|
I recently joined a local group for arranging games in my area, they handle all sorts of gaming systems, and have over a thousand people. It is a pretty awesome group that I've known of peripherally for years, and I thought I would join. As I was roaming their site, which includes some great stuff for Host/Participant responsibilities (since we are dealing with a large slice of humanity, that normalized expectations are a good idea) I came across two pages, tips for GMs and tips for players.
The GM stuff struck me all as pretty reasonable, normal stuff about saying yes to players, and facilitating creativity and setting a scene, not abusing your captives by bludgeoning them with your epic story. (It didn't phrase it like that, its just a lot of of these suggestions ring loudly to me as I was once privilege to their antithesis, and strive in my own GMing to never fall pray to my own hubris.
The player stuff is what caught my eye, specifically this:
Colour inside the lines, playing a character or strategy appropriate to genre, past events, and tone.
As a GM, I've subtly (in hindsight my subtle may be someone else's overt) tried to encourage that sentiment, by prefacing a new campaign with things like the AP players guide, or some what constrained character building rules. I've also always tried to give players a rational for what I'm doing. The most obvious example was for Carrion Crown I restricted players to a 15 point build (I recognize that the APs are traditionally designed with 15 points in mind but historically our group does 20, so 15 is a noticeable change to them.) The rational is that I want the characters to be scared for their life, and feel a little more moral, and 15 points helped the players get that. (tangent, I have a 15 point build monk in our party that proves to me that 15 points is more then enough for any monk.)
So, to quit my rambling, is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request? and corollary is it ever okay for a GM, or a gaming group by mutual accent to install an electric fence on a few of those lines to enforce compliance? And how can it be done without hard feelings.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telling players to "color inside the lines", to me, is a reasonable request. But I have seen a number of comments saying something similar to "this stifles the creativity of the player and only a dictatorial GM would dare restrict the greatness of those who deigned to grace him with their presence" on these boards. Basically, player entitlement doesn't exist, but GM entitlement is a real and pervasive problem.
I am all for giving players lots of options, and allowing creativity to flow. But is there less creativity within proposed guidelines? I don't think so. But that is just me, and I am sure my opinion on that subject is rather rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Colour inside the lines most definitely. There are plenty of players who respect that.
I think it's a reasonable request particularly when you want set up particular types of games. For example, you might want to run a Four-color/Silver Age comics style superhero games where anti-social characters and much of the grittyization of the 1990s would be unwelcome and genre disrupting. Following the advice of Scott Evil might be effective, but it would break the genre understandings and modes that a spy like Austin Powers relies on to not be dead meat at the first setback.
That said, I do think a caveat could be added that coloring outside the lines can be acceptable on a limited and occasional basis. You just have to be careful lest the snapping of Gwen Stacy's neck ushers in the end days of the Silver Age.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, to quit my rambling, is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request? and corollary is it ever okay for a GM, or a gaming group by mutual accent to install an electric fence on a few of those lines to enforce compliance? And how can it be done without hard feelings.
I think it's good to get all the players and the GM on the same page when it comes to the tone of the campaign, and this seems to be the purpose of that.
In the past when I've run adventure paths, I usually prefaced it with a comment like: "This is an adventure path, so it runs primarily in one direction. So it's up to you folks to create characters who want to move in that one direction as a cooperating party, and I'll work with you to make that as smooth as possible. If you think that's too restrictive, then this may not be the right game for you."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to note that it doesn't say which colour. :)
That is the important part: the players should be able to do with their characters whatever they wish, but if it breaks verisimilitude for the other people playing the game it's inappropriate. To me, this is just a guideline to remind players that they are not the only one at the table. Everyone is there to have fun and should play their characters with a least some respect for the other players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, to quit my rambling, is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request? and corollary is it ever okay for a GM, or a gaming group by mutual accent to install an electric fence on a few of those lines to enforce compliance? And how can it be done without hard feelings.
As I've said in a certain other thread, it depends on the group.
For some, those lines will come naturally and people wouldn't even think of crossing them.
For others, the lines need to be enforced a little, and people will enjoy the game more because of it.
And for some, having those lines there at all will ruin the game for them.
It's always a reasonable request. What happens when people refuse that request is where table variance comes into effect. My advice is to request it and see how people respond. It's not wrong to relax the lines if you want the players to play, and it's equally not wrong to decide you don't want to play with that player (or those players) if their ideas and yours don't mesh.
