There is an old axiom that also is a fundamental truth. "Too many cooks spoil the broth"I saw an exceptionally insightful illustrated book of sayings when I was a kid. It had these "fundamental truths" on facing pages.
For example, "A stitch in time saves nine" was opposite "Haste makes waste."
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" ... "Out of sight, out of mind."
"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" ... "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."Your quote was opposite "Many hands make light work," as I recall.
I do not see where either set of axioms is mutually exclusive.
As a maintenance worker I recite the first almost religiously.
D+D and it's descendants have a lot more than just Tolkien in them. There's a healthy amount of Fritz Leiber and Jack Vance in there as well. The First Edition AD+D books have an extensive bibliography of where Gygax drew his sources from. It's not a short list at all.
Looking at my old 1e books, I have ubiquitous notes to myself in pencil in the margins: "Cf. Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions," appears next to a couple entries in the Monter Manuals I & II, for example. Some have page references, or more than one cross-reference. Some of these notes are Tolkien references, but hardly a majority.
MY Campaign worldI always find this telling.
Five people sharing an imaginary world, but it's YOUR Campaign world!!!1!!!
(bold and italic emphasis yours.)"Stupid players, always trying to ruin MY fun by having their own ideas! Why can't they just stick to their places and be the auto-dice rolling function I demand from them? If I want their creative input, I'll give it to them to parrot back to me!"
Cue whining: "But I work soooooooooo haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard! I DESERVE to be the only one whose ideas matter!"
And also: "But... I'm THE DM! No one else could possibly do that job! Only ME! I'm SPECIAL!"
That's right. I'm the DM, so therefore the homebrew world the campaign takes place in is in fact my campaign world. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to find a game elsewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It astounds me that people who let the players have no agency actually still have players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also find it terrifying that I can quote something that sounds like Poe's Law even to me, and people will vigorously agree with the sentiments.
It's like my insane right-wing aunt who says: "I'm very moderate. In fact, I am exactly centrist. I only want to kill the Mexicans who cross the border. Other people want to kill ALL the Mexicans."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It astounds me that people who let the players have no agency actually still have players.
Not being allowed unlimited agency (choices) is not the same as being not being allowed any agency whatsoever. Furthermore, I find players who demand unlimited choices to be immature and need to grow up before they'll find a welcome seat at my gaming table.
Sure, but the players' agency is already fairly limited, compared to the designers' and DM's. When you start impinging on that still further without very good reason, the extent to which they are allowed "any agency whatsoever" can quickly become small enough to be statistically identical to "zero."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on current popularity, the next generation might very well be pro "only humans". A good chunk of the current fantasy being produced is heavily inspired by A Song of Ice and Fire, and nonhuman races are either absent or rare.
Which is why I keep fighting for R.E.H. purity! Only humans.
I might have mentioned that my favorite campaigns are human-only. I'm strongly in favor of human-only. But when the players all want weird races, I'm even more strongly in favor of providing the game they want, vs. only the game I want. My PBP, billed as being set in a human- and elf-dominated campaign world, currently has no humans or elves as PCs. But it's still a lot of fun!
Ew. I like ASoIaF but I don't want a wave of fantasy inspired by it.
It's good in part because it's different. I couldn't stand to read more than one series like it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but the player's agency (choices) is already pretty limited. When you start impinging on it still further without very good reason, the extent to which they are allowed "any agency whatsoever" can quickly become small enough to be statistically identical to "zero."
Exaggeration. I don't need any more complex reason than "X choice would not fit in with my campaign/gameworld".
Besides, everyone plays with limits. I have yet to find a GM who will allow me to play a 4th generation Tremere druid/jedi who pilots a Mad Dog (Vulture) whose shoulder cannons do megadamage. Clearly, I'm being oppressed and don't have agency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that in the rulebooks written for the game we're playing?
Are shoulder cannons level-appropriate gear?
If not, I have no idea what you're debating, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
|
The way fantasy races are built in Pathfinder irk me, particularly humans. Once you start adding ability modifiers in, it begins to put certain races into certain classes and pigeonhole them to those types of characters. I'd much rather see races with no stat modifiers and instead just nifty abilities to differentiate them.
