This one time I told the players of a party of 15 level characters that I could totally kill their characters off by throwing a CR 1/4 kobold at them. They laughed and said, "Yeah right." So I dropped the mountain that the kobold was living on, on them. Totally killed them with a CR 1/4 kobold.If it is monsters and then traps finish them off, the traps did indeed deal the finishing blow.You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs.Then it's not the trap killing them.
Ever had a go at Tucker's kobolds? Or any dungeon like that? The mountain drop is unnecessary.
Can a snowflake get through such a dungeon? Possibly, if they have back up. If we make it more about the adventures and the game, snowflakes can fade from importance. More party, less "look at how unique I am" individual. So snowflakes may be damn annoying, but if we push on and don't allow them to try and hog the spotlight, the problem can solve itself, e.g. yes yes, you are playing a walking crow that is a pimp, now, on with the quests. This can result in dissatisfaction from a single player when the snowflake isn't made into a big deal, but the game continues and bickering is set to the side (that is nice, now what do you actually do hero?).
Push onward through the snow drift!
Far more likely to me, is a player approaching me about playing a viking character in my tropical pirate setting, and me not having considered vikings one way or another. Obviously they don't immediately fit. What to do then? For me, it involved talking things over with the player, asking for how they saw things going, and deciding that I had a wealth of opportunities in allowing the viking character.
Geeze, didn't this douche of a player realize that the only way of dealing with concepts out of step with the campaign setting is for the player to play something else, or walk? How unreasonable of him to ask about something that obviously doesn't immediately fit... and after the setting had already been made abundantly clear, too!
Screw asking this guy to play something else; I think you should skip straight to applying the boot. You don't have to put up with this sort of disrespect.
...
...
*shifty eyes*
Yup. Absolutely fine to ask. As long as you a cept no as a potential answer.
Correct me if I am wrong, everyone has said that asking for pretty much anything is fine
Can do. Is it OK if I use you?
Order of operations is entirely critical.
The entire issue is a player who agreed to play in the setting showing up with something that doesn't fit in the setting.
I'm pretty sure I asked to play in Kain's game, got a yes, read up on his setting, and rolled up stats long after he had made clear his tropical pirate setting - since I joined the campaign a bit before halfway through.
Then, I came to him to talk about playing a viking ;)
That's why I was saying earlier that order of operations doesn't seem like it needs to be as critical as the typical scenarios being advanced here (which require players who must first fully agree to something and then find themselves to be in a state of disagreement when they start creating a character) present it. There's no reason communication and discussion about what is and is not acceptable has to cease before the character creation phase can begin, they can all overlap one another in an entirely non strictly segregated fashion.
Clearly it does fit the setting.
It was allowed by the person running the setting.
Heh, you're really saying that the person running the setting must have judged it to fit... when Kain, the GM just posted saying that it obviously didn't fit?
Anyway, what I will attempt to get at is this. A setting is rarely complete before a game starts (Kain's has expanded to accomodate my viking). A character is rarely done before a game starts (character creation has continued for said viking long after starting to play). Therefore, the theory you and shallow were advancing (or at least, you were the last time I was paying this much attention to this thread), that all discussion on harmonizing the two must be the first thing to occur, and that beforehand is the only allowable time for discussion about such, makes no sense to me. I don't understand how this strict order of operations idea can work. It seems to me to treat overlapping processes as if they were discrete events.
Kain the GM posted after thought about it he liked the idea it gave him "a wealth of opportunities in allowing the viking character".
Did you miss that part?
Wait, he said that? D:
All this time I thought he was grinding his teeth every Saturday. My mission of sabotage is revealed as a failure just when I felt closest to success!
(for srs, though, that's not the same thing)
|
Kain the GM posted after thought about it he liked the idea it gave him "a wealth of opportunities in allowing the viking character".
Did you miss that part?
Wait, he said that? D:
All this time I thought he was grinding his teeth every Saturday. My mission of sabotage is revealed as a failure just when I felt closest to success!
(for srs, though, that's not the same thing)
It is completely the same thing.
The player is asking if they can play "X" in the setting they discussed. Presumably because they believe they can.
The GM said yes, because the GM sees "a wealth of opportunities in allowing the viking character".
Conversely, if the GM didn't, they would say no.
It is completely the same thing.
The player is asking if they can play "X" in the setting they discussed. Presumably because they believe they can.
