to the campaign setting. If a GM has a campaign with no elves, I don't see the point in insisting on elves being there (you are just creating work for the person who is doing most of the work already).


----------



## TheSword (Dec 13, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> This seems like moving the goalposts of the debate, as you initially compared the degree of changes to AiME (a non-D&D using the 5e engine) and now are saying that it's simply swapping spells out and using a limited range of pre-existing class.



No I said it was possible to alter d&d substantially and AIME is an example of it. The extent of those changes are of course up to the DM.


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 13, 2020)

ccs said:


> In your opinion & the opinion of those publishers....
> Me? I dont need to invest time/$ into another entire system to exclude elf PCs, run Humans only, or to make some political or lower fantasy based adventures in a medevial setting.
> 
> Now if it comes to running massed battles between armies? Then yes, there are any # of miniature wargame systems thatd work better than any edition of D&D for those sessions.




Hooray?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2020)

As others have noted - the description of the situation in the OP is... scant, at best.

If nothing else, the GM should have laid out in detail what they felt the premise took off the table before asking for character concepts.  It probably should have been laid out as a discussion they'd have together:

"I would like to run a game strongly influenced by A Song of Ice and Fire.  The world will still have magic and monsters, but the PCs are normal people - all PCs are human, PCs are only of classes X, Y, and Z.  What do you think?"


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 13, 2020)

Honestly... bottom line:
If I were one of the other players and I saw a GM and a player have a fight about this I wouldn’t play with either of them.


----------



## el-remmen (Dec 13, 2020)

Back in day I would have voted for the GM, no question. These days I kind of side with the player. Not because I would want an elf in the game (I barely want them in my much more traditional D&D game  ), but because I think the GM needs to make more of an effort to get the player to buy in and make some compromises. If the game is GoT like, why couldn't some mostly human-looking person hail from the lineage of the "children of the forest" or whatever and make discovering that part of their background and entwine it into the campaign? Perhaps the even begin to change as they grow older and/or visit sacred sites or meet others of their kind, etc. . .?

In my current game, the handout I made explaining stuff before character creation detailed how in the setting half-orcs are ultra-rare (orcs themselves were the victims of genocide 10000 years ago) and I said that "tiefling are  myth." There is a tiefling and a half-orc in the group!  I just shook my head and said, "Let's work it out." And we did.

Oh and as for the ridiculous question about if you can play a GoT style game with 5E, the fact that I ran one with 3E suggests to me that it is totally possible. Then again, regardless of the system it is all "D&D" to me the way all instamatic cameras are Polaroids, regardless if they actually are or not.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 13, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> 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.



I'm not seeing how any of that makes D&D unsuitable? You have humans in D&D. The number and frequency of magical items and creatures is up to the GM... and I'm not so sure GoT is low magic


Aldarc said:


> This seems like moving the goalposts of the debate, as you initially compared the degree of changes to AiME (a non-D&D using the 5e engine) and now are saying that it's simply swapping spells out and using a limited range of pre-existing class.



The 5e engine?? You mean D&D (at least in its current rules iteration) right?


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 13, 2020)

Not voting, because neither side acquits themselves well.  The DM doesn’t do anything to actually establish buy-in, and the player goes full passive-aggressive right from the start.  

The correct approach would be for the player to say something like “I’m really not feeling a human-only campaign, is there some sort of compromise where I play something a little different?”

This is also why it’s a good reason as a DM to not put weeks into fleshing out a campaign before you’ve even run the idea by the players yet.  The more pre-work you’ve done, the more a compromise feels like a capitulation.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 13, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Not voting, because neither side acquits themselves well.  The DM doesn’t do anything to actually establish buy-in, and the player goes full passive-aggressive right from the start.
> 
> The correct approach would be for the player to say something like “I’m really not feeling a human-only campaign, is there some sort of compromise where I play something a little different?”
> 
> This is also why it’s a good reason as a DM to not put weeks into fleshing out a campaign before you’ve even run the idea by the players yet.  The more pre-work you’ve done, the more a compromise feels like a capitulation.



Adding to this... it feels like the summary is missing too much to stack the vote against the player


----------



## Rune (Dec 13, 2020)

Back in the 2e era, I was going to run a game for one player who was really into anime (and associated aesthetics) and wanted her character to have purple eyes. I wouldn’t have it. And that game never happened.

Was I in the right? I sure thought so at the time. But I definitely didn’t win.

I’ve learned since that it is the DM’s responsibility to get the players’ buy-in before starting the game. Any parameters the DM wants to establish need to be clearly communicated for that buy-in to happen.

If not everyone buys-in, it’s time for compromise. You’ve got to ask questions to find out why people want to play what they want to play (and that means all the players, not just the ones who haven’t bought-in). Then, ideally, find a way to work it in that works with your conception of the campaign.

Which should be fluid, by the way. If it isn’t, you are effectively saying that your vision is the only one that counts and that is...not a good way to keep players interested. Pro tip: players are more invested when they feel some ownership in a campaign.

With that said, the DM shouldn’t feel pressured into running a game they don’t feel excited about. That way lies burnout and disappointment for all.

At the last, if no consensus can be found, it is the DM’s responsibility to say, “Look. I really have no interest in running the game you want to play, for all the reasons I’ve already put forth. And I’m definitely not going to pour a bunch of time and energy into a running a game that doesn’t interest me. Someone else should DM.”


----------



## TheSword (Dec 13, 2020)

Rune said:


> Back in the 2e era, I was going to run a game for one player, who was really into anime (and associated aesthetics) and wanted her character to have purple eyes. I wouldn’t have it. And that game never happened.
> 
> Was I in the right? I sure thought so at the time. But I definitely didn’t win.
> 
> ...



In the absence of someone else to DM. What happens then? Four people miss out?


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 13, 2020)

I voted for the Players because I will always side with the people against an authoritarian ruler.


----------



## Rune (Dec 13, 2020)

TheSword said:


> In the absence of someone else to DM. What happens then? Four people miss out?



If no one else is willing to DM, the group is just going to have to decide whether they’d rather play the DM’s vision or not at all. And if it’s just one player holding the game hostage, the group needs to collectively decide how to proceed. Or not.

But the point of the majority of my post was that it absolutely should not get that far, if all parties genuinely want to play a collective game. And if they don’t, it’s probably not going to be a fun experience, anyway.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 13, 2020)

I've been thinking about this, and I think I have an aversion to the term "authority". The GM is the _in-game_ arbiter of rules and guides the narrative for the duration of the game session, but doesn't rule the social group like some kind of weird dictator unless they're in some Jack Chick comic strip. In this context, the GM has no 'authority'; they're just one person in a negotiation about what to play next.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 13, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I've been thinking about this, and I think I have an aversion to the term "authority". The GM is the _in-game_ arbiter of rules and guides the narrative for the duration of the game session, but doesn't rule the social group like some kid of dictator unless they're in some Jack Chick comic strip.



I side with Greenleaf!


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 13, 2020)

I said the GM here, but I have to do so with caveats.

I think its entirely fair for a GM to set parameters for a campaign, and insist on people staying within them.  On the other hand, at the point the campaign parameters are set, I think its perfectly legitimate for a player to say he doesn't find the parameters acceptable as-is.  I think at that point there's a potentially irreconcilable difference in what the GM wants to run and what the player wants to play.  Neither of them is intrinsically wrong to stick to their guns.

Of course the power dynamic of the situation can end up putting a thumb on the scale in all kinds of ways.  The classic is for the player to simply decide that game is not for him and not play, and the GM to concur.  But there can be reasons that's not an acceptable solution for one or both.  Maybe the resistant player supplies the play space for the game, and without him there's no game, or the GM only finds running campaigns in general viable with a minimum number of players, and he's already there with the player with the issue.  Maybe at the other end, even though the player really dislikes some of the parameters, the gaming populace is so small that this is literally the only game in town, and he'd really like to play _something_.

There may be compromises that can be reached, or one or the other may have to give (and I don't consider it _automatically_ terrible if its the GM, though there are cases where giving in may change the campaign so radically as to be uninteresting to him, and at that point he has no obligation to run).

I do generally concur that this sort of problem should be sorted out before the campaign choice is firmed down though.  There are absolutely campaign ideas I know will not fly with either of my groups (in some cases because of one specific player in each group) and I shrug and just move on to other things.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 14, 2020)

As a GM, if I put the work and money into a campaign, that's the campaign I'm running. If a player can't get on board with the campaign concept, there's the door. I'm not re-writing months of work for one player. He can go out and find a group that suits his needs. 

This goes back to the core GM responsibility of managing expectations. Everyone at the table needs to be on the same page; if someone isn't, they need to leave. 

In the OP scenario, the GM wants GoT, a player wants something that is clearly not GoT. There's no common ground. Moving forward together is simply going to lead to conflict. The player is trying to force the GM to run a game which the GM does not want to run. 

Again, its basketball and baseball.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I'm not seeing how any of that makes D&D unsuitable?




I don't know if any of that makes D&D unsuitable. 

D&D isn't particularly suitable because it has no inherent mechanics to handle political power, dreadfully few to handle social interaction linked to political power, and not a whole lot for handling armies and mass combat, all of which play major roles in the fiction.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 14, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> In which case it stops being D&D, which supports @QuentinGeorge's assertion.
> .



Baloney. D&D is no less D&D just because it uses a subset of PC races, classes, and monsters.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I'm not re-writing months of work for one player.




Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?




Jd Smith1 said:


> In the OP scenario, the GM wants GoT, a player wants something that is clearly not GoT. There's no common ground.




We don't know how much common ground might have been present, because the description of the interaction is far too vague and incomplete.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I don't know if any of that makes D&D unsuitable.
> 
> D&D isn't particularly suitable because it has no inherent mechanics to handle political power, dreadfully few to handle social interaction linked to political power, and not a whole lot for handling armies and mass combat, all of which play major roles in the fiction.



I'd bet money DM's Guild has supplements for all of those...


----------



## Shiroiken (Dec 14, 2020)

GM, pretty much every time. The balance of a game is primarily on the DM's side, but the players have the ultimate power of veto. If a player doesn't want to accept the premise of the game, they're free to simply leave. An overly strict/severe GM might end up with only a few players, if any at all. A reminder to all that no gaming is better than not-fun gaming.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?



Because then you can start right up if the players buy in to it. No delays. If they don't, you can shelve it for later.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Because then you can start right up if the players buy in to it. No delays. If they don't, you can shelve it for later.




That doesn't tell me why you can't ask the players before you begin those months of work.

Are you actually investing that amount of time and energy before you know who is going to play the thing?  If so... you must have _way_ more spare time than I do.


----------



## prabe (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That doesn't tell me why you can't ask the players before you begin those months of work.
> 
> Are you actually investing that amount of time and energy before you know who is going to play the thing?  If so... you must have _way_ more spare time than I do.



Can't speak for anyone else, but if you're the Forever GM, and you have (or believe you have) the players' trust, you might work that way. You might see what kind/s of campaign interest the players before you start--it seems like a good idea to me--but in some groups it might be superfluous.


----------



## Radaceus (Dec 14, 2020)

My world, my rules. Deal with it, and enjoy!

Playing an RPG is about having fun, its about participating in the game, it is as much the players obligation as it is the GMs to make that happen. As well as, there is an unspoken contract ( or there should be, that was the deal way back when, it may have been waivered since...) between the PCs and the GM- that the GM will be unbiased and fair, and the players will accept his/her rulings.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> Can't speak for anyone else, but if you're the Forever GM, and you have (or believe you have) the players' trust, you might work that way.  You might see what kind/s of campaign interest the players before you start--it seems like a good idea to me--but in some groups it might be superfluous.




Yes, but if this was the case, they players are unlikely to be rejecting your offering, so wouldn't fit the scenario the thread's about.

But, as you note - if you are the Forever GM, so that the players are _right there_, why not ask?  

I mean, if you are cooking dinner for your spouse, you probably ask if they're okay with the plan before you put heat to a pan, right?  And that's only talking about prepping one meal.  But for months of work, you don't ask?


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?




As someone who has done this to his regret (twice!), usually because past indications have been that it'd be acceptable and you've either misjudged or someone's taste has changed and you haven't known it.  Its entirely possible you've also done it when time presented for use in an indefinite future point when you couldn't even be sure what player group composition you'd have.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That doesn't tell me why you can't ask the players before you begin those months of work.
> 
> Are you actually investing that amount of time and energy before you know who is going to play the thing?  If so... you must have _way_ more spare time than I do.




See my comment above.  In my case, it was exactly the opposite, that I did it when I happen to have a period of more spare time than usual, well before it was going to be a thing.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?



I GM what I want to GM. If the players aren't interested, they don't have to play. 

I've never had any problems filling a table.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That doesn't tell me why you can't ask the players before you begin those months of work.
> 
> Are you actually investing that amount of time and energy before you know who is going to play the thing?  If so... you must have _way_ more spare time than I do.



While not the intended, I've also done that.

Recently even. I've prepped for 4 systems recently - but am using 2 of them.
Prepped: Stargate, Talisman Adventures, Cortex Prime, and Twilight 2000.
I've got some players for EACH of those, but only Stargate and Talisman are hitting the table. Both groups want me to run Pendragon again... but I'm not ready for Pendragon - but if my players decide as a group to go to it, I can be ready in a week. 3 Weeks if they insist on a different edition than 4th.

My friday group has asked for Star Wars, Star Trek (but not Modiphius'), or Firefly... But I think Talisman for them is more suitable for me to put adventures out there. When

My sunday group is playing Stargate

Vaesen is going away not because I don't like it, but because I'm not comfortable running it with my own adventures (and the 4th adventure in the book just fails to capture me). My friday group is not prone to subtlety. So, we finish the adventure, and move on to Talisman. 

Stargate is limited run. I've an end point, after which I plan to migrate the sunday group to their choice of T2K4, Pendragon, Talisman, or a homebrew in Cortext Prime, or, just maybe, Burning Empires. 

Some of my prep is done on each of those. None of them is quite ready besides Talisman.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 14, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> This is also why it’s a good reason as a DM to not put weeks into fleshing out a campaign before you’ve even run the idea by the players yet.  The more pre-work you’ve done, the more a compromise feels like a capitulation.



Except for the lonely fun of building settings. 

Coming up with campaign ideas and fleshing out story lines, major NPCs, etc. is enjoyable to me.  I have some campaigns I have been tinkering with for years that I've not found an opportunity to run yet. It is like writing fiction for some. It can still be enjoyable to write stories even if you never publish them. 

I find that if I want to run a tightly restricted game of D&D, it is best to run as a mini campaign. Increasingly, I enjoy running one-shots and short campaigns so that I hit a wider variety of settings and play with a wider variety of concepts. If one really grabs the group, it can be turned into a longer campaign.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?



Maybe because some of us enjoy writing campaigns.  

There is nothing wrong with writing a campaign and seeing if you can find players who want to play in it.  You don't have to have the players before you start working on the campaign. 

How is this any different than spending $20-50 on an adventure book? Or a new game for that matter.  I don't ask my current players to vet my game purchases. 

I write or buy what interests me and see if I can find enough players to play the game. 

In my regular play group, I have one player who doesn't like sci fi games. When I run games of The Expanse or Paranoia, he doesn't play those games. I don't forego running them because one player doesn't like them. 

For our main monthly game it is different. As a campaign gets close to wrapping up, I start throwing out ideas for the next campaign and we agree as a group. For my monthly game, the group of people are more important to me than the game being run.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 14, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Baloney. D&D is no less D&D just because it uses a subset of PC races, classes, and monsters.



So would you argue then that Adventures in Middle Earth is Dungeons & Dragons?


----------



## macd21 (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That doesn't tell me why you can't ask the players before you begin those months of work.
> 
> Are you actually investing that amount of time and energy before you know who is going to play the thing?  If so... you must have _way_ more spare time than I do.




Yes? I’ve put time and money into dozens of campaigns, most of which I’ll probably never run. Whenever I’m in a position to start a new campaign, I consider the various ones I’ve been working on and decide which one to run next.

And then I tell the players ‘this is what I’m running next.’ If some of them aren’t interested, that’s fine. But I set the parameters of what is or isn’t in the campaign.


----------



## D1Tremere (Dec 14, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



GM Authority is a lot like presidential authority, meaning it is as absolute as the people are prepares to allow. A gaming group ultimately has more power than a single GM. Why? Because there are enough people that a group can always play with another GM, either by finding one or someone stepping into the role. They only have to replace one person, while the GM has to build a whole new group. Even worse if their reputation is damaged by the experience, possibly causing other groups or individual players to see them as someone who can't work well with others.

In your specific example I would allow the player to play an elf. Why? Because it takes no real effort to accommodate one member of a rare or unusual race into such a game, and it helps the player have fun. Adding this elf could even plant the seeds of future campaign material, as they wish to explore and search for more of their kind and the history of the world suddenly becomes very interesting to the players on a personal level. Feature, not bug. Opportunity, not problem. The only time I may tell a player no is if their request would truly hurt the groups ability to enjoy the game and no compromise can be reached.

Can a DM tell the player no to their elf? Yes. Will it cause any major issues? Depends on the group. If they are mostly on the players side of the argument it could reduce the whole groups buy in. If they are not then it could really make the one player feel alienated even if they accept the DMs judgement.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Dec 14, 2020)

Yeah, OP's example is clearly incomplete, and is probably trying to erect a straw man of some kind. 

Also the approach of the GM making a campaign by themselves for months on end before even finding players is completely alien to me. I'd much rather get buy-in on a loose pitch from my players - or even create a scenario in tandem with them - before getting to work on the details (or don't, if that's what the system we're using recommends!). 

Also, yeah, system matters. It almost feels like a uselessly obvious tautology that shouldn't have to be said at this point, but apparently it does! Maybe the issue with your campaign pitch is that the game system you're proposing for it is completely incompatible.

Can't really grasp the inflexible attitude being put forward in the thread. Is it really that big a deal to you all? Are you really that attached to your initial ideas?


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 14, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> So would you argue then that Adventures in Middle Earth is Dungeons & Dragons?



That's what I think. It uses all the same mechanics that D&D does, and while I've never run it, it reads like a D&D game with LotR window dressing. It sure ain't The One Ring or Burning Wheel, two systems that do a decent job emulating the source material. Adventures in Middle Earth reminds me of the old D20 games that had major IPs attached to them. Just D&D with the names of some things changed, but everything still worked exactly the same as D&D. Bootstrapping an IP to a system in no way means the system is suddenly magically capable of emulating said IP!


----------



## John Dallman (Dec 14, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I'd bet money DM's Guild has supplements for all of those...



How about betting a little time, finding them, and posting the links? Personally, I reckon there might be ones for armies, but since political power and social interactions under political pressure are (a) hard to make feel fun and (b) likely to undermine player freedom, there likely are no supplements for them.


----------



## ccs (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?



Because I like 3d terrain/miniatures in the game.
Well, even with all the resources out there nowdays, this stuff still doesn't just spontaneously design/build/paint itself. 
So the more "set pieces" I have in mind?  The earlier I need to get working.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2020)

John Dallman said:


> How about betting a little time, finding them, and posting the links? Personally, I reckon there might be ones for armies, but since political power and social interactions under political pressure are (a) hard to make feel fun and (b) likely to undermine player freedom, there likely are no supplements for them.



No need to look on DM's Guild for me...

Advice for creating factions and organizations, tying backgrounds to them to connect to characters along with rules for perks for rank, downtime activities, gaining renown and renown benefits, (including rules for renown affecting social interactions with organization members) are already detailed in the DMG.  Tasha's further expounds on this by fleshing out group patrons and tying them to organizations.  Talislantsa 5e (a setting for D&D 5e) has mechanical rules for creating & stating tribes that the PC's belong too which can easily be reskinned as "Houses" and it contains rules to cover how PC actions can affect their organization's Mass actions and Mass combats.  Can you tell me what other rules you would need to run a GoT-esque D&D campaign.  Honestly one of the biggest advantages to running D&D is the multitide of options both published and homebrewed lone has access too in order to shape their campaign.  IME it's much easier than learning a new rules set and then having to teach said rules set to players.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 14, 2020)

1)  I think there's a big difference between groups where there's a permanent DM, and ones where the DM duties rotate.  If I suggested a game idea to most of my groups that they weren't interested in, other people have ideas they would want to run instead.  None of my groups save one are hurting for DMs.

2)  Even in the group where I'm the permanent DM, I still get table buy-in for any of my campaign ideas, simply because they're my friends/family and making any decision unilaterally would be weird.  It's different in an organized game where the DM is simply searching for players, and the focus is on the game moreso than the group.  That's the one condition where I think a DM can act more unilaterally.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2020)

MNblockhead said:


> Maybe because some of us enjoy writing campaigns.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with writing a campaign and seeing if you can find players who want to play in it.  You don't have to have the players before you start working on the campaign.




Sure, that's fine.  But it is then important to remember that how many months it took to do the work is not relevant to the players, when _they didn't ask you to do that work_.

Let us look again at how this thread and question was framed:

"I offered up a campaign, and this jamoke doesn't want to play it exactly as I want it!  Who should give in?"  

I reject the implicit question of dominance present in the initial framing of the scenario.  Instead, I note that the situation in the scenario exists because the creation process didn't start with the players in mind.  

Now, if you happen to have the happy situation of having a large pool of players to draw from, that may still work out for you, and that's cool.  But that doesn't justify the implicit _affront_ some of these threads have shown at a player asking for a variation.  That comes off like some cooks I know who gasp and flutter their hands when a diner asks for table salt.  "That dish is as _I_ intended it!" they cry, "How dare they ask for a modification!"

RPGs are, ultimately, a collaborative endeavor.  If you put off that collaboration, you're setting yourself up for friction late in the process, where it is harder to adapt.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 14, 2020)

It is very difficult to take the topic of "DM Authority" seriously, because when I read it, all I can see is ...







5e is very much about "rulings not rules" and tends to privilege DM agency. Which is good, for the games I play. It also allows for easy modification and homebrew, which, again, great for DM agency.

I just think that most people come in to these arguments already loaded for bear. In the end, the person who seeks to enforce their will on the unwilling is the jerk. If the DM is running a campaign that the players don't want to play, then the DM is the jerk. If a player reads a pitch for a campaign that says, "No elves," and their only feedback is, "Sure, but what if my PC was ... AN ELF?" then the player is the jerk.

Don't be a jerk.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Sure, that's fine.  But it is then important to remember that how many months it took to do the work is not relevant to the players, when _they didn't ask you to do that work_.
> 
> Let us look again at how this thread and question was framed:
> 
> ...




If we accept that it's a collaborative endeavor at what point do you feel the player should modify their own expectations around character creation to better accommodate a DM's campaign/adventure/game concept?  What I see in this example is a single player who wants to play something that, at least insofar as the DM described his campaign concept... at the very least grates against the theme of a GoT-esque style game and could actually subvert them.  One of the things that makes the non-human in GoT so terrifying is the mystique and lack of knowledge around them... Once a player can play a Child of the Forest, Walker, Valyrian, etc.  that goes out the window.  Moreso it also opens up the window for other players to make such requests as why should only one player get to play a non-human?

EDIT: Also I see alot of answers revolving around what the group wants and in this example it seems all of the group except this one player are ok with the parameters of the campaign... wouldn't that be an argument for that single player to adjust in order for the group to enjoy the campaign premise everyone else has agreed to play?


----------



## nevin (Dec 14, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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...
> 
> ...




I would always side with GM.  It's thier game.  If I don't like thier game I find another.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 14, 2020)

nevin said:


> I would always side with GM.  It's thier game.  If I don't like thier game I find another.



In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.

The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.

This is a ridiculous and flawed anecdote because it ignores that D&D is a collaborative game. The OP's story would be more realistic if the DM was a video game designer and the players had bought the game.

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?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 14, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




But that's not very complicated, or morally difficult (IMO).

Again, who is being the jerk? The DM who wants to try a new campaign with definitive themes (and homebrewed restrictions and additions) that the rest of the table has bought into, or a _single player, who demands to play an elf?_

If this is a group of friends, the compromise seems obvious for the elf-lover. "Sure, I'd love to play in your campaign that you seem so invested in and that everyone else wants to play! That seems awesome. So awesome, in fact, that I can put away my unhealthy and unnatural elf-obsession for one campaign. Next campaign, of course, I will be playing Legolas XCVII, because there ain't no party like a Legolas party, because a Legolas party don't stop. Good?"


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Can't really grasp the inflexible attitude being put forward in the thread. Is it really that big a deal to you all? Are you really that attached to your initial ideas?




In general, I'm willing to run a lot of different things.  But once I'm going to run something in a particular vein, I'm often actually pretty particular about what its going to be.  I'm more prone to running something completely different than modifying it beyond certain limits.

As an example, I'm coming to the end of a semi-historical fantasy game set in Britain right after the Romans left.  No nonhuman player-characters were possible, not because they didn't exist but because the conflict with their return was one of the three central threats of the campaign.   In theory some sort of contrivance could have been made to make a sidhe or wulver PC possible--but I'd not have been interested in doing so because it would have required changing campaign assumptions enough that it just wasn't the campaign I was interested in running.

Obviously, different kinds of campaigns can have more flexibility than the above, but there's almost always some sort of perimeter to the permitted concepts in the campaign that is a no-man's land beyond which I'd really rather run a different campaign than violate.  Not everything is intended to be a kitchen sink superhero campaign.


----------



## Zsong (Dec 14, 2020)

TheSword said:


> Because it’s not very good. Just like the Wheel of Time roleplaying game isn’t very good.



That game was great.


----------



## Zsong (Dec 14, 2020)

amazing. This is literally a simple yes or no question.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Sure, that's fine.  But it is then important to remember that how many months it took to do the work is not relevant to the players, when _they didn't ask you to do that work_.




That's absolutely true, but there's a caveat there: how much do they want you to run?  They absolutely have no obligation to play what doesn't interest them just because you spent a bunch of time on it, but there's no particular obligation on your part to put together something else because they don't like it, either.

(As I noted earlier, there can be all kinds of power dynamic complications with this, to the degree I think people are too off-hand in how they treat player objections in a lot of cases (because while its possible for the player to be the one who has the power, but that's not usually the smart way to bet given how things usually shake down, but it still pretty much has to be the rest state).



Umbran said:


> Now, if you happen to have the happy situation of having a large pool of players to draw from, that may still work out for you, and that's cool.  But that doesn't justify the implicit _affront_ some of these threads have shown at a player asking for a variation.  That comes off like some cooks I know who gasp and flutter their hands when a diner asks for table salt.  "That dish is as _I_ intended it!" they cry, "How dare they ask for a modification!"
> 
> RPGs are, ultimately, a collaborative endeavor.  If you put off that collaboration, you're setting yourself up for friction late in the process, where it is harder to adapt.




This, though, I agree with.  I've referred to it as a lese majesty reaction on some GM's parts.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.
> 
> The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.
> 
> ...



But it's not the group... it's one player just as it's one DM... why does that player warrant more consideration around preference than the DM?


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 14, 2020)

Imaro said:


> But it's not the group... it's one player just as it's one DM... why does that player warrant more consideration around preference than the DM?



Consideration is not a limited resource that has to be shared fairly.

The point is neither side is right or wrong. This is an inflammatory example meant to push people to extremes.

The solution is super simple: have a conversation about what's fun for everyone. No human being on earth is so caught up on playing an elf that they will sacrifice their friends for it, but at the same time the DM should abdicate some creativity and world-building to the players who are going to be participating.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2020)

Imaro said:


> If we accept that it's a collaborative endeavor at what point do you feel the player should modify their own expectations around character creation to better accommodate a DM's campaign/adventure/game concept?




I think there should be a conversation when a GM pitches a game, and folks should come _out_ of it with expectations around character creation, rather than go _into_ it with them.  The player being inflexible here is just as problematic as the GM being inflexible.  



Imaro said:


> What I see in this example is a single player who wants to play something that, at least insofar as the DM described his campaign concept... at the very least grates against the theme of a GoT-esque style game and could actually subvert them.




Sure, but 1) I don't think we can trust that OP to give us a really good idea of how things were presented, or what was in the conversation.  "I want it to be like GoT," doesn't actually tell you much.  Like GoT _in what ways_? More important to my point here, however is, 2) Being confused, frustrated, or indignant at someone _merely asking_ means you probably weren't going into it open to collaboration.

And again, if your marketplace of players is large enough, maybe you don't need to collaborate so much.  And that's fine.  But one should realize that's an element of your situation, not a general entitlement GM's get to have.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2020)

Imaro said:


> But it's not the group... it's one player just as it's one DM... why does that player warrant more consideration around preference than the DM?




I am not sure anyone's saying that one warrants _more_ consideration than another, really.  They are in different roles, and have different concerns - they call for _different_ consideration.


----------



## practicalm (Dec 14, 2020)

So much of this is context dependent.  
In a situation where the gaming group is a group of friends and the code is that no one can be excluded then the GM and the players need to compromise on their visions to find common ground.  The example doesn't show this happening.

I prefer to put a bunch of campaign ideas I'm interested in running and let the players vote. This way other people interested in running a game can also put their ideas out and the players can vote for the ones they want to play. If none of the games are interesting to a specific player, they need to find something else to do.
This can happen when the group is large enough to support a couple of games or people with enough time to be in multiple games.
There might be some negotiation with players around the different ideas but the GM needs to provide some solid details on what is expected from the players.  And players interested need to follow those guidelines.


----------



## jasper (Dec 14, 2020)

Kick the player from the table. He is welcome to play Uno with the non playing spouses. And welcome to Taco Tuesday.  Unless it is Jimmy then Jimmy can stay home or go for burgers on Tuesday since he hates tacos.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 14, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.
> 
> The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.
> 
> ...




In that circumstance, the player should either agree to play as a human, or bow out of the game. Alternatively the player could offer to run something themselves.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



This isn't a realistic or reasonably presented scenario.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This isn't a realistic or reasonably presented scenario.




While its overly simplistic, its not far enough from realistic (people deciding they're going to fit their square peg character concept into the round holes in a campaign concept no matter what) to not be to some extent on-point.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.
> 
> The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.
> 
> ...



Absolutely right about the OP. 

In your scenario, which isn't set up like a loaded question designed to lean toward a single outcome, the DM should have included the players in the early stages of development, and taken what they want out of playing fantasy ttrpgs into account, instead of acting like a self-important auteur that blames uncultured fans when their work gets a cool reception. 

It isn't hard to simply ask your friends, "is there any interest in a humans-only campaign inspired by works like Game of Thrones?" and adjust when one or more of your friends says, "ugh I really don't see the value of humans-only dnd games. I don't play dnd to pretend to be a human." or "You know I don't like grimdark 'everyone sucks and the guys that don't suck die because the guys that suck are smarter and more vicious' media, Mike. Can we please not?" 

Adding elves to Game of Thrones wouldn't even meaningfully change the story, unless you wanted it to.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> While its overly simplistic, its not far enough from realistic (people deciding they're going to fit their square peg character concept into the round holes in a campaign concept no matter what) to not be to some extent on-point.



A scenario presented like a loaded question (Do you prefer Coke like an adult, or are you a crude, uncultured, idiot that thinks they prefer Pepsi?) is not a valid scenario upon which to base a question.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?



I mean... I have done it because it is fun. I like making worlds. 

I however am under no delusion that people playing with me will only ever love and accept my ideas. 

I also am not some weird GM that is a 'My way or there is the door'. That sounds like a bowl of laughs. 

If an idea I spent time on doesn't get picked, maybe I will try it later, or with different people sometime, but I have other stuff I can do that others may enjoy more in the present.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> A scenario presented like a loaded question (Do you prefer Coke like an adult, or are you a crude, uncultured, idiot that thinks they prefer Pepsi?) is not a valid scenario upon which to base a question.




I agree about the presentation.  But I don't agree the scenario itself is particularly unrealistic.  I've seen the equivalent before.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> I agree about the presentation.  But I don't agree the scenario itself is particularly unrealistic.  I've seen the equivalent before.



Meh. I disagree. Not gonna get into further than that.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Meh. I disagree. Not gonna get into further than that.




That's your choice, but when you say someone who's seen something "that unrealistic", you shouldn't be surprised to get challenged on it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> That's your choice, but when you say someone who's seen something "that unrealistic", you shouldn't be surprised to get challenged on it.



I'm not surprised at all, I just disagree.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 14, 2020)

That pitch could use some work, and I don't find that player as particularly realistic in this situation. So I can't really answer. It's an absurd reaction, and if it isn't that absurd from that player, why the heck did the GM think this idea was going to fly? 

It is a weird scenario.  If I was confronted with this, I would just be, alright, Elves are all the knock-off Bravosi. You are Dravosi now, you came to this strange land which is home to so very few of your kind.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm not surprised at all, I just disagree.




If you disagree I've actually seen something like that--well, that's an interesting statement, all right.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> I agree about the presentation.  But I don't agree the scenario itself is particularly unrealistic.  I've seen the equivalent before.



The problem is that neither side is correct, but the OP presented is as an either-or decision.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> If you disagree I've actually seen something like that--well, that's an interesting statement, all right.



le sigh, whatever man. I'm not interested in word games of any kind.


----------



## prabe (Dec 14, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> The problem is that neither side is correct, but the OP presented is as an either-or decision.



Or that both sides are correct. Either way, yes: False dichotomy is false.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> The problem is that neither side is correct, but the OP presented is as an either-or decision.



That's one of the problems, yeah. 

That and presenting it in a way that might as well be, "do you agree that option a is correct, or do you suck at life?"


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

Istbor said:


> That pitch could use some work, and I don't find that player as particularly realistic in this situation. So I can't really answer. It's an absurd reaction, and if it isn't that absurd from that player, why the heck did the GM think this idea was going to fly?




You've never found out the hard way a player has a particular--shall we say--thing about something all of a sudden without warning?  You're a lucky person.  I've found out players I've played with for decades hate a  particular thing without getting the faintest hint of it previously, and had a player suddenly absolutely fixate on doing something I'd never have assumed they'd care about.



Istbor said:


> It is a weird scenario.  If I was confronted with this, I would just be, alright, Elves are all the knock-off Bravosi. You are Dravosi now, you came to this strange land which is home to so very few of your kind.




And that's a really damn good way for the campaign to suddenly be all about that particular character even if not intended.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> The problem is that neither side is correct, but the OP presented is as an either-or decision.




Don't think I've even vaguely defended the _presentation_.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> I agree about the presentation.  But I don't agree the scenario itself is particularly unrealistic.  I've seen the equivalent before.



I've seen similar things happen too, but the scenario as presented by the OP  practically characterizes the player and GM  leaving both sides looking bad.  I'm inclined to say that whatever role the OP took in the example was the biggest problem simply because the question is so loaded.  Is @doctorbadwolf said though, the scenario presented is simply not a believable representation of a group of people


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> I've seen the equivalent before.



I'm sure you have, by a generous interpretation of the OP's scenario and what qualifies as "equivalent". If you've seen the exact behavior, then you've experienced something so rare and melodramatic that it isn't valid as a general case example of a dichotomy to use as the foundation of a proposed quandary.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> le sigh, whatever man. I'm not interested in word games of any kind.




And I'm kind of annoyed when someone seems to imply I'm either a liar or deluded.  So here we are.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> And that's a really damn good way for the campaign to suddenly be all about that particular character even if not intended.



BS. 

There is absolutely nothing about that proposed solution that leads to what you suggest. If that occurs, it's because that individual player is a spotlight hog, and it would have happened had they played a hunter conscripted into service from one of the River Houses, a guard from Winterfell, a retainer to another character's scion of one of the great houses, or an assassin posing as any of the above.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> And I'm kind of annoyed when someone seems to imply I'm either a liar or deluded.  So here we are.



Where are we? I have no clue, because I didn't do what you're accusing me of.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 14, 2020)

Perhaps if one were to assume that the participants in the example are not friends the example would make more sense? 

Say, maybe it was a bunch of random people that met over MeetUp, or that met via Facebook, or even met on an online gaming website. Would that help?

Also, what happens if the GM and Players #1, #2, and #3, really are interested in playing said human only GoTish game? Why does Player #4 get to dictate that four other people must cater to Player #4? What makes Player #4 so special? Especially if they are five strangers gaming together.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> I've seen similar things happen too, but the scenario as presented by the OP  practically characterizes the player and GM  leaving both sides looking bad.  I'm inclined to say that whatever role the OP took in the example was the biggest problem simply because the question is so loaded.  Is @doctorbadwolf said though, the scenario presented is simply not a believable representation of a group of people




I quite agree the question is pretty loaded, but other than the arch depiction of all the players responses, I'm still going to say when stripped of the language, its functionally identical to things I've seen which adds up to: GM: This is the campaign, where everyone plays X; Plaryers: 1; Variation of X; 2: Variation of X; 3: Variation of X; 4: Variation of X; 5: Special snowflake Y that looks like it belongs in another campaign, sometimes even another genre.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Where are we? I have no clue, because I didn't do what you're accusing me of.




You: This post is unrealistic; Me: I've seen the equivelent; You: I disagree.  So you disagree I've seen the equivalent.  There's only a few ways to read that.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm sure you have, by a generous interpretation of the OP's scenario and what qualifies as "equivalent". If you've seen the exact behavior, then you've experienced something so rare and melodramatic that it isn't valid as a general case example of a dichotomy to use as the foundation of a proposed quandary.



No the ops presentation is practically improv skit level absurd.  I only meant that I've seen GM and players disagree on a campaign.   For example,  just a few months ago the player who has been running a game (mostly online) during covid wrapped up that campaign.  People talked about an interest in oota someone hadand something else. I offered to run oota on athas if anyone was interested... couple players were curious and a third didn't want to play a dark sun game so offered ro run something else..  everyone shrugged and decided that it sounded good when the other possible GM on the group said it could be fun... but the ops story is absurdly unbelievable


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> P
> 
> Also, what happens if the GM and Players #1, #2, and #3, really are interested in playing said human only GoTish game? Why does Player #4 get to dictate that four other people must cater to Player #4? What makes Player #4 so special? Especially if they are five strangers gaming together.




I do have to point out that only presenting it as a conflict between the GM and the one player with no discussion of the other players feelings in the original post did your point no favors.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> You: This post is unrealistic; Me: I've seen the equivelent; You: I disagree.  So you disagree I've seen the equivalent.  There's only a few ways to read that.



jfc no. That isn't what happened. I'm sorry you misread the interaction, but I'm making that not my problem anymore. We won't be able to interact for a while. I told you I'm not interested. I don't care how bad you're itching for a dumb internet fight, I'm not going to entertain you.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Perhaps if one were to assume that the participants in the example are not friends the example would make more sense?
> 
> Say, maybe it was a bunch of random people that met over MeetUp, or that met via Facebook, or even met on an online gaming website. Would that help?
> 
> Also, what happens if the GM and Players #1, #2, and #3, really are interested in playing said human only GoTish game? Why does Player #4 get to dictate that four other people must cater to Player #4? What makes Player #4 so special? Especially if they are five strangers gaming together.



If you wanted to make an argument, you should have just done that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> No the ops presentation is practically improv skit level absurd.  I only meant that I've seen GM and players disagree on a campaign.   For example,  just a few months ago the player who has been running a game (mostly online) during covid wrapped up that campaign.  People talked about an interest in oota someone hadand something else. I offered to run oota on athas if anyone was interested... couple players were curious and a third didn't want to play a dark sun game so offered ro run something else..  everyone shrugged and decided that it sounded good when the other possible GM on the group said it could be fun... but the ops story is absurdly unbelievable



I was replying to someone other than you. 

You and I are on the same page, here, far as I can tell.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> BS.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing about that proposed solution that leads to what you suggest. If that occurs, it's because that individual player is a spotlight hog, and it would have happened had they played a hunter conscripted into service from one of the River Houses, a guard from Winterfell, a retainer to another character's scion of one of the great houses, or an assassin posing as any of the above.




It's absolutely not BS if the GM pays the least attention to the fact that one character is an odd man out from everyone else.  I've seen it happen any number of times and seen even more people report it.  And its pretty hard to engage with the character on anything but the most superficial way without that happening, especially in a campaign that's going to have a lot to do with social relationships.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> jfc no. That isn't what happened. I'm sorry you misread the interaction, but I'm making that not my problem anymore. We won't be able to interact for a while. I told you I'm not interested. I don't care how bad you're itching for a dumb internet fight, I'm not going to entertain you.




I don't think _I'm_ the one who came in trying to start one of those, but whatever.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 14, 2020)

I DM only with the consent of the amused.

So I side with... well... I'd work with the player so they could play an elf or something elf-analogous in my faux-Westeros setting. If the player wanted to run Tars Tarkas and swing six swords at a time (how many arms does that sucker have, again?), I'd probably say no.

The point being, I'd try to reach a compromise, maybe even expand my initial setting parameters a bit, because it's a fun creative challenge to reconcile different people's aesthetic preferences. It stops being my world as soon as I agree to let players into it.