Combine that with 20 years of gaming and the baggage that comes with the core races I personally enjoy something new. If it's still only 7 races but not the same 7 races that would make things interesting at the least imo. And of course working with the GM.
And as far as the ASoIaF discussion, absolutely hate it. The series seems to rely too much on shock value, putting it imo as the Jerry Springer of fantasy novels. Of course just my thoughts on it.
TL/DR: The GM creating the world without much input from the players isn't even vaguely related to railroading.
I'd agree that it doesn't have to be, but it often is.
Scenario 1:
Player: "I want to play a pirate!"
DM: "I don't care; there are no pirates in my world. Pick something else."
Scenario 2:
Player: "I don't think we should waste time with this sea battle mini-game. Let's hire some pirates to intercept the ship instead. If they double-cross us and keep the loot, we still stop the ship and achieve that objective. Meanwhile, our party can be doing X, Y, and Z to further our goals!"
DM: "I don't care; I just decided there are no pirates in MY world, so you can't do anything like that. Go chase the ship."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL/DR: The GM creating the world without much input from the players isn't even vaguely related to railroading.I'd agree that it doesn't have to be, but it often is.
Scenario 1:
Player: "I want to play a pirate!"
DM: "I don't care; there are no pirates in my world. Pick something else."Scenario 2:
Player: "I don't think we should waste time with this sea battle mini-game. Let's hire some pirates to intercept the ship instead. If they double-cross us and keep the loot, we still stop the ship and achieve that objective. Meanwhile, our party can be doing X, Y, and Z to further our goals!"
DM: "I don't care; I just decided there are no pirates in MY world, so you can't do anything like that. Go chase the ship."
But in the world of reasonable players and reasonable DMs this isn't a particularly pressing problem. This has been my experience in nearly every game I've run or played.
DM: "I'm running a game with X, Y, and Z characteristics"
Player: "Cool. I'm in. I'll go make a character that fits!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been my experience in nearly every game I've run or played.
DM: "I'm running a game with X, Y, and Z characteristics"
Player: "Cool. I'm in. I'll go make a character that fits!"
And again, experiences differ. I've done that, but found it to be a much more rewarding experience when I say:
Me (DM): "OK, I'm willing to run the game -- what characteristics do you guys want? I'm thinking X, but can you give me Y and Z?"
Player 1: "Cool! X is great! And for Y, I'd like some swashbuckle-y stuff!"
Player 2: "And maybe pirates for Z, and they also fit Y!"
Plater 3: "Swashbuckling adventures works for me!"
Player 4: "Just tell me what kind of character will fit, and I'll make that."
If everyone was like Player 4, I'd quit DMing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a combination of the two, myself. This is what I have in mind, and what are you guys interested in? We'll see where the two meet up and go from there. But if most are buying into the world and tossing in ideas and one is either "whatever" or trying to come up with something way out in left field, that's where I wonder why I decided to DM that day.
As a GM, I'm not great at improv. Espectially world building or large scale plot improv. Things take time to gel. If I had that conversation and hadn't already been thinking swashbuckly pirates, I'd probably reply: "Alright, give me a month or two and I'll see what I can come up with." By which time they'd probably be excited about something else.
No one could complain, given that explanation -- it's important to know one's limitations. The standpoint you're describing, though -- "I'm not fast enough to integrate this in convincingly, so cut me some slack" -- is very far removed from what other people are saying -- "I say what's what because only I know what's best for everyone, and the rest of you better shut up or leave!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a world that at least presents the illusion of being solid, not one where I make up stuff as I need it.
And I agree -- I'm not talking about mid-play here. Ideally, I'd like a solid world, but one in which the group has at least a modicum of say in determining what the limits are. I don't want a world in which I am told every detail is set in stone, and all of those details are somehow exactly what the DM wants in his personal story, and are not any of the things that any of the players want in their shared stories.
Limits are good. Limits unilaterally drawn by one person, and that might suddenly constrict or shift based on that person's whim (or even seem to do so), leave something to be desired.
"I say what's what because only I know what's best for everyone, and the rest of you better shut up or leave!"
And what's wrong with this? That's how everything else in the world works:
If you don't like what's on a restaurant's menu you eat somewhere else.
If you don't like the prices at one store you go to another.
If you don't like the music that plays on one radio station you listen to a different one.