Play with your players, not against them. Color anywhere you please.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Play with your players, not against them. Color anywhere you please.
Play WITH your GM, not against him; color in reasonable places.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play with your players, not against them. Color anywhere you please.Play WITH your GM, not against him; color in reasonable places.
In a game with plane-hopping, talking animals, dragons and magic, I use the word "reasonable" sparingly.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally don't restrict my players. The one time I gave them pregens, though, with prewritten backstories, we had more fun than we'd ever had in the past.
The funny thing is, sometimes a PC is a lot more fun when he or she actually fits in the game. ;D
|
|
So, to quit my rambling, is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request?Reasonable.
The player always has the option of not playing in a campaign they aren't interested in playing in
Totally agree with that sentiment, but in some cases the group including such a player has made this choice of the campaign prior to character generation. To stick with our metaphor, if it is the players who chose which colouring to colour mutually, say picking a tone or a specific AP, is it the GMs role to police that decision once made? I certainly don't think that we should create our characters by committee, but who is the arbiter of the lines?
(...) is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request? and corollary is it ever...
Definitely reasonable to me. I think the important points have been made:
1) players should have some say into "which lines" are going to be used to colour in. Players can make requests, or else DM can propose something and players are free to join or decline.
2) Players are still in control of which colour(s) they use.
|
|
In a game with plane-hopping, talking animals, dragons and magic, I use the word "reasonable" sparingly.Play with your players, not against them. Color anywhere you please.Play WITH your GM, not against him; color in reasonable places.
But I think that is the key, the game "Pathfinder" is that, or better said it is a tool box with those tools in it. Not all settings are assembled with all the tools.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a game with plane-hopping, talking animals, dragons and magic, I use the word "reasonable" sparingly.Play with your players, not against them. Color anywhere you please.Play WITH your GM, not against him; color in reasonable places.
Ah. The everpresent 'but … DRAGONS!" Argument.
Just because some fantastic elements exist does not mean all fantastic things should
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why in my version of the story, Dorothy is a Gunslinger!
"Whoa! You killed her! How is it so?
I thought only water could kill the witch foe!""I thought so too, until that house killed one dead.
Then I thought, 'We're carrying rifles!' so I shot her in the head."
"In the head?"
"In the head!"
"Well ding-dong everybody, another witch is dead!"
Totally agree with that sentiment, but in some cases the group including such a player has made this choice of the campaign prior to character generation. To stick with our metaphor, if it is the players who chose which colouring to colour mutually, say picking a tone or a specific AP, is it the GMs role to police that decision once made? I certainly don't think that we should create our characters by committee, but who is the arbiter of the lines?
If everyone is on the same page at the beginning of the campaign, and one person starts to drift, then I assume you would have a quick discussion to make sure everyone is still on the same page. If not, then presumably you have to have a more serious discussion about whether to change the campaign or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, to quit my rambling, is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request? and corollary is it ever okay for a GM, or a gaming group by mutual accent to install an electric fence on a few of those lines to enforce compliance? And how can it be done without hard feelings.As I've said in a certain other thread, it depends on the group.
For some, those lines will come naturally and people wouldn't even think of crossing them.
For others, the lines need to be enforced a little, and people will enjoy the game more because of it.
And for some, having those lines there at all will ruin the game for them.
It's always a reasonable request. What happens when people refuse that request is where table variance comes into effect. My advice is to request it and see how people respond. It's not wrong to relax the lines if you want the players to play, and it's equally not wrong to decide you don't want to play with that player (or those players) if their ideas and yours don't mesh.
Yup. Communication is how we get things done, and when you start out explaining the lines you'd like coloured in and why, people are more likely to respond well. Or at least have advance notice on which to freak out on. But usually respond well.
So, to quit my rambling, is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request? and corollary is it ever...
Well, that depends on the players and how narrow those lines are. I like wide lines -- not Rifts wide -- but anything approaching 'core-only' lines, and I start feeling claustrophobic. But hey, it's the DM's game, and I can always leave.
I don't see what a group's accents have to do with anything, but I like Irish brogues myself.
Just to add another voice to the pile, yes, it's perfectly acceptable when advertising a game to say "this is my game, please respect it's conventions".