(ie, in the context of an RPG campaign, the world is never really mine)


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

And to make it clear if anyone has read the last couple pages differently: I'm not a big fan of GM-authority-uber-alles.  I just think one needs to realize not all campaign concepts have the same amount of give, and don't find people who are unwilling to accept that any more reasonable than GMs who have a leave it or take it attitude.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 14, 2020)

ccs said:


> Why?  Theres nothing going on in GoT that D&D can't handle




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


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 14, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2020)

*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 (Dec 15, 2020)

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 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 15, 2020)

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 (Dec 15, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

ccs said:


> 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.



My point is that D&D tied combat power to social and knowledge power where these 3 are independent in ASOIAF.

It's less about the players and more about the mechanics. If you freeform RP the social and lore part, you aren't really playing D&D are you?



Jd Smith1 said:


> 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.




No, you could design a game based on lore, diplomacy, titles, and domain management.
Like a mix of dating sim mixed with a 4X.
Kinda like playing Crusader Kings with dice.

If fact, the elf player *could be* one of the most serious one seeing how haughty and twisted a hardcor fey style elf could be. Fits right in. 

Sir Sneak is the one doing it wrong. Knights in GOT don't sneak, they fight.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> It's less about the players and more about the mechanics. If you freeform RP the social and lore part, you aren't really playing D&D are you?




[snark alert] Depends on what edition. [/snark alert]



Minigiant said:


> No, you could design a game based on lore, diplomacy, titles, and domain management.
> Like a mix of dating sim mixed with a 4X.
> Kinda like playing Crusader Kings with dice.
> 
> ...




Jaime certainly seemed to do so sometimes.


----------



## ccs (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> My point is that D&D tied combat power to social and knowledge power where these 3 are independent in ASOIAF.
> 
> It's less about the players and more about the mechanics. If you freeform RP the social and lore part, you aren't really playing D&D are you?



There's a difference between Role Play & Roll Play....

And you are incorrect in several ways.

1st:
D&D ties increasing prowess (whatever the category) to gaining xp*.  It's just heavily implied that most of that xp comes from fighting....  
But (depending upon edition &/or DM) in fact xp can be gained by A) gaining treasure, B) killing monsters, C) overcoming monsters, D) doing "class things" such as thieves thieving/fighter being strong/etc, E) overcoming traps/tricks/obstacles, F) reaching various "Milestones" story-wise, or really for whatever reason the DM decides to award xp for.

*The exception is increasing some stats due to aging.  See 1e DMG for details.

2nd:
It's definitely about the players.
You get the wrong mix of Roll/Role going on....  

3rd:
*LOL.:*_  "If you freeform RP the social and lore part, you aren't really playing D&D are you?"_ 
Yes, I am.   I have it on authority from those who created the game that any rules can be altered/created/ignored as best suits the needs of those playing.   I've had this permission since I opened my 1st D&D book.
Would you like me to quote you some Gygax etc on the subject?


----------



## ccs (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> [snark alert] Depends on what edition. [/snark alert]
> 
> 
> 
> Jaime certainly seemed to do so sometimes.




The 1st one that came to my mind is Bronn.  That ones definitely not above sneaking.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

ccs said:


> The 1st one that came to my mind is Bronn.  That ones definitely not above sneaking.




Bronn wasn't a knight as such until pretty late in the day.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

ccs said:


> There's a difference between Role Play & Roll Play....




Oh, good gods and little fishes.


----------



## ccs (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> Bronn wasn't a knight as such until pretty late in the day.



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


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 15, 2020)

Edited for clarity


zarionofarabel said:


> 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... A group of people, quite possibly strangers, meet to play a new campaign. The GM, notified ahead of time that they will be running the game has prepared an "elevator pitch" to try to sell the idea of the campaign they wish to run.
> 
> ...



NOTE: As no system was mentioned assuming D&D 5e is being used is a false assumption. Other systems that include both Humans and Elfs as playable characters include, Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, Desolation, Dragon Age, The One Ring, Pathfinder, and most OSR games, among others.

Please vote, or change your vote if you wish. Thank you for all the votes and replies!


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 15, 2020)

Game masters should not _feel_ that they need to compromise the game they've spent some time organising. If the Player has a _convincing_ argument as to why they should be able to, given the original post, "play an elf when human-only is the premise of the campaign" then the GM wouldn't have any opposition... they've been convinced after all. But it appears "that's what I want to play" wasn't convincing enough.

In this case it appears the Player won't be joining in with the rest of the Players to play the game. The GM didn't kick them out, the Player chose not to play because it wasn't a game they wanted to play. The Player could, of course, offer to become the GM and run the *Elronds and Elves* game they really really wanted the (now former) GM to run; perhaps they'll be able to enlighten the former GM about the wonders of playing elves and get them to run the next game of E&E.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> No, you could design a game based on lore, diplomacy, titles, and domain management.
> Like a mix of dating sim mixed with a 4X.
> Kinda like playing Crusader Kings with dice.
> 
> ...




You could. Why you would bother designing an entire game when you could just add a couple house-rules to an existing one is a question for the individual.

No, a guy who hears GoT and wants an Elf is not an asset.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 15, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> You could. Why you would bother designing an entire game when you could just add a couple house-rules to an existing one is a question for the individual.
> 
> No, a guy who hears GoT and wants an Elf is not an asset.



What I heard was a GM making a pitch saying that they wanted to run something inspired by GoT. Considering that Birthright has elves, I don't think that it's necessarily out of the ordinary for a player to propose playing an elf. If the GM initially used phrasing like "all human campaign" instead of "regular people," then they likely could have nipped this player's idea in the bud at the outset.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 15, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> What I heard was a GM making a pitch saying that they wanted to run something inspired by GoT. Considering that Birthright has elves, I don't think that it's necessarily out of the ordinary for a player to propose playing an elf. If the GM initially used phrasing like "all human campaign" instead of "regular people," then they likely could have nipped this player's idea in the bud at the outset.




Even if the Player initially misinterpreted the campaign's premise, they were corrected but still insisted that they wanted to play an elf.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> You could. Why you would bother designing an entire game when you could just add a couple house-rules to an existing one is a question for the individual.
> 
> No, a guy who hears GoT and wants an Elf is not an asset.




You're missing my point.
The issue is less the Elf guy

The GM's problem is 

"Player #2 "Sure. I will play *Lady Noble* the Noblest of Nobles!"
That's limiting the number of game systems that could be run OR forces the DM to heavily modify or buy houserules for other game systems.

If Player #4 is your problem, there is a good chance you have a lot more problems coming.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 15, 2020)

Crusadius said:


> Even if the Player initially misinterpreted the campaign's premise, they were corrected but still insisted that they wanted to play an elf.



I'm aware of that, but what the player is hearing is the GM shutting down what they were excited to play from that initial pitch. The fight is mostly about the mismanagement of psychological expectations.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> You're missing my point.
> The issue is less the Elf guy
> 
> The GM's problem is
> ...



I disagree. The premise being "Game of Thrones" should mean they've already considered the possibility of "Lady Noble" and probably already decided on the system and maybe even worked out how to use System X to run the game. An elf character likely has not been accounted for and likely means throwing away most of the effort already made in preparation for the first session.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 15, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> I'm aware of that, but what the player is hearing is the GM shutting down what they were excited to play from that initial pitch. The fight is mostly about the mismanagement of psychological expectations.



What the GM is hearing is the Player refusing to engage in their campaign. In any case, one of them could always leave if they're not happy.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Crusadius said:


> I disagree. The premise being "Game of Thrones" should mean they've already considered the possibility of "Lady Noble" and probably already decided on the system and maybe even worked out how to use System X to run the game. An elf character likely has not been accounted for and likely means throwing away most of the effort already made in preparation for the first session.




That's a lot of assuming you are doing. The DM didn't mention a system or any of the tweak they are don't, or if the style of game the campaign will be. 

The enthusiasm of the players mental the elf player is comfortable with the GM or there is a lot of naive thoughts at the table. To me, as  both a player and DM, Player 2 is a bigger issue than Player 4.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> You're missing my point.
> The issue is less the Elf guy
> 
> The GM's problem is
> ...




Heavily modify? Maybe add two skills, set goals for members of specific Houses to achieve to earn XP, and set up a method of accounting of actions. I've got a deeply political metaplot going on in my current campaign (Session #28 this week), with less than that. Players can think for themselves; you don't need a dice roll for everything.

Whereas Elf boy either has the too-common Legolas fixation, or he knows nothing about GoT, or didn't like the books. In short, not someone you want in a thinking player's campaign. He needs to find a group that suits his expectations. Hammering a square peg into a round hole is a recipe for failure.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 15, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Edited for clarity
> 
> NOTE: As no system was mentioned assuming D&D 5e is being used is a false assumption. Other systems that include both Humans and Elfs as playable characters include, Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, Desolation, Dragon Age, The One Ring, Pathfinder, and most OSR games, among others.
> 
> Please vote, or change your vote if you wish. Thank you for all the votes and replies!



In this new scenario, you begin by saying that "The GM, notified ahead of time that they will be running the game has prepared an "elevator pitch" to try to sell the idea of the campaign they wish to run."

So far so good.

But then you go on to ask us to choose between only two possibilities: The player gets to play an elf in this campaign, or the player has to leave the group.

That's not an elevator pitch selling the idea of the campaign. The campaign has clearly been decided, since the only question is about how that player fits into it. Otherwise there would have been another option -- "Discuss the idea of a different campaign which the whole group is on board with." But that option is not present.

Give that it's a group of strangers, I'm not saying you should have to do that (pitch the idea of the campaign), but you did open by saying you _did _do that.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Wrong thread.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Heavily modify? Maybe add two skills, set goals for members of specific Houses to achieve to earn XP, and set up a method of accounting of actions. I've got a deeply political metaplot going on in my current campaign (Session #28 this week), with less than that. Players can think for themselves; you don't need a dice roll for everything.
> 
> Whereas Elf boy either has the too-common Legolas fixation, or he knows nothing about GoT, or didn't like the books. In short, not someone you want in a thinking player's campaign. He needs to find a group that suits his expectations. Hammering a square peg into a round hole is a recipe for failure.




More than simple modify.
Full on class builds or purchasing of books.

Most adventurer fantasy RPGs don't even have the capability to run the noncombatant all skills character most of the female nobles and some male nobles in the book series.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> More than simple modify.
> Full on class builds or purchasing of books.
> 
> Most adventurer fantasy RPGs don't even have the capability to run the noncombatant all skills character most of the female nobles and some male nobles in the book series.




Don't be silly. I'm doing it with 5e right now. No playbooks, no 'full-on class builds' to depict social issues. Here's all the house rules: Dark Lands | Obsidian Portal

No special effort for diplomacy, just players who can visualize social interaction. You don't need a dice roll for everything.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Don't be silly. I'm doing it with 5e right now. No playbooks, no 'full-on class builds' to depict social issues. Here's all the house rules: Dark Lands | Obsidian Portal
> 
> No special effort for diplomacy, just players who can visualize social interaction. You don't need a dice roll for everything.



What class is Sansa Stark?


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> What class is Sansa Stark?




None. She's an NPC.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> None. She's an NPC.




What class is Player 2's PC?

Most Fantasy Adventurer or Action TTRPGs lack one.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> What class is Player 2's PC?
> 
> Most Fantasy Adventurer or Action TTRPGs lack one.




What difference would class make? If the PC can speak, has appropriate languages skills, and a suitable background, it's set. Like I said, you don't need dice for everything; players can role-play through social interactions.

PCs should be more than just numbers on a character sheet.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> What difference would class make? If the PC can speak, has appropriate languages skills, and a suitable background, it's set. Like I said, you don't need dice for everything; players can role-play through social interactions.
> 
> PCs should be more than just numbers on a character sheet.




Because I'm playing the game system? Because we didn't decide to be freeform roleplaying?

"I know you just bought $100 of books but we aren't using any of them to play System X. It'll be fine. Trust me. So you in".

Nah boss.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Don't be silly. I'm doing it with 5e right now. No playbooks, no 'full-on class builds' to depict social issues. Here's all the house rules: Dark Lands | Obsidian Portal
> 
> No special effort for diplomacy, just players who can visualize social interaction. You don't need a dice roll for everything.



 This was why the shift the 3E was a little jarring for me with social skills. I was always much more a fan of the Etiquette NWP which functioned as a knowledge and didn’t replace or get in the way of RP. I think this is just one of those divides in the hobby. Neither is right or wrong but for me, I much prefer allowing the players to speak as their characters and having what is said shape things like NPC reactions (obviously factors like reputation, power, CHR, can factor in). I simply have more fun playing the game this way


----------



## Morrus (Dec 15, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> This was why the shift the 3E was a little jarring for me with social skills. I was always much more a fan of the Etiquette NWP which functioned as a knowledge and didn’t replace or get in the way of RP. I think this is just one of those divides in the hobby. Neither is right or wrong but for me, I much prefer allowing the players to speak as their characters and having what is said shape things like NPC reactions (obviously factors like reputation, power, CHR, can factor in). I simply have more fun playing the game this way



For me it was when they started asking me to roll dice rather than display by martial prowess in a fight to the death with the GM. Dice! Who needs dice?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

Morrus said:


> For me it was when they started asking me to roll dice rather than display by martial prowess in a fight to the death with the GM. Dice! Who needs dice?



Lol. You are more old school than I sir. Seriously I do understand this perspective. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to roll dice for social skills, and I can see that that has become the norm (which is why in even my own games, there are social skills----even if I've devised guidelines to help them fit my style). But just for me, when I started the way we handled the social aspects of the game was free form RP and that just always worked best for me. It isn't for everyone, I just really like how this feels in play more. As social skill rolls became more the norm (I remember not being fond of them in Vampire for example and other RPGs that used them prior to 3E), it just felt like what I said as a character in the game, didn't matter as much. I also like generally rules being lighter on this side of the game so that the system fades into the background and RP can be more the focus. I am not as into the fun of the system itself as I am into the fun of the RP. Different strokes.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> This was why the shift the 3E was a little jarring for me with social skills. I was always much more a fan of the Etiquette NWP which functioned as a knowledge and didn’t replace or get in the way of RP. I think this is just one of those divides in the hobby. Neither is right or wrong but for me, I much prefer allowing the players to speak as their characters and having what is said shape things like NPC reactions (obviously factors like reputation, power, CHR, can factor in). I simply have more fun playing the game this way



I think there's an interesting thing here.  I think a large section of the playerbase likes the idea of physical capabilities of characters being a function of the ruleset and character-building, but want the mental and social aspects of the game to be handled by player skill and DM-player negotiation  (The "I just want to roleplay it" request.)  

And yet, there's no system I can think off that builds the character as a purely physical construct and assumes the player will handle the mental/social aspects of the game.  Indeed, I think there would be large outcry _against _such a system.


----------



## embee (Dec 15, 2020)

GM.

GM said it's a GOT-type setting with no non-human playable races. If the party is on board with this and buys in, then they've bought in. It's take-it-or-leave-it on that and it's well within the GM prerogative to limit playable races. 

The books are a grocery store. I tell my kids that we're having chicken for dinner, with a veg and a starch. If one kid says she wants to have a hot dog with broccoli and a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, I say no. Sure, I could buy the hot dogs and cereal at the store. But that's not the choice I gave and, at the end of the day, I am the arbiter of choice. 

It sounds harsh but consider that the GM has (hopefully) already put in some work to prep the campaign. One player having enough veto-power to require a total reworking of the campaign is both inconsiderate of the GM's job responsibilities and a reversal of the role dynamics.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I think there's an interesting thing here.  I think a large section of the playerbase likes the idea of physical capabilities of characters being a function of the ruleset and character-building, but want the mental and social aspects of the game to be handled by player skill and DM-player negotiation  (The "I just want to roleplay it" request.)
> 
> And yet, there's no system I can think off that builds the character as a purely physical construct and assumes the player will handle the mental/social aspects of the game.  Indeed, I think there would be large outcry _against _such a system.




I think this is a simplification. What I know is in earlier editions I had a much easier time focusing on RP, and handling it free-form. Were there knowledges and other rules in earlier editions? Yes, but most of those rules were optional and they didn't interfere with RP (at least the rules provided in the core books: expansion material was all over the place). It really depends on what edition and rules, so maybe there are mechanics you have in mind. But even things like CHR reaction were easy to handle without getting in the way of RP. And yes you had rules for things like sensing secret doors, but those were largely passive, and it just wasn't as complete as a system for non-combat stuff as you find in 3E. Also so many of those rules were not obvious. Try reading through the 2E PHB and see how differently it handles these things. It isn't that the game has no material for non-physical abilities of characters. But try looking up rules for things like a generic detect. I am not saying those kinds of things can't be found. Often they can, but they are often buried, optional, or firmly placed in the hands of the GM. And in the case of NWPs like Etiquette they specifically state they do not replace RP. 

It has been a while now, but I ran 2E again several times because I had noticed my Ravenloft games felt different. The moment I shifted from 3E to 2E, it went back to how it was (and I had just been chalking it up to nostaglia prior to that). I think there were two major reasons for this: the rules led to more freeform RP and interaction with the setting; and combat was faster. 

I think it is very easy in these discussions to misidentity the problem, or identify some aspect of play that is a problem for people in certain quantities, but not a problem in corners of the game. Discussions then become a matter of one side finding those corner cases or less prominent cases to essentially say "see you really don't have a problem with this". But it is often more about how prevalent such mechanics are. Not saying that is what you are doing but been in a lot of these conversations where that happens. Personally, the very first thing that struck me about RPGs was the freeform RP. I played a lot of 3E but noticed issues around that with the system. And ultimately gave up on D&D once 4E came out and we tried several campaigns of it. Now I mostly play other games or play earlier editions of D&D (or retroclones). And that seems to fit my taste pretty well,


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I think there's an interesting thing here.  I think a large section of the playerbase likes the idea of physical capabilities of characters being a function of the ruleset and character-building, but want the mental and social aspects of the game to be handled by player skill and DM-player negotiation  (The "I just want to roleplay it" request.)
> 
> And yet, there's no system I can think off that builds the character as a purely physical construct and assumes the player will handle the mental/social aspects of the game.  Indeed, I think there would be large outcry _against _such a system.



you might be stretching to use he word "large" but I'll give you "vocal".  There are very important reasons not to do that however.  I'm quite sure that a wide array of monsters and npcs should be dramatically more skilled at social interaction than the average player, above average player, elite player, & even the most elite player when it comes to social interaction.  Add to that the fact that a player who happens to have taken a self defense course, does athletics/acrobatics related stuff for work/hobby, or even does compsci/EE/physics type stuff that could be considered magic needs to use the rules to represent those things rather than being asked to demonstrate levitation climb a wall or even disable/bypass a security system such as a lock.  People wanting the social stuff to be "just roleplay it" are asking to di that instead of being bound by rules like everyone else


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think this is a simplification. What I know is in earlier editions I had a much easier time focusing on RP, and handling it free-form. Were there knowledges and other rules in earlier editions? Yes, but most of those rules were optional and they didn't interfere with RP (at least the rules provided in the core books: expansion material was all over the place). It really depends on what edition and rules, so maybe there are mechanics you have in mind. But even things like CHR reaction were easy to handle without getting in the way of RP. And yes you had rules for things like sensing secret doors, but those were largely passive, and it just wasn't as complete as a system for non-combat stuff as you find in 3E. Also so many of those rules were not obvious. Try reading through the 2E PHB and see how differently it handles these things. It isn't that the game has no material for non-physical abilities of characters. But try looking up rules for things like a generic detect. I am not saying those kinds of things can't be found. Often they can, but they are often buried, optional, or firmly placed in the hands of the GM. And in the case of NWPs like Etiquette they specifically state they do not replace RP.



But I think you're still making the point that for your style of play, freeform RP (DM-player negotiation) is something you like and want more of.  You don't want the rules to "interfere".  I think I'm reading you correctly here?

I know (and play with!) several other people who feel the same way, I'm just wondering why there aren't more systems that cut out the parts of the game that would actually hinder roleplaying in that manner (like social skills, or INT and CHA scores.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> But I think you're still making the point that for your style of play, freeform RP (DM-player negotiation) is something you like and want more of.  You don't want the rules to "interfere".  I think I'm reading you correctly here?
> 
> I know (and play with!) several other people who feel the same way, I'm just wondering why there aren't more systems that cut out the parts of the game that would actually hinder roleplaying in that manner (like social skills, or INT and CHA scores.)




I think again in these discussions, preferences, get shaved down to the most extreme form they can take (because these are text based conversations about ideas and stark ideas are easier to communicate). In reality, preferences are often more muddy than that. Of the three things you list, only social skills interfere with my ability to free form RP. I suppose some of this comes down to GM rulings in earlier editions, but reaction rolls and ability checks were not coming up in place of RP the tables I gamed at. A reaction roll would often come before RP for example, to set the stage (which feels a bit like how people are in life). Also even if you prefer free form RP, it is very useful to have some levers to pull on in edge cases. There is a school of thought where you are essentially just playing yourself in some RPGs, and for that school, perhaps removing mental attributes would be fine, but that is probably a pretty niche crowd. 

A not about skills in earlier editions, they weren't really a big part of the game at all. In OD&D you don't really have skills. And by 2E you have three optional systems for them, and NWPs was the one that got the most development in the core book (and that specifically tried to avoid doing things like replacing RP with a NWP---and you can tell they are walking this line carefully just by how the entires are written).


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> you might be stretching to use he word "large" but I'll give you "vocal".  There are very important reasons not to do that however.  I'm quite sure that a wide array of monsters and npcs should be dramatically more skilled at social interaction than the average player, above average player, elite player, & even the most elite player when it comes to social interaction.  Add to that the fact that a player who happens to have taken a self defense course, does athletics/acrobatics related stuff for work/hobby, or even does compsci/EE/physics type stuff that could be considered magic needs to use the rules to represent those things rather than being asked to demonstrate levitation climb a wall or even disable/bypass a security system such as a lock.  People wanting the social stuff to be "just roleplay it" are asking to di that instead of being bound by rules like everyone else



I'm not sure why it's "important" to not do it.  The first part you mention is primarily about the fidelity of simulation, which may or may not be important for a given play group.  

And again, most people I know totally OK with letting the rule set handle magic skills or physical capabilities, it's specifically the social skills that a large amount of people people like to handle freeform.  That's totally OK as a game preference, I'm just wondering why it hasn't been catered to.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think again in these discussions, preferences, get shaved down to the most extreme form they can take (because these are text based conversations about ideas and stark ideas are easier to communicate). In reality, preferences are often more muddy than that. Of the three things you list, only social skills interfere with my ability to free form RP. I suppose some of this comes down to GM rulings in earlier editions, but reaction rolls and ability checks were not coming up in place of RP the tables I gamed at. A reaction roll would often come before RP for example, to set the stage (which feels a bit like how people are in life). Also even if you prefer free form RP, it is very useful to have some levers to pull on in edge cases. There is a school of thought where you are essentially just playing yourself in some RPGs, and for that school, perhaps removing mental attributes would be fine, but that is probably a pretty niche crowd.
> 
> A not about skills in earlier editions, they weren't really a big part of the game at all. In OD&D you don't really have skills. And by 2E you have three optional systems for them, and NWPs was the one that got the most development in the core book (and that specifically tried to avoid doing things like replacing RP with a NWP---and you can tell they are walking this line carefully just by how the entires are written).



So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores?  Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't?  I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire.  To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.


----------



## prabe (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores?  Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't?  I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire.  To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.



I think there are people who don't mind lore/knowledge skills, but are bothered by social skills. I think @Bedrockgames has said things elsewhere that lead me to believe they're in that camp.

EDIT: And they said so very clearly in the post below.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores?  Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't?  I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire.  To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.



This isn't what I am saying. Again, things in online discussions tend to be very extreme and binary (you are for X and against Y). I said things like having rules for INT never bothered me the way having a rule for diplomacy did, or having generic Spot and Gather information Skills. It never troubled me if the GM occasionally called for an INT roll for whatever reason, because I rarely found that interfered with the type of freeform RP i liked to do. Would I mind a game that didn't have an INT score? No not at all. Do I think D&D shouldn't have INT? No, because it is useful for lots of things in play. 

I think the problem is you keep trying to frame my preferences a certain way, or at least frame freeform RP a certain way. I know what it is you have in mind, I have seen this preference expressed online. But my preferences are more 'moderate' around this subject. I don't mind for example if my character has an 18 INT and I am struggling to piece together clues in a mystery, if the GM says "Okay give me an INT roll" and if I succeed the GM saying something a bit to nudge me like "You seem to recall the man with the eagle tattoo who gave you the package....that tattoo looks like the same kind of eagle in this cage". 

I don't mind my character having an INT score at all. But I do like having the experience of trying to solve the puzzle without reducing it to a series of rolls. Like I said, most preferences are muddy. The internet deals with stark things (you said you like X two pages ago, but now you are telling me you also like Y, and those seem mutually exlusive to me....well human preferences are muddy and complicated and not binary, they are often more about the ratio of X, Y and Z being in the game).


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores?  Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't?  I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire.  To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.



I recall that the OSR game MazeRats only uses Strength, Dexterity, and Will. But admittedly it's an OSR game that doesn't see Pawn stance as a bad thing, particularly since the whole valuing "skilled play" aspect of OSR.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think the problem is you keep trying to frame my preferences a certain way, or at least frame freeform RP a certain way. I know what it is you have in mind, I have seen this preference expressed online. But my preferences are more 'moderate' around this subject. I don't mind for example if my character has an 18 INT and I am struggling to piece together clues in a mystery, if the GM says "Okay give me an INT roll" and if I succeed the GM saying something a bit to nudge me like "You seem to recall the man with the eagle tattoo who gave you the package....that tattoo looks like the same kind of eagle in this cage".



I don't think there's a problem at all.  I'm just curious, as someone who has different preferences than my own, why certain aspects of X feel good and other aspects don't.  It's totally cool to have preferences; interrogating the "why" of various preferences is just really interesting!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

prabe said:


> I think there are people who don't mind lore/knowledge skills, but are bothered by social skills. I think @Bedrockgames has said things elsewhere that lead me to believe they're in that camp.




It is more that my preferences are not sharply divided into strict categories. I like having knowledge skills for various things. I also like solving puzzles myself in play. There is some gray produced by this preference. When a game makes it harder and harder for me to get the feel of solving the puzzle, then I may have an issue. So I kind of enjoy some of the muddiness in systems that are not strictly catering to a clearly delineated preference (which are usually categories that arose from online discussions that may produce models for conversation and analysis, but I find don't often fit the facts on the ground of what I like or don't like). Not sure if this makes sense. Trying to express it as best I can. 

And something I feel I should restate, I do use social skills in my own games. I just use them in ways that don't interfere with how I like to roleplay. Here is a section of text from one of my books that addresses this (it took me a while as a GM and Player to find an approach that fit me). Note that Mental skill here includes a mix of 'social skills' like Persuade and Empathy: 



> SKILL ROLLS ARE NOT MAGIC BUTTONS
> Skill rolls are part of the game to facilitate play. They are meant to aid you in adjudicating the actions players take. Rather than seeing the world through their Skill list, encourage players to see the world through their characters and say what they intend to do without referencing Skills. When you deem a Skill roll necessary, tell them to roll the most appropriate Skill for the action they are taking.





> *This is especially true of mental Skills. They should not replace dialogue between characters or player description of what they intend to say. A Skill roll is never enough for you to determine an NPCs reaction. To decide how an NPC reacts you need to know what a player character is saying and doing. Then if there is any doubt about how the NPC would respond, you can ask for a Persuade, Deception, or Command roll from the player. *


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I don't think there's a problem at all.  I'm just curious, as someone who has different preferences than my own, why certain aspects of X feel good and other aspects don't.  It's totally cool to have preferences; interrogating the "why" of various preferences is just really interesting!




I think you can get led astray interrogating these things. It has certainly happened to me where I thought I found an explanation for what I liked, and generated a kind of rule based on that (a rule that led me to avoid playing games that had X or Y). Then I realized that X or Y wasn't really a problem in itself. It was just the way a particular game used X or Y, or that there too much of X or Y (but actually a little bit of X or Y from time to time, enhanced play). What I try to do now is just build based on what works over time at the table. And that has worked out much better for me


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> I recall that the OSR game MazeRats only uses Strength, Dexterity, and Will. But admittedly it's an OSR game that doesn't see Pawn stance as a bad thing, particularly since the whole valuing "skilled play" aspect of OSR.



Pawn stance and OSR play are kinda like peanut butter and chocolate, yea.  I think my next game might be more OSR style, so I'm trying to grasp the nuances of the psychology of play, since it doesn't come naturally to me.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

ccs said:


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




Fair.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Pawn stance and OSR play are kinda like peanut butter and chocolate, yea.  I think my next game might be more OSR style, so I'm trying to grasp the nuances of the psychology of play, since it doesn't come naturally to me.



The author Ben Milton (Questing Beast) has a YouTube channel dedicated to OSR reviews and approaches.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> More than simple modify.
> Full on class builds or purchasing of books.
> 
> Most adventurer fantasy RPGs don't even have the capability to run the noncombatant all skills character most of the female nobles and some male nobles in the book series.



 I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, but can you expand on what you mean by that?  Because it appears to me once you move away from the D&D-sphere, that's not true.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Pawn stance and OSR play are kinda like peanut butter and chocolate, yea.  I think my next game might be more OSR style, so I'm trying to grasp the nuances of the psychology of play, since it doesn't come naturally to me.




One thing I would say about this is stuff like Pawn stance was part of a model of understanding and analyzing games, that occurred outside the OSR itself. Maybe that gave them insights people in the OSR didn't have. But it also, in my opinion, led to blind spots. I would definitely say if you want to appreciate what the OSR is about, to check out conversations within the OSR itself because one thing you will find is their preferences are often not as easily pinned down as a model like this suggests (in the same way we in the OSR don't always have a firm grasp on things like narrative preferences and what they really mean). What you see people actually doing at a table in an OSR game is going to be a lot more helpful in my opinion than taking models like that, and even more helpful than using models within the OSR because I've found those don't really capture live play at the table as well either.  I think if your starting point for understanding OSR play is pawn stance, you are going to have trouble really understanding OSR players. Also something to keep in mind is how varied old school play is. I am by no means a spokesperson for the OSR (most of my systems are much too new school for a typical OSR gamer) but I have a lot of old school sensibilities in how I run and structure adventures. I would check out some of the OSR conversations on Youtube and blogs.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think again in these discussions, preferences, get shaved down to the most extreme form they can take (because these are text based conversations about ideas and stark ideas are easier to communicate). In reality, preferences are often more muddy than that. Of the three things you list, only social skills interfere with my ability to free form RP. I suppose some of this comes down to GM rulings in earlier editions, but reaction rolls and ability checks were not coming up in place of RP the tables I gamed at. A reaction roll would often come before RP for example, to set the stage (which feels a bit like how people are in life). Also even if you prefer free form RP, it is very useful to have some levers to pull on in edge cases. There is a school of thought where you are essentially just playing yourself in some RPGs, and for that school, perhaps removing mental attributes would be fine, but that is probably a pretty niche crowd.
> 
> A not about skills in earlier editions, they weren't really a big part of the game at all. In OD&D you don't really have skills. And by 2E you have three optional systems for them, and NWPs was the one that got the most development in the core book (and that specifically tried to avoid doing things like replacing RP with a NWP---and you can tell they are walking this line carefully just by how the entires are written).




I should just note that I've seen some of the same critique directed at mental and perceptual skills because they impinge on problem solving and roleplaying out searches and the like.  It isn't quite as common, but its far from unknown.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores?  Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't?  I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire.  To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.




As I recall, that's pretty much the tact Shadow of the Demon Lord takes in its stats.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, but can you expand on what you mean by that?  Because it appears to me once you move away from the D&D-sphere, that's not true.




Most class based adventurer games lack a core "Noble" or "Princess" class.

But ASOIAF is full of them.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> As I recall, that's pretty much the tact Shadow of the Demon Lord takes in its stats.



If Shadow of the Weird Wizard comes out before my next game starts, that's definitely an option I'm considering.  SotDL with a little less grimdark in its core is close to my perfect system.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> I should just note that I've seen some of the same critique directed at mental and perceptual skills because they impinge on problem solving and roleplaying out searches and the like.  It isn't quite as common, but its far from unknown.




Sure, and I think I mentioned this in one of my other posts. There are some skills I don't particularly like for this reason. But it would just be difficult for me to make a hard rule about it, because it isn't as black and white as this in practice. It is more about the abundance of such mechanics. In 3E there was an explosion of core skills for handling things that might otherwise mostly, though not always, been handled by just playing it out at the table (whether that be solving a puzzle or talking in character). And the culture around play shifted too, toward a more rules as written approach. So I think those two things made it harder. But it isn't like having a rule for intelligence is going to totally take me out of the game. That is a relatively soft mechanic as it appears in earlier versions of D&D. I found in practice, in 3E many of the things I liked handling more freeform, because I liked that direct interaction with the setting and NPCs, simply wasn't happening as much and was often being replaced by rolls. Not all of this was strictly due to the system. Many of those types of skills were written one way, but used another in practice. But overall the system was just more robust when it came to non-combat skills and in particular the types of skills that might just be handled by having the player say what it is they want to do and have the GM respond in an older game. But again, not black and white. You do see some of those things in earlier editions, they just seem more on the edge, or more soft than how they felt in 3E and later editions.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Most class based adventurer games lack a core "Noble" or "Princess" class.
> 
> But ASOIAF is full of them.




Ah, so you're limiting your point to class-based games.  Carry on.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure, and I think I mentioned this in one of my other posts.




Yeah, it was after the one I responded to.



Bedrockgames said:


> There are some skills I don't particularly like for this reason. But it would just be difficult for me to make a hard rule about it, because it isn't as black and white as this in practice. It is more about the abundance of such mechanics. In 3E there was an explosion of core skills for handling things that might otherwise mostly, though not always, been handled by just playing it out at the table (whether that be solving a puzzle or talking in character). And the culture around play shifted too, toward a more rules as written approach. So I think those two things made it harder. But it isn't like having a rule for intelligence is going to totally take me out of the game. That is a relatively soft mechanic as it appears in earlier versions of D&D. I found in practice, in 3E many of the things I liked handling more freeform, because I liked that direct interaction with the setting and NPCs, simply wasn't happening as much and was often being replaced by rolls. Not all of this was strictly due to the system. Many of those types of skills were written one way, but used another in practice. But overall the system was just more robust when it came to non-combat skills and in particular the types of skills that might just be handled by having the player say what it is they want to do and have the GM respond in an older game. But again, not black and white. You do see some of those things in earlier editions, they just seem more on the edge, or more soft than how they felt in 3E and later editions.




All fair.  I've got it easy in that I'm kind of at a place where I want some interaction of the player with almost all spheres of influence (social, intellectual, physical) but I also want the mechanics to prop that up both for those times when someone is just kind of personally bad in an areas (whether its doing investigations, seducing a noble or conducting a fencing fight) or just isn't feeling it that day.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> If Shadow of the Weird Wizard comes out before my next game starts, that's definitely an option I'm considering.  SotDL with a little less grimdark in its core is close to my perfect system.




I wouldn't go that far with me, but the SotDL system was definitely functional and one of the few D&D-sphere ones I'd consider running.  But like you say, the grimdark, uhm...


----------



## macd21 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Most class based adventurer games lack a core "Noble" or "Princess" class.
> 
> But ASOIAF is full of them.




So just assume the GM in the OP is using one that does. It’s completely irrelevant to the OP’s question, because in the hypothetical scenario it’s player 4 who’s a problem, not player 2.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I'm not sure why it's "important" to not do it.  The first part you mention is primarily about the fidelity of simulation, which may or may not be important for a given play group.
> 
> And again, most people I know totally OK with letting the rule set handle magic skills or physical capabilities, it's specifically the social skills that a large amount of people people like to handle freeform.  That's totally OK as a game preference, I'm just wondering why it hasn't been catered to.



It's important because most d&d players are humans closer to commoner or even slightly above it than they are  a demon of temptation, dragon with a few thousand years experience, or whatever... which is why I mentioned what I mentioned about a wide variety of monsters in the pot you quoted .  "throw out the rules and roleplay whatever you feel like however you feel using your skills & your skills alone" is something that is catered to in most U cities & likely outside the US anywhere you can find an improv night/class for theater folks & such.  

It's not catered to much in roleplaying games because a game requires rules to set the limits of what is/is not allowed & how it can be done but probably the closest I can think of is fate where compels, stunts, &maneuvers can be leveraged socially to force the hand of other players/npcs but fate literally has a social combat stress track & set of consequences for it that works exactly like physical combat.  Fate social stuff would have a hard time merging with d&d because the games are so different mechanically.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

macd21 said:


> So just assume the GM in the OP is using one that does. It’s completely irrelevant to the OP’s question, because in the hypothetical scenario it’s player 4 who’s a problem, not player 2.





Thomas Shey said:


> Ah, so you're limiting your point to class-based games.  Carry on.




Dew class systems work for ASOIAF. There are like 6 "pillars" in the game at least with characters with many skills.

A DM who suggests a GOT campaign without listing a system designed for it game or a buttload of house rules gives me pause.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> It's not catered to much in roleplaying games because a game requires rules to set the limits of what is/is not allowed & how it can be done but probably the closest I can think of is fate where compels, stunts, &maneuvers can be leveraged socially to force the hand of other players/npcs but fate literally has a social combat stress track & set of consequences for it that works exactly like physical combat.  Fate social stuff would have a hard time merging with d&d because the games are so different mechanically.



Sure, but I'm arguing that for a lot of players, the major rule in an RPG that's required is "State my case, and let the DM decide."  OSR style play is like 80% freeform adjudication by the DM with no reference to mechanics, and that style of play is lionized by a whole lot of people.  That major point of rules division in OSR style games seems to be "combat and spells" and "everything else", I'm just curious why there aren't more popular OSR type games where the entire set of rules is "combat and spells", and the everything else is left purely to DM adjudication.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Sure, but I'm arguing that for a lot of players, the major rule in an RPG that's required is "State my case, and let the DM decide."  OSR style play is like 80% freeform adjudication by the DM with no reference to mechanics, and that style of play is lionized by a whole lot of people.  That major point of rules division in OSR style games seems to be "combat and spells" and "everything else", I'm just curious why there aren't more popular OSR type games where the entire set of rules is "combat and spells", and the everything else is left purely to DM adjudication.



Like this one from phb174?




It seems to cover exactly that.. what is that lacking for your _(devil's advocate?)_ position


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Dew class systems work for ASOIAF. There are like 6 "pillars" in the game at least with characters with many skills.
> 
> A DM who suggests a GOT campaign without listing a system designed for it game or a buttload of house rules gives me pause.




My point was that there are a number of non-class based systems that did not seem to lack the tools you were talking about, so I needed to see if I had to disagree with you.  Since you were talking in the context of class based systems, I didn't need to do that.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Like this one from phb174?
> View attachment 130165
> It seems to cover exactly that.. what is that lacking for your _(devil's advocate?)_ position



Because that's 180 degrees from "If the outcome is uncertain, the DM decides based on the strength of your ideas"?  That rule is fine for physical checks, but I'm talking about divorcing mental and social procedures from any rules elements, because they shouldn't be necessary.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Dew class systems work for ASOIAF. There are like 6 "pillars" in the game at least with characters with many skills.
> 
> A DM who suggests a GOT campaign without listing a system designed for it game or a buttload of house rules gives me pause.



So assume the GM suggested a system designed for it. It’s irrelevant to the scenario the OP is asking about.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Because that's 180 degrees from "If the outcome is uncertain, the DM decides based on the strength of your ideas"?  That rule is fine for physical checks, but I'm talking about divorcing mental and social procedures from any rules elements, because they shouldn't be necessary.



"divorcing mental and social procedures from any rules elements, because they shouldn't be necessary."
I was about to ask "isn't that just larping?" but the wikipedia page for that starts out like this:

A *live action role-playing game* (*LARP*) is a form of role-playing game where the participants physically portray their characters.[1] The players pursue goals within a fictional settingrepresented by the real world while interacting with each other in character.
Ok...  so far pretty smilar to d&d and most other ttrpgs

The outcome of player actions may be mediated by game rules or determined by consensus among players. Event arrangers called gamemastersdecide the setting and rules to be used and facilitate play.
Oops... even larping(!!!!!!)  has game rules_ and_ game masters

You seem to be describing freeform roleplay or a time honored tradition frequently known as "writing a work of fiction".. how is this hypothetical thing you are talking about different from those when even _larping_ seems to be too heavy on rules & the control of a GM for it?
edit:  are you really suggesting that social interactions should be treated like calvinball in a ttrpg?


