Yeeeaaaahhh--you and i wouldn't play well together. How about this--because for various reasons certain spells are disallowed and gaining spells is an adventure arc in and of itself in my campaign world. Probably not the best idea--we eventually worked out a compromise where he would let me know which spells he wanted to research and develop and we worked out a mechanic where he could do that. But again--my cleric players weren't at all happy when i suggested all spells listen in the book would not be available to them either. it is stated at the beginning-it is world specific. Even so--My fighter characters need to adventure to gain their improved or magical weapons--but my mages just automatically gain the ability to out-damage any fighter in the party without any sort of sacrifice or expectation? Fine that's the RAW--but i generally find most of my players like many different levels of challenge and reward-not just kill the monster loot the corpse. We find it adds to the experience rather than subtracts from it-but its obviously not for everyone.
Rocketman, I understand the desire to create multi-leveled challenges for the game. I can even accept that from time to time it can be fun to have even the search for a new spell become a side-quest.
Would you be willing to concede that there are many ways of providing challenge to the PC party beyond "kill the monster and loot the corpse"? And some, perhaps even the majority, of those challenges don't require the PCs to perform specific activities just to enable their base class abilities?
In my current campaign the PC party has to kill and loot plenty of monsters, but they are also having to mediate a truce between decades long feuding families, figure out a complex puzzle to locate a necessary item, figure out which of the main NPCs are being misled into working against them, and which NPCs are actually actively engaged with the enemy, all while also trying to arrange a marriage that will, hopefully end the feud permanently.
I guess adding additional challenges just for the characters to unlock their abilities doesn't seem necessary to me.
|
Using movie analogies in RPG arguments gives me such a pain in me hole.
The reason Bruce Willis lives is because it is a movie that is designed to keep the main character alive so you will pay money and watch the movie. RPGs that envolve dice rolling do not function that way by default. Can you do this? Yes of course you can but that's not the nature of the game.
If we put Bruce in an RPG then he does have a chance to fail and die.
Anyway, back on topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using movie analogies in RPG arguments gives me such a pain in me hole.
The reason Bruce Willis lives is because it is a movie that is designed to keep the main character alive so you will pay money and watch the movie. RPGs that envolve dice rolling do not function that way by default. Can you do this? Yes of course you can but that's not the nature of the game.
If we put Bruce in an RPG then he does have a chance to fail and die.
Anyway, back on topic.
So long as the game includes the concept of collaborating to tell a story, story-telling analogies such as referencing movies, books, TV shows or video games are completely relevant since people will attempt to reproduce the feel of their favorite story.
I've had this issue in one of my games so I have a little bit to add.
I had a player with a halfling character (thief type) who decided that when the leveled they wanted a race restricted class (not normally allowed for halflings) which in the rules indicated that the specific race in mind could teach to others. Without ever having seen a member of this race nor been in the specific environment that the presitige class was dependant on nor having used the specialized weapons of the class, the player insisted that by RAW he should be able to take the class. When I, as the DM, asked for something to support having it in the game, they replied that it was in the rules and I didn't need to be an ass and disallow it. He refused to come up with a backstory and mocked the allowance that I had made for someone else at the table to play an unusual (but not mostly race and environment restricted) class by means of creating a backstory. When I offered to help create an in game reason for him being able to meet said race and train in said class, the player indicated that the rest of the group would suffer because we should not have to waste precious game time playing out an extra encounter or adventure just so he could take a class. (The rest of the group was excited by the possibility and agreed to do this for this player.) The player refused. The player is no longer at my table as he decided his quitting our group was better for everyone involved.
From what I've read of this thread, it appears I'm too much of a control freak as a DM.
Seppuku, I've honestly never found myself refereeing for someone like that. Because I screen my players in advance -- if you spend an hour over lunch with someone before inviting them to the table, you can solve 90% of these sorts of problems before they ever come up. Like AD said earlier, some people are just dicks, and they're likely to be that way about everything, not just multiclassing.
The advantage to this approach is that I don't have to be a control freak.
No.
My players make whatever they want. Levels are an abstraction for development. Mechanics are simply the means they use to do the cool stuff. Each of the GMs at my table feel this way (3-way rotation).