It's also awesome when the GM in question is willing to listen & make reasonable accommodation for challenges to the conventions. When handled with mutual respect and open communication, this can actually reinforce the norms that the GM was hoping to abide by while giving that character an easy way to stand out. And isn't the point of PCs to stand out within the world?
"Within the world" is the key phrase here. Yes, they are supposed to stand out ... Within the constraints of the world in which they exist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Colour in the lines" that's got to be the best metaphor for the style I try to present the players when running an AP or one-shot.
If I were to run a homebrew, I would probably solicit the players to help me figure out what the lines are in the first place but once the tone and themes are set I'd be wary of changing them too much after the fact.
|
|
Totally agree with that sentiment, but in some cases the group including such a player has made this choice of the campaign prior to character generation. To stick with our metaphor, if it is the players who chose which colouring to colour mutually, say picking a tone or a specific AP, is it the GMs role to police that decision once made? I certainly don't think that we should create our characters by committee, but who is the arbiter of the lines?If everyone is on the same page at the beginning of the campaign, and one person starts to drift, then I assume you would have a quick discussion to make sure everyone is still on the same page. If not, then presumably you have to have a more serious discussion about whether to change the campaign or not.
Man people are complex... I think this is often the answer to a lot of these kinds of questions on the board, and I would even say the right answer in most cases.
I see this kind of discussion being the hardest in some ways, while overt antisocial behaviour is to some degree subjective (referring to all the cases where the discussion is "player X is doing X at our table can I kick them out" threads) it is I think a great deal more subjective when your are critiquing another players creativity.
For another player or a GM the risk of lets just say pointing to the mutually agreed lines, and saying "I think you crossed them" can come off very judgementally to a player who may feel otherwise.
The GM stuff struck me all as pretty reasonable, normal stuff about saying yes to players, and facilitating creativity and setting a scene, not abusing your captives by bludgeoning them with your epic story.
If the DM is willing to accede to all that, I'll for sure color inside the lines (except where I mess up) in return, because their lines have a lot of room inside them for people to color in. A lot of GMs aren't willing to do a tenth of that, though. Some even say, "I'm doing you a favor by DMing, so in exchange, you have to do everything my way." I don't join those games, and take my crayons elsewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll color inside your lines as long as those lines actually draw a picture and not a box.
The GM stuff struck me all as pretty reasonable, normal stuff about saying yes to players, and facilitating creativity and setting a scene, not abusing your captives by bludgeoning them with your epic story.If the DM is willing to accede to all that, I'll for sure color inside the lines (except where I mess up) in return, because their lines have a lot of room inside them for people to color in. A lot of GMs aren't willing to do a tenth of that, though. Some even say, "I'm doing you a favor by DMing, so in exchange, you have to do everything my way." I don't join those games, and take my crayons elsewhere.
Its more like, Kirth, 'I have a few rules, but outside of those have fun."
As opposed to players that seem to want to sing "signs, signs, everywhere the signs."
A lot of people remarked on how all four players wanted to play weird stuff. I'm pretty sure that was more done for comic effect--the point was that the player who asks to play any of those concepts is going to take the game in a different, perhaps unwanted direction. If all the players do want to play something else, I'd agree that something else should be played, but then their half-ogre won't be a special snowflake.
My point here is that if it hadn't been a fey game, odds are good the hypothetical player wouldn't have wanted to play the human pig farmer.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll color inside your lines as long as those lines actually draw a picture and not a box.It's a big box. A box the size of a room, with real walls and a ceiling and floor. Inside is an orc. And a pie.
Obvious exits are north, south, and Dennis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll color inside your lines as long as those lines actually draw a picture and not a box.It's a big box. A box the size of a room, with real walls and a ceiling and floor. Inside is an orc. And a pie.
Why do I feel like this should be preceded by a gravely voice saying "I'd like to play a game..."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll color inside your lines as long as those lines actually draw a picture and not a box.It's a big box. A box the size of a room, with real walls and a ceiling and floor. Inside is an orc. And a pie.
I befriend the orc and go on wacky buddy comedy adventures with him.
|
|
Related to all of this is the adventure path players guides, they have become increasingly more prescriptive through the campaign traits over the years.
Take Second Darkness as an early example, here you are a couple of adventures who for curiosity sake have cause to be in Riddleport, and by coincidence are all gambling on the same auspicious night.