So if someone doesn't like the game I'm running they should go find one that's more to their tastes. Don't see why there would need to be any drama over it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I say what's what because only I know what's best for everyone, and the rest of you better shut up or leave!"And what's wrong with this? That's how everything else in the world works:
If you don't like what's on a restaurant's menu you eat somewhere else.
If you don't like the prices at one store you go to another.
If you don't like the music that plays on one radio station you listen to a different one.So if someone doesn't like the game I'm running they should go find one that's more to their tastes. Don't see why there would need to be any drama over it.
So your relationship with your players is one of proprieter and customer? Seriously? So in that case you should be explicately running the game your players want, and not the game you want. That is how all of the above mentioned institutions work. A restaraunt sets their menu according to what they think will produce demand, same with prices at a store, and music played on a radio station. All of these institutions actively change what they offer to increase their patronage. Is this how you want your table to run?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, so this is a player entitlement/Gm jerkitude thread now? Wow this thread has some SERIOUS evolution pool points, IN ADDITION to achieving sentient life having started off growing from a severed troll limb!
So your relationship with your players is one of proprieter and customer? Seriously? So in that case you should be explicately running the game your players want, and not the game you want. That is how all of the above mentioned institutions work. A restaraunt sets their menu according to what they think will produce demand, same with prices at a store, and music played on a radio station. All of these institutions actively change what they offer to increase their patronage. Is this how you want your table to run?
Ah, but unlike a proprieter and customer I don't have the ability to expand to accomodate increased demand. Seats at my table are limited and so long as I can continue to fill them with players while running things exactly the way I like I have no incentive to change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Xexyz is publicly traded.
i like the noncore races, but the core races get so much love, that i feel the non-core has to either be slightly overpowered or slightly convention breaking to compensate for the fact that core will always have the advantage of ever growing support. what i disliked about the ARG, is each core race got Quintuple the love that a Splatbook Race recieved. and that is merely averaging page count.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those arguing for more player agency or narrative I think this game (Pathfinder/D&D) works best and is under the design assumption that the players have a Contributing Narrative vs. a Shared Narrative. A Shared Narrative is what a few here are advocating - players help in design of the game world, description of events, co-GMing parts, etc. While a Contributing Narrative is what traditionally has been used for D&D/AD&D for years and even now with Pathfinder - players only get to input into the Narrative by their player interactions with the game world. Their actions, RPing, Skill checks and choices are their contributions to the game.
The game (this game at least) skews heavily to the latter, but neither way is wrong and this doesn't need to be an old school vs. new school play-style war. Even if one is more traditional, neither one is wrong if people are having fun.
Kirth, you're a smart guy and you understand the game - that doesn't give you license to pound another GM because they don't run kitchen sink or "everything is permissible" campaign like you do.
I am very much a traditionalist and exert tremendous creative control when it comes to D&D/Pathfinder because the output of that is what I am looking for in my game - capturing some sense of nostalgia and feel for what I experienced in 79. And on the flip side when I run my Gamma World game it is kitchen sink, I've had to make up special rules for the most bizarre characters on the spot and as we went because for many races/player choices there were no rules. Some guys says "I want to play an android"...well, there are no rules for android PCs so I start screaming aloud and inside my head (hard to tell which sometimes) and then 5 minutes later we are creating the 1st Android PC character for the game (and supporting rules with contributions from other players).
TL;DR - It depends, and peoples motivations are not always sinister
Everyone needs to chill out a little.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To kick this back towards the thread topic, many of my worlds are geared towards an assortment of races. The core races are widely represented because they are expected to be. That said, there have been years when people were very interested in wemic and centaur and pixie/flying fairy races and Avariel and those worlds expanded to meet the demand.
In many (if not all) worlds, there is room for expansion, for the hidden corners where mysterious civilizations dwell with little to no contact with the more centralized areas, or where emissaries come and go and your racial desire might be from that long lost area.
The classic races give an easy entry point for a lot of novice (and not so novice) players who can easily grip the idea of a kingdom of elves or dwarves but are less likely to understand or associate with the Squidkin or whatnot. Not all of the less common or exotic races are hard to understand, mind, but they are also usually uncommon or exotic in many campaigns because they are variations on baseline humans (or other humanoids), or monster races, and so on. It is probably a lot easier for game designers to build a world with baseline people and then season with variant models as well, with those you are used to getting the most attention.