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 15, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> "divorcing mental and social procedures from any rules elements, because they shouldn't be necessary."
> I was about to ask "isn't that just larping?" but the wikipedia page for that starts out like this:
> 
> A *live action role-playing game* (*LARP*) is a form of role-playing game where the participants physically portray their characters.[1] The players pursue goals within a fictional settingrepresented by the real world while interacting with each other in character.
> ...



I feel like you're not comprehending my argument.

1)  This is not _my preference._  I actually favor stronger narrative controls, generally.  I'm discussing a hypothetical.

2)  What I'm describing is why there is need to commit any sort of player resources (stat points, skill allocations, etc.) in a game where *the desired type of play* is freeform roleplaying, specifically freeform in the social and mental spheres.  Basically, why is Charisma even a thing in OSR style play, when the goal of play is skilled play adjudicated by the DM's judgments of reasonableness?


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> 2)  What I'm describing is why there is need to commit any sort of player resources (stat points, skill allocations, etc.) in a game where *the desired type of play* is freeform roleplaying, specifically freeform in the social and mental spheres.  Basically, why is Charisma even a thing in OSR style play, when the goal of play is skilled play adjudicated by the DM's judgments of reasonableness?




Well, traditionally because the value provided the GM for some information for deterministic values the game had (followers and such).  The fact most of those elements haven't been a significant element even in most OSR games for decades does indicate that they aren't serving anything but an advisory function in games that don't want anything to do with social mechanics, though.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> What class is Sansa Stark?



Depends, are we playing literally in that world? Then, yes, use the RPG made for that, or perhaps use the classes from Adventures In Middle Earth. 

But if someone tells me they want to play a D&D game Inspired by ASoIaF, I’m going to assume there are non-human PCs and at least a little more magic than is shown in the books or tv show, and that it is a world inspired by that franchise, not its world as such. 

In which case, probably Bard, possibly @MoonSong ’s (IIRC) Noble they wrote for ENWorld, possibly the AIME Sage.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 15, 2020)

If I want to run a setting that excludes elves, the entire group should agree that they want to play such a campaign first. Once that is agreed upon, character creation should be no issue. So I side with neither.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> My point was that there are a number of non-class based systems that did not seem to lack the tools you were talking about, so I needed to see if I had to disagree with you.  Since you were talking in the context of class based systems, I didn't need to do that.




My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box. 

So without giving a specific system, chances are Player 2 will be more work to deal with than Player 4.

Because games tend to need to be *specifically made* to balance a Jamie Lannister type PC with a Cersei Lannister type PC and a Tyrion Lannister typed PC.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 15, 2020)

Zsong said:


> amazing. This is literally a simple yes or no question.



But one without a neat and tidy real world stable answer of either boolean choice.

The answer depends on many factors. 

My natural inclination is with the GM, but only because in most games and most groups the GM does 90% or more of the work needed for a game to happen.

At the same time, tho', players are a major part of the game - without players, the GM's not getting the game on. If most of the players are uninterested, the GM should offer something else. If it's just one, well, "hey, either don't play, or play within the set parameters."

Especially if the GM is pulling it together at the request of other players.

Anyone with a solid always one side is at least part of the time being a jerk.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box.
> 
> So without giving a specific system, chances are Player 2 will be more work to deal with than Player 4.
> 
> Because games tend to need to be *specifically made* to balance a Jamie Lannister type PC with a Cersei Lannister type PC and a Tyrion Lannister typed PC.



In the scenario presented by the OP, player 2 isn’t the problem. Maybe that’s because the GM is using a system that suits GoT, or because he’s houseruled in a noble class, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. The problem is player 4.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Because I'm playing the game system? Because we didn't decide to be freeform roleplaying?
> 
> "I know you just bought $100 of books but we aren't using any of them to play System X. It'll be fine. Trust me. So you in".
> 
> Nah boss.




You don't have to use the game system for _everything_. Sure, system is essential for things like combat and magic, but you don't have to roll dice for things like social skills or walking, things players know how to do in RL.

But hey, game how you will.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box.
> 
> So without giving a specific system, chances are Player 2 will be more work to deal with than Player 4.
> 
> Because games tend to need to be *specifically made* to balance a Jamie Lannister type PC with a Cersei Lannister type PC and a Tyrion Lannister typed PC.




For much of the books, Jamie's abilities were not much different than anyone else's because of the loss of his hand.

Game designers are not magic. There's a very good reason why so many GMs have house-rules, or even entire home-brewed systems.

After all, we've got how many sub-forums here discussing how to improve the base product of game designers?


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

macd21 said:


> In the scenario presented by the OP, player 2 isn’t the problem. Maybe that’s because the GM is using a system that suits GoT, or because he’s houseruled in a noble class, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. The problem is player 4.




You need additional info to deem player 2 not a problem by default due to the lack of clarity of the DM scenario. So Player 4 deserves the same leeway. Fair is fair. 

Therefore using player 2 as evidence to say the DM is right is unfair to player 4 unless you treat the 2 players equally.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> You need additional info to deem player 2 not a problem by default due to the lack of clarity of the DM scenario. So Player 4 deserves the same leeway. Fair is fair.
> 
> Therefore using player 2 as evidence to say the DM is right is unfair to player 4 unless you treat the 2 players equally.



I'm going to agree with this.  the OP setup the description to read just shy of "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions so the elf pc looks bad making a lot of things dubious about it.  It's not like GoT is without things the PC could call elf-like when it's got people still getting born with (high)vvalarian bloodlines, chldren of the forest, dothraki, children of the forest, unsullied, & even poor bastards experimented on by wizards/sorcerers like varys they or the gm could have argued made reasonable standins for elf with a (big) twist.  We don't know if the player tried to make those points but we can safely guess that the gm sure as heck didn't because there was no bragging about the attempt before showing how terrible the elf player was being.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> My point is that this is the minority as very few games can handle ASOIAF out the box.




And I kind of disagree.  Most full-featured multipurpose systems absolutely have the tools for that to one degree or another.  I think you're overgeneralizing from looking only at the class-and-level game sphere.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> That's a lot of assuming you are doing. The DM didn't mention a system or any of the tweak they are don't, or if the style of game the campaign will be.



Style of game was one of the first things mentioned: "Game of Thrones". It might be not clear what that means to someone unfamiliar with the franchise, but as a person who has not watched the TV series (I have read some plot synopsis of the series, and did read the first 3 books of the novel series) I would interpret that to mean gritty, feudal, human-only, with politics.

And as pointed out, the Player was corrected when they first presented their character concept. The original post even mentions the Player using the rulebook as justification for why they should be allowed it, meaning there must have been a system mentioned beforehand.


Minigiant said:


> The enthusiasm of the players mental the elf player is comfortable with the GM or there is a lot of naive thoughts at the table. To me, as both a player and DM, Player 2 is a bigger issue than Player 4.



Not sure why someone wanting to play a Lady Noble is an issue. Game of Thrones had several noble ladies running around doing stuff. But then again, the original post is probably trying to be humorous in describing the situation.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 15, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> If I want to run a setting that excludes elves, the entire group should agree that they want to play such a campaign first. Once that is agreed upon, character creation should be no issue. So I side with neither.




You can have a read of the post that the GM thought he was doing that, but that Player Five didn't see it that way; that the GM thought it was obvious from his presentation that nonhumans would be outside the barrier, and Player Five did not understand that assumption, or didn't see it as significant.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> And I kind of disagree.  Most full-featured multipurpose systems absolutely have the tools for that to one degree or another.  I think you're overgeneralizing from looking only at the class-and-level game sphere.




There is no mention that the system chosen is multipurpose. The majority of games are tailored to specific styles, tones, genre, and challenge foci.

If a DM came to me with a GOT pitch in a system that has elves, magic, and monsters in the core book and doesn't immediately hand or mention to me a list of houserules, homebrews, and/or additional book to alter the game...

...I am going to assume he or she has NO IDEA what they are doing despite wanting to play. And some people mention ask to be an elf to test or troll him/her/them.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

Crusadius said:


> Not sure why someone wanting to play a Lady Noble is an issue. Game of Thrones had several noble ladies running around doing stuff. But then again, the original post is probably trying to be humorous in describing the situation.




Many games with elves, magic, and monster with heavy rulebooks are  either not made to have noncombatant and combat warriors both in the hands of players, expects a minimum level of prowess in each area of challenge, or assumes going fulling one way as abnormal.

Games that allow for Lord, Lady, Sage, Knight, Peasant, Merchant, and Outlaws in ASOIAF's style are specifically designed to do that because modifying other games is often a handle and games that allow for it all often dull those experience down to basic mechanics with little depth.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 15, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Why in Gygax's name are you doing months of work _before_ getting buy-in from the players?



Because for all I know, if I get buy-in from the players first and then do the months of work, by the time I'm finished those players may no longer be interested and-or may have found another game in the meantime.

Campaign/setting design first, then player recruitment, then drop the puck.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> You need additional info to deem player 2 not a problem by default due to the lack of clarity of the DM scenario. So Player 4 deserves the same leeway. Fair is fair.
> 
> Therefore using player 2 as evidence to say the DM is right is unfair to player 4 unless you treat the 2 players equally.




No, you don't need additional info. The OP DM doesn't have a problem with the character Player 2 wants to play. That's all we need to know. Player 2 has declared that they want to play a character that conforms to the GM's campaign pitch, and the GM is happy with it, player 4 has not. 



> There is no mention that the system chosen is multipurpose. The majority of games are tailored to specific styles, tones, genre, and challenge foci.
> 
> If a DM came to me with a GOT pitch in a system that has elves, magic, and monsters in the core book and doesn't immediately hand or mention to me a list of houserules, homebrews, and/or additional book to alter the game...
> 
> ...I am going to assume he or she has NO IDEA what they are doing despite wanting to play. And some people mention ask to be an elf to test or troll him/her/them.




I think you are completely missing the point of the OP's scenario. It is a hypothetical situation. You're introducing factors that are not part of the scenario. The system being used is completely irrelevant, beyond the fact that it has magic and monsters, and you'd usually be able to play an elf. Maybe it's DnD, maybe it's WFRP, maybe it's a homebrew - it doesn't matter.

You could simplify the scenario down to this:

The GM "I would like to play a campaign in a pseudo-medieval setting. It will still have magic and monsters but the characters will be humans in a medieval land."

Player #1 "Nice. I will play a human."

Player #2 "Sure. I will play a human."

Player #3 "Sweet. I will play a human."

Player #4 "Okay. I will play an elf."


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 15, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> No human being on earth is so caught up on playing an elf that they will sacrifice their friends for it, ...



Are you really sure about that?

Expand it to 'game system' instead of 'elf' and examples are abundant.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 15, 2020)

The biggest problem with running a Game of Thrones style game is that for the first three adventures you need to set up really amazing stories, and then in the 4th and 5th adventures you need to have everyone roll up 5 more characters and just completely lose track of the plot.

Then you need to adapt your adventures to TV, again starting off super promising until it's very apparent that the DM is just tired of running the campaign at the end of 8 seasons - er, I mean adventures.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Are you really sure about that?
> 
> Expand it to 'game system' instead of 'elf' and examples are abundant.



Expand it to "territory" or "resources" and the examples are even more abundant!


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 15, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> You can have a read of the post that the GM thought he was doing that, but that Player Five didn't see it that way; that the GM thought it was obvious from his presentation that nonhumans would be outside the barrier, and Player Five did not understand that assumption, or didn't see it as significant.




To me it sounds like a session 0 problem. That is what a session 0 is for: to get everyone on the same page.

When I asked my players if they would like to play a pirate campaign, I gave them the following guidelines that I had in mind:


D&D rules, but with firearms
No characters that can innately fly or breath underwater, with the exception of magic or shape shifting.
No evil characters.
The pcs are all part of the same pirate crew.

I also explained to my players why I felt these rules were important for the sort of campaign I wanted to run.

Once I got all my players on board with this idea, they started making characters. I find it unlikely that after agreeing to those rules, any player would insist on making a character that goes against those very rules that they just agreed to.

I think clear communication is key here. I wouldn't just propose a GoT campaign, but I would also explain what that means in my opinion. Because you would want your players to know exactly what they are getting into.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 15, 2020)

Wow, this moved fast so a couple things I noticed. From memory so forgive me if I got the ideas a little wrong.

No Sneak?!?!? In GoT?!?!? What was Arya then? Cause from my viewing she was in no way a Knight or Noble.

Sansa Stark sure don't need "domain control" or "mass combat" rules. Maybe near the end of the show, but that assertion would be dubious at best.

As for not using D&D to play GoT because it's "the wrong game" well, I won't necessarily disagree. However, the D&D fans always claim the D&D can be used to play any kind of campaign, at least till you say you want to use it to play anything other than kitchen sink fantasy murderhobo adventure. So, which one is actually true? Can D&D be used to run anything, or is it limited to a very narrow genre particular to D&D itself?

As far as my own capabilities as a DM I am confident in saying that many RPGs could be used to play a GoT campaign. Some may need me to create stats for things like dragons, but not much else.

Out of the box systems that could be used for GoT include: Burning Wheel, Mythras, BRP Gold Book, The Age of Shadow, OpenQuest...and supposedly, D&D!


----------



## billd91 (Dec 15, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> No human being on earth is so caught up on playing an elf that they will sacrifice their friends for it,



Perhaps not, but they might dig their heels in trusting to their friendships to bend their way rather than break. You see this kind of thing a *lot*. It may be a bit dysfunctional, but it's common.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 15, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Perhaps not, but they might dig their heels in trusting to their friendships to bend their way rather than break. You see this kind of thing a *lot*. It may be a bit dysfunctional, but it's common.



That's a problem D&D is not equipped to solve.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 15, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> If I want to run a setting that excludes elves, the entire group should agree that they want to play such a campaign first. Once that is agreed upon, character creation should be no issue. So I side with neither.



This, at the end of the day, is it.


tetrasodium said:


> I'm going to agree with this.  *the OP setup the description to read just shy of "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions so the elf pc looks bad making a lot of things dubious about it*.  It's not like GoT is without things the PC could call elf-like when it's got people still getting born with (high)vvalarian bloodlines, chldren of the forest, dothraki, children of the forest, unsullied, & even poor bastards experimented on by wizards/sorcerers like varys they or the gm could have argued made reasonable standins for elf with a (big) twist.  We don't know if the player tried to make those points but we can safely guess that the gm sure as heck didn't because there was no bragging about the attempt before showing how terrible the elf player was being.



The bolded is worth repeating. 

As for elfs, yeah seriously an elf could easily be something like a High Valerian (who absolutely are analogous to Tolkein's Numenorians and Dunadain, who are only mostly/technically human), children of the forest, something like a warforged (though hopefully concealed somewhat by being in a suit of armor), or even just...one of the foreign peoples who have trouble integrating with their neighbors or remain very independent and distinct in spite of generations of close interactions. 

Elves are one of the easiest fantasy races to include in such a world, even before we address that it's more likely a world inspired by GoT than the world itself. 

Well, them and Goliaths. They even have cold resistence, making them perfect for hardy ice dwelling descendants of giants.

And Firbolgs, tbh. Why shouldn't there be giant-scions whose blood is effected by children of the forest? or just big strong children.

And Vryloka and Shadar-kai. There's a lot of death-related people. High Valerians, if you don't use elves for that. The people to the far east who live under dark magic and/or the Lord of Light. Individuals who have been brought back or infused with the terrible power of various gods or other, old or new.

And forest gnomes. the children of the forest could go a lot of ways. mental magic resistant folk who can command illusions and speak to birds.

And others, I'm sure.


Minigiant said:


> If a DM came to me with a GOT pitch in a system that has elves, magic, and monsters in the core book and doesn't immediately hand or mention to me a list of houserules, homebrews, and/or additional book to alter the game...
> 
> ...I am going to assume he or she has NO IDEA what they are doing despite wanting to play. And some people mention ask to be an elf to test or troll him/her/them.



Yikes. Why would you assume something wild like that? 
Unless you mean, literally the GoT world, as such, with a serious intention of sticking to canon, I don't see what difficulty you're imagining that would require a bunch of houserules or homebrew, nor do I understand why you'd expect to have direct mention of any houserules or homebrew before you tell the GM if you're interested in the basic premise or not.


Lanefan said:


> Are you really sure about that?
> 
> Expand it to 'game system' instead of 'elf' and examples are abundant.



Game system is an entirely different beast. One of my best friends is very, very, reluctant to learn new systems just to play a given campaign. 



Spoiler: tangent



He views it as a waste of time and effort, when he knows damn well we can do pretty much anything we want in either DnD with some mild variation (seriously, I'm considering starting a new thread about my Space Fantasy galaxy setting, it's fully playable, with maybe 5% more work needed than it normally takes to set up a campaign with some custom PC needs, and it's DnD meets Star Wars meets Treasure Planet meets Cowboy Bebop or Firefly meets Galaxy Rangers) 

or 

with a "system" that is basically "describe your character using this list of half dozen or so questions about them. If your description or something determined in play tells us that a task is harder or easier for you, or you are clueless or expert in it, etc, you have advantage or disadvantage. All resolution is done by the player rolling 2d6 against a success ladder, advantage rolls 3d6 and drops the lowest, disadvantage drops the highest die instead. That's the whole system." 

Those are the two systems we use to play our games. Has been for a couple years, since we talked about getting back into one of our many SWSE games, and couldn't stop getting distracted talking about how we would like to fix that system to our tastes, and decided to create Space Fantasy instead.



Game system impacts every aspect of play, to some degree. It's a bigger deal to compromise on.



zarionofarabel said:


> However, the D&D fans always claim the D&D can be used to play any kind of campaign, at least till you say you want to use it to play anything other than kitchen sink fantasy murderhobo adventure. So, which one is actually true? Can D&D be used to run anything, or is it limited to a very narrow genre particular to D&D itself?



Playing GOT in DnD would only be hard if we want to literally play in that world, as such, keeping to canon. Much more common, IME, is to play a game inspired by something, set in a world built by the GM with a healthy dose of plagiarism, but also influenced heavily by what the GM and the group involved actually enjoy about playing TTRPGs. In that context, DnD inspired by GOT is easy.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 15, 2020)

Yeah, I could see either thing working just fine in D&D:

-A D&D campaign inspired by GOT, which uses some of its themes, twists and turns, and grittyness, but not its setting. A campaign in the spirit of GOT only.
-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.

The only thing that would be hard to do in D&D, is to closely follow the plot of the show/books, but that would be with any system. After all, it is probably expected of a GOT role playing game that you can affect the plot. Otherwise, what would be the point? Which would mean the DM would need to be willing to come up with a new plot, or allow the existing plot to be altered by the actions of the players.

Depending on how you lean, some systems may be more suitable than others. But any of these takes on GOT could be done with just the D&D rules if you wanted to.

But because all three of these takes are very different, it highlights just how important it is to communicate what sort of GOT campaign you intent to run during a session 0. Example 1 and 2 could include elves, while example 3 would not.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 15, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yikes. Why would you assume something wild like that?
> Unless you mean, literally the GoT world, as such, with a serious intention of sticking to canon, I don't see what difficulty you're imagining that would require a bunch of houserules or homebrew, nor do I understand why you'd expect to have direct mention of any houserules or homebrew before you tell the GM if you're interested in the basic premise or not.




Because it's GOT/ASOIF.

The books and show has so many different genres and elements to it that. That'sprobably one of many reasons why GRRM split up the Starks. Everyone in most of the main character families have wide arrays of skills that others in their family does and walk in different adventures. It's a setting with about 10 different game genres in it and people don't neccesarily get pushed into other types of adventures and are often only at one "game". You have melee combats, mass combats, domain management, domestic politics, foreign politics, trade wars, spy games, survival adventures, multiple times of lores and knowledges. And each one of them are important enough to get you killed if you engage in them. And often people are killed because they are skilled in only one or two challanges and enters third on purpose or accident.

So if a GM can to me with a GOT/ASOIAF campaign with a system *not* designed for it and wants to put more magic and monsters in it, I'm gonna need to seek houserules because I get serious.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 15, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Because it's GOT/ASOIF.
> 
> The books and show has so many different genres and elements to it that. That'sprobably one of many reasons why GRRM split up the Starks. Everyone in most of the main character families have wide arrays of skills that others in their family does and walk in different adventures. It's a setting with about 10 different game genres in it and people don't neccesarily get pushed into other types of adventures and are often only at one "game". You have melee combats, mass combats, domain management, domestic politics, foreign politics, trade wars, spy games, survival adventures, multiple times of lores and knowledges. And each one of them are important enough to get you killed if you engage in them. And often people are killed because they are skilled in only one or two challanges and enters third on purpose or accident.
> 
> So if a GM can to me with a GOT/ASOIAF campaign with a system *not* designed for it and wants to put more magic and monsters in it, I'm gonna need to seek houserules because I get serious.



Okay. I don't get it at all, but you seem to have a very strong preference here.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 16, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> 2)  What I'm describing is why there is need to commit any sort of player resources (stat points, skill allocations, etc.) in a game where *the desired type of play* is freeform roleplaying, specifically freeform in the social and mental spheres.  Basically, why is Charisma even a thing in OSR style play, when the goal of play is skilled play adjudicated by the DM's judgments of reasonableness?



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.

Also, some game systems (D&D is one) tie these non-physical stats to hard-mechanical game aspects e.g. spellcasting prowess, psionic or psionic-like abilities, and so forth.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 16, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> There is no mention that the system chosen is multipurpose. The majority of games are tailored to specific styles, tones, genre, and challenge foci.



You did catch that my question and response was because you seemed to overgeneralize, right?  Which the above doesn't?


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> No Sneak?!?!? In GoT?!?!? What was Arya then? Cause from my viewing she was in no way a Knight or Noble.



Absolutely - Assassin all the way. 

Which raises a point, I suppose: what typical D&D classes could work in a GoT campaign?

Fighter - well, duh, the setting is crawling with these!  There's lots of room to break the class up into Warrior, Archer, Swashbuckler, etc.
 - a variant Fighter class could be Mariner, to replicate the seafaring warriors from the islands.
Cavalier/Knight - another rather obvious Fighter variant
Ranger - there's a bunch of people guarding a wall up north who might have something to say here; the class translates well elsewhere too.
Paladin - I can kinda see it...maybe...but I think I'd go for something more resembling a War Cleric on this one
Cleric - Melisandre, Boric Dondarrion, the Drowned God priests, the High Sparrow - yeah, Cleric can work in the setting
Druid - not a big stretch, the Children of the Forest fit well here, as do some of the Wilders and maybe some eastern-desert types
Thief - these fit right in
Assassin - a rare class (probably severely gated behind alignment and-or stat requirements) but they could certainly exist
Monk - not a big stretch to have these come from the Dorne culture
Bard - as a concept, yes; as casters, no; so the class would likely need to be rebuilt from the ground up in order to work

And then we hit the messy one.  There's probably only room in the entire setting for one arcane-style caster class, and even that would be rare.  Open choice between havingit use something like what we know as Wizard mechanics or something like what we know as Sorcerer mechanics; but there'd only be one class, and no sub-classes.  Like Assassin, this one would also want to be severely gated somehow in order to enforce rarity.

As for Sansa Stark, she would be of no character class at all as she - despite everything - never really does become an adventurer as such.  She's more like the poor hireling who gets dragged from one adventure to the next despite her best attempts to avoid them.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> To me it sounds like a session 0 problem. That is what a session 0 is for: to get everyone on the same page.




I absolutely agree.  On the other hand, a lot of people either don't do, or do very sketchy Session 0s, and some players are bad about reading things into a pitch that aren't there and don't bother to follow up.



Imaculata said:


> When I asked my players if they would like to play a pirate campaign, I gave them the following guidelines that I had in mind:
> 
> 
> D&D rules, but with firearms
> ...




All good ideas--but if you don't think there aren't players who will decide you don't really mean what you're saying about parts of this, you've been fortunate.  I've only hit one in my career in that situation, but I've encountered other GMs who've done so more frequently (especially ones who change player group constitution more frequently).



Imaculata said:


> Once I got all my players on board with this idea, they started making characters. I find it unlikely that after agreeing to those rules, any player would insist on making a character that goes against those very rules that they just agreed to.




Again, you've been fortunate.  In particular, I'd be willing to bet there are players out there who would consider the last two bullet points "negotiable".



Imaculata said:


> I think clear communication is key here. I wouldn't just propose a GoT campaign, but I would also explain what that means in my opinion. Because you would want your players to know exactly what they are getting into.




Absolutely no disagreement from me here; I'd just note that as with all things, what can seem like clear communication to the sender isn't always to the receiver.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 16, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> That's a problem D&D is not equipped to solve.




That doesn't mean its not a problem GMs don't have to deal with.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> -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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Crit said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

ccs said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2020)

macd21 said:


> 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.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> 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.



I think, again, that’s exactly the scenario the OP is proposing. The GM wants to run a GOT campaign with no elves, but the player won’t play unless he can play an elf. They want to play different kinds of campaign. So should the GM let the player be an elf, or not?


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 16, 2020)

You decide as a group what sort of campaign you all want to play. If the player insists on playing an elf, either the DM allows it, or you agree with your group to play something else. There is no single answer here. What matters in the end is that the whole group is on the same page, whatever they end up deciding.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay. I don't get it at all, but you seem to have a very strong preference here.



I mean telling me it's a type of game is more important than yelling me it's human only.

Because each of the Stark kids more or less play like different games.

This goes to clarity. If the GM isn't clear about what he's intends, you can get someone asking to be an elf. So it's all based on how clear the GM was.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> You decide as a group what sort of campaign you all want to play.




At your table, perhaps. Not at any table I've GM'd at. I prepare a campaign, and the group can take it or leave it.

I've never had problems filling a table.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 16, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> 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.



So what?


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 16, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> At your table, perhaps. Not at any table I've GM'd at. I prepare a campaign, and the group can take it or leave it.
> 
> I've never had problems filling a table.




But you _could_ easily have problems filling a table that way. If you say, prepare a scifi campaign, and it turns out your players aren't interested in playing a scifi campaign at all, then you're done. It is not exactly the best approach, unless you happens to have a group who is okay with anything you run.

If instead you first ask your players if they would be interested, and give them a rough outline of what they can expect, you would be far more likely to get everyone on board. You would be far more likely to avoid that type of conflict, like someone insisting on playing an elf, and you'd save yourself a lot of work in the case that they are not interested.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> But you _could_ easily have problems filling a table that way. If you say, prepare a scifi campaign, and it turns out your players aren't interested in playing a scifi campaign at all, then you're done. It is not exactly the best approach, unless you happens to have a group who is okay with anything you run.
> 
> If instead you first ask your players if they would be interested, and give them a rough outline of what they can expect, you would be far more likely to get everyone on board. You would be far more likely to avoid that type of conflict, like someone insisting on playing an elf, and you'd save yourself a lot of work in the case that they are not interested.




Could, but don't. And if a player insists on something that isn't campaign-appropriate, then they get shown the door. Gaming is my hobby, and I'm not interested in mixing my hobby with prolonged conflict resolution.

And like I said, I've never had a problem filling a table. I'm had people who played the previous campaign decide the new one isn't for them and depart, but that's how things go. You pull in replacements and press on. My current group has been gaming weekly since 2002.


----------



## jasper (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> GM.
> 
> GM said it's a GOT-type setting with no non-human playable races. If the party is on board with this and buys in, then they've bought in. It's take-it-or-leave-it on that and it's well within the GM prerogative to limit playable races.
> 
> The books are a grocery store. I tell my kids that we're having chicken for dinner, with a veg and a starch. If one kid says she wants to have a hot dog with broccoli and a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, I say no. Sure, I could buy the hot dogs and cereal at the store. But that's not the choice I gave and, at the end of the day, I am the arbiter of choice.



MOM. MOM MOm MOm. Look what I found . Look what I found. CHICKEN HOTDOGS ONLY 99 CENTS. YOU SAID CHICKEN. AND THIS IS CHICKEN.
Yes I am wrong. But so is chicken hotdogs at any price!


----------



## macd21 (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> But you _could_ easily have problems filling a table that way. If you say, prepare a scifi campaign, and it turns out your players aren't interested in playing a scifi campaign at all, then you're done. It is not exactly the best approach, unless you happens to have a group who is okay with anything you run.
> 
> If instead you first ask your players if they would be interested, and give them a rough outline of what they can expect, you would be far more likely to get everyone on board. You would be far more likely to avoid that type of conflict, like someone insisting on playing an elf, and you'd save yourself a lot of work in the case that they are not interested.



First, that’s simply not how I (and I suspect, many GMs) approach campaign prep. I prepare campaigns because I enjoy preparing campaigns. It’s fun in and of itself. I don’t discuss which campaigns I’m going to prep with my players beforehand. And like Jd Smith1, I’ve never had trouble filling a table - but if I did propose a sci-do campaign only for the group to turn it down, I’d just shrug, offer to run something else, and keep working on the sci-if campaign.

If I offer to run a campaign and one player insists on playing an inappropriate character, then either that player changes his mind or doesn’t play the game.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> 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.




No, but they're also singularly irrelevant to providing any support.  You might as well be doing so freeform.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 16, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Could, but don't. And if a player insists on something that isn't campaign-appropriate, then they get shown the door. Gaming is my hobby, and I'm not interested in mixing my hobby with prolonged conflict resolution.
> 
> And like I said, I've never had a problem filling a table. I'm had people who played the previous campaign decide the new one isn't for them and depart, but that's how things go. You pull in replacements and press on. My current group has been gaming weekly since 2002.




Not everyone has the luxury of a pool of players to fish in.  Some have the players they have and that's pretty much it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> GM.
> 
> GM said it's a GOT-type setting with no non-human playable races. If the party is on board with this and buys in, then they've bought in. It's take-it-or-leave-it on that and it's well within the GM prerogative to limit playable races.
> 
> ...



It doesn’t sound harsh, it sound ridiculous. I am not my players’ parent, and when one of them DMs, they are not mine. Any attempt to behave as if they are would be met with a hard stare and a firm, “No.”

Hell, I’m not a kid, either way. If my Dad tried to tell me what I was going to do, he’d get the same response. And he’d recognize that he was in the wrong, because he didn’t raise me to be the sort of person that accepts an external expectation of obedience. 

Obedience is not a virtue.


----------



## embee (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> It doesn’t sound harsh, it sound ridiculous. I am not my players’ parent, and when one of them DMs, they are not mine. Any attempt to behave as if they are would be met with a hard stare and a firm, “No.”
> 
> Hell, I’m not a kid, either way. If my Dad tried to tell me what I was going to do, he’d get the same response. And he’d recognize that he was in the wrong, because he didn’t raise me to be the sort of person that accepts an external expectation of obedience.
> 
> Obedience is not a virtue.




Let's play this scenario out...

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.

P1 "Nice. I will play Sir Knight the Knightliest of Knights!"

P2 "Sure. I will play Lady Noble the Noblest of Nobles!"

P3 "Sweet. I will play Sir Sneak the Sneakiest of Sneaks!"

P4 "Okay. I will play Sir Elf the Elfiest of Elfs!"

GM "No. I just said it's a human-only campaign"

P4 "Well, if I'm going to play, I want an exception. I'm an elf. So I get darkvision, get +2 to perception checks, have advantage on Saving Throws against being Charmed, and  sleep won't work on me because I don't need sleep."

GM "Fine. I want to keep the group together so you can be an elf."

P2 "Hey, if he gets an exception, I want one too. She's a noble and likes hunting. So I want her to have a rifle. And she's going to be a variant human and I'll take Gunner as a feat."

P1: "My knight's backstory is that his family was killed by orcs. So put in some orc encounters for him."

P3: "Can we start out at level 5? I want my character to multiclass as a shadow monk/rogue so I can have a Batman build."


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> GM.
> 
> GM said it's a GOT-type setting with no non-human playable races. If the party is on board with this and buys in, then they've bought in. It's take-it-or-leave-it on that and it's well within the GM prerogative to limit playable races.
> 
> ...



I'm going to agree with @doctorbadwolf that your examples sound pretty rediculous.  It's more like your kid asking "can you make Moroccan cinnamon chicken"(it's got cinnamon), "can we have that persian rice with the cinnamon, raisins, & carrots?"(sweet _and_ has chicken)... or you as an adult knowing how to make those & having made those not being able to tell your kid "no you can't have those, but I can make that Persian rice or we can put your chicken fingers on a bun so you can eat it like a hot dog since you don't want rice" to see if there is a happy middle that meets both goals.  You only need to look as far as the OP's response to a video that ends with some advice about how the gm is not god of the players & how working with the players is an important skill for a gm hoping for a healthy game to see the failure.
as to your "playing it out" in post 263 that's just as absurd as the OP but by now people have pointed out all the elf-like things in GoT that an elf could be reflavored into... a competent could have trivially handled it like this
P4 "Okay. I will play Sir Elf the Elfiest of Elfs!"

GM "I just said it's a human-only campaign in westeros, there are no elves but there are dothraki, unsullied children of the forest, people with high valerian bloodlines, & people like varys who were experimented on by a sorcerer but managed to survive.. lets talk about some of those & see which of those things that could stand in for an elf interest you"



Spoiler: 1-5min









GM: "Hey guys, PC4 is an unsullied & he's literally owned by one of you!  PC2 I think it would fit well with your noblest of nobles..."


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> Let's play this scenario out...
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



So, you're just going to get more ridiculous? No thanks. This line of argument is just spewing nonsense until the other person gives up on trying to actually have a discussion. I'll save us both time. I'm done.


----------



## embee (Dec 16, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> It's more like your kid asking "can you make Moroccan cinnamon chicken"(it's got cinnamon), "can we have that persian rice with the cinnamon, raisins, & carrots?"(sweet _and_ has chicken)... or you as an adult knowing how to make those & having made those not being able to tell your kid "no you can't have those, but I can make that Persian rice or we can put your chicken fingers on a bun so you can eat it like a hot dog since you don't want rice" to see if there is a happy middle that meets both goals.




Well that depends. On me. As the dad. Because I might just say, "No. I know what I said but you're really pushing it there. I just worked 10 hours today, I worked 10 yesterday, and I'm going to work 10 tomorrow and I get 5 hours of sleep a night. I love you and bust my hump for y'all but don't go adding to my workload. Work with me here."

The GM came up with the campaign which s/he presumably put some time and effort into setting up. S/he made the offer. Players 1, 2, and 3 accepted the offer. Player 4 said no and made a counteroffer. The GoT setting but with elves. The GM doesn't have to accept the counteroffer. Especially because it introduces mechanics that s/he's now going to have to go back and figure out how to work around. 

The GM preps the campaign. S/he preps for every session and tries to keep things entertaining and balanced. 

The players don't do that. They show up. 

You know what? Here's my solution...

GM: "Okay. You can play an elf. You have the exact same racial abilities as a human. No added bonuses or flaws that an elf would have. Except you're a little taller and have pointy ears."

And now, the player gets to play an elf and the GM doesn't have to rework every night or underground encounter to take into account that one player can see just fine in the dark and doesn't need sleep.


----------



## embee (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you're just going to get more ridiculous? No thanks. This line of argument is just spewing nonsense until the other person gives up on trying to actually have a discussion. I'll save us both time. I'm done.




Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> Well that depends. On me. As the dad. Because I might just say, "No. I know what I said but you're really pushing it there. I just worked 10 hours today, I worked 10 yesterday, and I'm going to work 10 tomorrow and I get 5 hours of sleep a night. I love you and bust my hump for y'all but don't go adding to my workload. Work with me here."
> 
> The GM came up with the campaign which s/he presumably put some time and effort into setting up. S/he made the offer. Players 1, 2, and 3 accepted the offer. Player 4 said no and made a counteroffer. The GoT setting but with elves. The GM doesn't have to accept the counteroffer. Especially because it introduces mechanics that s/he's now going to have to go back and figure out how to work around.
> 
> ...



My your giving the gm lots of credit that his look at how terrible pc4 hitpiece of a story hardly justifies.  It's not about just an "exception", it's the fact that a good gm needs to work with their players to help them fit the campaign in ways that makes everyone happy & it does not appear that the gm in question made even the slightest attempt at any of the simple ways he could have done so that have been raised through the thread.  I'm pretty merciless at importing FR stuff into my eberron campaigns, but if a player comes to me with an idea rooted in FR I'm not above listening to the idea and telling them about some eberron specific things that might be similar enough to easily incorporate.  The OP just aid no suck it & came on here to tell us how terrible PC4 was without mentioning if either of them tried to find a workable compromise that fits or even spotlights some part of the setting


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 16, 2020)

You guys got it wrong! No special snowflakes are allowed in this fictional world!

The world IS the special snowflake!


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?



That path leads to madness.


----------



## embee (Dec 16, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> My your giving the gm lots of credit that his look at how terrible pc4 hitpiece of a story hardly justifies.  It's not about just an "exception", it's the fact that a good gm needs to work with their players to help them fit the campaign in ways that makes everyone happy & it does not appear that the gm in question made even the slightest attempt at any of the simple ways he could have done so that have been raised through the thread.  I'm pretty merciless at importing FR stuff into my eberron campaigns, but if a player comes to me with an idea rooted in FR I'm not above listening to the idea and telling them about some eberron specific things that might be similar enough to easily incorporate.  The OP just aid no suck it & came on here to tell us how terrible PC4 was without mentioning if either of them tried to find a workable compromise that fits or even spotlights some part of the setting




No. I'm breaking it down into contractual terms.

1) GM offers the GOT campaign

2) Players 1, 2, 3 accept that offer.

3) Player 4 says I will accept if I may play an elf.

And that last step right there is a counteroffer. Which the GM may or may not decide to accept. 

The GM didn't say "suck it." The player said "I propose this additional term to your offer." To which the GM said no. 

Inside of every counteroffer is a rejection. A counteroffer is a "No, but..." 

And as far as I can see, this was the attempt to find a workable compromise. What was detailed was a negotiation. Not all negotiations result in a consummated deal. Some result in the parties going their separate ways. I don't think it's a failing on the GM's part because that was not the setting that s/he wanted. It's just parties failing to agree upon terms.

The GM was equally able to say no, just as the player already had.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?




If you have to resort to absurd fictional examples, then you have by definition lost the discussion, and there is no point continuing the discussion with you. We have seen this plenty of times on this forum. I am kind of done with it too.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> That path leads to madness.



That path leads to the GM being forced to run a game they don't want to run. And how can that be even remotely fair?

I think the disconnect is that certain players think the GM is obligated to run what they want only. Like the GM is supposed to be a "dancing bear" there only for the players entertainment.

The GM should get to have fun too!


Imaculata said:


> If you have to resort to absurd fictional examples, then you have by definition lost the discussion, and there is no point continuing the discussion with you. We have seen this plenty of times on this forum. I am kind of done with it too.



Well my OP was a "based on real events" kind of thing. I'll give you a hint, Player #4 isn't playing in my GoT inspired pastiche campaign.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> No. I'm breaking it down into contractual terms.
> 
> 1) GM offers the GOT campaign
> 
> ...



This is the essence of it isn't it. The disconnect is that some players are of a mindset that there must always be a compromise. That is simply an unrealistic view of, well, how the world works. Especially with something like someones hobby and personal entertainment.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> No. I'm breaking it down into contractual terms.
> 
> 1) GM offers the GOT campaign
> 
> ...



We can safely say that there was no negotiation or attempt to find a solution other than this because of how the OP has acted in the thread & the fact that attempting to work with the players is a topic that came up multiple times without them clarifying all the things they did trying to find a workable solution or guide the player to something that exists which could make them both happy.  Finding a middle ground doesn't always mean relenting. a compromise could have been as simple as pointing the player to dothraki high valaryan bloodline, people like varys, unsullied, children of the forest & many other things


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> We can safely say that there was no negotiation or attempt to find a solution other than this because of how the OP has acted in the thread & the fact that attempting to work with the players is a topic that came up multiple times without them clarifying all the things they did trying to find a workable solution or guide the player to something that exists which could make them both happy.  Finding a middle ground doesn't always mean relenting. a compromise could have been as simple as pointing the player to dothraki high valaryan bloodline, people like varys, unsullied, children of the forest & many other things



Well, the RL negotiation happened pretty much the way I laid it out in my OP.


----------



## embee (Dec 16, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> a compromise could have been as simple as pointing the player to dothraki high valaryan bloodline, people like varys, unsullied, children of the forest & many other things




"You can't play an official elf. But I will let you play a eunuch with pointy ears. But no darkvision or bonus to perception. Your character can be 150 years old but look 30. S/he'll still need to sleep. And no bonuses against Sleep or Charm."


----------



## prabe (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Well, the RL negotiation happened pretty much the way I laid it out in my OP.



That may be, but your OP still reads like something of a hit piece. That's probably because it's ... emphatically from a point of view--the hit piece feel could well be an unintended consequence.

And that's coming from someone who believes GMs should be able to establish parameters for campaigns--so I should in theory be on your side ...


----------



## MGibster (Dec 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> You guys got it wrong! No special snowflakes are allowed in this fictional world!