The GM said yes, because the GM sees "a wealth of opportunities in allowing the viking character".
Conversely, if the GM didn't, they would say no.
Well, I'll try to lay out how I see it differently then, compared to what I perceive myself to be arguing against.
First, this.
What to do then? For me, it involved talking things over with the player, asking for how they saw things going
Something I've felt to be strikingly absent from many of the posted "bad-player" scenarios, e.g. Adamantine Dragon's. So that's something I've tried to convince people across the aisle may be worth trying. I don't think most people posting here are actually opposed to this idea (though some are), but I don't think it hurts to emphasize given how much it seems to get forgotten when not brought up, and how contemptuously a minority of the posters have treated the idea of asking such questions.
Second, this
Order of operations is entirely critical.
This is the idea that any the discussion or compromise that might be going to happen must happen and be agreed on and done before the game starts. I don't agree with this at all and Kain's and my scenario is an example one where that has never been even close to the case.
I've just been shaking my head at how a discussion order of operations must first be cemented as inviolable, then contorted and violated, in order for many of these hypothetical problem scenarios to be plausible as actual problems - when I don't see the need for such inviolability.
Third, this
Clearly it does fit the setting.
It was allowed by the person running the setting.
The character did not fit the setting - as Kain said in so many words.
Indeed, there are large, related regions of the game world which did not exist as part of the campaign world before I joined. Added collaboratively between us.
The GM changed the setting to fit the character.
The distinction may be subtle, but arguing that a game should fall on the other side of that distinction is presumably why shallowsoul started this now 2000+ post thread in the first place - no?
I mean, I'm pretty sure that if it does not throw a track, the engine of discussion can level that continental divide and render the distinction moot - and I suspect you are too - so that would bring us back to the second thing as, I think, the main thing I am currently disagreeing with you in particular about.
|
|
In AD's scenario, he specifically said "This is not allowed" and then the player appeared with the specific thing AD said "Is not allowed" and then argued with the GM.
In Kain's situation, the player came to him saying "I got this idea" and Kain "not having considered vikings one way or another" thought about it and he liked the idea.
Was it odd? Yes. Tropical viking is odd. But the GM saw "a wealth of opportunities" within the framework of the game the GM proposed.
It was something he never considered in Kain's, which when he did think about it, he saw "a wealth of opportunities".
Vs, the GM specifically said "No constructs" when approving the setting and the player appeared with...you guessed it...a construct.
Vs the GM said "You like this setting?" and the player has the option to say yes or no, and THEN after they agree to play in the basic framework the Player says "You like this idea" the GM says "Not really, what else you got?"
Because the GM should be able to get the same approval process as the Player.
In AD's scenario, he specifically said "This is not allowed" and then the player appeared with the specific thing AD said "Is not allowed" and then argued with the GM.
Indeed. That would be exactly what I mean when I say that the problem scenario requires a strict order of operations for discussion in order to exist.
First... and... then. All as discrete events and not overlapping processes.
It requires that
a) GM proposes "no constructs"
b) Players discuss with GM and all agree with "no constructs"
c) The party formally ends its discussion period.
d) Player goes home to make character, at which time the words he said earlier finally percolate through his ears back into his brain and he realizes he didn't mean it.
e) Player approaches GM with construct after formal end of discussion period.
The order of operations as a series of discrete, non-overlapping events creates that scenario as laid out by AD. The positioning in time of events before and after a formal boundary ending discussion is what causes the player's approaching the GM to be a problem at all.
If say, you're chatting a bit and bouncing ideas off each other during the character creation week between a) and d), because there was no c) and character creation d) is a process overlapping with b), then you don't end up with a player who has put days of work into a character approaching a GM who has put days of work into a completely opposed campaign, with neither aware of an impending impasse until both arrive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In AD's scenario, he specifically said "This is not allowed" and then the player appeared with the specific thing AD said "Is not allowed" and then argued with the GM.Indeed. That would be exactly what I mean when I say that the problem scenario requires a strict order of operations for discussion in order to exist.
First... and... then. All as discrete events and not overlapping processes.
It requires that
a) GM proposes "no constructs"
b) Players discuss with GM and all agree with "no constructs"
c) The party formally ends its discussion period.
d) Player goes home to make character, words he said earlier finally percolate through his ears back into his brain and he realizes he didn't mean it.
e) Player approaches GM with construct after formal end of discussion period.The order of operations as a series of discrete, non-overlapping events creates that scenario as laid out by AD. The positioning in time of events before and after a formal boundary ending discussion is what causes the player's approaching the GM to be a problem at all.