Case in point: my tengu has 2 levels in monk, but is wearing full plate, and nobody really cares.
Most people I've gamed with have been friends, of mine or of someone else in the group. We've known them, but that doesn't make all the gaming issues go away. It also makes it harder to kick people out.
No need to screen existing friends; I've never had a problem with them actively trying to be dicks, as in the example given. Then again, my friends generally aren't six-year-olds -- they're grown-ups with jobs and stuff, and generally too old and too busy to be wandering around with boulder-sized chips on their shoulders.
If someone is recommended by an existing player, their behavior reflects on the judgment of their sponsor, so to speak. Most people don't recommend acquaintances that they know will be willfully disruptive, and for the most part, friends of friends have worked out really well (I'm thinking of Mundane's friend [screen name, if any, unknown] in particular, who was a valuable addition to the game).
From what I've read of this thread, it appears I'm too much of a control freak as a DM.
LOL, the only comment I've seen that promoted charges of having control issues was the dude who wanted three paragraphs of pre-requisites including a full backstory update on the character's family going back generations and an extended period of magical power manifestation before allowing the player to multi-class into sorcerer.
So your exaggeration is noted. FWIW Seppuku, your experience here is a far cry from the examples that we were discussing. Prestige classes and racially specific classes, feats or abilities are clearly outside of the scope of the this discussion.
It doesn't sound to me like you were a "control freak" in this case, but I also find it incredibly hard to believe that a player who acted in the manner you described about picking up a racial class wasn't a dick in other areas as well. Which, as was pointed out above, is usually the case. "Not playing with a dick" is not the same thing as "evicting a player because they didn't give a GM approved explanation for multi-classing."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I weren't a control-freak, I wouldn't be willing to put in the large amount of extra time and effort it takes to be a GM (even when using published adventures), as compared to being a player. For that extra time and effort, I get to control my game.
IMO, BTW, GMs that aren't controls freaks are almost always the most mediocre GMs. The worst GMs are usually control-freaks, and the best GMs are usually control-freaks. The very concept of "GM" (being literally the only conduit between the in-game environment and the players' perception of it) renders this almost entirely self-evident.
Jeff, I think the issue is not about being in control, but what the GM tries to control.
This goes back to the social contract of the GM owning the game world, but the players owning the character.
There is natural give and take where these two come together. The more a GM attempts to assert control over the player's character, or a player attempts to assert control over the GM's world, the more friction arises.
There are way too many aspects of being a GM to say that this one area determines which are "best" or "worst" but in this single area it is my opinion that the "best" GMs and the best players are the ones that are keenly aware of the potential difficulties navigating this GM world/Player character interface can create, and who tread very, very delicately when in that space.
|
|
Jeff, I think the issue is not about being in control, but what the GM tries to control.
The disconnect here is that, to paraphrase Yoda, there is no "trying to control."
A GM, ultimately, has control of everything in a game-world.
The players, collectively, have control of everything outside the game-world (meaning the existence of the game).
Now having control is not the same as asserting control. In only an infinitesimal number of potential decisions by players have I ever felt the need to assert the control I have.
But the argument that, as GM, I don't have that control -- i.e., "this character belongs to me, the player" -- is just flatly wrong. As a GM, even after you've decided you've had enough of me, and exercised the power you actually have (to leave the game), I still control your character ... you don't think he's just going to BAMF out of in-game existence, do you?
That's why statements like "as a player, I own my character and you have no control over the advancement choices I can make" make me laugh out loud.
That's why statements like "as a player, I own my character and you have no control over the advancement choices I can make" make me laugh out loud.
Hmmm.... well that's definitely not an example of treading delicately in that space is it?
If that is actually the tone and approach you take as a GM in your games Jeff (which I strongly doubt) I would play in your group.
Just as long as it took to find another group with a GM who didn't think tact was just not saying stuff he thinks is true.
Oooh, ouch.
Oh, sorry. Forgot my smiley.
:-)
What percentage of all of the above do you think reach the height of their profession because of training rather than in game experience, or in war and battle experience?What percentage of professional athletes, fighters and soldiers do you think would recommend not training regularly with a coach/trainer/sensei/mentor?
I would suggest an infinitesimally small amount.
The large majority of all three of those things train/exercise their asses off every day.