In most games, especially fantasy games, the PCs _are_ special snowflakes. It's just that we're so used to playing these particular snowflakes we no longer think of them as being very special. In defense of a lot of players, it's likely they just don't think of an elf as special and it's odd to them they couldn't play one in a fantasy game.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

embee said:


> Why should one player be given an exception and the other players not be given an exception?



I have no respect at all for the rhetorical tactic you employed, so I'm not engaging with it. Please stop trying to drag me into an argument I've told you I'm done with.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Well, the RL negotiation happened pretty much the way I laid it out in my OP.



That much was clear when you made this response touting your greatness when presented with this great advice to a fairly similar situation. I've said multiple times that I have zero tolerance for allowing FR stuff in my eberron games, but that line is drawn after I take the time to point my players to all the "cool naughty word" in my world that might scratch their itch with a few tweaks to their concept.  You might not have planned for an unsullied, but weapons proficiencies, skills useful for a potential owner to have an unsullied know , &magically altered bodies with eyes that can maybe see in the dark is pretty close to an elf.

The fault is on you the GM for not trying to redirect a poorly fitting idea towards some great fitting thing that does exist in your world  by describing some of the awesome things about it & getting the player on board with one of the things  you could have pointed to that would enhance your game with depth.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> In most games, especially fantasy games, the PCs _are_ special snowflakes. It's just that we're so used to playing these particular snowflakes we no longer think of them as being very special. In defense of a lot of players, it's likely they just don't think of an elf as special and it's odd to them they couldn't play one in a fantasy game.




Ah, you're right....I misspoke. I'll amend.

You guys got it wrong! There are no special snowflakes allowed at this table!

Well, except for the GM!


----------



## MGibster (Dec 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> You guys got it wrong! There are no special snowflakes allowed at this table!
> 
> Well, except for the GM!



I tend to think of special snowflakes as characters whose very existence flies in the face of the premise of the campaign.  If you agreed to play in my Vampire campaign set in the Chicago 1992 where you're Camarilla facing a Sabbat incursion I'm going to be mighty sad if you ask to play a werewolf or a mage.  I'd see it as your way of telling me you're not really interested in the campaign.  But if you came to me and said, "Hey, I know they're not part of the Camarilla, but is there any way I could play a Giovanni?"  I can easily work with you and come up with a reason why you have an interest in keeping the Sabbat out as well.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> That much was clear when you made this response touting your greatness when presented with this great advice to a fairly similar situation. I've said multiple times that I have zero tolerance for allowing FR stuff in my eberron games, but that line is drawn after I take the time to point my players to all the "cool naughty word" in my world that might scratch their itch with a few tweaks to their concept.  You might not have planned for an unsullied, but weapons proficiencies, skills useful for a potential owner to have an unsullied know , &magically altered bodies with eyes that can maybe see in the dark is pretty close to an elf.
> 
> The fault is on you the GM for not trying to redirect a poorly fitting idea towards some great fitting thing that does exist in your world  by describing some of the awesome things about it & getting the player on board with one of the things  you could have pointed to that would enhance your game with depth.



I tried to get perspective Player #4 on board with the concept I had envisioned and the other 3 players were interested in playing. Player #4 insisted that they be allowed to play something I didn't want to have in the game. So, Player #4 now has the wonderful open schedule that will allow them to find a different game where they can play the character they want to play. In addition, Players #1, #2, and #3 have extra spotlight time so they can play their very interesting human characters they created. I'm excited!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I tend to think of special snowflakes as characters whose very existence flies in the face of the premise of the campaign.  If you agreed to play in my Vampire campaign set in the Chicago 1992 where you're Camarilla facing a Sabbat incursion I'm going to be mighty sad if you ask to play a werewolf or a mage.  I'd see it as your way of telling me you're not really interested in the campaign.  But if you came to me and said, "Hey, I know they're not part of the Camarilla, but is there any way I could play a Giovanni?"  I can easily work with you and come up with a reason why you have an interest in keeping the Sabbat out as well.



I mean, maybe I'm getting stuck on the example but, why wouldn't a werewolf or a mage want to keep the sabbat out of chicago? Why couldn't one be an ally of one of the vampires?


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, maybe I'm getting stuck on the example but, why wouldn't a werewolf or a mage want to keep the sabbat out of chicago? Why couldn't one be an ally of one of the vampires?



The established fluff says Vampires and Werewolves are mortal enemies, in a "kill on sight" fashion. Mages generally stay away from supernaturals as they are ill equipped to deal with them. As per the established fluff.

Also,. technically, or for reals, Vampire and Wherewolf and Mage, are three different systems, or three different games if you prefer. They share similar mechanics, but are not exactly the same.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> I tried to get perspective Player #4 on board with the concept I had envisioned and the other 3 players were interested in playing. Player #4 insisted that they be allowed to play something I didn't want to have in the game. So, Player #4 now has the wonderful open schedule that will allow them to find a different game where they can play the character they want to play. In addition, Players #1, #2, and #3 have extra spotlight time so they can play their very interesting human characters they created. I'm excited!




It sounds like you are happy to kick out a player. That seems like an unhealthy attitude for a GM to me. Did the player run over your dog or something?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> The established fluff says Vampires and Werewolves are mortal enemies, in a "kill on sight" fashion. Mages generally stay away from supernaturals as they are ill equipped to deal with them. As per the established fluff.
> 
> Also,. technically, or for reals, Vampire and Wherewolf and Mage, are three different systems, or three different games if you prefer. They share similar mechanics, but are not exactly the same.



Sure, which is actually just fluff. The differen system thing, I'll grant you, but then it was a bad example to begin with.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure, which is actually just fluff. The differen system thing, I'll grant you, but then it was a bad example to begin with.



Yea, but the '90s era White Wolf games are really, really dependent on their fluff.  Far more so than almost any other game, knowing and playing with the campaign lore is those game's _raison d'être_.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I tend to think of special snowflakes as characters whose very existence flies in the face of the premise of the campaign.  If you agreed to play in my Vampire campaign set in the Chicago 1992 where you're Camarilla facing a Sabbat incursion I'm going to be mighty sad if you ask to play a werewolf or a mage.  I'd see it as your way of telling me you're not really interested in the campaign.  But if you came to me and said, "Hey, I know they're not part of the Camarilla, but is there any way I could play a Giovanni?"  I can easily work with you and come up with a reason why you have an interest in keeping the Sabbat out as well.




Often its someone who's just taken the idea of playing the common odd-man-out role you see in a lot of fictional groups and not realizing that matters of degree matter when doing that sort of thing.

And of course, some times you're effectively right; they're only interested in certain sorts of games so they'll try to convert any game into one of the ones they really want.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, maybe I'm getting stuck on the example but, why wouldn't a werewolf or a mage want to keep the sabbat out of chicago? Why couldn't one be an ally of one of the vampires?



I accidentally clicked the laugh button for your post.  My apologies, I'm not laughing at you or your post but I don't know how to undo it.  In the old World of Darkness, vampires were the mortal enemies of werewolves.  There is some fraternizing, some werewolves are comfortable coexisting with Gangrel, but for the most part we're talking kill-on-sight.  Werewolves are one of the reasons most vampires avoid the countryside.  

But that's not important.  The important thing is the campaign pitched was vampires fighting against a sabbat incursion.  A werewolf is not a vampire.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I accidentally clicked the laugh button for your post.  My apologies, I'm not laughing at you or your post but I don't know how to undo it.



Click the link again - that should toggle it off. At least it does with the generic Like.
Edit: just tested with your post. If you select HaHa, you can select it again to undo it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but the '90s era White Wolf games are really, really dependent on their fluff.  Far more so than almost any other game, knowing and playing with the campaign lore is those game's _raison d'être_.



That isn't germaine to the interaction you're replying to, though. If the three cannot be thought of as part of the same "world" in terms of character options, then the original example I replied to wasn't valid in the first place. If they can be, and thus the example is valid, then my counter-question is equally valid. 

The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation. 

If we are treating the three as separate games, then the example is uselessly absurd, and in no way comperable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> It sounds like you are happy to kick out a player. That seems like an unhealthy attitude for a GM to me. Did the player run over your dog or something?



No, but it is a game hosted at a public location. The participants are not a group of longtime friends, at least they told me they don't socialize outside of the game. I was invited to take over GM duties by the operator of the public space as the previous GM has commitments elsewhere. I started by pitching Pendragon and was unanimously voted down, as always. Then I pitched my GoT pastiche, 3 players said yes, 1 player said only if they get to change the premise of the campaign to suit their personal preferences. Then, in essence, they got voted out 4 to 1. I don't know what to tell you. If you think I'm supposed to feel bad, I don't. If the odd player out could, or would have, just given up on playing a particular character that didn't fit the premise I and three other people were keen on playing, they wouldn't have gotten the boot. I don't have a problem spending my time and effort running a game I'm interested in running, I absolutely won't run a game I'm not interested in running just to make others happy. I want to have fun with my hobby. Running a murderhobo fantasy adventure is not my thing, neither is kitchen sink fantasy. None of the other players, including the one who got the boot, have any interest in being a GM, so either I do the GM thing or all the players lose out. Hopefully the ousted player will find a game they enjoy participating in soon. I assume they will, as other groups hosted at the same location are looking for new players, and those games are much more what that player is look for as far as I can tell. If it makes you feel better, those other games are probably going to lose players, opening spots for my ousted player, because players in those groups want to join my game apparently. Lucky for me, the new perspective players sound like they are excited to play something other than kitchen sink fantasy murderhobo adventuring so hopefully they have compatible character concepts in mind.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn't germaine to the interaction you're replying to, though. If the three cannot be thought of as part of the same "world" in terms of character options, then the original example I replied to wasn't valid in the first place. If they can be, and thus the example is valid, then my counter-question is equally valid.
> 
> The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.
> 
> If we are treating the three as separate games, then the example is uselessly absurd, and in no way comperable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game.



You should reread my OP. No system is mentioned. There are several systems that have both humans and elves as playable races in the core book that are not D&D. Examples include: Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, Age of Shadow, and OpenQuest.

I also believe the post was simply being used as an example of how sometimes a character concept does not fit the premise and can be disallowed simply for that reason.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> You should reread my OP. No system is mentioned. There are several systems that have both humans and elves as playable races in the core book that are not D&D. Examples include: Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, Age of Shadow, and OpenQuest.
> 
> I also believe the post was simply being used as an example of how sometimes a character concept does not fit the premise and can be disallowed simply for that reason.



I wasn't replying to the OP, so what was or wasn't mentioned in it is irrelevant.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 16, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I wasn't replying to the OP, so what was or wasn't mentioned in it is irrelevant.



Well, in the entire line of linked posts, D&D was not mentioned. The word "fantasy" was used, but that doesn't automatically mean D&D as there are lots of fantasy RPGs that are not D&D. Assuming anyone means D&D without them saying so is disingenuous.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 16, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Well, in the entire line of linked posts, D&D was not mentioned. The word "fantasy" was used, but that doesn't automatically mean D&D as there are lots of fantasy RPGs that are not D&D. Assuming anyone means D&D without them saying so is disingenuous.



Buddy, I have no idea what nonsense you're talking about.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn't germaine to the interaction you're replying to, though. If the three cannot be thought of as part of the same "world" in terms of character options, then the original example I replied to wasn't valid in the first place. If they can be, and thus the example is valid, then my counter-question is equally valid.
> 
> The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.
> 
> If we are treating the three as separate games, then the example is uselessly absurd, and in no way comperable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game.



It isn't germaine, no; it's merely providing context for the "just fluff" statement in the previous post for the edification of the audience.  Sometimes it's fun to learn instead of argue.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> So what?



Because after the same character showing up ten times in ten different guises it's going to get a bit tedious for everyone else.  Same problem as a player naming every character Bob, only here the name changes while the underlying character doesn't.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> Not everyone has the luxury of a pool of players to fish in.  Some have the players they have and that's pretty much it.



Fair point; but if the player base is that small chances are everyone already knows each other anyway, and what to expect.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you're just going to get more ridiculous? No thanks. This line of argument is just spewing nonsense...



You may say it's spewing nonsense but I've in fact been involved in discussions not too dissimilar from the example given by @embee : one player* squeezes in an exception and suddenly everyone wants one.  The example given merely strips away the niceties and lays it out bare, but the end result is the same.

* - me, in at least one instance I can think of.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.



But the pitch was "you're vampires..." not "you're supernatural creatures."  If I had pitched a game by saying, "you're all creatures from the World of Darkness who have banded together against a mysterious force that threatens you all" then a mage, werewolf, changeling, or even a mummy would be acceptable.  But the pitch was vampires.

Of course another clue is "We're playing Vampire the Masquerade."  There shouldn't be any expectation of playing a werewolf in Vampire the Masquerade.


----------



## GrahamWills (Dec 17, 2020)

The goal of a campaign is for everyone to have fun. It's not a contract, it's not adversarial, and it's not going to work if you treat it as such.
Compromising so that everyone can enjoy the result is just normal behavior -- nothing game-specific about it. Yo talk it over and decide what will work for everyone. The GM has exactly the same priority as anyone else. Like everyone else, she expects to have fun playing and shouldn't have any burden on her to play a way that will make her not have fun. Like everyone else she should compromise to help others have fun.

If you have a GM who cannot have fun running a campaign with an elf in it, and you have a player who cannot have fun without playing an elf then:

This is a sad state of affairs for adults to be in. 
You will not be playing together
Should you make accommodations to one player and not others? Of course! If a player always plays elves, loves elves and really wants to play an elf, then the GM should try and accommodate that. It doesn't then meant that everyone then has a free "I get a special thing" card. If there's something someone else wants that would make them super-excited, sure, try and work it in, but it's not a legal "everyone gets one exception" thing.

If I'm cooking a dinner and I plan for Indian food, and someone says that they are allergic to cardoon and will die if they eat it, then obviously I'm not going to use cardomon. If they say they cannot eat cumin, then I might just abandon plans to cook Indian because I cannot imagine trying to cook that way (it would be no fun for me). If someone says they absolutely love chocolate cake and would really love to have some, then sure, I'll add one to the menu, if it means that much to them, because it doesn't lower my fun much and it means a lot to them.

TLDR: Be excellent to one another


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn't germaine to the interaction you're replying to, though. If the three cannot be thought of as part of the same "world" in terms of character options, then the original example I replied to wasn't valid in the first place. If they can be, and thus the example is valid, then my counter-question is equally valid.
> 
> The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.
> 
> If we are treating the three as separate games, then the example is uselessly absurd, and in no way comperable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game.



The mechanics for werewolves are different to those for vampires. And both are different to Mages. And all three to those for wraiths or changelings.

The systems are close enough that, if you have the corebooks for both, you can mix them, but you need each type's corebook to do it properly.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 17, 2020)

GrahamWills said:


> Should you make accommodations to one player and not others? Of course! If a player always plays elves, loves elves and really wants to play an elf, then the GM should try and accommodate that. It doesn't then meant that everyone then has a free "I get a special thing" card. If there's something someone else wants that would make them super-excited, sure, try and work it in, but it's not a legal "everyone gets one exception" thing.



I will certainly agree that a GM should try to accommodate any reasonable request made by a player.  However, asking to play an elf character in a setting with _no elves_ is an unreasonable request.  Try as they might, a DM isn't always going to be able to accommodate a player's request.  "Sorry, choomba, this is Cyberpunk 2020 not Shadowrun.  But if you want to play a character that's been modified by a ripperdoc to sport pointy ears and elfin features, knock yourself out."    



GrahamWills said:


> If I'm cooking a dinner and I plan for Indian food, and someone says that they are allergic to cardoon and will die if they eat it, then obviously I'm not going to use cardomon. If they say they cannot eat cumin, then I might just abandon plans to cook Indian because I cannot imagine trying to cook that way (it would be no fun for me).



If you're cooking for one that seems very reasonable.  If you're having a dinner party it would be unreasonable to expect you to scrap your entire menu in order to accommodate one person unless that individual is the person you're throwing the party for.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> You may say it's spewing nonsense but I've in fact been involved in discussions not too dissimilar from the example given by @embee : one player* squeezes in an exception and suddenly everyone wants one.  The example given merely strips away the niceties and lays it out bare, but the end result is the same.
> 
> * - me, in at least one instance I can think of.



Oh yeah? You’ve had allowing an elf lead to allowing stuff that isn’t even player options? Really? 

I _really_ doubt it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 17, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> The mechanics for werewolves are different to those for vampires. And both are different to Mages. And all three to those for wraiths or changelings.
> 
> The systems are close enough that, if you have the corebooks for both, you can mix them, but you need each type's corebook to do it properly.



Okay?


----------



## macd21 (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn't germaine to the interaction you're replying to, though. If the three cannot be thought of as part of the same "world" in terms of character options, then the original example I replied to wasn't valid in the first place. If they can be, and thus the example is valid, then my counter-question is equally valid.
> 
> The fluff matters to the games, but the fluff is not such that werewolves and mages can't be PCs in a mostly vampire game. The fluff just makes that require explanation.
> 
> If we are treating the three as separate games, then the example is uselessly absurd, and in no way comperable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game.



It’s comparable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game with no elves.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Fair point; but if the player base is that small chances are everyone already knows each other anyway, and what to expect.




I've played with the same extended group for literally decades; I've still found out the hard way about things on occasion.  As I noted, among other things, people's tastes and expectations change, and you might not get much warning until you walk into it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> It’s comparable to someone wanting to play an elf in a DnD game with no elves.



Not at all.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not at all.



I fail to see the difference. You could play a Werewolf or a Mage in Vampire. The games have a common base system. You can play an elf in DnD, regardless of setting, because there’s a common base system. That is what Player 4 is asking for - to play an elf in a humans-only game. It’s just like asking to play a Werewolf in a Vampire-only game of Vampire, on the basis that they have a common system.


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 17, 2020)

I've had a player come up to me, asking if he could play an elf, in a setting of mine that doesn't have elves. I allowed it, but told him he would be a visitor from another world, and people would respond accordingly. And that was fine with him. We both adjusted to make it work. After all, it is only a game.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay?



It makes mixed parties require multiple rulebooks, and that is often a problem. Not always, but often. Also, a Mage is way disproportionate to anything else in power level. And mummies really only have to fear magi, as anything else can only inconvenience them for a few decades. Magi can do nastiness to mummies.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Because after the same character showing up ten times in ten different guises it's going to get a bit tedious for everyone else.  Same problem as a player naming every character Bob, only here the name changes while the underlying character doesn't.



But we are dealing with an approach to OSR that involves pawn stance and skilled play so the character name or even the in-character "acting" to entertain the fellow players is not necessarily a play priority.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 17, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> I've had a player come up to me, asking if he could play an elf, in a setting of mine that doesn't have elves. I allowed it, but told him he would be a visitor from another world, and people would respond accordingly. And that was fine with him. We both adjusted to make it work. After all, it is only a game.




And that’s great, if that works for you and the campaign you’ve created. But I’ve run campaigns where that simply wouldn’t have worked for me. And based on the description of the OP’s campaign, that would be of the kind where it wouldn’t work.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> And that’s great, if that works for you and the campaign you’ve created. But I’ve run campaigns where that simply wouldn’t have worked for me. And based on the description of the OP’s campaign, that would be of the kind where it wouldn’t work.



Agreed, to a point.

There's nothing in the OP's initial statement that makes it clear one way or the other on whether allowing it as an alien wouldn't work, and there are non-human intelligences in the inspirational setting.

The question as asked is not about would it work, but should  the GM cave. And if the question is accurate to the situation, and others have bought into the setup, when the GM says no, the wanna-be elf, if they are reasonable, either chooses to sit out, or chooses to give in. 

Humans are not always reasonable. In fact, many are often unreasonable. I can be unreasonable often. I try not to be unreasonable when it is important to be reasonable, but I don't succeed there, either, all the time. Which reminds me: time for meds, so I'm a reasonable human tomorrow.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 17, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> I've had a player come up to me, asking if he could play an elf, in a setting of mine that doesn't have elves. I allowed it, but told him he would be a visitor from another world, and people would respond accordingly. And that was fine with him. We both adjusted to make it work. After all, it is only a game.



I've had a similar situation, booted the player, and we both lived happily ever after.


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

MGibster said:


> But the pitch was "you're vampires..." not "you're supernatural creatures."  If I had pitched a game by saying, "you're all creatures from the World of Darkness who have banded together against a mysterious force that threatens you all" then a mage, werewolf, changeling, or even a mummy would be acceptable.  But the pitch was vampires.
> 
> Of course another clue is "We're playing Vampire the Masquerade."  There shouldn't be any expectation of playing a werewolf in Vampire the Masquerade.




P1: Can I play a changeling? Or maybe a mummy?

GM: Get the hell out of here! You know no one here has those books. You'll be lucky if I let you play a wraith character.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> Let's play this scenario out...
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



This sounds like an awesome campaign. GoT style politics, intrigue, and body count, but there are elves and rifles and orcs. I'd play it in a heartbeat.

In your scenario, it's obvious that the GM and players don't want to play the same game.

What I notice in a lot of these discussions is that the priority seems to be "Protect the GM's vision."

I call bullpucky on that. The GM's vision is no more or less important than anyone else's. I don't care if the GM spent $100,000 on all the books and minis and has spent 25 years perfecting their campaign world. If you are getting together with a group of human beings for a group activity, it should be expected that everyone's voice is heard equitably.

If we shift the goal to "Play an RPG everyone will enjoy" then the solution is obvious.

Throw some elves and guns and orcs in there, or play something else!

Overall though, the group in your hyperbolic example seems extremely engaged, and that's awesome. They're just not engaged in the DM's singular vision.

Still, I would play the heck out of that campaign!


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh yeah? You’ve had allowing an elf lead to allowing stuff that isn’t even player options? Really?
> 
> I _really_ doubt it.



P4 is bringing in an elf. So why not orcs too? P1 isn't even asking to play an orc, just that orcs exist and that there be orc encounters. Firearms are in the DMG and shadow monks are in the PHB.


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> In your scenario, it's obvious that the GM and players don't want to play the same game.




Then why should they? Why is no considered a fail-state and not a valid option?


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> P4 is bringing in an elf. So why not orcs too? P1 isn't even asking to play an orc, just that orcs exist and that there be orc encounters. Firearms are in the DMG and shadow monks are in the PHB.



GOT equivalents...
Orcs = wildlings (misunderstood as all barbarians before characters get to know them better)
Elves = Ancient royal family, very few true elves still exist but lots of people claim a bit of elven blood
Firearms = if there are dragons and fire magic, firearms do not seem far off. Make them a technology from across the narrow sea.
Shadow Monk = Arya Stark and the Faceless Men. That one's easy!

The characters start at Level 5 because they are knights and high ranking people.

None of this actually sacrifices what the DM wants to run, it adds to it. And it gets the players involved!



embee said:


> Then why should they? Why is no considered a fail-state and not a valid option?




Why is saying Yes a fail state and not a valid option?

I don't see these as an either-or argument. Neither the GM nor the player are in the right. Instead, the question is "Does one collaborator's voice count more than others?"

I would argue that not only is the answer a big, strong NO, but the RPG experience is improved when more participants are given more creative power!


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> Then why should they? Why is no considered a fail-state and not a valid option?



It's not.  The cartmanesque path taken to that fail state is more the issue.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> None of this actually sacrifices what the DM wants to run, it adds to it. And it gets the players involved!



In your opinion, none of them sacrifice what the DM wants to run. But that's just it - that's your opinion and it may not be the GM's opinion.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

billd91 said:


> In your opinion, none of them sacrifice what the DM wants to run. But that's just it - that's your opinion and it may not be the GM's opinion.



The GM is fictional.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> GOT equivalents...
> Orcs = wildlings (misunderstood as all barbarians before characters get to know them better)
> Elves = Ancient royal family, very few true elves still exist but lots of people claim a bit of elven blood



If a player wants to play a wildling or a member of an ancient royal family, he can do so - but that’s not the same as an orc or an elf.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> The GM is fictional.




From the OP's elaboration, not so much.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> If a player wants to play a wildling or a member of an ancient royal family, he can do so - but that’s not the same as an orc or an elf.



Why not? If the GM wants a GoT style game and the players want elves and orcs, why not do both?

The GM is not an immaculate artist whose vision must be protected at all costs. The GM is one of many collaborators sitting around a table telling a story.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> From the OP's elaboration, not so much.



Well in my elaboration, the GM takes a step back, takes a deep breath, and realized that they should write a novel if they want total control of a fantasy world. Then they invite collaboration from the players and have a blast.


----------



## prabe (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Well in my elaboration, the GM takes a step back, takes a deep breath, and realized that they should write a novel if they want total control of a fantasy world. Then they invite collaboration from the players and have a blast.



So, there's a difference between "I want total control of my fantasy world" and "I don't want something in my fantasy world."


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Why is saying Yes a fail state and not a valid option?




You didn't really answer the question.

Look, I'll be the first to say that a bad day at the beach beats a nice day at the office. But the GM doesn't want what appears to be a fairly by the book FR campaign. 

You had suggested 


BookTenTiger said:


> If we shift the goal to "Play an RPG everyone will enjoy" then the solution is obvious. Throw some elves and guns and orcs in there, or play something else!




Yes. That is what the GM had tried to do. A human-only GOT campaign. Which is something that P4 would not enjoy. At the same time, P4's suggested modifications to the campaign wouldn't be something that the GM would enjoy. So why force one upon the other?

GM should be able to say, "Yeah, I get that's what you want to play but that's not the kind of campaign I'm looking to run right now. It's probably not going to be a good fit. But hey, when I'm done with this campaign, can I give you a holler?"

It comes down to tact and communication. There may have been some kind of communication breakdown here leading to flared tempers and wounded pride.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Well in my elaboration, the GM takes a step back, takes a deep breath, and realized that they should write a novel if they want total control of a fantasy world. Then they invite collaboration from the players and have a blast.




"Inviting collaboration" and "having some borders on the permitted in the campaign" are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> You didn't really answer the question.
> 
> Look, I'll be the first to say that a bad day at the beach beats a nice day at the office. But the GM doesn't want what appears to be a fairly by the book FR campaign.
> 
> ...



Your really going hard on this... have you *A:* watched the GoT tv series? or more importantly *B:* read the novels to understand what people are taling about when they point at unsullied varys dothraki high valaryan bloodlines children of the forest varys  & so on?  I think the answer is important for seeing where the disconnect is


----------



## macd21 (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Why not? If the GM wants a GoT style game and the players want elves and orcs, why not do both?
> 
> The GM is not an immaculate artist whose vision must be protected at all costs. The GM is one of many collaborators sitting around a table telling a story.




Because the GM wants to have fun too. Adding orcs and elves to a GOT-style campaign would massively change the nature of the setting, and that would spoil my fun. If I wanted to run a game with elves and orcs, I’d run a FR or Eberron campaign.

Likewise, if Player 4 wanted to run a game where everyone played elves, I wouldn’t object.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 17, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Your really going hard on this... have you *A:* watched the GoT tv series? or more importantly *B:* read the novels to understand what people are taling about when they point at unsullied varys dothraki high valaryan bloodlines children of the forest varys  & so on?  I think the answer is important for seeing where the disconnect is



As far as I could tell from watching the TV show (never read the books) every character except the Children of the Forest are humans. The Forest Children also barely featured in the show at all.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

Thomas Shey said:


> "Inviting collaboration" and "having some borders on the permitted in the campaign" are not mutually exclusive.



Yeah but arguing the middle ground is no fun!

My client, Player 4 aka Elflover deserves representation. I will fight for their right to play an elf until the butter end!


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> You didn't really answer the question.
> 
> Look, I'll be the first to say that a bad day at the beach beats a nice day at the office. But the GM doesn't want what appears to be a fairly by the book FR campaign.
> 
> ...



Player 4: I want to play an elf.

DM: See ya next campaign!

Player 2: I want guns.

DM: See ya next campaign!

Player 3: Shadow Monk!

DM: See ya next campaign!

Player 4: Let's start at Level 5!

DM: See ya next campaign!

DM sitting at empty table: Finally, the perfect GoT campaign!


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 17, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> As far as I could tell from watching the TV show (never read the books) every character except the Children of the Forest are humans. The Forest Children also barely featured in the show at all.



that's like pointing at an xmen comic where almost everyone in it is human unless it's one of the storylines where aliens are involved & saying everyone is a human.  While they cut a _ton_ of stuff in the tv series...

daeneryis(sp?) has a high valaryan bloodline which is a big part of why she survived the bonfire.. Purple eyes & silver hair is hardly screams "human", but there is a race that tends to sport that kinda eye/hail color.... I feel like it starts with an e
Dothraki?  They gloss over it in the tv series sure, but they are pretty much darksun style elves minus the ears but in a sea of grass instead of sea of sad & built like the spartans from the300 with some vague implications of magic in the blood & such.
Unsullied?... what happens to them is wayyyy beyond just getting snipped with some vague implications of potions/old magic.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Because the GM wants to have fun too. Adding orcs and elves to a GOT-style campaign would massively change the nature of the setting, and that would spoil my fun. If I wanted to run a game with elves and orcs, I’d run a FR or Eberron campaign.
> 
> Likewise, if Player 4 wanted to run a game where everyone played elves, I wouldn’t object.



In your argument, you are saying the only way for the GM to have fun is for all the other people at the table to bend to their vision.

I just don't think it's fair to prioritize one person's vision over everyone else's. Player 4 is not refusing to play, they just want their voice heard, their portion of the creative process respected.

In my opinion, this GM should realize that to play in a collaborative game means being willing to collaborate.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> In your argument, you are saying the only way for the GM to have fun is for all the other people at the table to bend to their vision.
> 
> I just don't think it's fair to prioritize one person's vision over everyone else's. Player 4 is not refusing to play, they just want their voice heard, their portion of the creative process respected.
> 
> In my opinion, this GM should realize that to play in a collaborative game means being willing to collaborate.




In your argument, you are saying that the only way for Player 4 to have fun is for the GM to bend to their vision.

The GM is not refusing to let Player 4 play, hejust want his voice heard, his portion of the creative process respected.

Refusing to allow an elf character does not mean the GM is unwilling to collaborate. There are plenty of options that Player 4 can choose from. 'Elf' just isn't one of them. If Player 4 really won't have fun unless they get to play an elf, then they shouldn't play - just as the GM shouldn't run a game that wouldn't be fun for him.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 17, 2020)

Matt Colville put out a video today on a topic like this one (apologies if this has already been posted):


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 17, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> that's like pointing at an xmen comic where almost everyone in it is human unless it's one of the storylines where aliens are involved & saying everyone is a human.  While they cut a _ton_ of stuff in the tv series...
> 
> daeneryis(sp?) has a high valaryan bloodline which is a big part of why she survived the bonfire.. Purple eyes & silver hair is hardly screams "human", but there is a race that tends to sport that kinda eye/hail color.... I feel like it starts with an e
> Dothraki?  They gloss over it in the tv series sure, but they are pretty much darksun style elves minus the ears but in a sea of grass instead of sea of sad & built like the spartans from the300 with some vague implications of magic in the blood & such.
> Unsullied?... what happens to them is wayyyy beyond just getting snipped with some vague implications of potions/old magic.



A human with magic is not an elf. I also said Game Of Thrones, not A Song Of Ice And Fire or whatever the book series is called. The TV show does deviate from the books as I was told, and TV and movies often don't contain all the details the books do. From my viewing of the TV show, almost the entire cast of characters are human. Maybe some humans with magic (which the campaign premise included) but humans none the less. Humans aren't Elfs, if they were, the player would have just played a human!


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> In my opinion, this GM should realize that to play in a collaborative game means being willing to collaborate.



I did! I'm collaborating with the three (soon to be five) players that are willing to play humans. I didn't want the campaign to have a magic user in it right off the bat, but it sounds like one of the players wants to do that, so guess what? Compromise!


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 17, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> Matt Colville put out a video today on a topic like this one (apologies if this has already been posted):



He makes a lot of good points & I agree with almost all if not all of them, but I'm not so sure that this particular case fits into the reasons he gave because westeros/essos/sothoryos do have things that are elf-like analogues the player could have been directed to.
I think the bigger thing that the video does is to act as a great intro for why the PHB being written so strongly to fit FR & FR alone is so harmful for a gm trying to run settings that do it different (races especially) because those races aren't just tolkein extras  or humans with a funny bit of rubber ear/forehead/makeup  because they are not human.  It's hard to convey how the races are not human & don't think like one when none of the non-fr styles are presented in core books.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 17, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> that's like pointing at an xmen comic where almost everyone in it is human unless it's one of the storylines where aliens are involved & saying everyone is a human.  While they cut a _ton_ of stuff in the tv series...
> 
> daeneryis(sp?) has a high valaryan bloodline which is a big part of why she survived the bonfire.. Purple eyes & silver hair is hardly screams "human", but there is a race that tends to sport that kinda eye/hail color.... I feel like it starts with an e
> Dothraki?  They gloss over it in the tv series sure, but they are pretty much darksun style elves minus the ears but in a sea of grass instead of sea of sad & built like the spartans from the300 with some vague implications of magic in the blood & such.
> Unsullied?... what happens to them is wayyyy beyond just getting snipped with some vague implications of potions/old magic.



You could skin things that way, but it also works perfectly fine if Valyrians are defined as human. Whichever works better for a specific campaign may depend on some of the themes the DM wants to imply (or dodge).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> P4 is bringing in an elf. So why not orcs too? P1 isn't even asking to play an orc, just that orcs exist and that there be orc encounters. Firearms are in the DMG and shadow monks are in the PHB.



I’m not going to legitimize unlike comparisons just because you continue to push it.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Why not? If the GM wants a GoT style game and the players want elves and orcs, why not do both?
> 
> The GM is not an immaculate artist whose vision must be protected at all costs. The GM is one of many collaborators sitting around a table telling a story.



The GoT setting already has elves.  They're called Children of the Forest.  They've been gone for centuries and people think that they died out.  If one single Child showed up in Westeros, it would have tremendous, game altering implications.  That might work for some, but would be proper grounds for a no from others.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> The GM is fictional.



I'll make sure to mention this to my GM at next Saturday's session.

I think he might be a bit surprised to learn he's been a figment of our imagination for the last 40 years.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> A human with magic is not an elf. I also said Game Of Thrones, not A Song Of Ice And Fire or whatever the book series is called. The TV show does deviate from the books as I was told, and TV and movies often don't contain all the details the books do. From my viewing of the TV show, almost the entire cast of characters are human. Maybe some humans with magic (which the campaign premise included) but humans none the less. Humans aren't Elfs, if they were, the player would have just played a human!



Recommendation: read the books ASAP.

Some of your players may be basing their character concepts on ideas from the books that either didn't get into the TV series or didn't translate well.


----------



## prabe (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Recommendation: read the books ASAP.



Especially if you like your Epic Fantasy unfinished.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> I just don't think it's fair to prioritize one person's vision over everyone else's. Player 4 is not refusing to play, they just want their voice heard, their portion of the creative process respected.



All the participants are not equal.  The GM is responsible for preparing adventures, running adventures, characterizing NPCs, and is the arbiter of rules whereas the responsibilities of the players are quite light.  It's completely fair to prioritize the GM's vision over that of any single player.  I humbly submit that it's possible for a GM to hear their player, respectfully consider what they have to say, and still say no.  



BookTenTiger said:


> In my opinion, this GM should realize that to play in a collaborative game means being willing to collaborate.



And in my opinion, being willing to collaborate with players doesn't mean you have to say yes all the time.  It's okay to say no.


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I'll make sure to mention this to my GM at next Saturday's session.
> 
> I think he might be a bit surprised to learn he's been a figment of our imagination for the last 40 years.




Time is an illusion. Lunch time, doubly so.

Time is also a flat circle. But it does not keep on slipping (slipping) into the future because the Eagles can kiss my _tuches_.


----------



## prabe (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> Time is an illusion. Lunch time, doubly so.
> 
> Time is also a flat circle. But it does not keep on slipping (slipping) into the future because the Eagles can kiss my _tuches_.



It's "Fly Like and Eagle" and it's by the Steve Miller Band.

Bonus points for the Adams and Chambers references, though ...


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I'll make sure to mention this to my GM at next Saturday's session.
> 
> I think he might be a bit surprised to learn he's been a figment of our imagination for the last 40 years.



Isn't it more likely that we are all just NPCs in some very advanced D&D game? Like, whoa!


----------



## prabe (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Isn't it more likely that we are all just NPCs in some very advanced D&D game? Like, whoa!



Everyone you meet is a figment of a deranged mind.


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> It's "Fly Like and Eagle" and it's by the Steve Miller Band.
> 
> Bonus points for the Adams and Chambers references, though ...



You're right. 

I got confused. Probably because I confuse a whole lot of dadrock. Don't get me wrong... I enjoy dadrock. But "Take The Money And Run" sounds like "Sweet Home Alabama" and yes I know that's Skynryd (who can also smooch my _tuches_) and "Abra Cadabra" is easily one of the worst music videos of all time. 

OF ALL TIME.

Back to my confusion, I propose that the Venn diagram of people who own a copy of "Steve Miller Band Greatest Hits 1974-1978" and people who own a copy "Hotel California" is a flat circle.

Also, I think that there should be an Underdark campaign where everyone has to play members of The Eagles. Only humans or variant humans are allowed. Not because of some grand, in-game mythos. 

I just don't want the PCs to have darkvision. 

Should make for a nice short campaign.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 17, 2020)

In the Post #1 scenario, the GM was very unclear on genre, tone, and race/class restrictions. What Player 4 said was fine.

In the Post #148 scenario, the GM was only unclear in genre, tone, and class restrictions. So Player 4 said something that did not match the GM's campaign by default.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> I got confused. Probably because I confuse a whole lot of dadrock. Don't get me wrong... I enjoy dadrock. But "Take The Money And Run" sounds like "Sweet Home Alabama" and yes I know that's Skynryd (who can also smooch my _tuches_ and "Abra Cadabra" is easily one of the worst music videos of all time.



Fun fact:  The Steve Miller bad was on tour and unavailable to shoot a video for Abracadabra.  So the studio went ahead and made a video without them.  And having  survived the 80s, I can tell you with all honesty that it's not all that bad compared to many of its contemporaries.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> In your argument, you are saying that the only way for Player 4 to have fun is for the GM to bend to their vision.
> 
> The GM is not refusing to let Player 4 play, hejust want his voice heard, his portion of the creative process respected.
> 
> Refusing to allow an elf character does not mean the GM is unwilling to collaborate. There are plenty of options that Player 4 can choose from. 'Elf' just isn't one of them. If Player 4 really won't have fun unless they get to play an elf, then they shouldn't play - just as the GM shouldn't run a game that wouldn't be fun for him.



Your honor, my client, Player 4, claims they were acting in a spirit of collaboration by making a "yes, and" statement. Player 4 already agreed to play in a GoT style game. By stating they wished to play an elf, Player 4 communicated that the addition of elves did not alter their own concept of what constitutes a "GoT style game."

In the case of GM vs Player 4, the defense asks that the jury side with the party who makes the effort to add collaboratively through "Yes, and" statements, rather than the party guilty of "no" statements.


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Fun fact:  The Steve Miller bad was on tour and unavailable to shoot a video for Abracadabra.  So the studio went ahead and made a video without them.  And having  survived the 80s, I can tell you with all honesty that it's not all that bad compared to many of its contemporaries.




I didn't say it was the worst. Just easily one of the worst. 

It's the Diet Pepsi of music videos. I mean, it's not a can of Diet Dr. Pepper left to ferment in the back seat of a junked 92 Buick Le Sabre in a yard in Decatur and served room temperature on a hot August day. But it's still a can of Diet Pepsi and is terrible in its own right.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Your honor, my client, Player 4, claims they were acting in a spirit of collaboration by making a "yes, and" statement. Player 4 already agreed to play in a GoT style game. By stating they wished to play an elf, Player 4 communicated that the addition of elves did not alter their own concept of what constitutes a "GoT style game."
> 
> In the case of GM vs Player 4, the defense asks that the jury side with the party who makes the effort to add collaboratively through "Yes, and" statements, rather than the party guilty of "no" statements.



Your honor, my client clearly stated that this was a GoT style game which pre-establishes no elven PCs as part of it.  One of the primary tenets of a "yes, and" style game is that it not undo anything pre-established, regardless of Plaintiff's views on what constitutes a "GoT style game."  This lawsuit is therefore baseless on those grounds and should be immediately dismissed.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> I didn't say it was the worst. Just easily one of the worst.
> 
> It's the Diet Pepsi of music videos. I mean, it's not a can of Diet Dr. Pepper left to ferment in the back seat of a junked 92 Buick Le Sabre in a yard in Decatur and served room temperature on a hot August day. But it's still a can of Diet Pepsi and is terrible in its own right.



Remember the era.  I think you mean New Coke


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Remember the era.  I think you mean New Coke




I'm going to be running an 80's style McDonald's campaign. 