If say, you're chatting a bit and bouncing ideas off each other during the character creation week between a) and d), because there was no c) and character creation d) is a process overlapping with b), then you don't end up with a player who has put days of work into a character approaching a GM who has put days of work into a completely opposed campaign, with neither aware of an impending impasse until both arrive.
And why is the theoretical player putting days of work into the character before knowing what the setting is again?
And why is the theoretical player putting days of work into the character before knowing what the setting is again?
Good question. You should ask AD, since it's his theoretical player in his theoretical scenario. It may have to do with this idea that discussion must be ended before anything else can begin, though.
Or, maybe one or both of the two just aren't communicative guys, in which case that may continue be a problem for them.
|
|
And why is the theoretical player putting days of work into the character before knowing what the setting is again?Good question. You should ask AD, since it's his theoretical player in his theoretical scenario. It may have to do with this idea that discussion must be ended before anything else can begin, though.
Or, maybe one or both of the two just aren't communicative guys, in which case that may continue be a problem for them.
And in mine, if you don't like my setting, you can say "Hey, not that into your no construct world" and I'll either have to find other players who are or come up with something you do like.
Meanwhile, applying the same standards to the player...
News just in!
Mudcrabs a playable race in Skyrim.
News just in!
Mudcrabs a playable race in Skyrim.
Actual playable races: catfolk, lizardfolk, and dark elves. I'm not sure if lizardfolk have been brought up in these special snowflake discussions, but the other two have been talked about as special snowflake races for Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*completely off topic* Argonians are my favorite elder scrolls race :)
Actual playable races: catfolk, lizardfolk, and dark elves. I'm not sure if lizardfolk have been brought up in these special snowflake discussions, but the other two have been talked about as special snowflake races for Pathfinder.News just in!
Mudcrabs a playable race in Skyrim.
Yep, and I think I've told you before, I allow a great range of races usually, especially for dnd games. Grippli are a new one I look to allowing next time we start up a game.
Give people choice and more than a few options, see what they do and if they can work with it. If they can't, if they insist on playing OP four armed Sahuaghin in a low level game, then you have a problem with an a**hole player wanting the beefy power of four armed might over and above all others at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actual playable races: catfolk, lizardfolk, and dark elves. I'm not sure if lizardfolk have been brought up in these special snowflake discussions, but the other two have been talked about as special snowflake races for Pathfinder.News just in!
Mudcrabs a playable race in Skyrim.
A good range of options is not the same as all options. For the forty second time.
All options is not the same as just the options people desire.
I too can play this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All options is not the same as just the options people desire.
I too can play this game.
Any option people desire might as well be no restrictions.
Saying a restriction can exist only as long as no one might want to play that might as well mean it doesn't exist. What is the point of it being there if it automatically goes away the instant someone shows any interest?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I never said we shouldn't have any laws, just not any laws that someone might not want to obey!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Options, whether a lot, all, or some, are great. The ones people desire depends on your audience and hopefully, with good communication, everyone is on the same page before problems begin.
The problem with desires is that there are people (some, but these are special folk) that desire to see what they can get away with. The folks that the old phrase "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" was expressly made for. It's good to indulge people, but that sometimes has to be moderated with caution. Just because people want something doesn't mean it is good for everyone else at the table.
What is the point of it being there if it automatically goes away the instant someone shows any interest?
That's a good question. Why even have these restrictions to begin with? I mean, if there's already pre-printed, relatively balanced rules in Pathfinder for it, it's not like it's much work for you. If the obstacle is something like all elves being tree-hugging druids in your setting, there's an easy fix for that: don't have all elves be tree-hugging druids in your setting.
"I never said we shouldn't have any laws, just not any laws that someone might not want!"
This is a bad analogy and you know it.
You don't have to allow everything. Just what "I" want.
Said without a hint of irony...
Or options another player wants! Or options you as DM want!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the point of it being there if it automatically goes away the instant someone shows any interest?That's a good question. Why even have these restrictions to begin with? I mean, if there's already pre-printed, relatively balanced rules in Pathfinder for it, it's not like it's much work for you. If the obstacle is something like all elves being tree-hugging druids in your setting, there's an easy fix for that: don't have all elves be tree-hugging druids in your setting.