The minority that doesn't usually never makes it big (athletes), rarely wins fights (martial artists), or dies (soldiers).
A GM, ultimately, has control of everything in a game-world.
But the argument that, as GM, I don't have that control -- i.e., "this character belongs to me, the player" -- is just flatly wrong. As a GM, even after you've decided you've had enough of me, and exercised the power you actually have (to leave the game), I still control your character ... you don't think he's just going to BAMF out of in-game existence, do you?
That's why statements like "as a player, I own my character and you have no control over the advancement choices I can make" make me laugh out loud.
This is ludicrous in the extreme.
You can create a NPC with the same name as the PC I just walked out with. You might, with a good enough memory, strong enough retention of the rules, or even a printed copy of the character sheet, be able to build him mechanically identical. That means nothing.
I can print a picture of the Mona Lisa off with my computer. I guess I own the Mona Lisa.
A GM, ultimately, has control of everything in a game-world.
But the argument that, as GM, I don't have that control -- i.e., "this character belongs to me, the player" -- is just flatly wrong. As a GM, even after you've decided you've had enough of me, and exercised the power you actually have (to leave the game), I still control your character ... you don't think he's just going to BAMF out of in-game existence, do you?
That's why statements like "as a player, I own my character and you have no control over the advancement choices I can make" make me laugh out loud.
This is ludicrous in the extreme.
You can create a NPC with the same name as the PC I just walked out with. You might, with a good enough memory, strong enough retention of the rules, or even a printed copy of the character sheet, be able to build him mechanically identical. That means nothing.
I can print a picture of the Mona Lisa off with my computer. I guess I own the Mona Lisa.
I once had a DM dictate that players were not allowed to leave the house with their character sheets. Character sheets were required to stay with the DM and were handed out each gaming session.
From what I've read of this thread, it appears I'm too much of a control freak as a DM.LOL, the only comment I've seen that promoted charges of having control issues was the dude who wanted three paragraphs of pre-requisites including a full backstory update on the character's family going back generations and an extended period of magical power manifestation before allowing the player to multi-class into sorcerer.
So your exaggeration is noted. FWIW Seppuku, your experience here is a far cry from the examples that we were discussing. Prestige classes and racially specific classes, feats or abilities are clearly outside of the scope of the this discussion.
It doesn't sound to me like you were a "control freak" in this case, but I also find it incredibly hard to believe that a player who acted in the manner you described about picking up a racial class wasn't a dick in other areas as well. Which, as was pointed out above, is usually the case. "Not playing with a dick" is not the same thing as "evicting a player because they didn't give a GM approved explanation for multi-classing."
Yes, I was making an example of a bad situation I had at my table and doing some tongue in cheek. My gaming group is made up of friends, and friends of those friends are generally invited and allowed to try out our games. Some people stick and some don't. I have some people in my group who have gamed with me almost weekly for 17 years. This person who gave me trouble was trouble for each DM in the group and also was a problem when given the opportunity to DM. Yes, he was a dick in many things, but also came through in other non-gaming ways that were totally a turn around from the gaming table (volunteered to come over and helped with the remodel of the game room for a day, no one else ever did this). It is hard when friends do non-friend like things in a game.
I think the better point of this is that we are playing a cooperative storytelling game. The DM is setting a framework and everyone else gets to play in the playground the DM creates. There is some structure and some vision that the DM is trying to create for everyone. It should not be a big deal for a player to work with the DM to make his character interact with that world in a way that fits the story tapestry that the DM is trying to weave. Don't force something that doesn't fit down the DMs throat. That isn't cooperation and it isn't condusive to a good story.
|
|
You can create a NPC with the same name as the PC I just walked out with. You might, with a good enough memory, strong enough retention of the rules, or even a printed copy of the character sheet, be able to build him mechanically identical. That means nothing.
Interesting. I'm talking about a character, but for some reason you seem to equate that with a sheet of paper. I'm sure there's something deeper worth exploring there, but no need right now.
The fact remains: the character, should I choose, continues to exist in my game-world, and continues to be within my control as the GM. Just as, when my buddy ran Forgotten Realms, the character of Elminster existed in his game-world, under his control.