Any races that appeared in McDonald's commercials are playable races. Humans - obviously. You can also play as an ooze (Grimace), an aarokocra (Birdie), goblins (Fry Guys and Fry Gals), kobolds (the McNugget buddies) or a variant human (Mayor McCheese and Officer Big Mac). 

There are class and alignment restrictions: 

Rogues are required to wear domino masks, wide-brimmed black hats, and a B&W striped matching shirt and trousers, and are always Chaotic. You may however play Chaotic Evil, you automatically speak Rubblese, and all attempts to burgle hamburgers are rolled with advantage. Similarly, in this campaign, goblins cannot be lawful because they always try to steal fries. 

Oozes are all evil. I am adamant about this because Grimace was, as originally written, "the Evil Grimace." DEX cannot ever go above 5 because you have stupid stumpy arms. Also, you are vulnerable to milkshakes. 

Aarokocra in this world all have DEX below 9 and, while I permit flying, any attempt to land requires a DC15 saving throw against fall damage. 

Kobolds do get pack tactics but only if they are with at least 5 other kobolds because they come in 6 piece at a minimum (I will allow a lower 4, but only with a small goblin present (Fry Guy)). 

If you choose variant human, I will require your character to be a Lawful alignment and have a hamburger for a head. There are no feats but you can choose a build from any of the 9,382 brown 2e splatbooks. 

I will also let one player play an illithid, but the illithid has a 1 CHA and must consume at least 10 cans of New Coke per day or die. Also, its name is MAC. 

All non-spell casters start with styofoam armor (AC 10, confers resistance to attacks from plant-based creatures and spells). 

The basic plot is that the party is tasked with slaying the bloody-thirsty tyrant Mac Tonight. He can only be slain with a McDLT and, even if you procure the McDLT, you need to keep the hot side hot and the cold side cold until assembling it to kill Mac Tonight.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> I'm going to be running an 80's style McDonald's campaign.



Can I play the Burger King?


----------



## embee (Dec 17, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Can I play the Burger King?




No. This is not a Burger King campaign. You cannot have it your way. 

But you can play an elf.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 17, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Fun fact:  The Steve Miller bad was on tour and unavailable to shoot a video for Abracadabra.  So the studio went ahead and made a video without them.  And having  survived the 80s, I can tell you with all honesty that it's not all that bad compared to many of its contemporaries.



Just ask Billy Squire about "Rock Me Tonight" and its video.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 17, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Just ask Billy Squire about "Rock Me Tonight" and its video.



I think the biggest problem with that video is that it didn't particularly fit his image at the time.  Martha Quinn, MTV VJ at the time (and if you don't know who she is that just makes me old), says she doesn't remember the video having been so poorly received at the time and "Rock Me Tonight" was a fairly successful single for Squier.  But maybe it did alienate his core audience.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 17, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> A human with magic is not an elf. I also said Game Of Thrones, not A Song Of Ice And Fire or whatever the book series is called. The TV show does deviate from the books as I was told, and TV and movies often don't contain all the details the books do. From my viewing of the TV show, almost the entire cast of characters are human. Maybe some humans with magic (which the campaign premise included) but humans none the less. Humans aren't Elfs, if they were, the player would have just played a human!



game of thrones is the name of book one. It's starting to sound like some of your players might have known more about the setting you wanted to run than you & you weren't interested in learning.  If your wanting to run a game strictly confined to a specific setting expect a world of hurt if you haven't even started reading the books when your players start leveraging knowledge from them..


edit: That is after all one of the big reasons that comes up when you start asking people who hate doing it why they hate running games set in FR... Having read the books, it's going to be_ baaaaad._


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

embee said:


> No. This is not a Burger King campaign. You cannot have it your way.
> 
> But you can play an elf.



Great!

Can I name her Wendy?


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> It's starting to sound like some of your players might have known more about the setting you wanted to run than you & you weren't interested in learning.  If your wanting to run a game strictly confined to a specific setting expect a world of hurt if you haven't even started reading the books when your players start leveraging knowledge from them..



An equivalent would be trying to run a Middle Earth campaign having only seen the movies, then having a player start going on about some guy named Tom Bombadil...


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Recommendation: read the books ASAP.
> 
> Some of your players may be basing their character concepts on ideas from the books that either didn't get into the TV series or didn't translate well.



Tried. Failed. Much like Tolkien, I can't stand Martin's writing style. Oh crap, I just revealed that I've never read Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Does that destroy my GM credentials? How about if I've never read Lewis or Pratchett? Does it help if I read Feist? What about Elizabeth Moon?


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 17, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> game of thrones is the name of book one. It's starting to sound like some of your players might have known more about the setting you wanted to run than you & you weren't interested in learning.  If your wanting to run a game strictly confined to a specific setting expect a world of hurt if you haven't even started reading the books when your players start leveraging knowledge from them..
> 
> 
> edit: That is after all one of the big reasons that comes up when you start asking people who hate doing it why they hate running games set in FR... Having read the books, it's going to be_ baaaaad._



Never read the books. Did read alot of FR books in my youth.

EDIT: Do the Children of the Forest feature as viewpoint characters in the series? Are they like, main characters, that have whole chapters (perhaps several) dedicated to them? Or are they just secondary (or support) characters?


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> An equivalent would be trying to run a Middle Earth campaign having only seen the movies, then having a player start going on about some guy named Tom Bombadil...



Never read Tolkien, can't stand his writing style.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Tried. Failed. Much like Tolkien, I can't stand Martin's writing style. Oh crap, I just revealed that I've never read Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Does that destroy my GM credentials?



Not until the Nerd Police get there with the shredder.  They're on their way... 


zarionofarabel said:


> How about if I've never read Lewis or Pratchett? Does it help if I read Feist? What about Elizabeth Moon?



I've never had much use for Lewis or Pratchett.  Feist is alright.  Haven't read any Moon in ages.

But Martin is execllent, and face it: they're all trying to be Tolkein, just like every band since 1963 has been trying to be the Beatles.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Dec 18, 2020)

Well, I see amidst the jokes the thread really has degenerated into everyone left picking out their corners and defending to the death, so, shine on, folks.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 18, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Not until the Nerd Police get there with the shredder.  They're on their way...
> 
> I've never had much use for Lewis or Pratchett.  Feist is alright.  Haven't read any Moon in ages.
> 
> But Martin is execllent, and face it: they're all trying to be Tolkein, just like every band since 1963 has been trying to be the Beatles.



Pratchett is comedic genius.  He's the only author that can write about real world issues in fantasy without me becoming irritated.


----------



## prabe (Dec 18, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Pratchett is comedic genius.  He's the only author that can write about real world issues in fantasy without me becoming irritated.



I hope I'm not breaking bad news to you, but you know it should be past tense, right? (I realize you might be talking about his work in present tense, now that I'm thinking about it, in which case carry on.)


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> I hope I'm not breaking bad news to you, but you know it should be past tense, right? (I realize you might be talking about his work in present tense, now that I'm thinking about it, in which case carry on.)



Yeah.  I'm kinda hoping he's a ghost writer now.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Player 4: I want to play an elf.
> 
> DM: See ya next campaign!
> 
> ...



I’m still laughing at the idea that “let’s start at level 5” is even vaguely kind of comparable to “I’d like to play an elf”.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 18, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> A human with magic is not an elf. I also said Game Of Thrones, not A Song Of Ice And Fire or *whatever the book series is called*. The TV show does deviate from the books as I was told, and TV and movies often don't contain all the details the books do. From my viewing of the TV show, almost the entire cast of characters are human. Maybe some humans with magic (which the campaign premise included) but humans none the less. Humans aren't Elfs, if they were, the player would have just played a human!




 

You are trying to argue the point without having _read the books_?!!?!?!?!

That is a terrible thing. Terrible.  Sackcloth and ashes terrible. 

And not to upset the Legolas fan club, but 99% of the time, race is virtually indistinguishable at the table. The other 1% of the time, its not all that evident, either. 

We now return you to your regularly programmed thread.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Dec 18, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m still laughing at the idea that “let’s start at level 5” is even vaguely kind of comparable to “I’d like to play an elf”.



Indeed. Wanting to start at level five is far more reasonable suggestion as it doesn't require the GM to rewrite their setting.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> It makes mixed parties require multiple rulebooks, and that is often a problem. Not always, but often. Also, a Mage is way disproportionate to anything else in power level. And mummies really only have to fear magi, as anything else can only inconvenience them for a few decades. Magi can do nastiness to mummies.



Okay? 

Thread moves fast, so you may have missed it, but I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t care at all about this line of discussion. WoD was either an invalid example because it’s really 3 games and thus objectively not comparable to expecting to be able to play an elf in a D&D game, or we are ignoring the mechanical issues to treat them as one game and thus a comparable case, and there is no hard reason a werewolf or mage couldn’t be in a vampire game. 

Either way, the particulars of the WoD mechanics (which I’m very familiar with, and need no lesson of any kind on) are a topic that I am wholly uninterested in.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 18, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Tried. Failed. Much like Tolkien, I can't stand Martin's writing style. Oh crap, I just revealed that I've never read Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Does that destroy my GM credentials? How about if I've never read Lewis or Pratchett? Does it help if I read Feist? What about Elizabeth Moon?





Your GM credentials? You've discredited your right to be called a _gamer_.  

I admit, I did not care for Tolkien's writing style, but I did joylessly slog through his full set of works.

GoT is dry, but the next two books are pure heaven. Prachett was awesome for two books, good for several more, and then just another hack mis-using the genre for soap-boxing.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 18, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Thread moves fast, so you may have missed it, but I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t care at all about this line of discussion. WoD was either an invalid example because it’s really 3 games and thus objectively not comparable to expecting to be able to play an elf in a D&D game, or we are ignoring the mechanical issues to treat them as one game and thus a comparable case, and there is no hard reason a werewolf or mage couldn’t be in a vampire game.



The OP never never specified what system the campaign was using.  I think because we're all so used to D&D we jumped to conclusions.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 18, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Never read the books. Did read alot of FR books in my youth.
> 
> EDIT: Do the Children of the Forest feature as viewpoint characters in the series? Are they like, main characters, that have whole chapters (perhaps several) dedicated to them? Or are they just secondary (or support) characters?



Depends.

The Children of the Forest are not promenient at all in the modern eras of Westeros.

If you play in ASOIAF in the earlier times like the Age of Heroes, then CotF is one of the major 4 races along with giants and white walkers.

So_ technically_ by stating "GOT campaign with magic and monsters", a ASOIAF fan could think it is Age of Heroes and want to play a CotF.


----------



## Starfox (Dec 19, 2020)

This is what session zero is about - and actually even before that. As a GM your invitation should define what the game is all about. If this invitation clearly says that this is a world of only humans, a player insisting on playing an elf is either willfully ignoring the premise or hasn't read the invitation. If no accord can be reached and this game cannot proceed without the willful player, I suppose that game will never be.

If an example on what the GM is right is needed, just assume that the invitation states that this is a Star Trek game - and the player still wants to play an elf. After having been offered the option of Romulan or Vulcan still inists on being an elf... I think the point is clear.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 19, 2020)

Starfox said:


> After having been offered the option of Romulan or Vulcan still inists on being an elf... I think the point is clear.



Two points, in fact: one on each ear.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 19, 2020)

Starfox said:


> This is what session zero is about - and actually even before that. As a GM your invitation should define what the game is all about. If this invitation clearly says that this is a world of only humans, a player insisting on playing an elf is either willfully ignoring the premise or hasn't read the invitation. If no accord can be reached and this game cannot proceed without the willful player, I suppose that game will never be.
> 
> If an example on what the GM is right is needed, just assume that the invitation states that this is a Star Trek game - and the player still wants to play an elf. After having been offered the option of Romulan or Vulcan still inists on being an elf... I think the point is clear.



Actually if you combine the hit piece of snow OP, details that came up throughout the thread, knowledge of the setting and the OP's general behavior in ot there is good reason to make it look like the elf pc may have been one of the ones who knew more about the setting than the OP and wanted to play something that elf fits better


----------



## Fenris-77 (Dec 19, 2020)

If my pitch says humans only, to which you agree, and then you insist on an elf or a gnome or some nonsense, you can get the heck out of my basement. I have no time for bad faith players.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> If my pitch says humans only, to which you agree, and then you insist on an elf or a gnome or some nonsense, you can get the heck out of my basement. I have no time for bad faith players.



I mean, this isn’t what is proposed. 

Even in the pretty clearly bad faith set up of the OP, the players _hasn’t _agreed to the all-human premise. The DM has proposed a game, not specified if it will be all-human, and one player said they want to play an elf.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, this isn’t what is proposed.
> 
> Even in the pretty clearly bad faith set up of the OP, the players _hasn’t _agreed to the all-human premise. The DM has proposed a game, not specified if it will be all-human, and one player said they want to play an elf.



Bolded relevant parts for clarity...


zarionofarabel said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



Yep. It was explained that it was a human only game.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 19, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Bolded relevant parts for clarity...
> 
> Yep. It was explained that it was a human only game.



Your order of events is mixed up... that bolded bit skipped past step 1 "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."_.   " Knightliest of Knights" is hardly something that fits under "regular people" & "Noblest of Nobles" definitely is not.  It was not "explained" as a human only game, it was pitched as a game of regular people in a world "based on" game of thrones which is a world where there are a lot of things not quite human but closer to elf & things absolutely not human but close to elf.... you also have a gm with a poor grasp of the setting & unwillingness to learn.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 19, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Your order of events is mixed up... that bolded bit skipped past step 1 "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."_.   " Knightliest of Knights" is hardly something that fits under "regular people" & "Noblest of Nobles" definitely is not.  It was not "explained" as a human only game, it was pitched as a game of regular people in a world "based on" game of thrones which is a world where there are a lot of things not quite human but closer to elf & things absolutely not human but close to elf.... you also have a gm with a poor grasp of the setting & unwillingness to learn.




GoT doesn't have a lot of things 'not quite Human'.

It has the wights, which are quite simply reanimated Human corpses, it has the White Walkers, which appear extremely briefly in the preface of the first book and not again, leaving it unclear as to whether they are Human spellcasters or something else, and you have the Children of the Forest, who like the White Walkers are the stuff of legend, and who simply may be a different culture rather than a different race. Lastly, you have the nearly-extinct Giants. 

Other than dragons, who were thought to be extinct, there really wan't anything else in Westeros that was really unusual; the nearly-extinct great wolves might qualify.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, this isn’t what is proposed.
> 
> Even in the pretty clearly bad faith set up of the OP, the players _hasn’t _agreed to the all-human premise. The DM has proposed a game, not specified if it will be all-human, and one player said they want to play an elf.



It's pretty clear to anyone who has seen or read GoT that it's human only for PCs.  It's not specified, but it's incredibly highly implied by "GoT."


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 19, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> GoT doesn't have a lot of things 'not quite Human'.
> 
> It has the wights, which are quite simply reanimated Human corpses, it has the White Walkers, which appear extremely briefly in the preface of the first book and not again, leaving it unclear as to whether they are Human spellcasters or something else, and you have the Children of the Forest, who like the White Walkers are the stuff of legend, and who simply may be a different culture rather than a different race. Lastly, you have the nearly-extinct Giants.
> 
> Other than dragons, who were thought to be extinct, there really wan't anything else in Westeros that was really unusual; the nearly-extinct great wolves might qualify.



it also has unsullied, high valarian bloodlines & more.  all of this came up in the thread when the OP was forced to admit that he hasn't read the books & doesn't want to as a _defense_ for why he was unable to steer player4 towards one of those things.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 19, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> it also has unsullied, high valarian bloodlines & more.  all of this came up in the thread when the OP was forced to admit that he hasn't read the books & doesn't want to as a _defense_ for why he was unable to steer player4 towards one of those things.



Like “game of thrones” does not mean ”is the game of thrones”.

The players are capable of asking for clarification if uncertain. The GM is allowed to clarify if the Players come up with character concepts that don’t meet the game concept they want to run.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 19, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> it also has unsullied, high valarian bloodlines & more.  all of this came up in the thread when the OP was forced to admit that he hasn't read the books & doesn't want to as a _defense_ for why he was unable to steer player4 towards one of those things.



I'm not going to read the books because I don't like Martin's writing style, same reason why I'm not going to read Tolkien. Sorry that some players think they should always get to play whatever character they want no matter what, I clearly disagree with that position. Lucky for me there are no RPG police that are going to make me game the way you and others like you want me to game. As a bonus for you there are no RPG police that will force you to game the way I like to game. We all get to game the way we want! Yay for diversity!

If it makes any of the anti-me folks feel better, Player #4 got a slot in a kitchen sink D&D game at the shop cause I stole two players from that game. Apparently my new game is popular!

As a bonus for me especially, Player #4 was the only "D&D only" player, so I have also convinced the group to switch to a system that is not D&D! Yay! Diversity!


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 19, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> it also has unsullied, high valarian bloodlines & more.  all of this came up in the thread when the OP was forced to admit that he hasn't read the books & doesn't want to as a _defense_ for why he was unable to steer player4 towards one of those things.




The significance of a Valerian bloodline is simply that it was the mark of the royal bloodline of Westeros because of Valerian invaders. Otherwise, they are normal Human beings. Given the loss of the continent centuries ago, there's unlikely to be unsullied blood left.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 19, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> _I'm not going to read the books because I don't like Martin's writing style, same reason why I'm not going to read Tolkien. _*Sorry that some players think they should always get to play whatever character they want no matter what, I clearly disagree with that position.*




Italics: This sort of heresy can only be atoned for with blood.
Bold: Absolutely. The first job of a GM is to manage expectations, and on occasion that means showing someone the door.


----------



## prabe (Dec 19, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Italics: This sort of heresy can only be atoned for with blood.



I figure it's something like apostasy, then, if I mention the only things Martin's written that I care for are a couple short stories from the early eighties.

It probably doesn't help that I don't care for unfinished stories, and my exposure to A Song of Ice and Fire was through my past job recording talking books--practically no large novel survives hearing ~50 pages, then two weeks later hearing another ~50 pages that are ~200 pages later. Of course, I kinda detested Armageddon Rag, so there's a good chance I'm not his market.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 19, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> I'm not going to read the books because I don't like Martin's writing style, same reason why I'm not going to read Tolkien. Sorry that some players think they should always get to play whatever character they want no matter what, I clearly disagree with that position. Lucky for me there are no RPG police that are going to make me game the way you and others like you want me to game. As a bonus for you there are no RPG police that will force you to game the way I like to game. We all get to game the way we want! Yay for diversity!
> 
> If it makes any of the anti-me folks feel better, Player #4 got a slot in a kitchen sink D&D game at the shop cause I stole two players from that game. Apparently my new game is popular!
> 
> As a bonus for me especially, Player #4 was the only "D&D only" player, so I have also convinced the group to switch to a system that is not D&D! Yay! Diversity!



You should probably pick some_ other _setting in that case since you are so against learning it & seemingly incapable of steering a player towards something that fits into your narrow subset of a subset of the source material  but were so outraged at your failure you came here for support ad reinforcement of your rightness.  Take this set of failings n your part as an inexperienced gm and grow from it so you can do better in the future.

@Crusadius "Like “game of thrones” does not mean ”is the game of thrones”." cuts both ways and even justifies  an elf with the same veracity you are asserting it to exclude an elf.  The problem is not refusal to include an elf.  The problem is the inept cartmanesque handling of player4 who seems to knw the setting better than the gm wanting to run it

@Jd Smith1 that is muddled valaryan bloodline, there is _one_ person of full high valerian blood in the series.  That person _silver_ hair, _purple_ eyes, & quite a bit of not so human going on.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> You should probably pick some_ other _setting in that case since you are so against learning it & seemingly incapable of steering a player towards something that fits into your narrow subset of a subset of the source material  but were so outraged at your failure you came here for support ad reinforcement of your rightness.  Take this set of failings n your part as an inexperienced gm and grow from it so you can do better in the future.



I've been GMing since 1979, and he's right. This is a hobby, not guidance counselling. Boot the troublesome player.



tetrasodium said:


> @Jd Smith1 that is muddled valaryan bloodline, there is _one_ person of full high valerian blood in the series.  That person _silver_ hair, _purple_ eyes, & quite a bit of not so human going on.



'Not so Human'? What does that even mean? 

There is nothing in the books that establishes a non-Human aspect of the Valerian. You're just projecting assumptions.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 20, 2020)

I'm sorry, but given that the vast majority of people's exposure to Game of Thrones is the HBO series is there a serious claim that you must read the books to be able to run a GoT game?  

Color me unconvinced.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> You should probably pick some_ other _setting in that case since you are so against learning it & seemingly incapable of steering a player towards something that fits into your narrow subset of a subset of the source material  but were so outraged at your failure you came here for support ad reinforcement of your rightness.  Take this set of failings n your part as an inexperienced gm and grow from it so you can do better in the future.



Well. I am not, nor did I claim, to be running GoT. I did say "like GoT" as opposed to "like LotR/Hobbit" or "like Harry Potter" so players would have an idea of what kinds of stories, plot lines, scenes, and characters, might be included. To then jump to the conclusion that some tiny element of the TV show is to be featured at the forefront of the game's narrative seems like quite the leap of logic to me.


tetrasodium said:


> @Crusadius "Like “game of thrones” does not mean ”is the game of thrones”." cuts both ways and even justifies  an elf with the same veracity you are asserting it to exclude an elf.  The problem is not refusal to include an elf.  The problem is the inept cartmanesque handling of player4 who seems to knw the setting better than the gm wanting to run it



For some reason I doubt that very many people would see it this way. The results of the poll is evidence enough for me to believe that only GoT fanatics or those with the erroneous belief that GMs should cater to a player's every demand would see it that way. The language and insults you use in your response proves it to me.


tetrasodium said:


> @Jd Smith1 that is muddled valaryan bloodline, there is _one_ person of full high valerian blood in the series.  That person _silver_ hair, _purple_ eyes, & quite a bit of not so human going on.



Human with magic, is human with magic, NOT an elf. Sorry, but not everyone is inclined to read so much into the material as presented. As far as I can tell from the TV show as presented, all the human characters are humans. A handful of non-human characters exist and feature as vestigial support characters at best. Even the dragons and giants and undead guys are no more than window dressing. The TV show was about the human characters.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Well. I am not, nor did I claim, to be running GoT. I did say "like GoT" as opposed to "like LotR/Hobbit" or "like Harry Potter" so players would have an idea of what kinds of stories, plot lines, scenes, and characters, might be included. To then jump to the conclusion that some tiny element of the TV show is to be featured at the forefront of the game's narrative seems like quite the leap of logic to me.



What's that? you as the hopeful GM _failed_ to convey the game you wanted to run? Topped it off with another_ failure _to apply GM skills needed to correct the view by directing a player towards things that do exist within the very limited subset of a poorly described game you want to run rather than throwing a fit about how you don't want to learn the source material you poorly referenced when presented with deeper knowledge? 

Sometimes a player just isn't interested in a game, but all indications see to indicate that your failures  were the larger problem.  Take your lesson & do better in the future.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> What's that? you as the hopeful GM _failed_ to convey the game you wanted to run? Topped it off with another_ failure _to apply GM skills needed to correct the view by directing a player towards things that do exist within the very limited subset of a poorly described game you want to run rather than throwing a fit about how you don't want to learn the source material you poorly referenced when presented with deeper knowledge?
> 
> Sometimes a player just isn't interested in a game, but all indications see to indicate that your failures  were the larger problem.  Take your lesson & do better in the future.



Well, one out of three players got it wrong, the other three got it right. Player #4 was given the chance to get on board and decided not to, do you still think one player's wants outweigh what the other four participant's want? If yes, then why am I as the GM the one that must lose out? Because I'm the GM? That seems unfair. It would also seem unfair to force the other three players that were on board with the original premise to give that up to please Player #4. What makes Player #4 so special?!?!?!?


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Well, one out of three players got it wrong, the other three got it right. Player #4 was given the chance to get on board and decided not to, do you still think one player's wants outweigh what the other four participant's want? If yes, then why am I as the GM the one that must lose out? Because I'm the GM? That seems unfair. It would also seem unfair to force the other three players that were on board with the original premise to give that up to please Player #4. What makes Player #4 so special?!?!?!?



No I think player4 probably knew more about the setting you incorrectly declared the source & you acted towards him as you've acted in the first 15-20 pages of this thread when your athoratah was challenged with setting.  knowledge about the setting you poorly referenced that you were uninterested in.  Also I already pointed out how players 1 & 2 were already playing an exception you rubber stamped.  Cartman is rarely a good example to follow when disagreement over something is encountered & that particular Cartanism is probably the worst thing you could ever do in any situation.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> No I think player4 probably knew more about the setting you incorrectly declared the source & you acted towards him as you've acted in the first 15-20 pages of this thread when your athoratah was challenged with setting.  knowledge about the setting you poorly referenced that you were uninterested in.  Also I already pointed out how players 1 & 2 were already playing an exception you rubber stamped.  Cartman is rarely a good example to follow when disagreement over something is encountered & that particular Cartanism is probably the worst thing you could ever do in any situation.



Well in the context of the show, Players #1, #2, and #3 definitely chose concepts that aligned with the characters that featured in the main storylines. GoT, the TV show, is not at all about the peasants, it's about the Knights and Nobles, at least the show I watched was.

Sorry that you don't like how I handled the situation but Player #4 was unwilling to buy into the premise. Players #1, #2, and #3 were on board from the get go. So I as GM should, what, kill the campaign to make Player #4 happy? If that were the case, then all four players would have to find new games as I have zero interest in running the kitchen sink fantasy Player #4 was looking for. As GM I am only interested in running games I am interested in and will not be forced to run a game I have no interest in running. Being GM is not a job, I don't get paid to do it, I do it for fun. I don't have fun running kitchen sink murderhobo fantasy adventure games. I haven't had fun running those games in decades. I won't ever run a kitchen sink murderhobo fantasy adventure game ever again. Lucky for me there are lots of players that are willing to play the kinds of games I want to run.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> No I think player4 probably knew more about the setting you incorrectly declared the source & you acted towards him as you've acted in the first 15-20 pages of this thread when your athoratah was challenged with setting.  knowledge about the setting you poorly referenced that you were uninterested in.  Also I already pointed out how players 1 & 2 were already playing an exception you rubber stamped.  Cartman is rarely a good example to follow when disagreement over something is encountered & that particular Cartanism is probably the worst thing you could ever do in any situation.



I've seen some people really double down on a wrong take, but this is pretty impressive!  You're now claiming that it was the 4th player -- the one that wanted to play an elf in a setting that doesn't have them, books or movies -- that had the best take on the setting because you've imagined they've read the books?  As if, again, reading the books makes one an expert on what GoT conveys when the vast majority of people (gamers included) have only ever interacted with the series?  I mean, there's a huge dose of imagination here, alongside some serious elitism, all to try to definitively claim that you understand the situation that you weren't a part of better than the person who told you about it to begin with?  Wow, man.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Well in the context of the show, Players #1, #2, and #3 definitely chose concepts that aligned with the characters that featured in the main storylines. GoT, the TV show, is not at all about the peasants, it's about the Knights and Nobles, at least the show I watched was.
> 
> Sorry that you don't like how I handled the situation but Player #4 was unwilling to buy into the premise. Players #1, #2, and #3 were on board from the get go. So I as GM should, what, kill the campaign to make Player #4 happy? If that were the case, then all four players would have to find new games as I have zero interest in running the kitchen sink fantasy Player #4 was looking for. As GM I am only interested in running games I am interested in and will not be forced to run a game I have no interest in running. Being GM is not a job, I don't get paid to do it, I do it for fun. I don't have fun running kitchen sink murderhobo fantasy adventure games. I haven't had fun running those games in decades. I won't ever run a kitchen sink murderhobo fantasy adventure game ever again. Lucky for me there are lots of players that are willing to play the kinds of games I want to run.



Your premise keeps changing. First it was inspired by got but not the books  then it was like got but not specifically now its back to the TV show.   An inability to pitch your campaign idea without resorting to the equivalent of Calvin ball is a severe failing as a gm.... also by the way, mRton used real world events to heavily provide structure of certain things for got such as the war of the Roses the black dinner the mongol empire and so on.  If you wanted to run a game set in historic England where there were no elves and nothing elf like you should pitch that instead of game of thrones... good luck learning from your inexperience and doing better in the future 








						BBC Radio 4 - Radio 4 in Four - The real historical events that inspired Game of Thrones
					

True historical incidents and characters that helped inspire George R. R. Martin.




					www.bbc.co.uk
				



@Ovinomancer we know for a fact that the OP knows little if anything about the setting and is hostile to the very idea of changing that resulting in the bar for someone to know more than the OP to be set absurdly low.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Your premise keeps changing. First it was inspired by got but not the books  then it was like got but not specifically now its back to the TV show.   An inability to pitch your campaign idea without resorting to the equivalent of Calvin ball is a severe failing as a gm.... also by the way, mRton used real world events to heavily provide structure of certain things for got such as the war of the Roses the black dinner the mongol empire and so on.  If you wanted to run a game set in historic England where there were no elves and nothing elf like you should pitch that instead of game of thrones... good luck learning from your inexperience and doing better in the future
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How do we know they know little or nothing?  All I've seen is that you claim this because they say they haven't read GRRM's novels.  I find this tenuous, at best.  And, if we're going with setting knowledge being a thing, the ask to change it with something incongruous (a D&D elf) shows less concern for the setting than just not reading the books.
.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Your premise keeps changing. First it was inspired by got but not the books  then it was like got but not specifically now its back to the TV show.   An inability to pitch your campaign idea without resorting to the equivalent of Calvin ball is a severe failing as a gm.... also by the way, mRton used real world events to heavily provide structure of certain things for got such as the war of the Roses the black dinner the mongol empire and so on.  If you wanted to run a game set in historic England where there were no elves and nothing elf like you should pitch that instead of game of thrones... good luck learning from your inexperience and doing better in the future
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I'm not running a GoT game, so my knowledge of the setting doesn't matter at all. Apologies if my lack of interest in the setting upsets you. In my opinion, GoT ain't nothing special, it just happened that the HBO series was very popular. In my humble opinion, mostly because of the violence and sex. I used it as an example of what I was going for campaign wise because I didn't want the players thinking I was going for LotR or Harry Potter or run-of-the-mill D&D dungeon delving. GoT focused on politics and the nobility and featured human characters as the main cast. As I stated several times now, three of the four players got that right away, one player didn't and wanted me to cater to them. I decided to cater to the majority of the group instead.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm sorry, but given that the vast majority of people's exposure to Game of Thrones is the HBO series is there a serious claim that you must read the books to be able to run a GoT game?
> 
> Color me unconvinced.




Your apology is accepted.

However, even using the dumbed-down, simplistic garbage that is the HBO version, there's no Elves.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> What's that? you as the hopeful GM _failed_ to convey the game you wanted to run? Topped it off with another_ failure _to apply GM skills needed to correct the view by directing a player towards things that do exist within the very limited subset of a poorly described game you want to run rather than throwing a fit about how you don't want to learn the source material you poorly referenced when presented with deeper knowledge?
> 
> Sometimes a player just isn't interested in a game, but all indications see to indicate that your failures  were the larger problem.  Take your lesson & do better in the future.




He did exactly right. Elf-boy was a problem. The problem was solved. Its a hobby, not a day care.There is no obligation, nor incentive, to have to spend time intended for recreation in trying to get a problem player to mature. Far better to cast him back into the pool of applicants, where he may find a like-minded table.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> No I think player4 probably knew more about the setting you incorrectly declared the source & you acted towards him as you've acted in the first 15-20 pages of this thread when your athoratah was challenged with setting.  knowledge about the setting you poorly referenced that you were uninterested in.  Also I already pointed out how players 1 & 2 were already playing an exception you rubber stamped.  Cartman is rarely a good example to follow when disagreement over something is encountered & that particular Cartanism is probably the worst thing you could ever do in any situation.




Given Player 4 demanded to be an elf in a GOT-like setting, he clearly either knows nothing about GOT, or else just doesn’t care. Players 1-3 picked some pretty standard GOT character concepts, Player 4 just wanted something weird. That could be explained by the GM not going into enough detail when pitching the concept, but then the player chose to double down after the GM made it clear what he was going for.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Given Player 4 demanded to be an elf in a GOT-like setting, he clearly either knows nothing about GOT, or else just doesn’t care. Players 1-3 picked some pretty standard GOT character concepts, Player 4 just wanted something weird. That could be explained by the GM not going into enough detail when pitching the concept, but then the player chose to double down after the GM made it clear what he was going for.



Well said.

There are some players who thrive on being contrary, usually so as to become the center of attention, forcing the GM and the campaign itself to focus upon them/their PC. It is best to send them packing.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Given Player 4 demanded to be an elf in a GOT-like setting, he clearly either knows nothing about GOT, or else just doesn’t care. Players 1-3 picked some pretty standard GOT character concepts, Player 4 just wanted something weird. That could be explained by the GM not going into enough detail when pitching the concept, but then the player chose to double down after the GM made it clear what he was going for.



The hit piece this started with in the OP and complete lack of detail to some of the claims that would support the OP if it were as you say suggests that player4 was probably the one who tried working with the gm and through inexperience the gm refused to even attempt to direct a willingness to work with him towards something fitting.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 20, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It's pretty clear to anyone who has seen or read GoT that it's human only for PCs.  It's not specified, but it's incredibly highly implied by "GoT."



GOT has no PCs. That's the point of the setting.

All the PCs died in the Age of Heroes. And the Age of Heroes had nonhuman PCs.


----------



## nevin (Dec 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm sorry, but given that the vast majority of people's exposure to Game of Thrones is the HBO series is there a serious claim that you must read the books to be able to run a GoT game?
> 
> Color me unconvinced.



Depends on group.  If I were going to run something I wasn't that familiar with there are players I wouldn't even consider. Because they'd second guess and badger me every step of the way trying to "force" the game back into the shape they expected.  Then I'd have to tell them to chill or leave.  Now that I'm older I just avoid "cool" things that are likely to end up that way.  But with the right group I might run something and just do it my way.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> GOT has no PCs. That's the point of the setting.
> 
> All the PCs died in the Age of Heroes. And the Age of Heroes had nonhuman PCs.



It has PCs.  Anyone who read the books or watched the series can see that.  They are the ones that the focus is on.  Cersei, Bronn, Tyrion, etc.  They just have a very high mortality rate in that setting.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 20, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It has PCs.  Anyone who read the books or watched the series can see that.  They are the ones that the focus is on.  Cersei, Bronn, Tyrion, etc.  They just have a very high mortality rate in that setting.



It's less about the high mortality rate as much as the show and the books lack a single focal points. There are so many stories going on that are interconnected that it would you would have to say their are 80 PCs or 0 PCs.

There are so many important characters of power and skill that it would be difficult to say which ones where being played.

This is different from the older eras where who was the PCs would be obvious.


----------



## nevin (Dec 20, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It has PCs.  Anyone who read the books or watched the series can see that.  They are the ones that the focus is on.  Cersei, Bronn, Tyrion, etc.  They just have a very high mortality rate in that setting.



I don't think you could run a game where all of those characters are PC's.  You'd have to run multiple games with multiple groups to make that argument valid.  It's a really big stretch.  big world wide stories with people spread out all over them just don't really work for an RPG setting.  Now DM can change up other parts of the world as the PC's progress giving a campaign that feel that there are other movers and shakers.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2020)

nevin said:


> I don't think you could run a game where all of those characters are PC's.  You'd have to run multiple games with multiple groups to make that argument valid.  It's a really big stretch.  big world wide stories with people spread out all over them just don't really work for an RPG setting.  Now DM can change up other parts of the world as the PC's progress giving a campaign that feel that there are other movers and shakers.



I have a friend who ran 5 Forgotten Realms groups and tracked where they were with pins on a large map in his room.  When they crossed paths they met each other in passing.  It was really cool and a lot more work than I would do.  

Another way to do it is with one group that has multiple PCs and switches around.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> It's less about the high mortality rate as much as the show and the books lack a single focal points. There are so many stories going on that are interconnected that it would you would have to say their are 80 PCs or 0 PCs.



There weren't anywhere near 80 focal points.  If you read the books, it was a small handful that the story revolved around in each book.


Minigiant said:


> There are so many important characters of power and skill that it would be difficult to say which ones where being played.



Most of the people of power were NPCs.  They didn't get their own chapters and even when around in the show, the focus was on the other characters around them.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 20, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Another way to do it is with one group that has multiple PCs and switches around.



That would be the best way if one were to want to directly emulate the TV show. Each set of main characters would be a group and the players would have a PC in each group. So one group with Cerci, one with Jon, one with Daenerys, one with Tyrion. That actually would kind of be a fun way to play a game!


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 20, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> That would be the best way if one were to want to directly emulate the TV show. Each set of main characters would be a group and the players would have a PC in each group. So one group with Cerci, one with Jon, one with Daenerys, one with Tyrion. That actually would kind of be a fun way to play a game!



I have always wanted to play a game like that!

Right now in the game I play in, the characters have split for a month between two major coasts. The players without characters rolled up new, temporary characters. What is fun is that this allows the story to focus on a few "main characters" while everyone else plays supporting roles, until we switch locations and the players switch roles.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 20, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> There weren't anywhere near 80 focal points. If you read the books, it was a small handful that the story revolved around in each book.



80 was a bit of an exaggeration but the series follows at least 8 families with at least 3 branching stories in each. Some were focused on more than others but there were so many it would be hard to say which one are the PCs. 

Almost impossibe without choosing a specific game system and picking the ones that best match the games base assumptions on what PCs are. Or lazily choosing whose name come up most.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> 80 was a bit of an exaggeration but the series follows at least 8 families with at least 3 branching stories in each. Some were focused on more than others but there were so many it would be hard to say which one are the PCs.



Not hard at all.  There are few people who the story truly revolves around.  The rest are tangential.  They come in and out of the stories of the few that the story revolves around.


Minigiant said:


> Almost impossibe without choosing a specific game system and picking the ones that best match the games base assumptions on what PCs are. Or lazily choosing whose name come up most.



I don't need a game system at all to know who the GoT story revolves around.


----------



## jasper (Dec 20, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Player 4: I want to play an elf.
> 
> DM: See ya next campaign!
> 
> ...



Player 5 to 9 show up. We heard you have a GOT campaign with no guns, elfs, monks, and start a 1st level we are in.
9 months later.
Player 5. DM Player 4 is here.  He is willing to play a human now. He said he no game since last year. 
DM, "BEEP Him.
Player 5, "Sorry we don't have room at the table. And tell the other three that too."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Your apology is accepted.
> 
> However, even using the dumbed-down, simplistic garbage that is the HBO version, there's no Elves.



Meh, I read the books up to Feast of Crows, and that's when I realized GRRM's boundless capacity to personally hate his fans. Like, personally and individually. I opted out.  Haven't even watched the HBO series.  The writing was good, but not super.  The main claim to fame the books have is that the author kills main characters for the shock value and to play against tropes.


----------



## jasper (Dec 20, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Your honor, my client, Player 4, claims they were acting in a spirit of collaboration by making a "yes, and" statement. Player 4 already agreed to play in a GoT style game. By stating they wished to play an elf, Player 4 communicated that the addition of elves did not alter their own concept of what constitutes a "GoT style game."
> 
> In the case of GM vs Player 4, the defense asks that the jury side with the party who makes the effort to add collaboratively through "Yes, and" statements, rather than the party guilty of "no" statements.



Judge, "We agree. Yes but player 4 must play the DM $100 per session with an $1000 not returnable advance. Defense will pay court fees, gm lawyer fees, and gm missing work fee. " Case close.


----------



## jasper (Dec 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Your GM credentials? You've discredited your right to be called a _gamer_.
> 
> I admit, I did not care for Tolkien's writing style, but I did joylessly slog through his full set of works.
> 
> GoT is dry, but the next two books are pure heaven. Prachett was awesome for two books, good for several more, and then just another hack mis-using the genre for soap-boxing.



Guess I am forger gamer now. I only read the hobbit and the other three. When I was interested in reading the other works, well I just listened to the fan people about the rest of the series and quickly gave a pass because I was not going to be one of those people. 
At 14 I learn why some books are called armchair books, because you have to read them in an armchair or fall asleep.  Reading in an armchair, at least you would wake up when the book hit the floor.


----------



## jasper (Dec 20, 2020)

The Prattville School of Elmore County Alabama USA will be having American baseball tryouts.
Coming out the dung out wearing an American Football helmet and carrying a hockey stick,  Fernis- 77, " I want to play coach!"
Everyone in the crowd, "Let him play."
Jasper, " Is okay if I shot the ball with my shotgun?"
Everyone in the crowd, "Let him play."
Ooaft, "Can I use a basketball instead when I pitching"
Everyone in the crowd, "Let him play."
Word Nerd, "Well the announcement did not mention the kids couldn't change the game. I think the coach should have posted session 0 posting before the posting. In fact in need a neg 1 posting about session o posting."