"I never said we shouldn't have any laws, just not any laws that someone might not want!"This is a bad analogy and you know it.
No. It's an exact analogy. You not wanting it to be doesn't make it stop being so.
You want to deny the gm the option of having a campaign world without that element in it. Why are you so restrictive of the option that he wants?
What is the point of it being there if it automatically goes away the instant someone shows any interest?That's a good question. Why even have these restrictions to begin with? I mean, if there's already pre-printed, relatively balanced rules in Pathfinder for it, it's not like it's much work for you. If the obstacle is something like all elves being tree-hugging druids in your setting, there's an easy fix for that: don't have all elves be tree-hugging druids in your setting.
"I never said we shouldn't have any laws, just not any laws that someone might not want!"This is a bad analogy and you know it.
Or options another player wants! Or options you as DM want!You don't have to allow everything. Just what "I" want.
Said without a hint of irony...
If rules were all that mattered, sure. Of course, for some people there are things other than 'do rules exist for it?' That go into inclusion or exclusion.
No. It's an exact analogy. You not wanting it to be doesn't make it stop being so.
There's lots of differences between laws and restrictions on what races are allowed in a tabletop campaign. For example, laws do more than just delineate what is allowed or forbidden. There's also the scale of the thing: laws exist for bodies of people much larger than the less than ten that make up a gaming group.
You want to deny the gm the option of having a campaign world without that element in it. Why are you so restrictive of the option that he wants?
I'm not against DMs adding things to campaign worlds. But it's best to not add things of the form "all X are Y". This means that it's not possible for something which is X and not Y to exist, limiting yourself and the players. Instead, you can add in something like "these X are Y" or "most X are Y". This adds the same element, but doesn't close off options.
Of course, for some people there are things other than 'do rules exist for it?' That go into inclusion or exclusion.
I've mostly addressed this by talking about how you can world build in such a manner as to avoid conflicts here. I should also mention that you shouldn't just forbid options because you don't like them. For example, I hate halflings. I think they are uninteresting, obnoxious, and really the game would be better off in they didn't exist. But I don't build every setting so that halflings don't exist. I don't like them, but if a player does like them, I'm not going to tell them to change to a race that I personally like. I'm even open to the possibility that someone could play a really awesome halfling and they'd convince me that halflings can be worthwhile. I used to not like gnomes, but then another player in a game I was in played a gnome character that I really liked. Now don't hold gnomes in any sort of antipathy.
No. It's an exact analogy. You not wanting it to be doesn't make it stop being so.There's lots of differences between laws and restrictions on what races are allowed in a tabletop campaign. For example, laws do more than just delineate what is allowed or forbidden. There's also the scale of the thing: laws exist for bodies of people much larger than the less than ten that make up a gaming group.
You want to deny the gm the option of having a campaign world without that element in it. Why are you so restrictive of the option that he wants?I'm not against DMs adding things to campaign worlds. But it's best to not add things of the form "all X are Y". This means that it's not possible for something which is X and not Y to exist, limiting yourself and the players. Instead, you can add in something like "these X are Y" or "most X are Y". This adds the same element, but doesn't close off options.
Of course, for some people there are things other than 'do rules exist for it?' That go into inclusion or exclusion.I've mostly addressed this by talking about how you can world build in such a manner as to avoid conflicts here. I should also mention that you shouldn't just forbid options because you don't like them. For example, I hate halflings. I think they are uninteresting, obnoxious, and really the game would be better off in they didn't exist. But I don't build every setting so that halflings don't exist. I don't like them, but if a player does like them, I'm not going to tell them to change to a race that I personally like. I'm even open to the possibility that someone could play a really awesome halfling and they'd convince me that halflings can be worthwhile. I used to not like gnomes, but then another player in a game I was in played a gnome character that I really liked. Now don't hold gnomes in any sort of antipathy.
Not even close. Laws exist for a chess club. Laws(or rules) exist for a two man game of chess. Volume of people has nothing to do with it. The laws or rules are the set of assumptions that are adopted when the board is set up at the beginning of the game.