The only difference a player makes by leaving, in terms of ultimate control of his character, is that now the character's interactions with the game-world, personality shifts, and mechanical advancement are no longer proposed by the player and permitted (nearly 100 percent of the time) by the GM ... they're actually handled entirely by the GM.
But at that point he's not the same character. If he doesn't act the same way and isn't taking the same advancement path, he's not the same.
You may have made a clone of this character, but it is not the same guy.
Also, you seem like the kind of person there is no way in hell I'd play with. No smiley face.
I also had a DM that dictated that she write the background story for all the PCs. You don't get to pick your character's background, it was given to you.
Interesting. I'm talking about a character, but for some reason you seem to equate that with a sheet of paper. I'm sure there's something deeper worth exploring there, but no need right now.
The fact remains: the character, should I choose, continues to exist in my game-world, and continues to be within my control as the GM.
Then you've completely misunderstood my statement. Take the paper. Keep it. You still have nothing. At best you have a pale facsimile.
The character I created comes and goes with me, whether you have the character sheet or not.
Also, you seem like the kind of person there is no way in hell I'd play with. No smiley face.Is this supposed to be hurtful? Insulting? Precautionary? Useful information, for when you ask to be in my game, without being aware of who I am? I don't get it.
It's supposed to be a statement of fact. From what I've seen in this thread you're one of those people who thinks the GM should have real ultimate power over the game and everyone and everything affiliated with it, and you're spiteful to boot.
|
|
The character I created comes and goes with me, whether you have the character sheet or not.
So you would say that the game-world and the character aren't inextricably linked, I guess?
So you could, for example, take a well-detailed, played-with-nuance PC from the Forgotten Realms and drop it right into, say Eberron, and it's still your character, certainly moreso than the pale facsimile that rat-bastard Forgotten Realms GM is still having do things in his game-world?
Interesting.
Obviously, I disagree, but I don't sense any room for persuasion.
Interesting. I'm talking about a character, but for some reason you seem to equate that with a sheet of paper. I'm sure there's something deeper worth exploring there, but no need right now.
The fact remains: the character, should I choose, continues to exist in my game-world, and continues to be within my control as the GM.
Then you've completely misunderstood my statement. Take the paper. Keep it. You still have nothing. At best you have a pale facsimile.
The character I created comes and goes with me, whether you have the character sheet or not.
I had a DM that would get revenge on players by doing things to their characters. A buddy of mine once quit the game, and the next session all these bad things kept happening to his character. And every so often during the campaign our party would hear of bad things that happened to the character.
I have no doubt that something similar happened to my character when I left the game.
|
|
you're one of those people who thinks the GM should have real ultimate power over the game and everyone and everything affiliated with it
Actually, I specifically and explicitly stated that the GM has ultimate control in-game, but that the players (collectively) have ultimate control over the game itself, if only because they can make it cease to exist, whether the GM wants that or not.
and you're spiteful to boot.
And yet I'm not the one insulting somebody. Interesting.
you're one of those people who thinks the GM should have real ultimate power over the game and everyone and everything affiliated with itActually, I specifically and explicitly stated that the GM has ultimate control in-game, but that the players (collectively) have ultimate control over the game itself, if only because they can make it cease to exist, whether the GM wants that or not.
Semantics. "You have the power to leave" is just the nice way of saying "My way or GTFO".
and you're spiteful to boot.And yet I'm not the one insulting somebody. Interesting.
It's not an insult. You've as much as said "If you leave my game I'll take your character and f~#$ around with it because I CAN and you can't stop me". Sounds spiteful to me.
|
|
The one you leave behind isn't the real PC, since you're not running him.
The one you take with you isn't the real one either, since he's been ripped away from his history and his friends and enemies.
You can bring a similar character into another game, if there's a GM willing to work him in, but he's not going to be the same.
So it sounds like you and I can, at the very least, agree that "the player owns the character" isn't ultimately true, right?
|
|
It's not an insult. You've as much as said "If you leave my game I'll take your character and f@+& around with it because I CAN and you can't stop me". Sounds spiteful to me.
I see. Well, given that I never said that, "as much as" or even a little bit, I don't see much point in trying to change your mind about any conclusions you've reached based on those non-things I non-said. Have a good day.
