I've been playtesting my own game and the following incident occured.

In one scene the protagonists were staying the night at a religious compound. A player who was roleplaying a renegade (ex-muskateer) was woken by crashing sound and went to investigate. As the Chronicler (GM) I decided that we should find out if his character is successful in his investigation. We discussed why we thought his character might succeed, some reasons we thought that his character might fail, what would be interesting for the story, and he told us how his character was going to go about investigating the noise. After this brief discussion we all added various amounts of coloured beads to a bag (depending on what they thought should probably happen) and the player roleplaying the renegade drew three of them at random. The result of the draw was a failure with positive consequences. Which basically means that the player got to narrate how his character failed in his investigation, but something good happened for his character nevertheless.

So the player narrated a scene where his character got lost and accidently stumbled in on a priest having sex with a boy.  At this point, I stepped in and used my authority as GM to veto the scene unless the player had a damn good reason for it. The player claimed he was going to blackmail the priest and rescue the boy. But it was pretty obvious to most of us at the table that the player wanted to narrate the scene because he thought it would be amusing to have such a shocking and controversial scene. As far as humour goes, I think that nothing is off limits. But there's a time and a place for all kinds of humour and this wasn't it.

My decision to veto his narration resulted in a sulk that lasted for the rest of the session and soured the experience for some of the other players. It was as though I had stepped over the line by refusing to allow a player complete freedom in how he narrated his characters involvement in the scene.

The rules of my game states that the GM can veto players narration and story suggestions if they do no fit in with the setting, theme, or if they contradict facts established in earlier scenes. Although the GM has this veto, the GM cannot tell a player how to narrate their own characters involvement in the scene. There is also rules for changing the GM during play. This means if players feel the GM is abusing his/her authority or the GM or players just feel like having a change they can go ahead and get a new GM  from amongst the players at the table.

Keeping the players sense of humour aside, do I need to change my rules about GM's veto? I like the idea of players having freedom to narrate their own characters involvement in a scene. But I feel that if a player narrates an inapproriate scene (e.g. a laser cannon being used in a high fantasy setting) someone should be able to say that it is not allowed.

Should I get rid of the GM's veto and give the players total narrative freedom?

Hi Graham,

If the GM can veto a players input then they can indeed tell that player how to narrate. Saying you can't narrate like that, is telling someone how they can narrate. The mechanic for kicking out the GM and electing another sounds socially awkward and judgmental to me. Has that option ever been used?

I'd also like to discuss what happened more. Was the player crossing a line for you, or were you trying to prevent them from crossing someone else's line? Is your game about examining issues, or was this experience abnormal?

If your game is about examining issues, you'll want to consider whether the game is; nobody gets hurt, or I will not abandon you. In a nobody gets hurt game, there is typically a BS rule of some sort. In a I will not abandon you game there is no BS rule, it's the kind of game where you expect to have buttons pushed. Here's something that will go into a little more detail. Now in a nobody gets hurt game the person who is denying another players addition to the fiction is the one who is having a line crossed, not necessarily the G.M. This means the GM doesn't have to be a mind reader, and the denial has more weight because someone is saying this will hurt me, by using that denial.

I think GM Fiat can work alright for a game that's more about exploring the setting, or characters, or overcoming challenge, like a traditional roleplaying game. GM Fiat can only be as good as the GM though. If the game is about examining issues, even if that examination is meant to be done through humor, I think GM Fiat is less useful.

It's not really a question of GM veto, it's a question of the rules come before even that, in the grander social contract. For example, if there's an agreement at the table that no one brings knives to the game, and a player does and then starts waving it around saying "Well, my character does this!!!", using GM veto to say "No he doesn't!" is really, really missing the point. He's broken a rule that comes well ahead of GM veto.

Being a bit blunt, but I think you've missed the point here in just the same way by using GM veto. But I'll also say I bet that I'd have done the same thing in the heat of the moment.

I'm not sure if you had any prior agreements about this hot topic. I doubt it. But it was the time to raise the point "Whoa, guys, I just realised we didn't discuss exactly what sort of topics we can have in game! I certainly don't like this pedophilia thing, but maybe you guys did come for a game that deals with it. In which case I should have checked first, sorry - but I have to say, even though I didn't check, I can't go on with this as part of the game. Sorry to stuff things up!"

It's easier to phrase it as your own mistake than rely on others taking responsibility at just that moment. But now I'm just getting into diplomatic suggestions. Basicly it's time to discuss the bigger picture of the social contract, and where a mistake was made (again, that discussion goes smoothly if it's not about laying blame - ie, you take command and declare it your own mistake).