This isn't good or bad. This is making a game that has an easy buy in -- and this is the important part -- for people that AREN'T us, that is, people that aren't multi year and multi edition vets with ideas and dreams of 300 different species and societies.
the only influence a player has on the world, is all related to their character. i let players control what they build their character with, and what cohorts and pets they have, as long as they promise to not do something intentionally campaign smashing.
i will simply tailor encounters towards both the strengths, and the weaknesses of their PC and i will let them play whatever, in some cases, they may have to reskin the character.
some things i may disallow, might be a dragon advenuring alongside humans or a half celestial vampiric drow noble. but i would let them play a variant aasimaaar, fetchling, strix or merfolk with a bit of reskinning and maybe a few tailored alternate racials, or allow the homebrewing of a hybrid race or toned down monster race based within reason, but homebrew races, i have to examine to make sure it isn't a hulk or a sparkle elf. a wood-elf or a half-nymph? sure. i will tweak them as appropriate after you pitch the initial draft.
Sure, but the player's agency (choices) is already pretty limited. When you start impinging on it still further without very good reason, the extent to which they are allowed "any agency whatsoever" can quickly become small enough to be statistically identical to "zero."Exaggeration. I don't need any more complex reason than "X choice would not fit in with my campaign/gameworld".
Besides, everyone plays with limits. I have yet to find a GM who will allow me to play a 4th generation Tremere druid/jedi who pilots a Mad Dog (Vulture) whose shoulder cannons do megadamage. Clearly, I'm being oppressed and don't have agency.
Defining megadamage within level-appropriate boundaries, and acquiring your tech - which doesn't overshadow the rest of your party- from some story-appropriate location?
I'd be down for your Druid/Monk who pilots a piece of mysterious mechanical giant armor. You'd have a problem with dungeons, but I don't generally run dungeons in my campaigns anyway.
If handled right it wouldn't really stand out much worse than a Synthesist walking around inside a Huge-sized Eidolon.
1 MD = 100 HP (its a mechanic from another system) still willing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait...we're playing BattleTechFinder now? Awesome!
On the "player agency infringement" front...
Please explain to me how by limiting the PCs to 21 classes (each of which has at minimum 5 variants available) and 12 races (not including half-breeds) each of which also has a minimum of 5 variants available is infringing on player agency?
For that matter how is that one player who insists on being the one "special little snowflake" not infringing on the other players who agreed to the limits set?
1 MD = 100 HP (its a mechanic from another system) still willing?
Technically, wouldn't that just be .1 Kilodamage?
If you have magic, you can explain anything. You may need to reflavor, but there's nothing that says there needs to be more than one of whatever a player wants to be.
In Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed setting, which has no Tolkien races, there is a dwarf who got swept there via dimensional portal.
A non-core PC could be a unique mutation, the result of experimentation, a curse, from another planet or dimension or time and Inari only knows what else.
Creativity and flexibility is the key.
Wait...we're playing BattleTechFinder now? Awesome!
BattleRiftsFinder: The Masquerade Wars
Wait...we're playing BattleTechFinder now? Awesome!BattleRiftsFinder: The Masquerade Wars
Don't forget to throw in "Twilight", or "2000". :)
Don't forget to throw in "Twilight", or "2000". :)Wait...we're playing BattleTechFinder now? Awesome!BattleRiftsFinder: The Masquerade Wars
Don't be a munchkin. Let's be reasonable here.
Sometimes that's fine. Sometimes I don't like that. Depends on the campaign. If we're going to be messing about with politics, for example, I like the characters to have roots and ties to the situation.
Oh, man, then you could run a 'I came back from a terrible future to stop this from happening' story arc. Highly motivated PC, right there.
Don't forget to throw in "Twilight", or "2000". :)Wait...we're playing BattleTechFinder now? Awesome!BattleRiftsFinder: The Masquerade WarsDon't be a munchkin. Let's be reasonable here.
You're no fun anymore.
Fine, I'll stick with glitterboy armor then, instead of a motorcycle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I'm in the minority, in that I see unusual PCs as an opportunity rather than a hassle.