But the argument that, as GM, I don't have that control -- i.e., "this character belongs to me, the player" -- is just flatly wrong. As a GM, even after you've decided you've had enough of me, and exercised the power you actually have (to leave the game), I still control your character ... you don't think he's just going to BAMF out of in-game existence, do you?
That's why statements like "as a player, I own my character and you have no control over the advancement choices I can make" make me laugh out loud.
Alright, true story: I'm running my home game, and one of the players (a good DM in his own right) finds that he has enough outside gaming commitments that he can't make my game anymore. No harm, no foul. We're mid-adventure, and the BBEG is "onto" the PCs at this point, and the party has split up. The remaining PCs find the ex-player's PC dead, not out of spite at all, but to maintain continuity with the story. I very temporarily took control of the version of that PC in that particular game.
Meanwhile, for all I know, that players also took the same character and had a long and happy gaming campaign with him somewhere else. I kind of hope he did; Rim was a very interesting character, and I'd love to read about his further exploits some day. Just because he "dies" in one campaign doesn't mean he can't be used somewhere else.
Both can be true. "Canon" in a home game is for suckers.
The character I created comes and goes with me, whether you have the character sheet or not.So you would say that the game-world and the character aren't inextricably linked, I guess?
So you could, for example, take a well-detailed, played-with-nuance PC from the Forgotten Realms and drop it right into, say Eberron, and it's still your character, certainly moreso than the pale facsimile that rat-bastard Forgotten Realms GM is still having do things in his game-world?
Interesting.
Obviously, I disagree, but I don't sense any room for persuasion.
You can pretend to own anything you want. You can name your NPC's Frodo Baggins and Luke Skywalker and Lara Croft and Hamlet and Bugs Bunny and Stephen Daedalus if you want. You still have nothing. None of those characters belong to you. Nothing you do will make that true. Click on my profile. Drop The Crusader into any game you wish. His stats are all there. He still won't be yours.
|
|
But the argument that, as GM, I don't have that control -- i.e., "this character belongs to me, the player" -- is just flatly wrong. As a GM, even after you've decided you've had enough of me, and exercised the power you actually have (to leave the game), I still control your character ... you don't think he's just going to BAMF out of in-game existence, do you?
That's why statements like "as a player, I own my character and you have no control over the advancement choices I can make" make me laugh out loud.
And you translated that to (emphasis mine):
"If you leave my game I'll take your character and f@!& around with it because I CAN and you can't stop me"."
Again, interesting.
In the games I play in, the character(s) of a player who has quit (or simply does not show up) no longer plays a role in the game. The other players may talk about the character, but the DM basically "forgets" him. He wandered off somewhere and is never heard from again unless and until the player comes back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the better point of this is that we are playing a cooperative storytelling game.
I am right there with you so far Seppuku.
The DM is setting a framework and everyone else gets to play in the playground the DM creates.
Oops... now we are starting to diverge, at least as I am understanding what you are saying. I am with you up through "the DM is setting a framework..." but when you get to "everyone else gets to play in the playground" I start looking for where you started to diverge from my view of things. Just the term "gets to play" already implies some sort of GM benevolence that the player should be grateful for. And I don't see that at all. It's a group of people playing together as I see it. The GM "gets to play" just as much as anyone else in the room. And then you get to "the DM creates." But just above that you said it was a "cooperative story" but now it's one the "GM creates?" Nope I don't see it that way. The endeavor is one which the GM and players create together. Without a GM, the players can't play, but without players the GM can't GM. There is this constant expression on these boards that somehow the GM is more important than the players, and I simply don't agree with that. The GM is in a different role. It is a role that has more effort behind it, and by design more authority, but as Spiderman is fond of saying, "with great power comes great responsibility." I seem to see a lot of comments about the power of the GM, but not so much about their responsibility.
There is some structure and some vision that the DM is trying to create for everyone.
Again, the GM and players create it together. If the GM is running to some secret script that is revealed as the GM decrees to the players, that's a problem. The players should be plugged into what the GM is trying to do, at least at a level where the players can decide if that's the sort of game they actually want to play. This is why players go berserk if the GM arbitrarily captures and strips their characters naked without their consent. There are limits to the GM's vision that need to be addressed with the group before certain things are done. That's because, again, it's a collaborative story, not a story created by the GM where the players are merely pawns awaiting the manipulations of their puppet master.