----------



## jasper (Dec 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm sorry, but given that the vast majority of people's exposure to Game of Thrones is the HBO series is there a serious claim that you must read the books to be able to run a GoT game?
> 
> Color me unconvinced.



Plus you got to watch the making of game of thrones costumes.
Plus you have read ALL Martin's writings about GOT.
Plus we have Martin's GOT notes when he threw in a trash can and toss the can out but the fans save the notes.
Plus you have read any and every letter Martin every wrote about GOT. Including the infamous, "I was high on MAD DOG 20/20 and free basing a turkey" Letter.
Plus you have to read the 14 volume set of Oofta's "Martin Writing GOT to AD copy."
Plus you have to read.....


----------



## billd91 (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> It's less about the high mortality rate as much as the show and the books lack a single focal points. There are so many stories going on that are interconnected that it would you would have to say their are 80 PCs or 0 PCs.



Pfft, all you have to realize is that this is a version of troupe play and that the  PCs are not all at the table at the same time.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> The hit piece this started with in the OP and complete lack of detail to some of the claims that would support the OP if it were as you say suggests that player4 was probably the one who tried working with the gm and through inexperience the gm refused to even attempt to direct a willingness to work with him towards something fitting.



No? The player insisted on playing an elf, in a game without elves. The GM explained to him that it was an all human game, but the player wouldn’t change his mind. There’s nothing to work out.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It has PCs.  Anyone who read the books or watched the series can see that.  They are the ones that the focus is on.  Cersei, Bronn, Tyrion, etc.  They just have a very high mortality rate in that setting.



If Cersei was a PC, her class was "dating the gm", her pettiness fueled incompetence rose to astounding levels & if not for varys/littlefinger/tyrion/queen of roses kings landing would have torn itself apart long before it finally fell.  There is no way a group playing anything but maybe fiasco would tolerate such a PC


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 20, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I don't need a game system at all to know who the GoT story revolves around.




Then who does GOT revolve around?

Because that's a conversation many have. And depending on who a person chooses determines where the foci of the game is.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> If Cersei was a PC, her class was "dating the gm", her pettiness fueled incompetence rose to astounding levels & if not for varys/littlefinger/tyrion/queen of roses kings landing would have torn itself apart long before it finally fell.  There is no way a group playing anything but maybe fiasco would tolerate such a PC




Seriously? Its called playing a role. Where is it written that PCs MUST be heroic, competent, or even sane? What an inflexible view of the hobby; I mean, there's no wrong way to play, but IMO a party of colorless PCs would be pretty pointless to GM. It would rank up with a group made of random strangers who meet in a tavern and are hired by a mysterious stranger to get a powerful widget from a nearby, illogically-placed ruin.

I much prefer a group of PCs with individual backstories, personalities, foibles, and natures as compared to cookie-cutter stereotypes.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Then who does GOT revolve around?
> 
> Because that's a conversation many have. And depending on who a person chooses determines where the foci of the game is.




It revolves around the 'game of thrones' and, much more indirectly, the potential conflict between the last dragons and the White Walkers. Although the latter has yet to manifest itself in the books. 

It is a tales of an age, not of individuals.


----------



## prabe (Dec 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I much prefer a group of PCs with individual backstories, personalities, foibles, and natures as compared to cookie-cutter stereotypes.



There's nothing to be said your prefered PCs couldn't also be heroic (though I realize that's not exactly how your table plays), and the same applies to NPCs and villains, IMO (which you didn't mention--I'm not saying we disagree here).


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

prabe said:


> There's nothing to be said your prefered PCs couldn't also be heroic (though I realize that's not exactly how your table plays), and the same applies to NPCs and villains, IMO (which you didn't mention--I'm not saying we disagree here).




I get your point. They could, and sometime are, but as a general rule enlightened self-interest is what motivates people in my campaign.

Part of it, I believe, is my narrative style. When a band of PCs has walked past numerous hungry, sick, and destitute beggars on their way to meet an important NPC who is concerned because EVIL FOLK #23 have abducted six healthy, pretty farm girls, it's tough to maintain the standard-issue heroic persona with a straight face.

Most fantasy settings conveniently ignore the sort of issues any community of people has.


----------



## prabe (Dec 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I get your point. They could, and sometime are, but as a general rule enlightened self-interest is what motivates people in my campaign.
> 
> Part of it, I believe, is my narrative style. When a band of PCs has walked past numerous hungry, sick, and destitute beggars on their way to meet an important NPC who is concerned because EVIL FOLK #23 have abducted six healthy, pretty farm girls, it's tough to maintain the standard-issue heroic persona with a straight face.
> 
> Most fantasy settings conveniently ignore the sort of issues any community of people has.



Yeah. I think we're disagreeing more around the edges than in the middle, here.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> It revolves around the 'game of thrones' and, much more indirectly, the potential conflict between the last dragons and the White Walkers. Although the latter has yet to manifest itself in the books.
> 
> It is a tales of an age, not of individuals.



That's not a "who" and pushes the point that there really aren't PCs in the base story. The story and setting is based on ages and one of the ages contains elf-like beings.

GM Authority revolves around GM Clarity. Especially when GMs uses ideas and concepts created by others that players could read on their own.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> That's not a "who" and pushes the point that there really aren't PCs in the base story. The story and setting is based on ages and one of the ages contains elf-like beings.
> 
> GM Authority revolves around GM Clarity. Especially when GMs uses ideas and concepts created by others that players could read on their own.




The ages did not contain elf-like beings. Again, you're projecting assumptions.

I don't think you've really grasped the core nature of the novels; stop trying to fit it into some neat fantasy niche.

GM authority resides in the office. What the GM says, is.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Seriously? Its called playing a role. Where is it written that PCs MUST be heroic, competent, or even sane? What an inflexible view of the hobby; I mean, there's no wrong way to play, but IMO a party of colorless PCs would be pretty pointless to GM. It would rank up with a group made of random strangers who meet in a tavern and are hired by a mysterious stranger to get a powerful widget from a nearby, illogically-placed ruin.
> 
> I much prefer a group of PCs with individual backstories, personalities, foibles, and natures as compared to cookie-cutter stereotypes.



What are you going on about?  Cersi was basically one of the kardashians thrown in charge of kings landing who went around having sex & backstabbing people over petty slights till it finally collapsed around her with every bridge burned.  She was the quivilant of the pc that constantly sabotages a campaign & says "I'm only playing my alignment"


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> GOT has no PCs. That's the point of the setting.



I disagree with that.  GoT is crawling with PCs, or at least great ideas for same. 

(dibs on Bronn!)


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> It's less about the high mortality rate as much as the show and the books lack a single focal points. There are so many stories going on that are interconnected that it would you would have to say their are 80 PCs or 0 PCs.



There's 80, obviously.   Well, actually more like about 50 - some relatively major characters are clearly NPCs e.g. Tywin Lannister.


Minigiant said:


> There are so many important characters of power and skill that it would be difficult to say which ones where being played.
> 
> This is different from the older eras where who was the PCs would be obvious.



This assumes only a very small number of PCs in the campaign.  I love the way GoT has lots of 'em, coming and going and having their storylines interweave at different points.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 20, 2020)

nevin said:


> I don't think you could run a game where all of those characters are PC's.  You'd have to run multiple games with multiple groups to make that argument valid.  It's a really big stretch.  big world wide stories with people spread out all over them just don't really work for an RPG setting.  Now DM can change up other parts of the world as the PC's progress giving a campaign that feel that there are other movers and shakers.



Er...just among my four active players, my current campaign setting has something like 20-25 living PCs in it (and that number is very likely to grow by a few either tonight or next weekend).  If I add in the PCs of players no longer active that number gets well into the 50s at least.

Double or triple (or more!) those numbers if you want to count dead PCs as well.

Obviously they don't/didn't all get played at once - but as time goes on they do/did all get played.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 20, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> That's not a "who" and pushes the point that there really aren't PCs in the base story.



There's very much PCs in the base story - lots of 'em, in fact - but what you might not be willing to admit is that in this case the story is bigger than any of the characters in it.

Much like a good big sprawling campaign.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 20, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> What are you going on about?  Cersi was basically one of the kardashians thrown in charge of kings landing who went around having sex & backstabbing people over petty slights till it finally collapsed around her with every bridge burned.  She was the quivilant of the pc that constantly sabotages a campaign & says "I'm only playing my alignment"




She has numerous parallels among historical rulers.

Again, GoT isn't a fantasy setting per se. Trying to think of it in the simplistic D&D outlook doesn't work. GoT covers real issues that fantasy, especially D&D ignores, such as normal human motivations, poverty, disease, and the effects of war on a nation as a whole.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> She has numerous parallels among historical rulers.
> 
> Again, GoT isn't a fantasy setting per se. Trying to think of it in the simplistic D&D outlook doesn't work. GoT covers real issues that fantasy, especially D&D ignores, such as normal human motivations, poverty, disease, and the effects of war on a nation as a whole.



That I don't doubt, I wouldn't be surprised if that chapter of her live was based on a specific one of them a well.  That doesn't make her a good example for a PC any sane gm would tolerate


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> That I don't doubt, I wouldn't be surprised if that chapter of her live was based on a specific one of them a well.  That doesn't make her a good example for a PC any sane gm would tolerate




Well, she's a character in a novel, not a PC, so the comparison is pointless.

As to an example, it depends upon the campaign. Running a PC with low wisdom (she was not stupid), selfish, and self-centered would be a lot more interesting than the standard, cookie-cutter 'hero'. 

But some people don't want depth and substance in their campaign, and that's their choice.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> If Cersei was a PC, her class was "dating the gm", her pettiness fueled incompetence rose to astounding levels & if not for varys/littlefinger/tyrion/queen of roses kings landing would have torn itself apart long before it finally fell.  There is no way a group playing anything but maybe fiasco would tolerate such a PC



So... a GM not allowing a player to play an elf is some unforgivable violation of player agency, but not tolerating them playing a conniving tyrant somehow isn’t? How does that square?


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2020)

billd91 said:


> So... a GM not allowing a player to play an elf is some unforgivable violation of player agency, but not tolerating them playing a conniving tyrant somehow isn’t? How does that square?



different problems entirely.  If a player said "I want to play a conniving tyrant" the gm's impulse would likely be to decide if that fit the campaign, in game of thrones the gm could point at a role like the queen of thorns & offer a plot/subplot that was as constructive to the campaign  as she was.  Cerci's flaw was that she went full kender  & backstabbed her allies/fellow PCs.  If a player wants to play an elf & the gm does not even try to point that player towards things in the world that preserve some fraction of what the player's looking for before deciding it won't work out & instead just says no elves the fault is on the GM  for the initial poor handling.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Seriously? Its called playing a role. Where is it written that PCs MUST be heroic, competent, or even sane? What an inflexible view of the hobby; I mean, there's no wrong way to play, but IMO a party of colorless PCs would be pretty pointless to GM. It would rank up with a group made of random strangers who meet in a tavern and are hired by a mysterious stranger to get a powerful widget from a nearby, illogically-placed ruin.
> 
> I much prefer a group of PCs with individual backstories, personalities, foibles, and natures as compared to cookie-cutter stereotypes.



absolutely not.   That's the reason why kender are so toxic.  If cerci is assumed to be a pc as someone else suggested earlier she is deep into that style of toxicity. Cerci's player made a conscious choice to play a toxic petty backstabbing bridge burning incompetent kardashian wannabe.  any excuse that bears resemblance to "I'm only playing my character" is generally just the reverse order of "no offense but.."  In one, the speaker is about to say something unacceptable, in the other the speaker probably just did something unacceptable but could be saying it pre-emptively.  "I'm a roleplayer" & "I'm only playing my character" are not blanket immunity for the choices that player made for their character to get there or the failure to not invent_ any_ excuse to not be toxic


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> absolutely not.   That's the reason why kender are so toxic.  If cerci is assumed to be a pc as someone else suggested earlier she is deep into that style of toxicity. Cerci's player made a conscious choice to play a toxic petty backstabbing bridge burning incompetent kardashian wannabe.  any excuse that bears resemblance to "I'm only playing my character" is generally just the reverse order of "no offense but.."  In one, the speaker is about to say something unacceptable, in the other the speaker probably just did something unacceptable but could be saying it pre-emptively.  "I'm a roleplayer" & "I'm only playing my character" are not blanket immunity for the choices that player made for their character to get there or the failure to not invent_ any_ excuse to not be toxic




You completely missed the entire thrust of Cerci. She consistently thinks she is as clever as her father, as dangerous as her twin, and as witty as her younger brother. 

I admit, a lot of GMs can't handle a group of PCs who don't play to the '60s sitcom standard of behavior that D&D suggests. But like a good novel, a gaming group should include PCs who are real, not just silly cardboard cut-outs.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> You completely missed the entire thrust of Cerci. She consistently thinks she is as clever as her father, as dangerous as her twin, and as witty as her younger brother.
> 
> I admit, a lot of GMs can't handle a group of PCs who don't play to the '60s sitcom standard of behavior that D&D suggests. But like a good novel, a gaming group should include PCs who are real, not just silly cardboard cut-outs.



I read the books so was very aware of that and the fact that she thinks she's as "clever" as tywin doesn't change matters. cersi thinking she was the manipulative villain of manipulative villaians, but in reality she was playing at saturday morning cartoon level in a game of grandmaster villaians more than happy to play the long game.

If cerci were a player no group would tolerate her for long without the gm pulling rank with "we are dating/engaged/married" & barring that particular shield of plot armor any gm equal or better than mildly  incompetent would quickly boot her player or strike her dead with lightning/falling rocks long before the fall of kings landing.  She actively backstabbed & pushed away people like jamie & tyrion who were keeping everything together If the other "PCs" are littlefinger & the queen of thorns though my point is proven given the completion of their plotting.   A player who chooses to backstab the party & engage in constant campaign sabotage as Cersi lannister did.    Your attempt to pin it on a gm needing to up their game ignores the fact that this one toxic player is only one player in a group of more than one.  Part of being even a "sorta kinda almost ok" level gm is to make sure that a toxic player does not go around ruining the experience for the other players at his or her table.

edit:  even with the tv series trying to suggest that she was sometimes mildly competent her incompetence was blinding & I found that within seconds of looking


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> I read the books so was very aware of that and the fact that she thinks she's as "clever" as tywin doesn't change matters. cersi thinking she was the manipulative villain of manipulative villaians, but in reality she was playing at saturday morning cartoon level in a game of grandmaster villaians more than happy to play the long game.
> 
> If cerci were a player no group would tolerate her for long without the gm pulling rank with "we are dating/engaged/married" & barring that particular shield of plot armor any gm equal or better than mildly  incompetent would quickly boot her player or strike her dead with lightning/falling rocks long before the fall of kings landing.  She actively backstabbed & pushed away people like jamie & tyrion who were keeping everything together If the other "PCs" are littlefinger & the queen of thorns though my point is proven given the completion of their plotting.   A player who chooses to backstab the party & engage in constant campaign sabotage as Cersi lannister did.    Your attempt to pin it on a gm needing to up their game ignores the fact that this one toxic player is only one player in a group of more than one.  Part of being even a "sorta kinda almost ok" level gm is to make sure that a toxic player does not go around ruining the experience for the other players at his or her table.
> 
> edit:  even with the tv series trying to suggest that she was sometimes mildly competent her incompetence was blinding & I found that within seconds of looking




You have a very narrow way of looking at this. Cerci remains one of my favorite characters in the series. Imperfect people make for excellent novels.

But to each their own. Just understand that the declarations you are making about GM'ing simply represent your standards, not the hobby as a whole.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> absolutely not.   That's the reason why kender are so toxic.  If cerci is assumed to be a pc as someone else suggested earlier she is deep into that style of toxicity. Cerci's player made a conscious choice to play a toxic petty backstabbing bridge burning incompetent kardashian wannabe.  any excuse that bears resemblance to "I'm only playing my character" is generally just the reverse order of "no offense but.."  In one, the speaker is about to say something unacceptable, in the other the speaker probably just did something unacceptable but could be saying it pre-emptively.  "I'm a roleplayer" & "I'm only playing my character" are not blanket immunity for the choices that player made for their character to get there or the failure to not invent_ any_ excuse to not be toxic



This is true for many games, but not all.  One of the groups I play in allows PvP in the name of roleplaying your character.  We all understand that this is the case and PvP is not common, but it does happen.  Over the years we have all been there, and none of us takes it personally.  Roleplaying is paramount and we hold no grudges, even if we lose a PC that is cherished.  

Her sort of behavior would not be toxic in that one game that I play in.  Instead it would be enjoyed and talked about, even if it ultimately ended up with another PC killing her for it.  In my other game, that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is true for many games, but not all.  One of the groups I play in allows PvP in the name of roleplaying your character.  We all understand that this is the case and PvP is not common, but it does happen.  Over the years we have all been there, and none of us takes it personally.  Roleplaying is paramount and we hold no grudges, even if we lose a PC that is cherished.
> 
> Her sort of behavior would not be toxic in that one game that I play in.  Instead it would be enjoyed and talked about, even if it ultimately ended up with another PC killing her for it.  In my other game, that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.




I don't allow PvP, but I've had several PCs in my campaigns no less toxic than Cerci; it is up to the party leader (and those he deputizes) to keep the toxicity in check, which provides interesting roleplay. Generally the toxic PC in question has skills or status whose utility outweighs their bad habits.

And the thing to remember is that Cerci was able to function for thirty years in society; she wasn't a slathering madwoman, but in fact was noteworthy for being very charming when it suited her. This goes back to encouraging fleshed-out PCs as opposed to cardboard cut-outs.

People do not undertake the sort of risks and hardships PCs do, regardless of the setting, unless life or their flaws have forced them into the desperate business of adventuring.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is true for many games, but not all.  One of the groups I play in allows PvP in the name of roleplaying your character.  We all understand that this is the case and PvP is not common, but it does happen.  Over the years we have all been there, and none of us takes it personally.  Roleplaying is paramount and we hold no grudges, even if we lose a PC that is cherished.
> 
> Her sort of behavior would not be toxic in that one game that I play in.  Instead it would be enjoyed and talked about, even if it ultimately ended up with another PC killing her for it.  In my other game, that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.



When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is the problem
@Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does.  What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is the problem
> @Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does.  What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.



Diff'rent Strokes for diff'rent folks. That behavior might not be "toxic" for the group playing. There's no point in badwrongfunning it.


----------



## jasper (Dec 21, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> Then who does GOT revolve around?
> 
> Because that's a conversation many have. And depending on who a person chooses determines where the foci of the game is.



To paraphrase a local sport writer, "Breasts and Dragons. Breasts and Dragons. Breasts and Dragons."


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is the problem
> @Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does.  What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.



I've already proven you to be wrong in your position, since you are incorrectly generalizing. In my two groups, it would be toxic in one, but not the other.   You don't get to tell us that we are having bad wrong fun in the group that allows and enjoys that sort of game play. And yes, it works just fine in D&D.  Just not D&D in YOUR group.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> @Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does.  What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.




You're the only one using those phrases.

And you are not the arbiter of what can and cannot work at tables other than your own. Or what is 'suitable', whatever that means.

Some gamers prefer PCs who are not just collections of numbers endlessly grinding 'kill monster, loot room, go to next room, repeat'.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I've already proven you to be wrong in your position, since you are incorrectly generalizing. In my two groups, it would be toxic in one, but not the other.   You don't get to tell us that we are having bad wrong fun in the group that allows and enjoys that sort of game play. And yes, it works just fine in D&D.  Just not D&D in YOUR group.




Exactly.


----------



## Campbell (Dec 21, 2020)

I choose neither. At the end of the day examining this through the lens of authority does not feel right to me. Everyone is capable of setting their own boundaries. Everyone's personal boundaries and desires should be respected. Sometimes that means we cannot agree to play together, but shaming either party is counterproductive.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I've already proven you to be wrong in your position, since you are incorrectly generalizing. In my two groups, it would be toxic in one, but not the other.   You don't get to tell us that we are having bad wrong fun in the group that allows and enjoys that sort of game play. And yes, it works just fine in D&D.  Just not D&D in YOUR group.



no you _proved_ nothing with your claim.  "some groups" & an anecdote is not proof of anything.  You claimed that the type of behavior displayed by Cersi would be  ok in a PC because there might be "some groups" with a gm so oblivious to a problem player's toxic antics that other players in the group were forced to resort to "PvP" to keep a player like that from destroying the campaign they feel forced to continue in for whatever reason instead of finding a different gm who may or may not be in the area & social circles they have access to.  We haven't had kender protected by weasel wording & absolute morality for decades due to that exact reason.   That's an experiment that was tried during 2e & recognized as a massive failure.


Jd Smith1 said:


> You're the only one using those phrases.



No I summarized this atrocity.  I may not be an "arbiter" but I can point at how the sort of toxic behavior cersi displayed towards other wound be players if she were a pc that were the sort of thing to drive groups apart & damages the experience of the other players or how kender were excised with extreme prejudice for all of those reasons  while you & max can only say that it might be ok for "some groups" & cite anecdotes.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> no you _proved_ nothing with your claim.  "some groups" & an anecdote is not proof of anything.  You claimed that the type of behavior displayed by Cersi would be  ok in a PC because there might be "some groups" with a gm so oblivious to a problem player's toxic antics that other players in the group were forced to resort to "PvP" to keep a player like that from destroying the campaign they feel forced to continue in for whatever reason instead of finding a different gm who may or may not be in the area & social circles they have access to.  We haven't had kender protected by weasel wording & absolute morality for decades due to that exact reason.   That's an experiment that was tried during 2e & recognized as a massive failure.
> 
> No I summarized this atrocity



Sounds like just a bunch of badwrongfun shaming to me. That type of game may not be your cup of tea, but it might be someone else's and that doesn't mean the GM is oblivious, the behavior is toxic, players are trapped in the campaign or any other horseshit assumption you're trying to peddle here.
Welcome to my ignore list, population you.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Dec 21, 2020)

Well, one person here is indeed using their personal definitions and thoughts about the hobby and calling them universals, but it's not @Maxperson


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is the problem



Situationally dependent, my friend; situationally dependent. 

And when player C wins the resulting in-character battle, what then?


tetrasodium said:


> @Jd Smith1 "I'm a roleplayer" and "I'm only playing my character" are not the d&d version of what holloywood thinks diplomatic immunity does.  What might work as acceptable in a game of paranoia or fiasco is not suitable to a game like d&d.



Sure it is.  

I'm a 'let-'em-play' type of referee: as long as it stays in character, anything goes.  Eventually, IME it passes once people get bored of it.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> No I summarized this atrocity.  I may not be an "arbiter" but I can point at how the sort of toxic behavior cersi displayed towards other wound be players if she were a pc that were the sort of thing to drive groups apart & damages the experience of the other players or how kender were excised with extreme prejudice for all of those reasons  while you & max can only say that it might be ok for "some groups" & cite anecdotes.




You can't 'point out' what a character from a novel would do as a PC. You're just saying how you would run her if she was your PC.

I agree with you in that a PC with actual depth and personality would be beyond your ability to GM, but that does not preclude others GMs from being able to handle such situations, as several GMs here have advised.

In short, you do not set the standards for any table but your own, and you do not represent the sum of GMing ability in this hobby.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 21, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Some gamers prefer PCs who are not just collections of numbers endlessly grinding 'kill monster, loot room, go to next room, repeat'.



Yeah, sometimes they're collections of numbers endlessly grinding 'kill new party member, loot corpse, recruit next victim, repeat'...


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Sounds like just a bunch of badwrongfun shaming to me. That type of game may not be your cup of tea, but it might be someone else's and that doesn't mean the GM is oblivious, the behavior is toxic, players are trapped in the campaign or any other horseshit assumption you're trying to peddle here.
> Welcome to my ignore list, population you.



Absolutely, cersi is a character from the novels & tv series so we can point at that as the campaign if she were a pc.  She repeatedly engages in petty backstabbing of everyone who could be considered a pc in that campaign to the point where the whole thing eventually collapses.  If a player's "fun"involves backstabbing the other players and derailing the campaign then  it is absolutely badwrongfun


Jd Smith1 said:


> You can't 'point out' what a character from a novel would do as a PC. You're just saying how you would run her if she was your PC.
> 
> I agree with you in that a PC with actual depth and personality would be beyond your ability to GM, but that does not preclude others GMs from being able to handle such situations, as several GMs here have advised.
> 
> In short, you do not set the standards for any table but your own, and you do not represent the sum of GMing ability in this hobby.



I quote "It has PCs. Anyone who read the books or watched the series can see that. They are the ones that the focus is on. Cersei, Bronn, Tyrion, etc. They just have a very high mortality rate in that setting." The character cersi lannister is written in published novels then scripted & acted in aired tv series past tense.  In the context of cersi lannister as a pc in the GoT series I can absolutely point at wat cersi lanister did in that series as examples of toxic player behavior in the series she is being held up as a PC within because all of that is past tense.  It's not a matter of what she "would do", it's a matter of what she _did_ do.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, sometimes they're collections of numbers endlessly grinding 'kill new party member, loot corpse, recruit next victim, repeat'...




Variety comes in endless forms.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> I quote "It has PCs. Anyone who read the books or watched the series can see that. They are the ones that the focus is on. Cersei, Bronn, Tyrion, etc. They just have a very high mortality rate in that setting." The character cersi lannister is written in published novels then scripted & acted in aired tv series past tense.  In the context of cersi lannister as a pc in the GoT series I can absolutely point at wat cersi lanister did in that series as examples of toxic player behavior in the series she is being held up as a PC within because all of that is past tense.




Nonsense.


----------



## prabe (Dec 21, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Nonsense.



Indeed. It has protagonists.

Novels are not TRPG campaigns; TRPG campaigns are not novels.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2020)

prabe said:


> Indeed. It has protagonists.
> 
> Novels are not TRPG campaigns; TRPG campaigns are not novels.



which goes back to the original "GoT has no PCs" that @Maxperson was arguing against by holding up cersi among others.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> no you _proved_ nothing with your claim.  "some groups" & an anecdote is not proof of anything.  You claimed that the type of behavior displayed by Cersi would be  ok in a PC because there might be "some groups" with a gm so oblivious to a problem player's toxic antics that other players in the group were forced to resort to "PvP" to keep a player like that from destroying the campaign they feel forced to continue in for whatever reason instead of finding a different gm who may or may not be in the area & social circles they have access to.



If someone wanted to play a character with a Cersei-like personality and outlook I'd allow it without a second thought.  That said, I'd warn the player that it might not go over that well and that having a second character on standby might be a good idea. 

And one or more of several things would happen:
--- the other PCs would be on board with the Cersei-type, likely leading to an evil campaign
--- the other PCs would put up with her but not necessarily support her or condone what she does (e.g. turn a blind eye)
--- the other PCs would run her out of the party
--- the other PCs would kill her, or get someone else to do it.

Chances are, you'd get two or three of those reactions within the same party: some would like 'Cersei', some would oppose her, etc.


tetrasodium said:


> We haven't had kender protected by weasel wording & absolute morality for decades due to that exact reason.   That's an experiment that was tried during 2e & recognized as a massive failure.



By some.  Not by all.


tetrasodium said:


> No I summarized this atrocity.  I may not be an "arbiter" but I can point at how the sort of toxic behavior cersi displayed towards other wound be players if she were a pc that were the sort of thing to drive groups apart & damages the experience of the other players or how kender were excised with extreme prejudice for all of those reasons  while you & max can only say that it might be ok for "some groups" & cite anecdotes.



Cersei herself, as portrayed in the books and TV series, wouldn't really work as an adventuring PC; not because of her personality or anything like that, but because she doesn't really do any adventuring.  But an adventurer with Cersei's personality etc.?  Bring it on!


----------



## MGibster (Dec 21, 2020)

Guys, let's remember that we all play pretend elf games for fun and follow the good advice of Wyld Stallions.  Be excellent to each other.


----------



## prabe (Dec 21, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> which goes back to the original "GoT has no PCs" that @Maxperson was arguing against by holding up cersi among others.



I don't care.

It's a novel. It's an entirely kind of story, and an entirely different kind of story-generation. Novels have protagonists. TRPG campaigns have PCs. They're different. @Maxperson was absolutely correct, regardless of any characters' behaviors.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Guys, let's remember that we all play pretend elf games for fun and follow the good advice of Wyld Stallions.  Be excellent to each other.



Given the thread, I think it's also clear we play non-elf games for fun as well.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> no you _proved_ nothing with your claim.  "some groups" & an anecdote is not proof of anything.  You claimed that the type of behavior displayed by Cersi would be  ok in a PC because there might be "some groups"



I absolutely proved that you were wrong.  You claimed an absolute. When you do that, if even one single table doesn't do it that way, you are wrong. I have a table that embraces that sort of play when it comes up.  Therefore you are wrong with your claim.


tetrasodium said:


> with a gm so oblivious to a problem player's toxic antics that other players in the group were forced to resort to "PvP" to keep a player like that from destroying the campaign they feel forced to continue in for whatever reason instead of finding a different gm who may or may not be in the area & social circles they have access to.  We haven't had kender protected by weasel wording & absolute morality for decades due to that exact reason.   That's an experiment that was tried during 2e & recognized as a massive failure.



So you have no idea how our table does things, so you are blindly talking out of your rear here.  Nobody in that group is toxic and the Dm is not oblivious to anything.  Nor are the players killing that player to keep the campaign from being destroyed.

How about you keep your One True Wayism to yourself and just accept that people can enjoy things that you clearly don't.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Absolutely, cersi is a character from the novels & tv series so we can point at that as the campaign if she were a pc.  She repeatedly engages in petty backstabbing of everyone who could be considered a pc in that campaign to the point where the whole thing eventually collapses.  If a player's "fun"involves backstabbing the other players and derailing the campaign then  it is absolutely badwrongfun



Not if the other players are also having fun.  You just claimed that an entire table and DM who are all enjoying themselves are having badwrongfun.  You don't see a problem with that?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Given the thread, I think it's also clear we play non-elf games for fun as well.



I play Reindeer games.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 22, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Given the thread, I think it's also clear we play non-elf games for fun as well.



WHAT?!?!? How is that even possible?!? If all the PCs are human how would that even work?!? All the PCs would be exactly the same!!!


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> WHAT?!?!? How is that even possible?!? If all the PCs are human how would that even work?!? All the PCs would be exactly the same!!!



It’s easy. Just get Dr. Doofenshmirtz to turn on his Badwrongfuninator and hope no platypuses show up.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 22, 2020)

If you define PC as protagonist, then GOT has no protagonist as there are no "leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text". The number of important characters are so many that none of them can could as leading.

If a PC is just any viewpoint character, then GOT has many PCs as it has many viewpoint characters.

My point is and always has be that the DM was very unclear which viewpoint character he was mimicking his or her campaign around. If I was expecting a Robb Stark game and got a Cersei Lannister game, I'd be very mad. Such lack of clarity is how you get elves.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 22, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> If a PC is just any viewpoint character, then GOT has many PCs as it has many viewpoint characters.
> 
> My point is and always has be that the DM was very unclear which viewpoint character he was mimicking his or her campaign around. If I was expecting a Robb Stark game and got a Cersei Lannister game, I'd be very mad. Such lack of clarity is how you get elves.



Not really? Assuming the limited information from the OP was all the players had, then sure, a player might have made a Cersei character when the campaign assumes Starks, or vice versa. Either would have been acceptable character choices, given the GM’s pitch. But while both of those concepts would be appropriate for a generic GOT-campaign, ‘elf’ isn’t.

And again: even if that was the case, the GM then explained what he was planning in more detail, at which point the player should have chosen an appropriate character concept.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 22, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Not really? Assuming the limited information from the OP was all the players had, then sure, a player might have made a Cersei character when the campaign assumes Starks, or vice versa. Either would have been acceptable character choices, given the GM’s pitch. But while both of those concepts would be appropriate for a generic GOT-campaign, ‘elf’ isn’t.
> 
> And again: even if that was the case, the GM then explained what he was planning in more detail, at which point the player should have chosen an appropriate character concept.




My point is any character concept is appropriate until the GM clearly states it isn't. If the GM isn't clear, you get a person wanting to be a Child of the Forest or a Essos Mage.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Meh, I read the books up to Feast of Crows, and that's when I realized GRRM's boundless capacity to personally hate his fans. Like, personally and individually. I opted out.  Haven't even watched the HBO series.  The writing was good, but not super.  The main claim to fame the books have is that the author kills main characters for the shock value and to play against tropes.



This was also the point where I quit ASOIAF, and I likewise have not watched the series. For me it was the point where I said, "I'll come back once you are ready to write a focused narrative that respects my time as a reader more than your self-indulgence in side plots and characters." And considering that I had also dumped Wheel of Time after a similar problem, this has since shaped my reading and viewing preferences since then.



Minigiant said:


> My point is any character concept is appropriate until the GM clearly states it isn't. If the GM isn't clear, you get a person wanting to be a Child of the Forest or a Essos Mage.



Others in this thread have suggested Birthright for running a GoT inspired D&D game. But that's a game of elves and dwarves. A lot of people online have commented that Matt Colville's D&D games feel inspired by GoT. But it's also a world of playable tieflings and dragonborn.  So saying "I want to run a game inspired by GoT" is definitely vague.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 22, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> My point is any character concept is appropriate until the GM clearly states it isn't. If the GM isn't clear, you get a person wanting to be a Child of the Forest or a Essos Mage.



‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 22, 2020)

macd21 said:


> ‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.




Exactly.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 22, 2020)

macd21 said:


> ‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.



You forgot the "but with magic and monsters".

That defaulted me to Age of Heroes style GOT. I'd personally still be a human but it is possible that a ASOIAF superfan might get confused.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 22, 2020)

macd21 said:


> ‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.



Thst case isn't so slam dunk when "Sir Knight the Knightliest of Knights" & "Lady Noble the Noblest of Nobles" are deemed "regular people".  Even if you wanted to argue reasons why a child of the forest isn't "regular" there were absolutely regular people among the essos mages including examples far more regular than either of those two going back to the poorly framed pitch you are using regular people to argue against.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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.



What are we playing? Because there is seriously a lot of difference between games. And an elf is not out of line with the pitch of "D&D regular people, game of thrones".

If we are playing D&D or another explicitly kitchen sink fantasy game then I seriously question whether Sir Knightliest of the Knights and Lady Nobliest of the Nobles are any more "regular people" than the elf and I wonder which the DM is objecting to (and whether the elf is a wood elf or a high elf). And we have a case of the DM having decided that in their fantasy Game-of-Thrones, despite being D&D it's not just all races on the continent that are human it's the entire world. The DM clearly isn't flexible enough to even cope with the idea of a visiting merchant or ambassador (or, more likely, ambassador's secretary)* and the game is therefore going to be ... frustrating. Neither the player nor the GM come out well at all but the GM loses hard.

If we are playing Apocalypse World the players all ask the MC why the hell they started world building before Session Zero anyway.

If we're playing WFRP the big question is "which type of elf and what are they doing there? And are they anything to do with the Wood Elves setting themselves up as the Lady of the Lake?"

If we're playing Fate, again the question is "what does being an elf mean?" Strange foreigner from far away is one thing, ambassador of the Seelie court is another.

If the pitch is Mechwarrior with court politics I wonder what planet the player is from when they want to be an elf. Here I'm on the DM's side - as I am in any system that does not by default include elves.

The game matters. 

* If the pitch is either "Fantasy Londo Molari or, better yet, Fantasy Vir Koto dropped into this place on the far side of the world to keep them out of trouble" I'm immediately on the player's side. Vir Koto is _absolutely _a regular person dropped into a Game of Thrones-like situation.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 22, 2020)

Minigiant said:


> You forgot the "but with magic and monsters".
> 
> That defaulted me to Age of Heroes style GOT. I'd personally still be a human but it is possible that a ASOIAF superfan might get confused.




In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game. Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters. GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 22, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game. Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters. GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.




Again the DM didn't state the time period of the universe they were basing it on PostRR, RR, PreRR, Targaryen Civil War, Landing of First Men, Age of Heroes.

Then they didn't specify tone nor genre.

Then they weren't clear on their tweaks.

That's why I don't GM many games based other others IP unless it's very specifically understood where we are coming from.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 22, 2020)

macd21 said:


> ‘GoT inspired game where you play regular people’ is not so vague that a player would assume a Child of the Forest is a viable character choice.



"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." 

A campaign influenced by Game of Thrones does not mean a campaign set in Westeros. And playing "regular people" is most definitely vague in this context, especially since it is preceded by affirming the existence of "magic and monsters". An elf running a shop in Eberron or even Greyhawk could equally be regarded a "regular person." 



Jd Smith1 said:


> In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game.



Off the top of my head, I recall at least Melisandre shadow babies, the resurrection of Beric Dondarrion, and the Alchemist Guild spells. This is definitely not the level of D&D's magical ubiquity, but the original premise also said that magic would be a part of the game. 



Jd Smith1 said:


> Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters.



Ummm... Wights. Giants. Others. 



Jd Smith1 said:


> GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.



Sure, but this is not somehow mutually exclusive with elves and dwarves.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Off the top of my head, I recall at least Melisandre shadow babies, the resurrection of Beric Dondarrion, and the Alchemist Guild spells. This is definitely not the level of D&D's magical ubiquity, but the original premise also said that magic would be a part of the game.



Melisandre had single-use powers which were suggested to be tied to items.

The Alchemist Guild is a better example, but tarnished by the fact they said that they had no idea why things were working.

Magic in the first three books is more a little-understood occurrence than D&D's career field, although we do see Melisandre, and the Spider's reminisce about the fate of his genitals. Although both are from outside Westros. It is not until the later books when we start to see some awareness and control over magic by Westros natives.



Aldarc said:


> Ummm... Wights. Giants. Others.



He said 'monsters'. Undead and Giants are not such, being separate categories. The Others are never identified; they could simply be a difference Human culture.

And keeping in mind we saw wights three times, and a single giant on four occasions, one being referred to as the last of his kind.

AS to Elves and Dwarves, that are no such races in GoT, or even the miserable excuse of a TV series.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 22, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game. Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters. GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.



The godswood & weirwood trees within come up very early in the first book where bram or someone has a history lesson on them.  You may not understand the significance till later but I'm pretty sure bran had an interaction with them in his pushed off the wall coma, Ned Stark's Valaryan steel sword was magical.Ghost summer & th other pups are _dire_wolf pups & I'm pretty sure bran exhibited some pseudo druidish powers with his pup summer then.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

There seem to be several areas of disagreement here - some of which are based on D&D and its tropes and how they mesh with Game of Thrones and its.

First, GoT absolutely does have PCs. It has high death rates - but I played WFRP before ever playing D&D. The younger Starks (Jon, Arya, and possibly Sansa) are pretty obviously PCs (Sansa I'd say is a probable PC but definitely not a _D&D_ PC).

Second, Cersei. I would not tolerate Cersei in a D&D game. I would absolutely think she would make an excellent PC in something more like Apocalypse World where failure, success with consequences, and PVP are much better accounted for and where there is a less harmonious relationship expected between the PCs.

Third, to a rough glance there are no non-humans in Game of Thrones (when it comes to reading the books, I read the first three back in 2000 but haven't read them since and said I was going to wait for the series to finish...) but that doesn't mean that it's a core part of the setting that there have to be none in a game based on it. Especially a more magical game based on it, and a

Third, to a rough glance there are no non-humans in Game of Thrones (when it comes to reading the books, I read the first three back in 2000 but haven't read them since and said I was going to wait for the series to finish...) but that doesn't mean that it's a core part of the setting that there have to be none in a game based on it. Especially a more magical game based on it, and a game using the D&D rules at that.  If someone said "influenced by Game of Thrones" to me I'd assume that this meant that there would be politiciking, death (especially of characters other than Jon, Danny, Arya, and Sansa) would be cheap and it would be dark and full of betrayals. It would not to me say "No Non-Humans Ever" especially when the setting was explicitly more magical than GoT itself an definitely contains people that are about as human as Aragorn (the Dunedain at least in MERP having rules as a race while they would not if there weren't other races involved; the lines are blurry). Also there's the relationship to the wolves and the young Starks doing things others couldn't - which in D&D would be either feat based or race based as I'm pretty sure Jon, Arya, and Sansa are different classes.

D&D rules on the other hand are a strong "non-humans are allowed" pitch (and are far from my first choice for GoT). As such the DM made a bad pitch that did not clearly communicate what they were trying to do. The player gave what was probably a good faith pitch (and honestly there's no reason elves can't be ordinary people, just ones who look odd (most of them really are played that way)). And then in textbook style, according to the DM, both sides dug in in a way that reflects badly on both (I know I do this in message threads) and if there'd been a "a plague on both your houses" option in the poll I'd have taken it.