And why do you keep brining up the farcical bit of 'banning a race just because you don't like it"? That's not why I, and I suspect most of the others arguing on this side of the fence, remove a race from a campaign world. The race I remove from one world might very well be featured in another. Can you perhaps stop using this 'banning races you don't like' meme, as it doesn't apply?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Since I last poked my head into this thread to have a look around, nearly 900 posts have been added. And the discussion on this page is the exact same as when I left. I'm going to take a moment and sort of review what has been going on here. I have distilled the questions to be answered as these two:
How flexible should the GM be in tailoring the campaign world and campaign to the player characters?
How flexible should the players be in tailoring their characters to the GM's campaign?
Lots of arguments have been made for the various positions and I haven't seen it progress much. I definitely believe that most people here agree that some flexibility is required in both. I believe that most here believe in at least a little discussion and some compromise is OK.
The disagreements seem to stem from a matter of timing and degree. Timing is a matter of when the campaign concept was presented and whether it was accepted at the terms described. As in did the players know the limitations before hand and did they agree to come up with character concepts that fit? If they did and come up with something that clashes, problems arise. Did the GM spring limitations on the players after they made their characters and are ready to play? The answers to these timing questions change up the entire argument.
More important though is degree of flexibility. Some recommend the GM should be completely flexible and accept whatever the players bring. Others say that the GM may work with the players to shape things a little, but changes to central themes of the campaign in order to accommodate a clashing character concept should be denied. These seem to matters of opinion and thus are unlikely to be successfully argued.
The timing issue deals with respect between the players and the GM. If there is respect, I don't think this will be an issue. The degree of flexibility issue is a gaming style and thus no one answer is correct. If you play one way or another, as long as everyone has fun you are not having wrong-bad-fun.
So after all this thinking about this thread and the points it has made, what have I learned? I should know my players and the style they like. I should respect them and help them with their character creation so there is no conflict between what they want to play and what I am offering if possible.
Good discussion guys. It gives us all a lot to think about. But nobody here is going to convince the others they are wrong. My advice? Settle for convincing the readers of the thread to your arguments instead. You may get some headway there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Restrictions can add interesting twists to the theme of the world. Dark Sun, for example, felt entirely different from many other settings because of the restrictions involved. If just because Bob the player liked standard dwarves or random anthropomorphic animal races and wanted one in that setting, it would be a poor fit.
Wanting people to get what they want so they have maximum fun is great. But not getting maximum fun does not mean that you do not get any fun.
Not even close. Laws exist for a chess club. Laws(or rules) exist for a two man game of chess. Volume of people has nothing to do with it. The laws or rules are the set of assumptions that are adopted when the board is set up at the beginning of the game.
Oh, it looks like we were using "law" in different ways. I was using "law" to mean something distinct from just rules.
I'm not against rules in the game, obviously. I don't have a problem with something like "bishops can move diagonally any distance" or "your attack bonus is Str + BAB + other modifiers". I'm also not against rules for things like chess clubs. If you were to start a Pathfinder club, you should probably have rules for things. For example, you might want rules about when and where you meet or who is in charge, so there's someone who can exercise authority if needed. I'd be opposed to rules like "no using red dice" but that's because I'm objecting to the content of the rule, not it merely being a rule.
I guess my point is, I don't know what you think I am saying if you think I am opposed to the existence of rules of any kind.
where did the argument of "all x are y" actually get used?
I'm frankly not willing to put forth the effort to trawl through the multiple threads on this subject and track down links to where any of these were said. Sorry. But, off the top of my head, I do remember seeing the following, whether as hypotheticals or as examples from real play:
- All drow are evil.
- All elves are members of this specific extinct civilization.
- All the world is a giant city.
- All druids must get their powers from a deity.
- All humans live on this specific continent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um... No?
Saying "elves don't exist in this world' is not the same as arguing that all elves are tree hugging hippies. Sorry, trying to go all lawyer on that isn't kosher.
Drow exist, but are evil beyond redemption in all cases is not functionally the same as "there are no Drow to stereotype"
|
|
Um... No?
Saying "elves don't exist in this world' is not the same as arguing that all elves are tree hugging hippies. Sorry, trying to go all lawyer on that isn't kosher.
Drow exist, but are evil beyond redemption in all cases is not functionally the same as "there are no Drow to stereotype"
And even if it was the same, and Drow are evil...that is the proposed setting.
You can agree to play in it or not play in it. And if no one wants to, the GM can't do it.
And the GM can agree to allow your concept or not. And if they GM doesn't want to run it...
Do you really not see the parallels here, Viv?