It should not be a big deal for a player to work with the DM to make his character interact with that world in a way that fits the story tapestry that the DM is trying to weave.
And the best way to achieve this is for the GM and players to cooperate and set boundaries, explain story goals and set table expectations. That way a player can, in advance, decide whether the game is a good fit for them or not. In general for every "the player should" that anyone can think up, I can think up of an equal but opposite "the GM should" corollary that describes the GM's responsibility to the player. I could call this the "RPG Rule of Reciprocity". The character and the GM should work together to achieve story goals. Players should not be assumed to automatically be subject to the GM's whims when it comes to their characters.
Don't force something that doesn't fit down the DMs throat. That isn't cooperation and it isn't condusive to a good story.
Neither is it cooperation for the GM to force something that doesn't fit down the player's throat.
More on the "forcing down the GM's throat. I have repeatedly asked this question and gotten no answer, so I'll ask it one last time.
How is it "forcing anything down the GM's throat" for a player to say "I really don't have a good explanation for wanting to take a level of sorcerer, it just seems like a good idea."
This is what this whole discussion has been about. The idea that the player has to "make it make sense" or they are "forcing it down the GM's throat." How is that? It's not like the player is saying "He found a magic jewel that psychically imprinted the skills and abilities of a wizard into his mind and materialized a spellbook, and if you don't like it, tough titties dude!" The player is just saying "I don't have a good story for it." But that is being called "forcing it down the GM's throat.
I still just don't get that. What the hell does it mean?
I once had a DM dictate that players were not allowed to leave the house with their character sheets. Character sheets were required to stay with the DM and were handed out each gaming session.
I've played in a similar group. Not a big deal to leave the character with the DM except for those off game-time attempts to level up. Make two copies of the character and leave one if someone feels the need. My players often voluntarily leave their characters with me, although it is never required.
Also, with a player leaving the table permanently, they are welcome to take their piece of paper. It doesn't not impact the DM at all. In the mind of the DM they just becaame an NPC and they become part of telling the story. In my halfling friend's case, his PC quickly became a corpse which became the start of a minor murder mystery for the other players to solve. They had incentive to solve the crime as it was one of their good friends.
|
Man. I thought this thread was over.
Alright, true story: I'm running my home game, and one of the players (a good DM in his own right) finds that he has enough outside gaming commitments that he can't make my game anymore. No harm, no foul. We're mid-adventure, and the BBEG is "onto" the PCs at this point, and the party has split up. The remaining PCs find the ex-player's PC dead, not out of spite at all, but to maintain continuity with the story. I very temporarily took control of the version of that PC in that particular game.
I remember that! I did something similar with a halfling rogue.
|
|
In the games I play in, the character(s) of a player who has quit (or simply does not show up) no longer plays a role in the game. The other players may talk about the character, but the DM basically "forgets" him. He wandered off somewhere and is never heard from again unless and until the player comes back.
I think that's pretty common. It happens that way sometimes in our games, but not often. Usually (but not always) in our groups, the GM will work to make the "transition into the background" less abrupt. Very occasionally the character continues to play a significant role in the campaign, depending on circumstances like how engaged in the world the player made him, how well-liked the character was by the GM and players, and how important the simple fact of the character's continued presence is to the ongoing story.
|
|
[GM] is a role that has more effort behind it, and by design more authority, but as Spiderman is fond of saying, "with great power comes great responsibility." I seem to see a lot of comments about the power of the GM, but not so much about their responsibility.
Even if that were true (the lack of talk about GM responsibility), wouldn't it be because it's self-evident? The GM has to provide the very existence of a game the players want to play in; if there's no game, or only one that unsustainable in terms of players, all of these issues don't even exist.
And are you really not remembering at least five different people in these threads -- often specifically engaging with you -- talking about the need for the GM to "work with the player" or other words to that effect? Or people talking about the GM's job? (Even if they're wrong, it's still talking about the GM's responsibility.)
There is plenty of discussion about GM responsibility. I'm not sure why you're not seeing it.
For what it's worth, though, in another thread (the "running away" one, I think) I actually posted an explicit list -- partial, but explicit -- of my responsibilities (and expectations) as a GM.