----------



## nevin (Dec 22, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> When player A & B resort to "PvP" against player C over toxic behavior it's clear that player C is






Jd Smith1 said:


> Melisandre had single-use powers which were suggested to be tied to items.
> 
> The Alchemist Guild is a better example, but tarnished by the fact they said that they had no idea why things were working.
> 
> ...



not sure about the books but the Children of the Forest at least qualify as Fey if not Elves.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 22, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Melisandre had single-use powers which were suggested to be tied to items.
> 
> The Alchemist Guild is a better example, but tarnished by the fact they said that they had no idea why things were working.
> 
> Magic in the first three books is more a little-understood occurrence than D&D's career field, although we do see Melisandre, and the Spider's reminisce about the fate of his genitals. Although both are from outside Westros. It is not until the later books when we start to see some awareness and control over magic by Westros natives.



I agree that it starts out lighter in magical spells and rituals and increases in its fantastic qualities, but repeatedly we are told even in these early books that there was more magic in older times. Because it's meant to be about "bringing the magic back". 



Jd Smith1 said:


> He said 'monsters'. Undead and Giants are not such, being separate categories.



Say what?


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 22, 2020)

nevin said:


> not sure about the books but the Children of the Forest at least qualify as Fey if not Elves.



There's not enough description in the books to render any real ruling.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 22, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> The godswood & weirwood trees within come up very early in the first book where bram or someone has a history lesson on them.  You may not understand the significance till later but I'm pretty sure bran had an interaction with them in his pushed off the wall coma, Ned Stark's Valaryan steel sword was magical.Ghost summer & th other pups are _dire_wolf pups & I'm pretty sure bran exhibited some pseudo druidish powers with his pup summer then.




The  godswood & weirwood trees aren't anything special, just a legacy pagan religious place crafted by men.

Direwolves were common enough to be Stark's House symbol, although they had been pushed into the Gift long ago.

Valaryan steel isn't magical; it is its construction which is special, proven by the fact that Ned's sword was remade into two small, ordinary weapons. 

Bran didn't exhibit any unusual abilities until late in the fourth or fifth book, when he crossed the Wall. He is more a psyker than a Druid (as D&D sets them).


----------



## macd21 (Dec 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> "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."
> 
> A campaign influenced by Game of Thrones does not mean a campaign set in Westeros. And playing "regular people" is most definitely vague in this context, especially since it is preceded by affirming the existence of "magic and monsters". An elf running a shop in Eberron or even Greyhawk could equally be regarded a "regular person."
> 
> ...



And despite all of the above, I would assume that a GoT inspired game featuring regular people would not include elves, unless the GM specifically said otherwise. Just as I would assume it wouldn’t include Vulcans or vampires as player characters, until the GM said otherwise.

A GoT inspired campaign _could _have elves in it. A Birthright campaign, for example. But it’s not a default assumption for a GoT game. I frankly assumed the OP’s example was entirely fictional because it was pretty ridiculous. The idea that a player would hear ‘GoT campaign’ and respond with ‘I’ll be an elf’ struck me as an absurd hypothetical, not something someone would actually do.

And ultimately this argument is irrelevant, because it doesn’t matter if there were crossed wires when the GM made his pitch. The GM clarified that it was a human-only campaign. There was no longer any confusion. Yet Player 4 insisted on playing an elf. Which again, strikes me as absurd.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 22, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> The  godswood & weirwood trees aren't anything special, just a legacy pagan religious place crafted by men.
> 
> Direwolves were common enough to be Stark's House symbol, although they had been pushed into the Gift long ago.
> 
> ...



They were much more subtle early on.  I think the coma experience included a dream/out of body experience as a spirit/psychic projection that was later discovered to be more than just a dream but can't remember who it was on.   He could communicate with animals  but that was tough to show on tv.  In the books bran crossed the wall searching for his ancestor the (three eyed crow then guiding him) because powers got dialed up to 11 & were causing him problems

Valaryan steel was absolutely magical.  There were only a tiny number of smiths even_ capable _of forging a blade with it, the blades were shaper lighter & so on than any other weapon... and critically  later on it hurts white walkers.  Just about everything valaryan was magical & usually of the artifact grade.  The fact that an extremely skilled & specialized smith could melt down the two handed sword ice & forge two smaller swords from it doesn't change that.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

macd21 said:


> And despite all of the above, I would assume that a GoT inspired game featuring regular people would not include elves, unless the GM specifically said otherwise. Just as I would assume it wouldn’t include Vulcans or vampires as player characters, until the GM said otherwise.



I'd assume that an arbitrary GoT game wouldn't include elves unless the GM said otherwise. I'd assume a D&D game inspired by GoT would include elves unless the DM said otherwise with "D&D" bringing the elves into play. _The rules are a part of the pitch._


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 22, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> They were much more subtle early on.  I think the coma experience included a dream/out of body experience as a spirit/psychic projection that was later discovered to be more than just a dream but can't remember who it was on.   He could communicate with animals  but that was tough to show on tv.  In the books bran crossed the wall searching for his ancestor the (three eyed crow then guiding him) because powers got dialed up to 11 & were causing him problems



I thin you're reading too much into the coma scenes. But that's a pewrsonal interpetation either way.


tetrasodium said:


> Valaryan steel was absolutely magical.  There were only a tiny number of smiths even_ capable _of forging a blade with it, the blades were shaper lighter & so on than any other weapon... and critically  later on it hurts white walkers.  Just about everything valaryan was magical & usually of the artifact grade.  The fact that an extremely skilled & specialized smith could melt down the two handed sword ice & forge two smaller swords from it doesn't change that.



They only affect white walkers in the lame TV series.

In the books, Martin makes clear reference to a smithing process similar to pattern-welded steel, which in its day was slightly lighter, and definitely stronger and holding a better edge. He has, of course, patterned in on Damascus steel, which for a long time was a closely-guarded Syrian secret. He even includes the fact that they can be reforged by ordinary smiths.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 22, 2020)

There is no question here. The DM runs the game. If the player wants to play an elf they can wait for the next game. The DM is the one that has to do the work.

I don't understand this (seemly resent) notion that players can treat DMs like video game systems.

//Panjumanju


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> I agree that it starts out lighter in magical spells and rituals and increases in its fantastic qualities, but repeatedly we are told even in these early books that there was more magic in older times. Because it's meant to be about "bringing the magic back".



Indeed. It's a consistent background theme for SoIaF that magic is, somehow, resurging. Old dragon eggs hatch producing functional dragons rather than the cat-sized ones that once represented their end, wildfire suddenly becomes easier to manufacture, Thoros of Myr develops the power to sort-of resurrect people and use a flaming sword without resorting to chicanery, and, of course, the white walkers are more active. The TV show never really expounds on the theme too much or what drives it. I'm hoping that a bit more attention drifts its way in the next couple of books.

How this would play out in a GoT-themed RPG, including D&D, campaign that starts with normal people - I might expect the PCs to encounter increasing magic as the campaign develops if the GM envisioned incorporating it. There are plenty of other things a GoT-themed campaign could satisfactorily explore and still leave this off the table.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 22, 2020)

billd91 said:


> How this would play out in a GoT-themed RPG, including D&D, campaign that starts with normal people - I might expect the PCs to encounter increasing magic as the campaign develops if the GM envisioned incorporating it. There are plenty of other things a GoT-themed campaign could satisfactorily explore and still leave this off the table.



"An elf? We've not seen your kind around here in over a thousand years..."


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> In the books, Martin makes clear reference to a smithing process similar to pattern-welded steel, which in its day was slightly lighter, and definitely stronger and holding a better edge. He has, of course, patterned in on Damascus steel, which for a long time was a closely-guarded Syrian secret. He even includes the fact that they can be reforged by ordinary smiths.



Not entirely. Inspired by Damascus steel, sure. But Valyrian steel is more than just that.




__





						The Citadel: So Spake Martin - The Process of Making Valyrian Steel
					






					www.westeros.org
				



Moreover, it isn't an ordinary smith who reforges Ice. It's a smith trained in Qohor, where they claim to retain the lore and spells needed to work Valyrian steel.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> "An elf? We've not seen your kind around here in over a thousand years..."



Kind of jumps the gun if the PCs are supposed to be normal folk.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 22, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Kind of jumps the gun if the PCs are supposed to be normal folk.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Kind of jumps the gun if the PCs are supposed to be normal folk.



The average American has one breast and one testicle.

What normal is is an open question. As for that matter the meanings of different races in the game world.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 22, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I thin you're reading too much into the coma scenes. But that's a pewrsonal interpetation either way.
> 
> They only affect white walkers in the lame TV series.
> 
> In the books, Martin makes clear reference to a smithing process similar to pattern-welded steel, which in its day was slightly lighter, and definitely stronger and holding a better edge. He has, of course, patterned in on Damascus steel, which for a long time was a closely-guarded Syrian secret. He even includes the fact that they can be reforged by ordinary smiths.



in the books too , just obsidian is easier to obtain than a magically processed  metal that might in itself be magical so there was more focus there.  valeryan steel can't be reforged by "ordinary smiths", that took a specifically trained exotic smith who still can't make more valeryan steel even if he can reforge existing valaryan steel.  The only difference between the coma scene & bran's later more controlled equivalents when he understood what was going on is that he didn't know it wasn't a dream at the time.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


>



I didn't expect Human Rayla to show her head. But I also might have.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 22, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> There is no question here. The DM runs the game. If the player wants to play an elf they can wait for the next game. The DM is the one that has to do the work.
> 
> I don't understand this (seemly resent) notion that players can treat DMs like video game systems.
> 
> //Panjumanju



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.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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.




I think we must fundimentally disagree. 

Yes, the GM does have the authority, because they have to do the work. If you have a group where multiple people want to run, and few people want to play, I suppose that would form a different dynamic. But typically there are more than enough players for any GM. This excludes a GM-less model, of course.

A GM has to put in a lot more work than any player, at the table and when not at game. The power dynamic is not equal because the role is not equal, the work is not equal, and the expectations are not equal. The GM is not there to entertain you.

Expecting a GM to run a game for you that they're not into running is a presumption of great privilege, not to mention a grossly unhealthy social inequity.  
//Pamjumanju


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 22, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> I think we must fundimentally disagree.
> 
> Yes, the GM does have the authority, because they have to do the work. If you have a group where multiple people want to run, and few people want to play, I suppose that would form a different dynamic. But typically there are more than enough players for any GM. This excludes a GM-less model, of course.
> 
> A GM has to put in a lot more work than any player, at the table and when not at game. The power dynamic is not equal because the role is not equal, the work is not equal, and the expectations are not equal. The GM is not there to entertain you.



This is a bad take.  The dynamic isn't equal in the game, yes, but this doesn't translate to social authority outside the game.  This is really just attempting to leverage one authority into a greater authority, and it's usually not used in a healthy way.


Panjumanju said:


> Expecting a GM to run a game for you that they're not into running is a presumption of great privilege, not to mention a grossly unhealthy social inequity.
> //Pamjumanju



On this we absolutely agree -- and I said as much in the post you're responding to.  No one, GM included, should be playing a game the do not want to.  The difference, here, is that you seem to think it okay for one person to dictate these terms to others -- ie, that the GM can dictate to players what game they can play, and that this is then the player's problem rather than a social one demanding negotiation.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a bad take.  The dynamic isn't equal in the game, yes, but this doesn't translate to social authority outside the game.  This is really just attempting to leverage one authority into a greater authority, and it's usually not used in a healthy way.
> 
> On this we absolutely agree -- and I said as much in the post you're responding to.  No one, GM included, should be playing a game the do not want to.  The difference, here, is that you seem to think it okay for one person to dictate these terms to others -- ie, that the GM can dictate to players what game they can play, and that this is then the player's problem rather than a social one demanding negotiation.



Your in-game against out-of-game distinction does not make any sense to me. The decisions you make about what the game is going to be has a pretty huge impact on when you're playing the game. If you mean that the fact that few people want to GM shouldn't impact what the players get to play...then I don't know what to tell you. It takes a lot of effort to run a game. It takes almost nothing to play. The least deference you could give to a GM is to let them run the show.

The GM (in this hypothetical situation) is not dictating what a player can play. There will always be other games were an elf PC is more appropriate. This is just not one of them.

Yes, I think it's entirely okay (and expected) for a GM to dictate these terms. "This game everyone is playing elves who have never seen anyone other than an elf having to venture beyond the woods because all their apples have rotted." Sure, okay. Don't want to play that? Okay, well if nobody wants to play it then the game isn't going to happen, but if one person in the group does not want to play an elf, that does not mean the GM's game concept has to change in any way. It means that player does not have to play. Maybe they can run the game they want to be in when this set of sessions is over?

All the player has to do is show up, and be as engaged or disengaged as they want to be (depending on the mechanical expectations of the system.) With a middling amount of variation, the GM absolutely has to be gunning for this game. I'm sorry, but if you're going to put in the 4 or 5 hours a week prep necessary to make a game happen, you should at least be able to work within the framework that got you excited to run something in the first place. I'm not advocating for the model of players having to follow along with GM's story - players find enough interesting ways to blow the heck out of whatever the GM has planned. But the basic premise should at least start in agreement.

Otherwise, you're just expecting the GM to be the dancing monkey for the player's enjoyment. (You in general - conceptually - not you specifically.)

//Panjumaju


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 22, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> Your in-game against out-of-game distinction does not make any sense to me. The decisions you make about what the game is going to be has a pretty huge impact on when you're playing the game. If you mean that the fact that few people want to GM shouldn't impact what the players get to play...then I don't know what to tell you. It takes a lot of effort to run a game. It takes almost nothing to play. The least deference you could give to a GM is to let them run the show.
> 
> The GM (in this hypothetical situation) is not dictating what a player can play. There will always be other games were an elf PC is more appropriate. This is just not one of them.
> 
> ...



Well, yes, it appears we have some fundamental differences in game experience, as this is entirely from a D&D centered, traditional, GM gatekeeping point of view.  I'd recommend branching out a bit, you might notice some differences.  Or not, if your friends and fellow hobbyists are fine with you using your position as GM to leverage social authority over them, that's cool.  I just think that it should be a group decisions, not a unilateral, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum by one person, especially when they're so very sensitive to a reversed position.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, yes, it appears we have some fundamental differences in game experience, as this is entirely from a D&D centered, traditional, GM gatekeeping point of view.  I'd recommend branching out a bit, you might notice some differences.  Or not, if your friends and fellow hobbyists are fine with you using your position as GM to leverage social authority over them, that's cool.  I just think that it should be a group decisions, not a unilateral, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum by one person, especially when they're so very sensitive to a reversed position.



Without malice, I think your implicit expectation that the GM should accomodate whatever conflicting concept you bring to a game by changing a fundimental aspect of what they wanted to run in the first place is not very appreciative of the work that the GM has to go through to bring you a night of gaming. I'm don't have to be the GM in this situation. If someone is good enough to put in the work necessary to run a game, I'm on board with whatever concept is going, unless it is of exceptional disinterest to me. I would never feel the need to shoehorn what I want to do as a character concept into a game where it does not belong, and I wouldn't expect anyone at my table to behave that way, either.

With concerns to your accusation of gatekeeping: if this point of clarity matters at all (and if only in the hope we could maybe get on the same page?) I'm usually game for anything. You want to run a bunny rabbit that has come to life and summons snowballs? Sure, we'll figure out a way to do that. But if the rules of the universe are "no horses", I am not going to be flexible to someone saying they need a horse because it's what they get at level 3 or whatever. I'd suggest a giant lizard, or whatever is within the setting. I am not GMing to fulfill player fantasies. We're all trying to have a good time together. I don't think one player's personal mission should overturn a game.

Also if it's anything we can establish common ground over, I rarely run D&D. I run a lot of strange systems with strange power dynamics between GMs and players, some of them GMless, but, if I have to run D&D - damn it if D&D and things like it aren't a tonne of work to set up week after week. If someone wants to play an elf in my human-centric game, flat-out "No elves. You can do an elf in just about any other D&D game. Let's stick to theme."

//Panjumanju


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> The GM (in this hypothetical situation) is not dictating what a player can play. There will always be other games were an elf PC is more appropriate. This is just not one of them.



_Why is it not appropriate?_ This is where I have a problem with the GM's approach. The GM's pitch, as I have mentioned, does not explicitly say "human only". Indeed it implies it isn't because it's D&D. 

There are also "everyman" character concepts that fit Game of Thrones and actually work _better _in a fantasy setting if the character is a non-human even if the setting is human dominated - in particular characters from far away lands who are getting mixed up in this stuff. I've already given the example of ambassador's secretary Vir Koto in Babylon 5 who's a Centauri (which could easily translate to elf with the mix of arrogance and fading empire) - and is one of the two most ordinary characters in the setting (the other being Zack Allen). Being a literal non-human allows an outlander to be a visible outlander while having notable cultural traits that aren't (normally) real world traits that would require research. And outlanders generally aren't _less _of normal characters than lords or knights.

Literally the only reason given in this thread that the character concept was not appropriate has been "Because I am the DM and that is not 100% how I pictured things and I am utterly inflexible on this." Now it doesn't say anything _better_ about the player that they went in with a "the rules say I can because it's core" than that the DM went in with "The rules say I can overrule the rules and because I'm the DM it's my way or the highway regardless of how it works with what I actually pitched." (But only one of them actually has absolute control over the game).


Panjumanju said:


> Otherwise, you're just expecting the GM to be the dancing monkey for the player's enjoyment. (You in general - conceptually - not you specifically.)



On the contrary. The only one expecting other people to be the dancing monkey is the DM.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 22, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> _Why is it not appropriate?_ This is where I have a problem with the GM's approach. The GM's pitch, as I have mentioned, does not explicitly say "human only". Indeed it implies it isn't because it's D&D.



Where in the OP does it say the system being used is D&D?!?


Neonchameleon said:


> On the contrary. The only one expecting other people to be the dancing monkey is the DM.



Hahahahahahaha!!!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Where in the OP does it say the system being used is D&D?!?



"because the core book says Elf is a playable race"

It may not have been D&D you were going to use (although I think you confirmed it later) - but there was a system attached to the pitch and it was one where elves were playable or this would have been meaningless. There are admittedly a few systems like Shadowrun or MERP to which this could also apply.


zarionofarabel said:


> Hahahahahahaha!!!



Was that your DM's evil laugh as confirmation?


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 22, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> "because the core book says Elf is a playable race"
> 
> It may not have been D&D you were going to use (although I think you confirmed it later) - but there was a system attached to the pitch and it was one where elves were playable or this would have been meaningless. There are admittedly a few systems like Shadowrun or MERP to which this could also apply.



Age of Shadow, OpenQuest, Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, The One Ring, among others. No way anyone should assume that it was D&D.


Neonchameleon said:


> Was that your DM's evil laugh as confirmation?



Nope. I was laughing at the idea that because you posit that by limiting playable races I would somehow want the players to be limited in any other fashion.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Age of Shadow, OpenQuest, Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, The One Ring, among others. No way anyone should assume that it was D&D.



D&D is bigger than all those systems combined, alas. "RPG" by default means D&D. "Fantasy RPG with elves"?

The thing is _this doesn't matter_. You pitched a system where elves were part of the playable core - then expected people to magically intuit that this wasn't to be a thing. There is nothing that makes an elf more special than a noble in almost any setting I can think of - quite the reverse.


zarionofarabel said:


> Nope. I was laughing at the idea that because you posit that by limiting playable races I would somehow want the players to be limited in any other fashion.



So what's so special about playable races in your mind? Because they are far from the most important thing on the character sheet.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 22, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> _Why is it not appropriate?_ This is where I have a problem with the GM's approach. The GM's pitch, as I have mentioned, does not explicitly say "human only". Indeed it implies it isn't because it's D&D.
> 
> There are also "everyman" character concepts that fit Game of Thrones and actually work _better _in a fantasy setting if the character is a non-human even if the setting is human dominated - in particular characters from far away lands who are getting mixed up in this stuff. I've already given the example of ambassador's secretary Vir Koto in Babylon 5 who's a Centauri (which could easily translate to elf with the mix of arrogance and fading empire) - and is one of the two most ordinary characters in the setting (the other being Zack Allen). Being a literal non-human allows an outlander to be a visible outlander while having notable cultural traits that aren't (normally) real world traits that would require research. And outlanders generally aren't _less _of normal characters than lords or knights.
> 
> ...




It’s inappropriate because the setting the GM is using does not have elves, or elves are NPC only. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that. The GM wants to run a game with certain tropes, themes, features etc. Maybe he wants the game to seem more grounded, maybe he wants elves to be a mysterious ‘other’ that the players encounter, maybe he wants elves to be homicidal monsters, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they’re not a PC choice in his campaign. That they’re an option in the core is irrelevant.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 22, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Valaryan steel was absolutely magical.  There were only a tiny number of smiths even_ capable _of forging a blade with it, the blades were shaper lighter & so on than any other weapon... and critically  later on it hurts white walkers.  Just about everything valaryan was magical & usually of the artifact grade.  The fact that an extremely skilled & specialized smith could melt down the two handed sword ice & forge two smaller swords from it doesn't change that.



There's also dragonglass weapons, which very neatly brings in the idea of special (i.e. like-magical) weapons without having to resort to magic, simply by having them made of a different and unusual material.

Valaryan steel is another take on the same concept but - unlike dragonglass - comes across more as magic in everything but name.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 22, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> Without malice, I think your implicit expectation that the GM should accomodate whatever conflicting concept you bring to a game by changing a fundimental aspect of what they wanted to run in the first place is not very appreciative of the work that the GM has to go through to bring you a night of gaming.



I'm sorry, but why are we privileging the GM choosing to do unasked for work?  If I brought you food over that you didn't want and sat there expecting you to eat it, who's the jerk?


Panjumanju said:


> I'm don't have to be the GM in this situation. If someone is good enough to put in the work necessary to run a game, I'm on board with whatever concept is going, unless it is of exceptional disinterest to me. I would never feel the need to shoehorn what I want to do as a character concept into a game where it does not belong, and I wouldn't expect anyone at my table to behave that way, either.



It's entirely your call to feel like you need to eat what's put in front of you.  I'd like a discussion first, and an agreement.  


Panjumanju said:


> With concerns to your accusation of gatekeeping: if this point of clarity matters at all (and if only in the hope we could maybe get on the same page?) I'm usually game for anything. You want to run a bunny rabbit that has come to life and summons snowballs? Sure, we'll figure out a way to do that. But if the rules of the universe are "no horses", I am not going to be flexible to someone saying they need a horse because it's what they get at level 3 or whatever. I'd suggest a giant lizard, or whatever is within the setting. I am not GMing to fulfill player fantasies. We're all trying to have a good time together. I don't think one player's personal mission should overturn a game.



It isn't, because you can change your mind at any time and leverage the assumed social authority of the GM.



Panjumanju said:


> Also if it's anything we can establish common ground over, I rarely run D&D. I run a lot of strange systems with strange power dynamics between GMs and players, some of them GMless, but, if I have to run D&D - damn it if D&D and things like it aren't a tonne of work to set up week after week. If someone wants to play an elf in my human-centric game, flat-out "No elves. You can do an elf in just about any other D&D game. Let's stick to theme."
> 
> //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."  And not that anyone can force anyone else to play anything they don't want to.  The OP has a good example of this kind of negotiation -- a failed pitch followed by a majority coming together.  Yes, it features a player that didn't want to agree, and no compromise was reached, but one was attempted.  Had not the other players been interested in the pitch as presented, this pitch would probably have foundered as well.  That's as should be.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 22, 2020)

macd21 said:


> It’s inappropriate because the setting the GM is using does not have elves, or elves are NPC only. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that. The GM wants to run a game with certain tropes, themes, features etc. Maybe he wants the game to seem more grounded, maybe he wants elves to be a mysterious ‘other’ that the players encounter, maybe he wants elves to be homicidal monsters, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they’re not a PC choice in his campaign. That they’re an option in the core is irrelevant.



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.

And if the GM wants elves for something else then there are half a dozen other elf-like races where you can file the serial numbers off.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a bad take.  The dynamic isn't equal in the game, yes, but this doesn't translate to social authority outside the game.  This is really just attempting to leverage one authority into a greater authority, and it's usually not used in a healthy way.
> 
> On this we absolutely agree -- and I said as much in the post you're responding to.  No one, GM included, should be playing a game the do not want to.  The difference, here, is that you seem to think it okay for one person to dictate these terms to others -- ie, that the GM can dictate to players what game they can play, and that this is then the player's problem rather than a social one demanding negotiation.



Keep in mind that in many cases the GM is also a) provider of most of the materials needed to run/play the game (and thus has most likely borne greater expense be it monetary from purchasing said materials or time from making them), and b) acting as the out-of-game host.  Add to that another clause c) that the GM has quite likely also done and will do far more work on the game than have any of the players.

It's b) above where much of the social authority comes from, just as it would were the same people visiting for any other activity.  It's a) and c) that in my view support the table authority, along with the whole 'referee' bit.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 22, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Keep in mind that in many cases the GM is also a) provider of most of the materials needed to run/play the game (and thus has most likely borne greater expense be it monetary from purchasing said materials or time from making them), and b) acting as the out-of-game host.  Add to that another clause c) that the GM has quite likely also done and will do far more work on the game than have any of the players.
> 
> It's b) above where much of the social authority comes from, just as it would were the same people visiting for any other activity.  It's a) and c) that in my view support the table authority, along with the whole 'referee' bit.



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.

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.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 22, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> D&D is bigger than all those systems combined, alas. "RPG" by default means D&D. "Fantasy RPG with elves"?



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.


Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is _this doesn't matter_. You pitched a system where elves were part of the playable core - then expected people to magically intuit that this wasn't to be a thing. There is nothing that makes an elf more special than a noble in almost any setting I can think of - quite the reverse.



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


Neonchameleon said:


> So what's so special about playable races in your mind? Because they are far from the most important thing on the character sheet.



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.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm sorry, but why are we privileging the GM choosing to do unasked for work?



Let's for a moment assume things are to the point where everyone's sitting down at the table for session 1.  At that point the GM's work is no longer 'unasked for'; and further, at and after that point if the GM stops participating the game ends.

In that regard, both the GM's work and the GM's presence become rather essential.


Ovinomancer said:


> If I brought you food over that you didn't want and sat there expecting you to eat it, who's the jerk?



False analogy.  If you're at my table it's because a) I invited you there and b) you accepted; which means by analogy we're already in agreement on the type of food being served.


Ovinomancer said:


> It isn't, because you can change your mind at any time and leverage the assumed social authority of the GM.



And players can always leverage their continued participation.


Ovinomancer said:


> 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."  And not that anyone can force anyone else to play anything they don't want to.



Ideally the invite-acceptance process has cleared all this long before everyone sits down at the table: the GM has outlined the my-way highway during the invite process, and each player present has chosen to accept that.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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.


Ovinomancer said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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.


zarionofarabel said:


> 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).


zarionofarabel said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2020)

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 (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> '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 (Dec 22, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.


Neonchameleon said:


> 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.


Neonchameleon said:


> 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.


Neonchameleon said:


> 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.


Crit said:


> 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.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> 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.



As others pointed out, your blazing spotlight of inexperience is the only reason you might be claiming that d&d is not "default" for ttrpgs with playable elves in core.  There are other systems with elves in core like pathfinder shadowrun & so on... but even one of those doesn't change the more important part about the initial poor handling. The fact that your playing "you don't know what system I'm running, it could be important" is another tick in the inexperienced column.  If it wasn't d&d or it was some _ultra-obscure_ niche setting where it might matter rather than d&d or some d&d in all but name system you'd just name the sytem & people would agree if it needed more clarification all but outright confirms it.

 It's ok that you made a newbie mistake as a newbie gm, it won't be your last  The important  part is that you learn from it, unfortunately for the long term health of your group it seems that you are insulted by any advice & take the very idea that there are things you could do better as an insult to your authoratah.  People are saying you were wrong because instead of expending even the tiniest effort working with player4 to find out what about an elf interested them & redirecting that interest to one of the many things that do or could exist within your setting capable of wearing that interest of player4's  towards the elf.  Much like your choice to play the you don't know the system card without giving details your lack of detail in the player trying to work with cartman posing as cartman speaks volumes about your failings there.

It's ok to say x race is not accceptable & I'm sure there are several I refuse with the following house rule


Spoiler




*Allowed races:* limited to those in Rising from the last war &those in exploring Eberron, the phb’s variant human is _not_ allowed.
*Allowed backgrounds* Oracle of war, Adventurer’s almanac, & if applicable ExE backgrounds.



but when a player says "can I play a tabaxi" I'm not above saying "they aren't really a thing  but znir pact gnolls are" prior to gnoll being added in one of those & give a quick 30 second rundown on them to see if there is interest in the player saying "wow cool I wanna be a znir pact gnoll" as the player did before denying it. Now I'd probably deny it now on the grounds that the double move it has destroys the  already mostly destroyed tactical elements within 5e.  I've also said "firbolg aren't  a thing in eberronm, here's 30 seconds about them" before following it with "but... they are a pretty cloe match for a lot of the orcs in eberron, I'd let  you use that statblock  instead of the god awful orc one if you want to say your an orc."


----------



## Crit (Dec 23, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Not everyone games with friends.



I know, but I wouldn't be mean to strangers either. If anything, I'd try harder to be fair and reasonable. If DnD is a transaction of effort, time and enjoyment, I would want to come to agreements with them so we all get as much positiveness out of the experience. No matter who you're with, there's no reason not to open with them on some level. 

I think, for most, the player gets more fun out of X than the DM looses from its inclusion. To a DM, they have the freedom to make things work with their creativity, or they could just ignore that the player is a (insert race or class) and let the player enjoy it. 

I think restrictions are fine, but any situation is worth a cost-benefit analysis, and that includes either accepting limits or neglecting them.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 23, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> As others pointed out, your blazing spotlight of inexperience is the only reason you might be claiming that d&d is not "default" for ttrpgs with playable elves in core.  There are other systems with elves in core like pathfinder shadowrun & so on... but even one of those doesn't change the more important part about the initial poor handling. The fact that your playing "you don't know what system I'm running, it could be important" is another tick in the inexperienced column.  If it wasn't d&d or it was some _ultra-obscure_ niche setting where it might matter rather than d&d or some d&d in all but name system you'd just name the sytem & people would agree if it needed more clarification all but outright confirms it.
> 
> It's ok that you made a newbie mistake as a newbie gm, it won't be your last  The important  part is that you learn from it, unfortunately for the long term health of your group it seems that you are insulted by any advice & take the very idea that there are things you could do better as an insult to your authoratah.  People are saying you were wrong because instead of expending even the tiniest effort working with player4 to find out what about an elf interested them & redirecting that interest to one of the many things that do or could exist within your setting capable of wearing that interest of player4's  towards the elf.  Much like your choice to play the you don't know the system card without giving details your lack of detail in the player trying to work with cartman posing as cartman speaks volumes about your failings there.
> 
> ...



I started running RPGs in 1988 with D&D Red Box.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 23, 2020)

Crit said:


> I know, but I wouldn't be mean to strangers either. If anything, I'd try harder to be fair and reasonable. If DnD is a transaction of effort, time and enjoyment, I would want to come to agreements with them so we all get as much positiveness out of the experience. No matter who you're with, there's no reason not to open with them on some level.
> 
> I think, for most, the player gets more fun out of X than the DM looses from its inclusion. To a DM, they have the freedom to make things work with their creativity, or they could just ignore that the player is a (insert race or class) and let the player enjoy it.
> 
> I think restrictions are fine, but any situation is worth a cost-benefit analysis, and that includes either accepting limits or neglecting them.



I wasn't being mean, nor do I consider dropping a player from a group that wants to play a campaign they are obviously not interested in to be a mean thing. Now, forcing a player to play in a campaign they don't want to be a part of would be a mean thing. Or even worse, saying it's okay they play an Elf then killing their character right away would be a mean thing.

Personally, I think it's far meaner to deny three players the opportunity to play in a campaign they want to play just to keep one player happy.

You know, cost-benefit and all that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


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



Nope. I prefer social situations where the people involved treat each other with dignity and respect, and a healthy dose of taking the mick.  That's doesn't have anything to do with GM authority in the game.


Panjumanju said:


> 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



The terms you're using here are loaded.  Asking for some consideration because it's something you like isn't "undermining" the GM's pitch.  And, if no compromise can be met, fine and good -- not every table sits down to play with the first people invited, or with the first idea pitched.  No problem with not agreeing and going separate ways.  

The issue I'm pointing out is the toxic assumption that the GM wields outsized authority in these social interactions.  They are just another player trying to sit a game.  There's nothing unique about being the GM -- it's just another player role.  The myth that's been built up around GMing is one that's actively toxic to the larger community -- that GMs are special and deserve outsized social clout because of the unique and special thing they do.  Thing is, it's not that special, but oh, man will so many GMs tell you how hard it is to do.  How many hours have to be put in; how difficult it is to deal with the players derailing your machinations .  It keeps more people from trying the role, and even more that do try think they're bad at it.  Some are, but a lot aren't but think they are because of this pervasive myth told to aggrandize those of us that sit the GM's chair.  I've been my group's primary GM for quite some time, and prior to that had one other player who would swap with me.  I'm starting a 5e, AP game in January, voted for by my group.  I don't have a problem running D&D as a GM, I don't have a GM authority problem, I have a problem with thinking that extends outside of the game because of the work or role within the game.  That's silly.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 23, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Keep in mind that in many cases the GM is also a) provider of most of the materials needed to run/play the game (and thus has most likely borne greater expense be it monetary from purchasing said materials or time from making them), and b) acting as the out-of-game host.



“Many” is a basically meaningless term, here, because it could mean anything from 1% to 99% percent of groups.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 23, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> But so far as a pitch goes; at very least the players shouldn't be looking to undermine a GM's basic world concept.



And that's the point. As presented in the OP the player _didn't_. The DM suggested a system with elves in the core rules and just said normal people and GoT themed. An average elf is far more a normal person than a noble and does not conflict with GoT theming where the core rules have elves.


Panjumanju said:


> 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.



But that's not the order of events presented in the OP. Which is the GM saying "Oh, you wanted to play an elf and submitted an elf character concept in good faith. I'm the DM and I say no. Sucks to be you." That was a dick move _by the GM. _The player then returned the dickery by reaching for the rulebook but the dickery as presented started from the DM side - and as the one with more power dickery from the DM side is worse.

A better solution would have been one asking the other when someone dug in "what about elves is it that you really want/hate?"


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> 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.



Because they don't.  Or, at least, they don't if you're interested in not being a jerk.  "Sure, I'll host, but you have to play what I want or you have to leave."  Possible, but jerky.


Lanefan said:


> 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)



I play with friends as well, which inclines me to be even more careful in seeking consensus on the next game that not.  Even though we've been playing together for years, in some cases going on two decades, and I know them very well, _I still ask_.


Lanefan said:


> 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.



Don't really care how long you spent on your personal passion project -- it doesn't empower you in any way.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> The issue I'm pointing out is the toxic assumption that the GM wields outsized authority in these social interactions.  They are just another player trying to sit a game.  There's nothing unique about being the GM -- it's just another player role.  The myth that's been built up around GMing is one that's actively toxic to the larger community -- that GMs are special and deserve outsized social clout because of the unique and special thing they do.  Thing is, it's not that special, but oh, man will so many GMs tell you how hard it is to do.




If you want to make some argument about the pervasive malevolence of toxicity inherent to (a certain kind of?) GMing, the onus is on you. I'd suggest that's beyond the scope of this thread. You should start another topic.

Also, if you were trying to demonstrate you don't have a chip on your shoulder...

//Panjumanju


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

@zarionofarabel 

To clarify, I think your situation resolved just fine -- a discussion was had, a majority sufficient to play was formed, and the other player did not want to compromise, so left the table.  This is a good social interaction.

However, I do not agree with your phrasing of GM vs player.  This is harmful.  No one 'won' or 'lost', a consensus was formed and the dissenter left -- that's not a win or lose, it's just a group deciding to do a thing together.  It's no different from talking with friends and deciding to go bowling (if that's your thing), but Bob doesn't want to go bowling so he says he'll catch you next time and goes home to play Cyberpunk.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> If you want to make some argument about the pervasive malevolence of toxicity inherent to (a certain kind of?) GMing, the onus is on you. I'd suggest that's beyond the scope of this thread. You should start another topic.
> 
> Also, if you were trying to demonstrate you don't have a chip on your shoulder...
> 
> //Panjumanju



I have no statement for this topic about any styles of GMing -- how you choose to run your game is absolutely orthogonal to the point I'm making.

My point is that however you choose to run the game has no real bearing on your authority outside of it, and deciding what game to play is outside of the game.

Please, though, continue to insist I have a chip on my shoulder about topics that I'm not even engaging, it's setting a humorous tone for me as I continue to see you respond to what you're imagining I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying -- which is a longer-winded version of "don't use your position as GM to be a jerk."


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Crit said:


> 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.




Way to over-read a statement. My point is, this is a hobby, something done for entertainment. It is not an activity which has to concern itself with being 'healthy'. You can kick people from the group for the simple reason that their expectations are not compatable with the planned activity.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Crit said:


> I know, but I wouldn't be mean to strangers either. If anything, I'd try harder to be fair and reasonable. If DnD is a transaction of effort, time and enjoyment, I would want to come to agreements with them so we all get as much positiveness out of the experience. No matter who you're with, there's no reason not to open with them on some level.



Managing expectations isn't 'mean'; it is the GM's prime responsibility.

Eliminating problem players before they disrupt a campaign is simply good sense, and better for everyone. Elf-boy may find a like-minded group, and the rest of the original group will have a better time.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> however you choose to run the game has no real bearing on your authority outside of it, and deciding what game to play is outside of the game.



You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this.

First of all, I can't imagine preparing a game, any game, _without already knowing your players would be into it. _After shopping out new systems to play, the job of the potential GM (love it or hate it) is to sell your players on the game. I've never had the conflict that the OP had. But, let's assume that all goes to heck for the sake of this.

If as a GM you have a game  in mind, and structure of the setting is based on one key point - whatever it is, it does not matter - and a player wants to introduce a character in conflict with that key setting element (presumably in a way that you don't feel capable of compromising while juggling all else)....how, at the end of that, is the GM the jerk for saying no?

//Panjumanju


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this.



You mean I keep responding when quoted?  Gosh, you might be right!


Panjumanju said:


> First of all, I can't imagine preparing a game, any game, _without already knowing your players would be into it. _After shopping out new systems to play, the job of the potential GM (love it or hate it) is to sell your players on the game. I've never had the conflict that the OP had. But, let's assume that all goes to heck for the sake of this.



Exactly my point.  Preparing a game doesn't confer any authority -- getting buy in is the key objective.  And buy in is not owed to you.


Panjumanju said:


> If as a GM you have a game  in mind, and structure of the setting is based on one key point - whatever it is, it does not matter - and a player wants to introduce a character in conflict with that key setting element (presumably in a way that you don't feel capable of compromising while juggling all else)....how, at the end of that, is the GM the jerk for saying no?
> 
> //Panjumanju



They are not -- if everyone else has reached a consensus and one player is the odd one out, then it's fine if the agreed majority continues.  This is normal social behavior.  If you thought that I've said that the dissenter must be catered to, well, I'll chalk that up to you imagining what I'm saying rather than reading it and put it alongside that supposed chip on my shoulder.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> In the first three books there is no magic such as is recognized in the game. Other than three dragons, again having minimal presence in the first three books and absolutely none in Westros, there are no monsters. GoT is a story about people, and the power struggles (Game of Thrones) they engage upon.



This is not correct.  You have Shadows being summoned by the Red Witch.  You have scrying/augury by the Red Witch.  You have Raise Dead by the The Red Priest.  You have illusions in the warlock's tower.  You have whatever Sorcery is done by the Magisters.  The ones that made Varys a eunuch so they could use his junk for magic.  You have Domination via wargs.  Prophecy in Westeros that Cersei and her friend encountered.  And more.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> They are not -- if everyone else has reached a consensus and one player is the odd one out, then it's fine if the agreed majority continues.  This is normal social behavior.  If you thought that I've said that the dissenter must be catered to, well, I'll chalk that up to you imagining what I'm saying rather than reading it and put it alongside that supposed chip on my shoulder.



Now you're just operating in bad faith, so perhaps I'm foolish to continue, but, humour me...what I can only assume you are trying to communicate is that the GM should have so increased social clout that should bare the setup of a new game just because they prepared it, will be doing the work of running it; (to say nothing of hosting or whatever elase because that's certainly not always the case) and further that players should be regarded equally in the decision-making (you might extend your argument into in-play situations but I don't know that), and in general the attitude that the GM has somehow increased authority to go along with their increased responsibilities is toxic or somehow harmful to gaming culture. Is that about right?