Now compare that to Carrion Crown, you all are in town for the funeral of a mutual friend, with whom your experience with that friend has shaped you.
Finally WotR, the traits are tightly coupled to your Mythic Path, a later encounter in the AP, and go on to say how if two people have the same trait how they must conjoin their back story, like same deity, siblings, etc. Even if you hand wave and say "your adopted" to explain why your halfling parents had a tiefling, and a goblin as their children, your still are putting the onus on the players to constrain themselves to a shared backstory.
I think we can infer that Paizo supports the notion of lines with in which to colour, so should the GM enforce that prescription by preemptively creating an exhaustive list of shall/shall nots or attempt to shape creative reactively when it seems to be straying.?
It is not just reasonable it is necessary to place lines in which to color. Otherwise all manner of potentially game breaking (for someone) concepts will be dreamed up and cast into a game they have no place in. A player should only be allowed to make unusual characters when they prove their ability to work with others in building toward a fun time for everyone not just selfish fun.
Know your players! Know which ones can handle the freedom and which ones will abuse it.
I vote reasonable...
I do consider the less they need to limit the better a gm I judge them to be though.
That's just me...
I do consider the less they need to limit the better a gm I judge them to be though.
I feel the need to limit is a direct result of the types of players sitting at your table. If a group doesn't have a problem in a certain area then a limit to that area is pointless.
Nothing cracks me up faster then sitting down with a group of players with a handful of notes, in which I've explained in great detail why certain class/race restrictions will be imposed, and then having no one want to play those classes or races.
|
|
I vote reasonable...
I do consider the less they need to limit the better a gm I judge them to be though.
That's just me...
I'm not sure that is fair criteria, I've seen some of the best GMs in the world sit down and run a PFS scenario with all the limits that imposes, and some of the worst have grandiose open worlds, in all cases some of the best and worst games i've played come down to the buy in and engagement of the whole table around a central story idea. Which can fail, or perhaps fail to meet its potential when someone is off the reservation.
I'm not sure that is fair criteria, I've seen some of the best GMs in the world sit down and run a PFS scenario with all the limits that imposes, and some of the worst have grandiose open worlds, in all cases some of the best and worst games i've played come down to the buy in and engagement of the whole table around a central story idea. Which can fail, or perhaps fail to meet its potential when someone is off the reservation.I vote reasonable...
I do consider the less they need to limit the better a gm I judge them to be though.
That's just me...
I agree it's theoretically possible. It's just never matched my experience.
I do agree that buyin from everyone at the table is the most important ingredient in a successful campaign. I'm just surprised how often I hear that someone at the table chooses not to have it. They're pretty much saying they're not even willing to try. I just happen to come down on the side that it's almost always better to make the sandbox bigger than smaller.
If the only limits to the game are the limits of the human imagination, some people take a very strong stand that a lot of the time they want to limit their imagination as well.
Which seems so odd for a gamer.
I do agree that buyin from everyone at the table is the most important ingredient in a successful campaign. I'm just surprised how often I hear that someone at the table chooses not to have it. They're pretty much saying they're not even willing to try. I just happen to come down on the side that it's almost always better to make the sandbox bigger than smaller.
If the only limits to the game are the limits of the human imagination, some people take a very strong stand that a lot of the time they want to limit their imagination as well.
Which seems so odd for a gamer.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/limits-and-creativity.html
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that buyin from everyone at the table is the most important ingredient in a successful campaign. I'm just surprised how often I hear that someone at the table chooses not to have it. They're pretty much saying they're not even willing to try. I just happen to come down on the side that it's almost always better to make the sandbox bigger than smaller.
If the only limits to the game are the limits of the human imagination, some people take a very strong stand that a lot of the time they want to limit their imagination as well.
Which seems so odd for a gamer.
In practice limitless imagination must be met with a very flexible and open plot to succeed, which in turn requires some phenomenal improve by a GM, or a GM who has near limitless preparation time. As people time is a limited commodity, and where you want a narrower but more defined story arc, as opposed to a more open ended looting of a series of barrows, your going to result in a campaign which may be able to accommodate any combination of characters, but which fails to resonate with their creative breadth where they don't meet the the theme and tones of the campaign that they are set in.
This. It really isn't any more complicated.
I think thats the trouble I run into... I have very flexible open plots and phenominal improv, and a relatively decent amount of prep time. So it works for me. I can see how it woudln't work for others.