//Panjumanju


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 23, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> First of all, I can't imagine preparing a game, any game, _without already knowing your players would be into it._



I can. Being asked to run a game for strangers at a local game store. You have no opportunity to contact the Players ahead of the first session but must be prepared to have the Players generating characters and even start the first time you meet. You could assume they'll all like D&D... but you know what they say about assumptions - they all might be Wrath of Glory players excited to put some exterminatus down on some heretics and you might be a Cyberpunk aficionado.


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 23, 2020)

Crusadius said:


> I can. Being asked to run a game for strangers at a local game store. You have no opportunity to contact the Players ahead of the first session but must be prepared to have the Players generating characters and even start the first time you meet. You could assume they'll all like D&D... but you know what they say about assumptions - they all might be Wrath of Glory players excited to put some exterminatus down on some heretics.



You are correct. That is a case where you wouldn't know what expectations players were coming to the table with. I have run maybe 100 games at various conventions where presumably strangers have read your little writeup to attract them, at least, but I've never run at a FLGS so I don't know if the situation is similar.

Even so, I'd assume that with a full open circumstance (especially for D&D where playstyle from table to table can vary wildly) you'd approach GMing with quite a bit more flexability than you can usually, wouldn't you? That wouldn't be the place to try out a cool specific idea, I would think.

//Panjumanju


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> Now you're just operating in bad faith, so perhaps I'm foolish to continue, but, humour me...what I can only assume you are trying to communicate is that the GM should have so increased social clout that should bare the setup of a new game just because they prepared it, will be doing the work of running it; (to say nothing of hosting or whatever elase because that's certainly not always the case) and further that players should be regarded equally in the decision-making (you might extend your argument into in-play situations but I don't know that), and in general the attitude that the GM has somehow increased authority to go along with their increased responsibilities is toxic or somehow harmful to gaming culture. Is that about right?
> 
> //Panjumanju



I'll be frank, I'm not sure I can parse that sufficiently well.  What I am saying has nothing at all to do with how a GM runs or how much time they put into the campaign or if they are hosting or not -- these are red herrings.  What I am saying is that, when deciding to play a game, everyone is on equal footing.  Being the GM gives no special place in the decision of what game to run.  If the decision is for a game the GM doesn't want to run, then it's the same as being a player that doesn't want to play in a certain game -- that person doesn't play in the game.  The mistake made here is that usually the GM deciding not to play means no game, and the control over that is confused with righteous authority over the social group.  This is a bad take.

As for bad faith, at no point have I engaged in bad faith, here.  I've patiently answered you the same way, even though you keep accusing me of saying things I haven't said, implying I mean things I haven't said, and telling me I'm angry or have a chip on my shoulder.  None of this is correct, yet I haven't lashed out or accused you of bad faith.  My points have remained constant and unchanging, so I'm not darting around looking for the next goalpost location.  The accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith.  I will thank you to desist.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is not correct.  You have Shadows being summoned by the Red Witch.  You have scrying/augury by the Red Witch.  You have Raise Dead by the The Red Priest.  You have illusions in the warlock's tower.  You have whatever Sorcery is done by the Magisters.  The ones that made Varys a eunuch so they could use his junk for magic.  You have Domination via wargs.  Prophecy in Westeros that Cersei and her friend encountered.  And more.




Warlock's Tower? The Red Witch, as I already pointed out, was using finite items, not inherent spell magic. The Magisters, as was made amply clear in the first two books, did not perform magic, but instead were scholars and chemists. The Spider's incident did not occur in Westros, as I already noted. Cerci encountered a fortune-teller, notorious for con games. 

You're desperately reaching to apply game concepts to non-magical actions.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Warlock's Tower? The Red Witch, as I already pointed out, was using finite items, not inherent spell magic. The Magisters, as was made amply clear in the first two books, did not perform magic, but instead were scholars and chemists. The Spider's incident did not occur in Westros, as I already noted. Cerci encountered a fortune-teller, notorious for con games.
> 
> You're desperately reaching to apply game concepts to non-magical actions.











						House of the Undying
					

The House of the Undying is a location in Qarth. It is the headquarters of the Warlocks of Qarth. It is a large tower without any visible openings and surrounded by trees which are used to make shade of the evening. Daenerys, Jorah Mormont and Kovarro reach the House of the Undying. While trying...




					gameofthrones.fandom.com
				




Why does it seem like the people most adamantly speaking what a game based on game of thrones could not possibly include are the least knowledgeable about the setting?


----------



## Panjumanju (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'll be frank, I'm not sure I can parse that sufficiently well.  What I am saying has nothing at all to do with how a GM runs or how much time they put into the campaign or if they are hosting or not -- these are red herrings.  What I am saying is that, when deciding to play a game, everyone is on equal footing.  Being the GM gives no special place in the decision of what game to run.  If the decision is for a game the GM doesn't want to run, then it's the same as being a player that doesn't want to play in a certain game -- that person doesn't play in the game.  The mistake made here is that usually the GM deciding not to play means no game, and the control over that is confused with righteous authority over the social group.  This is a bad take.
> 
> As for bad faith, at no point have I engaged in bad faith, here.  I've patiently answered you the same way, even though you keep accusing me of saying things I haven't said, implying I mean things I haven't said, and telling me I'm angry or have a chip on my shoulder.  None of this is correct, yet I haven't lashed out or accused you of bad faith.  My points have remained constant and unchanging, so I'm not darting around looking for the next goalpost location.  The accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith.  I will thank you to desist.



You crossed the line of bad faith to accuse me of imagining things; that's text book bad faith. And you're darn right I have been looking for goal posts; your writing seems to be the enemy of clarity.

As to your point - the idea that the GM, or potental GM has equal footing as the players in deciding what to run is radical. The fact that most games start with someone saying "I have an idea for running something" immediately shifts that balance. That authority does not have to be righteous, it's inherent. 

By the time we get to the table where the GM has already preapred whatever they've prepared, only to have that short down, you must conceed that to say that's a red herring or should have no baring on the table dynamic is itself an (at best) unusual position to take.

//Panjumanju


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> House of the Undying
> 
> 
> The House of the Undying is a location in Qarth. It is the headquarters of the Warlocks of Qarth. It is a large tower without any visible openings and surrounded by trees which are used to make shade of the evening. Daenerys, Jorah Mormont and Kovarro reach the House of the Undying. While trying...
> ...




Not in Westros. And again, chemistry and training rather than verifiable;e magic.

The entire thrust of the first three books was that magic was gone from Westros, and in the latter two it was starting to return in very slight doses. There isn't anything resembling a D&D style spellcaster in any of the books, just some half understood rituals regaining their potency.

Try as you might, it is not a D&D style approach to magic. The sparse nature of your increasingly wild claims just proves the point.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Warlock's Tower? The Red Witch, as I already pointed out, was using finite items, not inherent spell magic. The Magisters, as was made amply clear in the first two books, did not perform magic, but instead were scholars and chemists. The Spider's incident did not occur in Westros, as I already noted. Cerci encountered a fortune-teller, notorious for con games.
> 
> You're desperately reaching to apply game concepts to non-magical actions.



She was not using finite items.  She was using what would in D&D be called spell components.  And yes, Daenerys went to the warlocks tower in one of the early cities she visited.  They wanted a dragon.  It was full of illusions and other magic and eventually her dragons burned it down and broke the spells.  The magisters are not chemists.  Those were the ones in Westeros who created Wildfire, and it is directly said that they use spells.  Spells which became more efficient and powerful once the dragons hatched. The fortune teller that Cersei encountered was correct in her predictions.  

I've read the series at least 5 times.  I'm not trying to add anything that isn't already there.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> She was not using finite items.  She was using what would in D&D be called spell components.  And yes, Daenerys went to the warlocks tower in one of the early cities she visited.  They wanted a dragon.  It was full of illusions and other magic and eventually her dragons burned it down and broke the spells.  The magisters are not chemists.  Those were the ones in Westeros who created Wildfire, and it is directly said that they use spells.  Spells which became more efficient and powerful once the dragons hatched. The fortune teller that Cersei encountered was correct in her predictions.
> 
> I've read the series at least 5 times.  I'm not trying to add anything that isn't already there.




Daenerys' experience was never made clear; it hinted at incense or gas as much as illusion. 

And yes, the Magisters were chemists; there are numerous examples of them mixing compounds and maintaining copious supplies of materials, including poisons.

I don't know how many times you read the books, if at all, but you certainly missed the deliberate interplay with magic that GRR Martin laid out (and has commented upon in numerous places). 

It certainly bears no resemblance to D&D's ever-present and endless magic.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Not in Westros. And again, chemistry and training rather than verifiable;e magic.



No.  No it isn't.  You're making stuff up now.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No.  No it isn't.  You're making stuff up now.




I'm beginning to doubt you've even read the books. Certainly you have no grasp of the premises involved in the series. Time to end this nonsense and return to the thread topic.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I'm beginning to doubt you've even read the books. Certainly you have no grasp of the premises involved in the series. Time to end this nonsense and return to the thread topic.



Orrrrrr else Melisandre birthed shadow monsters and Renly was killed by Stanis's shadow by maaaaaaaagic.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Panjumanju said:


> You crossed the line of bad faith to accuse me of imagining things; that's text book bad faith. And you're darn right I have been looking for goal posts; your writing seems to be the enemy of clarity.



Well, you've consistently misrepresented what I've actually said, and, in at least one case, gotten it entirely backwards.  Plus you accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder. (shrug) Clearly, you've got a lot of imagination to do this, as neither are true or what is in my posts.

As for goalposts, moving them is considered bad -- I haven't.  I've been very consistent, and have explained the same thing to you multiple times.  You claim I'm the enemy of clarity, but you've responded by accusing me of having ideas I haven't even brought up, so I'm wondering if maybe it's you.


Panjumanju said:


> As to your point - the idea that the GM, or potental GM has equal footing as the players in deciding what to run is radical. The fact that most games start with someone saying "I have an idea for running something" immediately shifts that balance. That authority does not have to be righteous, it's inherent.



Yes, I'm aware it's radical to many, because it's a deeply ingrained bad take in our hobby -- that GM's are special.


Panjumanju said:


> By the time we get to the table where the GM has already preapred whatever they've prepared, only to have that short down, you must conceed that to say that's a red herring or should have no baring on the table dynamic is itself an (at best) unusual position to take.
> 
> //Panjumanju



If the GM has prepared things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, they're the jerk.  If you get to the table without first having a discussion about what to run, and getting buy-in, the GM is the jerk.  It's a pretty simple concept -- ask, don't demand.  It's also called the Golden Rule -- if you're going to be upset that others aren't agreeing with you, then you should recognize they may be upset if you don't agree with them.  Instead, maybe adopt an attitude where you talking to people instead of expecting them to roll over because you invested some time in your pet project.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> If the GM has prepared things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, they're the jerk. If you get to the table without first having a discussion about what to run, and getting buy-in, the GM is the jerk.



So it's also OK for the GM to have buy-in on what characters the Players have? "You want to play an elf ranger? How about a human thief? No? What a jerk."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Crusadius said:


> So it's also OK for the GM to have buy-in on what characters the Players have? "You want to play an elf ranger? How about a human thief? No? What a jerk."



Sigh.  No.  It's an exercise in consensus seeking.  If the player really one thing A, but the GM doesn't, then there needs to be negotiation.  If negotiation fails, then no game.  If a sufficient majority opinion forms, that's the ticket -- dissenters can then agree or go their separate way.  In all of this, the GM is not privileged.  The very question you pose assumes the GM has some moral authority they should wield here, when what should be happening is a group of players picks the game they all most want to play together.

The very idea that the GM has authority over this negotiation is edging towards abusive.  It's the GM acting as dictator over something outside of the game -- the very choice of game to begin with.  In this, the GM's opinion is equally valid as the players.   Or, in other words, there's nothing special about the GM's creative vision that makes it better than anyone else's.  In fact, the only leverage a GM actually has is the threat to not run a game.  This is usually coupled with long indoctrination that running games is hard, so players shy away  from it, closing the gates to more GM's and allowing the existing GM to threaten to remove access to force their way on the group.  If you think this is an okay way to act, well, we're just probably going to disagree.

Once buy-in is achieved, if a player goes against the agreed to framework, they're the jerk.  And, not everyone has to buy-in, if the group majority wants Game A, and the dissenters Game B, they can go find it somewhere else.  This is just like deciding to go bowling with a group of friends, but one begs off because they're just not feeling bowling tonight.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Daenerys' experience was never made clear; it hinted at incense or gas as much as illusion.



I've always read it as either illusion or compulsion.

The most obvious examples in Westeros itself of outright magic use are the various revivals from death that take place.  Well, that and the ongoing creation of all those undead north of the Wall....something's getting them upright, and it ain't ordinary physics.


Jd Smith1 said:


> It certainly bears no resemblance to D&D's ever-present and endless magic.



Agreed; any GoT-based campaign would have to severely tone down arcane magic use, as I think I posted upthread.

That said, just like in Dragonlance there's no deities yet; in Westeros there isn't much magic - yet.

If magic is returning to Westeros, however, one could run a hella good D&D campaign set 25-50 years after the end of the TV series; where magic (particularly divine magic) has more-or-less returned and the various houses are starting to conveniently forget old treaties and are going back to war with each other...


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Crusadius said:


> So it's also OK for the GM to have buy-in on what characters the Players have? "You want to play an elf ranger? How about a human thief? No? What a jerk."




'Buy-in'? Not familiar with the term.

I set out what races and classes out of the PHB are available.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> If the GM has prepared things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, they're the jerk.  If you get to the table without first having a discussion about what to run, and getting buy-in, the GM is the jerk.  It's a pretty simple concept -- ask, don't demand.  It's also called the Golden Rule -- if you're going to be upset that others aren't agreeing with you, then you should recognize they may be upset if you don't agree with them.  Instead, maybe adopt an attitude where you talking to people instead of expecting them to roll over because you invested some time in your pet project.




What a judgmental attitude.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> What a judgmental attitude.



Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship.  I agree!


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 23, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I've always read it as either illusion or compulsion.
> 
> The most obvious examples in Westeros itself of outright magic use are the various revivals from death that take place.  Well, that and the ongoing creation of all those undead north of the Wall....something's getting them upright, and it ain't ordinary physics.



And the wall itself.  Full of old spells it is.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> And the wall itself.  Full of old spells it is.



Yes, but old magic isn't in question: the entire setting seems to have had loads of magic a long time ago; and the Wall is what, 700 years old?

It's present-day magic that's rare, but slowly returning as the series goes along.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship.  I agree!




A power relationship can be unequal without it being dysfunctional. When it comes to defining the setting of a campaign, the GM has more authority than the players. Earlier you said that if a sufficient majority opinion forms, 'that's the ticket,' and dissenters can leave, but that's not true, because if the dissenters include the GM, the game doesn't get played. It only works if the majority includes the GM.

The GM has more power in this relationship because they're the one who will be doing the heavy lifting, and without them the campaign doesn't happen. That's not dysfunctional, and in my experience it's a relationship dynamic that players are happy to accept (as it means they get to play without having to come up with a campaign themselves).


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 23, 2020)

macd21 said:


> A power relationship can be unequal without it being dysfunctional. When it comes to defining the setting of a campaign, the GM has more authority than the players. Earlier you said that if a sufficient majority opinion forms, 'that's the ticket,' and dissenters can leave, but that's not true, because if the dissenters include the GM, the game doesn't get played. It only works if the majority includes the GM.



Then one of the previous players decides to GM, and the game goes on, though maybe with a different setting or even game. "Life finds a way." 



macd21 said:


> The GM has more power in this relationship because they're the one who will be doing the heavy lifting, and without them the campaign doesn't happen. That's not dysfunctional, and in my experience it's a relationship dynamic that players are happy to accept (as it means they get to play without having to come up with a campaign themselves).



A lot of that heavy lifting is optional, self-inflicted, and built on the backs of what @Ovinomancer talks about with the whole myth constructed around all the hard work of GMing: e.g., campaign/adventure prep, world-building, etc. This is particularly true if you are running something basic like Dungeon World or using no myth roleplaying techniques.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Then one of the previous players decides to GM, and the game goes on, though maybe with a different setting or even game. "Life finds a way."




At which point _that GM _will be the one with the authority to decide what is in the game. The role of GM has moved, and the authority has moved with it.


Aldarc said:


> A lot of that heavy lifting is optional, self-inflicted, and built on the backs of what @Ovinomancer talks about with the whole myth constructed around all the hard work of GMing: e.g., campaign/adventure prep, world-building, etc. This is particularly true if you are running something basic like Dungeon World or using no myth roleplaying techniques.



The fact that any of the heavy lifting is optional and/or self-inflicted is irrelevant - it's still heavy lifting. And even a game with 0 campaign/adventure prep or world building still requires heavy-lifting - that of actually running the game itself. In my experience, the vast majority of players do not want to run a game, and are happy to concede authority to someone who will.

If Player 4 wants to, they can offer to run a campaign. They will then become the GM. And when they do, they will have the authority to restrict character options. Player 4 can declare that no humans are allowed. If the OP's GM (now in the role of a player) doesn't like it, they don't have to play.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 23, 2020)

macd21 said:


> The fact that any of the heavy lifting is optional and/or self-inflicted is irrelevant - it's still heavy lifting. And even a game with 0 campaign/adventure prep or world building still requires heavy-lifting - that of actually running the game itself. In my experience, the vast majority of players do not want to run a game, and are happy to concede authority to someone who will.
> 
> If Player 4 wants to, they can offer to run a campaign. They will then become the GM. And when they do, they will have the authority to restrict character options. Player 4 can declare that no humans are allowed. If the OP's GM (now in the role of a player) doesn't like it, they don't have to play.



See @Ovinomancer's half-a-dozen earlier posts that already addresses this.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> See @Ovinomancer's half-a-dozen earlier posts that already addresses this.




I'm aware of the post. Nothing in it changes the fact that the GM gets to decide what will or won't be included in the campaign. Ovinomancer's belief that players have been 'indoctrinated' to believe GMing is hard (a stance I find nonsensical) doesn't change the fact that the campaign doesn't get played if the GM doesn't want to run it. If Player 4 decides to overcome their 'indoctrination' and run a game, like I said, they're now the GM and they now have the authority to decide what is and isn't in the campaign.

Ovinomancer thinks there's something wrong with a GM refusing to run a game, whereas I think the expectation that a GM should run a game they're not happy with is ridiculous and entitled. If Player 4's pitch meets with demands that they change it, and Player 4 isn't happy with the impact those changes would have on the campaign, then there's nothing wrong with Player 4 refusing. It's certainly not 'edging towards abusive,' as Ovinomancer would have it. No gaming is better than bad gaming, and a GM running a game they're not happy with is bad gaming.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Dec 23, 2020)

I happily ban half the material in the PHB in my games. I've never had a complaint, and several players have listed my campaigns as the best they ever played in. The key is being clear upfront with players/potential players - this is even before Session 0. For me, it's part of the invitation to join or start a game.

Not all tables are right for everyone. I have no problem with someone deciding not to play in my games because they don't like how I do it. I've left groups before for the same reasons; there's no hard feelings.


----------



## Crusadius (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sigh.  No.  It's an exercise in consensus seeking.  If the player really one thing A, but the GM doesn't, then there needs to be negotiation.  If negotiation fails, then no game.  If a sufficient majority opinion forms, that's the ticket -- dissenters can then agree or go their separate way.  In all of this, the GM is not privileged.  The very question you pose assumes the GM has some moral authority they should wield here, when what should be happening is a group of players picks the game they all most want to play together.
> 
> The very idea that the GM has authority over this negotiation is edging towards abusive.  It's the GM acting as dictator over something outside of the game -- the very choice of game to begin with.  In this, the GM's opinion is equally valid as the players.   Or, in other words, there's nothing special about the GM's creative vision that makes it better than anyone else's.  In fact, the only leverage a GM actually has is the threat to not run a game.  This is usually coupled with long indoctrination that running games is hard, so players shy away  from it, closing the gates to more GM's and allowing the existing GM to threaten to remove access to force their way on the group.  If you think this is an okay way to act, well, we're just probably going to disagree.
> 
> Once buy-in is achieved, if a player goes against the agreed to framework, they're the jerk.  And, not everyone has to buy-in, if the group majority wants Game A, and the dissenters Game B, they can go find it somewhere else.  This is just like deciding to go bowling with a group of friends, but one begs off because they're just not feeling bowling tonight.



It's not really. Its an exercise in convincing the person who has volunteered to run the game. The final decision is made by that person. If you can sweet talk the GM, or bribe them with food, then you're in luck. If not, then either the Players accept the game on offer, or the GM asks which of the Players will run the game.

In the end the GM is the final arbiter of what game they're running and what character options are available to the Players. Perhaps all are, perhaps only humans are. Even the game itself, whether it be D&D, Cyberpunk or Mörk Borg.

I've often had the GM ask the Players what game we'd like them to run and given a list, and the Players talk about it and come to a decision. Other times the GM has just said "I'm running Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, you're using the random tables for generating a character, are you in?". But it's always been a game the GM wants to run, and anything out of the ordinary was always with the GM's permission.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship.  I agree!




Judgmental, _and _wrong.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> See @Ovinomancer's half-a-dozen earlier posts that already addresses this.




Actually, they don't.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> A lot of that heavy lifting is optional, self-inflicted, and built on the backs of what @Ovinomancer talks about with the whole myth constructed around all the hard work of GMing: e.g., campaign/adventure prep, world-building, etc. This is particularly true if you are running something basic like Dungeon World or using no myth roleplaying techniques.




That heavy-lifting _is _the campaign. Ovin doesn't grasp that, and neither do you.

Good GMs invest time, thought, and prep into a campaign, particularly one that is intended to run for 50-70 sessions, and does not involve systems that stink.

I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> If the GM has prepared things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, they're the jerk.






Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, it's very judgmental to say that it's probably best for people to communicate with each other as equals rather than assume a dysfunctional power relationship.




*Mod Note:*
You made it into a blanket personal insult, which doesn't fly in these parts.



Jd Smith1 said:


> What a judgmental attitude.




And you made it a directly personal thing.

Both of you then continue to argue, trying to claim the other guy was in the wrong, when you are both being disrespectful.  It makes both of you look... pretty bad.

So, both of you, cut it out.  Thanks.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> That heavy-lifting _is _the campaign. Ovin doesn't grasp that, and neither do you.
> 
> Good GMs invest time, thought, and prep into a campaign, particularly one that is intended to run for 50-70 sessions, and does not involve systems that stink.
> 
> I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.



You are making a lot of assumptions, and your tone here is hardly indicative of good faith discussion.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

macd21 said:


> A power relationship can be unequal without it being dysfunctional.



Sure, but this doesn't disprove anything.


macd21 said:


> When it comes to defining the setting of a campaign, the GM has more authority than the players. Earlier you said that if a sufficient majority opinion forms, 'that's the ticket,' and dissenters can leave, but that's not true, because if the dissenters include the GM, the game doesn't get played. It only works if the majority includes the GM.



The GM _may _have that authority _in game_. This really depends on the game being played.  And, given that it does, it's a poor excuse for carrying that outside of the game.

And, I've addressed the GM opting out.  This isn't as crazy as you seem to thing -- it happened in the OP.  The first pitch failed.


macd21 said:


> The GM has more power in this relationship because they're the one who will be doing the heavy lifting, and without them the campaign doesn't happen. That's not dysfunctional, and in my experience it's a relationship dynamic that players are happy to accept (as it means they get to play without having to come up with a campaign themselves).






macd21 said:


> I'm aware of the post. Nothing in it changes the fact that the GM gets to decide what will or won't be included in the campaign. Ovinomancer's belief that players have been 'indoctrinated' to believe GMing is hard (a stance I find nonsensical) doesn't change the fact that the campaign doesn't get played if the GM doesn't want to run it. If Player 4 decides to overcome their 'indoctrination' and run a game, like I said, they're now the GM and they now have the authority to decide what is and isn't in the campaign.



Nope.  If this was true -- if something I chose to do unilaterally gave me authority over others -- then there'd be a lot of strange interactions in the world.  I could, for instance, demand you come to my party because I worked hard on it.  I could, for instance, demand you eat my cooking because I worked hard on it.  I could, for instance, demand you live in this shack because I worked hard on it.  The labor the GM willingly takes on doesn't require any deference on the part of others.

And I say this as a GM that often works hard on my games.


macd21 said:


> Ovinomancer thinks there's something wrong with a GM refusing to run a game, whereas I think the expectation that a GM should run a game they're not happy with is ridiculous and entitled. If Player 4's pitch meets with demands that they change it, and Player 4 isn't happy with the impact those changes would have on the campaign, then there's nothing wrong with Player 4 refusing. It's certainly not 'edging towards abusive,' as Ovinomancer would have it. No gaming is better than bad gaming, and a GM running a game they're not happy with is bad gaming.



I think no such thing, and have been very clear to say that NO ONE should play in a game they don't want to play in.  This isn't a GM vs player argument -- I've expressly rejected this distinction.  It's a peer-to-peer argument -- everyone at the table is a peer when deciding what game to play.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> That heavy-lifting _is _the campaign. Ovin doesn't grasp that, and neither do you.
> 
> Good GMs invest time, thought, and prep into a campaign, particularly one that is intended to run for 50-70 sessions, and does not involve systems that stink.
> 
> I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.



Ignoring the insults, but, yes, I have.  I've played in them and have run them. Notebooks full of material, dense maps, lots of sideplots and details. I'm totally not unfamiliar with this play, and think it can be great fun, even if I've largely abandoned the effort.  Do not mistake a difference of opinion for a lack of experience.  And, that difference is that I don't see how any of this gives the GM authority when the _group is discussing what game to play_.  A player having poured effort into a concept doesn't oblige anyone else.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 23, 2020)

While I love pointing out the errors in others as much as any guy who is definitively right, when red text enters a thread, it is time to change the subject. I think the poll says it all, really.


----------



## macd21 (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ignoring the insults, but, yes, I have.  I've played in them and have run them. Notebooks full of material, dense maps, lots of sideplots and details. I'm totally not unfamiliar with this play, and think it can be great fun, even if I've largely abandoned the effort.  Do not mistake a difference of opinion for a lack of experience.  And, that difference is that I don't see how any of this gives the GM authority when the _group is discussing what game to play_.  A player having poured effort into a concept doesn't oblige anyone else.



Because when the group is discussing what game to play, the range of options is first defined by what the GM is willing to run. Players can ask the GM to include or exclude certain elements, but the decision is the GM’s. If a player doesn’t like it, they can exit the discussion.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> While I love pointing out the errors in others as much as any guy who is definitively right, when red text enters a thread, it is time to change the subject. *I think the poll says it all, really.*



Ah, yes. "A forum filled primarily with GMs vote in favor of the GM based on a topic framed by the GM."


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 23, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Because when the group is discussing what game to play, the range of options is first defined by what the GM is willing to run. Players can ask the GM to include or exclude certain elements, but the decision is the GM’s. If a player doesn’t like it, they can exit the discussion.



Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Because when the group is discussing what game to play, the range of options is first defined by what the GM is willing to run. Players can ask the GM to include or exclude certain elements, but the decision is the GM’s. If a player doesn’t like it, they can exit the discussion.



No, the range of games the GM will play in is limited by what the GM is willing to run.  There may be no consensus and therefore no game, but this doesn't privilege the GM in the conversation.  Thinking so is assigning authority to the GM _outside of the game _because of authority _inside the game._  This isn't a good social interaction.

Here's how it play's out:  a player pitches a game.  Presumably they might also run it, but this isn't required -- my next game starting in January was pitched by a player, agreed to by the group, and will be GM'd by me.  But, usually it's the GM pitching.

1)  no consensus forms.   The pitch fails, and another pitch is needed.
2)  A consensus forms, everyone is onboard -- the game happens.
3)  A consensus forms, but a player or two does not join.  Those players find something else to do, and the game happens.
4)  A consensus forms, but the GM does not join.  You either get a new GM or you try a different pitch.

You're looking at case 4), and declaring that the GM has authorities in cases 1-3 because case 4 might obtain.  This is a flawed reasoning -- that case 4 might exist is not sufficient to grant the GM additional authorities over the other cases, nor to make a pitch that is absolute.  There's tons of cases of a GM being unable to get together a game they want to run because they can't find sufficient players to accept their concept.  This isn't exactly rare.  

If the other players don't want to play in the pitched game, even after negotiation. this doesn't elevate the GM to be able to override just because that game won't happen now.  That would be the point.

Also note that none of this presumes players have any ability to dictate to the GM in these talks.  I'm advocating for a healthy peer-to-peer discussion, not slipping in a claim that players should have authority to dictate because of reasons.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.



They could, but they're not required to, either.  No one has a duty or authority in this negotiation.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.



Or hear them out and decide that the suggested input doesn't work, also like an adult.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 23, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Or hear them out and decide that the suggested input doesn't work, also like an adult.



That isn’t a distinct suggestion from the one I made. I implied no outcome. 

It’s a conversation.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Or hear them out and decide that the suggested input doesn't work, also like an adult.



Your version & the one you quoted are not mutually exclusive.  it's been pointed out many times over the last 31 pages that the _apparently_ very experienced gm  failed because of the poor pitch lack of knowledge in the improperly  chosen setting, & cartmanesque handling of what should have been a trivial matter for someone who as as much experience as the OP _claims_ to have.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn’t a distinct suggestion from the one I made. I implied no outcome.



Compromise *is* a result (just not a specific one) in contrast to the GM's initial pitch. And by adding "like an adult" you implied that not doing so would be *not* like an adult.

If you meant "discuss it and potential compromises in good faith like an adult", that's not what you wrote.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 23, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Compromise *is* a result (just not a specific one) in contrast to the GM's initial pitch. And by adding "like an adult" you implied that not doing so would be *not* like an adult.
> 
> If you meant "discuss it and potential compromises in good faith like an adult", that's not what you wrote.



To compromise _is_ to discuss the situation in good faith with a willingness to accept some degree changes on your end, even if no agreement is ultimately reached. Failure to do so _is_ childish.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sigh.  No.  It's an exercise in consensus seeking.  If the player really one thing A, but the GM doesn't, then there needs to be negotiation.




not every game operates this way. Plenty of groups are okay with the GM sayin no to things because they don't fit the setting

For me, both as a player and a GM, being wiling to make characters who fit the campaign concept are pretty much a starting point. If people are going to fight to bring in something that just doesn't fit the campaign, I honestly would not want to game with that person (as a player or as a GM)----and I have only ever encountered one or two such people in 30+ years of gaming


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 23, 2020)

Bedrockgames said:


> not every game operates this way. Plenty of groups are okay with the GM sayin no to things because they don't fit the setting
> 
> For me, both as a player and a GM, being wiling to make characters who fit the campaign concept are pretty much a starting point. If people are going to fight to bring in something that just doesn't fit the campaign, I honestly would not want to game with that person (as a player or as a GM)----and I have only ever encountered one or two such people in 30+ years of gaming



It seems like you're jumping to an extreme of player behavior that no one is advocating. 

Rather, a player is likely to really want to play an elf ranger with a longbow and a wolf, and the DM can either seek compromise and, if elves really somehow don't "fit the setting", then they should go over what things do fit the setting, talk about what the player likes about elf rangers with wolves so much that they're so bummed out by the thought of not getting to play one, and _try_ to work something out.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 23, 2020)

tetrasodium said:


> Your version & the one you quoted are not mutually exclusive.  it's been pointed out many times over the last 31 pages that the _apparently_ very experienced gm  failed because of the poor pitch lack of knowledge in the improperly  chosen setting, & cartmanesque handling of what should have been a trivial matter for someone who as as much experience as the OP _claims_ to have.



Well let's see. I started with the Red Box (BECMI) in 1988 after my aunt got it for me for a Christmas present. Then in 1989 she got me the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB, DM Guide and Monsterous Compendium Binder. In 1992 I got the WEG Star Wars 2nd Edition and switched mostly to that as my group preferred Star Wars to D&D. In 1994 I discovered Vampire the Masquerade and added several White Wolf games to the mix. After graduating high school in 1996, I moved out of my little home town to a much bigger city that had an actual games store that stocked a multitude of RPGs. This allowed me to greatly expand my gaming experience with such amazing titles as Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel. Though for many years I stuck with hacking the White Wolf games as I preferred that system for it's ease of use. More recently I discovered Runequest 6/Mythras which quickly became my darling system as it really hits all my bells and whistles. Though with the plethora of systems that now exist my gaming library has expanded tenfold. Some of my favorites include, Chronica Feudalis, Far Trek, Ubiquity (Hollow Earth Expedition and All For One: Regime Diabolique), and a swath of various Runequest/BRP games. I also have Marvel Heroic Roleplaying as my favorite Supers game, along with several other Cortex and Cortex Plus titles. Most recently I have acquired Mongoose Traveller 2nd Edition and Tribe 8, both games I hope to try out in the coming year. Luckily I have avoided having to play D&D 5th Edition as I have no interest in it and managed to convince my new group to get away from the D&D family. Though for nostalgia  sake I do want to try running a short lived OSR BECMI clone just for fun.

So yeah, been around the block a time or two.

Also. Get off my lawn!


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> It seems like you're jumping to an extreme of player behavior that no one is advocating.
> 
> Rather, a player is likely to really want to play an elf ranger with a longbow and a wolf, and the DM can either seek compromise and, if elves really somehow don't "fit the setting", then they should go over what things do fit the setting, talk about what the player likes about elf rangers with wolves so much that they're so bummed out by the thought of not getting to play one, and _try_ to work something out.



I did. The Player wanted to play an Elf in a setting where there are no Elves. What would the compromise be, allow them to play an Elf?

Bonus for the player, as they then became free to find a group where they can play a Teenager Mutant Ninja Turtle!

Even better, the group that took in said player shed two other players who were tired of playing in a game with rubber forehead aliens. Those two players then joined my human only game where it's okay to play a noble or landed knight.

Now I have Lady Noble, Sir Sneak (disguised as Sir Noble), Sir Knight #1, Sir Knight #2, and Man Of The Cloth (a cleverly disguised magic user). Yay! Compromise!


----------



## macd21 (Dec 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Or, the GM can hear them out and compromise like an adult.



Sure, they could - if they want to. But that’s the GM’s choice. If they don’t want to compromise, they don’t have to. There’s nothing childish about doing so, just as there’s nothing childish about a player deciding the game isn’t for them and playing something else.

Adults recognise that sometimes compromise isn’t possible. Not every game can be hammered into a shape that everyone will be happy with. You can’t please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Sure, they could - if they want to. But that’s the GM’s choice. If they don’t want to compromise, they don’t have to. There’s nothing childish about doing so, just as there’s nothing childish about a player deciding the game isn’t for them and playing something else.
> 
> Adults recognise that sometimes compromise isn’t possible. Not every game can be hammered into a shape that everyone will be happy with. You can’t please all of the people all of the time.



100%.  The point I've been trying to make is that this is no different from any other player's authority in the discussion.  Sometimes the pitch fails or someone else GMs.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> It seems like you're jumping to an extreme of player behavior that no one is advocating.




I was responding directly to what the previous poster stated. Everything is based on the wording of that post. 

Also what you are suggesting isn't compromise. A compromise is the player wants something, the GM wants something else, so the GM agrees to change some things to give the player some things they want. What you are saying is just helping to guide the player to an option that fits the setting. Based on what the poster said, this wasn't how I was reading their statement. 

The point I am trying to make is for a lot of groups, the integrity of the setting matters. And a lot of players, not just GMs, get annoyed when players make special requests that clearly don't fit the setting (especially if they are taking a position that a compromise must be made). Now, I am not saying there can't be other approaches. But in any game, sport or activity with roles, it is fair to carve out who has power over what in order to make the game fair and fun. And for people like myself, giving the GM authority over the setting is important to enhancing play (and importantly that applies to the step of character creation).


----------



## macd21 (Dec 23, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> 100%.  The point I've been trying to make is that this is no different from any other player's authority in the discussion.  Sometimes the pitch fails or someone else GMs.



But it is different from the other players’ authority in the discussion, because ultimately the decision lies with the GM. The GM has a veto on anything being included in the campaign, the individual players do not. The game can continue without a given player, it can’t continue without the GM. As demonstrated by the OP: player 4 ended up not playing, but the campaign went ahead.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 23, 2020)

macd21 said:


> But it is different from the other players’ authority in the discussion, because ultimately the decision lies with the GM. The GM has a veto on anything being included in the campaign, the individual players do not. The game can continue without a given player, it can’t continue without the GM. As demonstrated by the OP: player 4 ended up not playing, but the campaign went ahead.



No, the ultimate decision doesn't lie with the GM.  The game not being played is not a bad thing if there's no consensus.  This is case 1.  The OP ended up in case 3, and everything was hunky-dory.  What you're talking about is some case 4, but the GM has some magical ability to force everyone else to play what they don't want to play.  That doesn't exist.  The GM has as much authority as anyone else in these discussions.

Does the GM (or any player) have authority over their pitch?  Absolutely, and no one else can force them or require them to change anything.  But, they have no authority to see that their pitch is accepted for play.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 23, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> I did. The Player wanted to play an Elf in a setting where there are no Elves. What would the compromise be, allow them to play an Elf?



Sure, or elf-like people of one kind or another, or a culture that is tuned toward what the player wants out of playing an elf. No way to know without having the conversation.


macd21 said:


> Sure, they could - if they want to. But that’s the GM’s choice. If they don’t want to compromise, they don’t have to. There’s nothing childish about doing so, just as there’s nothing childish about a player deciding the game isn’t for them and playing something else.



Yeah, refusing to even have a conversation that might end in a slightly different outcome than one originally intended _is_ childish. Pathetically so.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 23, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> That heavy-lifting _is _the campaign. Ovin doesn't grasp that, and neither do you.
> 
> Good GMs invest time, thought, and prep into a campaign, particularly one that is intended to run for 50-70 sessions,



Heh - try one that's intended to run for 500-700 (and is now in the 870s). 

My quickie rule-of-thumb is prep time before the campaign starts wants to be about 10% of the projected time the campaign will run.  So, for a projected 10-year campaign, a year of prep is justified.  If the campaign's projected out for 10 months, a month of prep will do.


Jd Smith1 said:


> I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.



Worth asking about.  Who here has run any campaign that's gone longer than five years or 300 sessions?

For those who said "me", is/was this your usual MO or is/was it an exception?


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure, or elf-like people of one kind or another, or a culture that is tuned toward what the player wants out of playing an elf. No way to know without having the conversation.



The player insisted they be able to play an elf. They refused a human with elf-like tendencies. The setting was humans only so no other elf-like people were available, just humans. They insisted they be allowed to play an elf because the core rules of the system we were tentatively supposed to use has elf as a playable race. The player completely refused to play a human, they would only play an elf.

What compromise could there be?

Don't worry I'm happy with the outcome as the player displayed several personality traits that lead me to believe they would be a "problem player" in the future. The other players confirmed my suspicions in later conversations after the player stormed off.

Bonus for me as I easily convinced the group to abandon D&D and use a different system more suited to running a GoT pastiche. The only hangup is that I now have a group that is unfamiliar with the system I will be using. Bonus though, as I find those new to a system can often be convinced to just ignore it and focus on describing what their character is doing. We will see I guess, two of the players have some familiarity with non-D&D games, so at least the whole group won't be stuck in a D&D only mindset.

Another bonus is that the ousted player already found a spot in a different game and, I was told, really is going to play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle! Honestly I don't think I could run a D&D game with a Turtle Person in it and not constantly be laughing and making TMNT jokes.

So good for the ousted player, they will be far happier in their new group! Good for me cause I avoided having to use D&D, a system I really do not like! Good for my group as we can now play the campaign we all wanted to! Good for everyone!

See, sometimes not compromising and giving a player the boot works out for the best! Yay!

Also, I did compromise on my "no magic users" policy. I didn't want to have the PCs using magic right away. However one of the new players really likes mages, so we compromised. He agreed to only have subtle magical abilities that could not be used in a combat situation, so I allowed him to play a magic user. Bonus Fact, the magic user in my group is also the second best swordsman, second only to one of the Knights, but ahead of the other Knight and all the Nobles! Yay! Not using D&D opens up a whole world of character possibilities that absolutely can't happen in a D&D game. Yay! Diversity!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 24, 2020)

zarionofarabel said:


> Don't worry I'm happy with the outcome



Respectfully, I wasn’t worried. The thread has grown into a discussion that is much bigger than the OP example.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Dec 24, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Respectfully, I wasn’t worried. The thread has grown into a discussion that is much bigger than the OP example.



Well in that case I'm glad I posted this so it could foster a deeper discussion. Yay me!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 24, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I think the major disconnect here is that you and your master have never seen a long-term campaign with the proper amount of prep.




"You've just never had it done _right_," is one of the most condescending approaches to get people to accept a proposition ever devised.  It works as well for gaming as it does for, say, durian.

Singular views of "proper" amount to OneTrueWayism.  There are more ways to play the game well than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


----------

