| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: And now my post makes much less sense because I took so long to make it and Coriat already made the point on the last page.
I think Coriat is just trying to point out how impossible it sounds for someone to have planned every detail ever for their campaign setting.
For example if your players decided to leave wherever they were and ride north for 50 miles. They then ride west until they reach the first settlement of village size. Upon reaching the village they ask what the name of the village is, who the leader is, who the leader was 25 years ago (about the time human PCs could have been born), what the name of the largest tavern is and how much they could purchase it for, and what is the wealthiest family that lives there?
Do you trace that route across your map and pull out the notebook labeled villages 100-149 to give them this information that you have prepared? This is why someone claiming to have prepared every detail for their setting to be a bit ridiculous.
But this is outside the original discussion and the secondary discussion that we hi-hacked the thread with. My point wasn't to completely limit the player's input on their character's backstory effecting the setting, but limit it when it effects the fundamental aspects of the setting like level of magic and interaction with other planes. If the backstory of a character basically transforms them into a minor mythological artifact at level one before the campaign and they proceed to spend weeks rooting out some minor bandits near tiny town x once the campaign starts it messes with the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: And now my post makes much less sense because I took so long to make it and Coriat already made the point on the last page.
I think Coriat is just trying to point out how impossible it sounds for someone to have planned every detail ever for their campaign setting.
For example if your players decided to leave wherever they were and ride north for 50 miles. They then ride west until they reach the first settlement of village size. Upon reaching the village they ask what the name of the village is, who the leader is, who the leader was 25 years ago (about the time human PCs could have been born), what the name of the largest tavern is and how much they could purchase it for, and what is the wealthiest family that lives there?
Do you trace that route across your map and pull out the notebook labeled villages 100-149 to give them this information that you have prepared? This is why someone claiming to have prepared every detail for their setting to be a bit ridiculous.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what I do.
I have 30 years of development invested into my worlds. (yes multiple worlds).I have 100 page note books dedicated to individual city blocks.
I have 5 inch D-ring binders stuffed to bursting on the details of individual hamlets/villages/cities. (one city alone has 300 named and fully statted out NPCs).
I have half a dozen such volumes dedicated to the mundane politics of the realms. (Twice that many treatises on the cosmological politics).
I have volumes written up detailing just the economics of the settings.
Did I invent this stuff out of whole cloth when I first put on the GMs hat? Of course not...
I started out like Kryt-ryder with a bare bones frame work unfortunately, unlike he and his group, my players could have cared less about contributing to the world construction, they left it all up to my fertile, over active, obsessive imagination.
They would ask a question here or there about this or that (invariably something I had not considered up to that point) and I would make a determination on the spot (note it down and add it to the ever expanding list of World Books.
After 30 years of using the same worlds (why re-invent the wheel for a 5th time?) information accumulates.
And it's at that point, IMO, that your setting has played itself out.
When there are no more new frontiers, nothing new to explore or discover, your setting is done. It had a good run, but now it's time to wrap it up or shake it up.
It's like long running book series. Take the Wheel of Time. The middle books were so boring because there were no new places in them. Everywhere had been explored, explained, had a book set in it and major events, etc. by that point.
It wasn't until entire countries started to be obliterated to make room for the setting to move forward that the series got good again, and that was really just a long and drawn out "Wrap it up" story.
It may be hyperbolic but I'm not the one using the hyperbole. We have people saying they've literally planned out every facet of their world, without exception, and another who says if I pick a random direction to explore it's already got an established town or whatever and he can pull a page from his notebook about it.
"I have everything planned and established in the setting already already" and "There are new things to explore" are pretty much mutually exclusive statements.
You can have some decent stories in a setting like that but they're a bit dulled by the setting being so cluttered, for lack of a better word.
Pick any random Forgotten Realms novel and you'll see what I mean.
And it's at that point, IMO, that your setting has played itself out.
When there are no more new frontiers, nothing new to explore or discover, your setting is done. It had a good run, but now it's time to wrap it up or shake it up.
It's like long running book series. Take the Wheel of Time. The middle books were so boring because there were no new places in them. Everywhere had been explored, explained, had a book set in it and major events, etc. by that point.
It wasn't until entire countries started to be obliterated to make room for the setting to move forward that the series got good again, and that was really just a long and drawn out "Wrap it up" story.
and yet I get requests to run my Lopan Capital City setting (The one with 300 named NPCs) constantly...
It can never be "played out" because I designed the politics of that particular setting to be ever evolving. (Common saying on that world... "best way to avoid getting involved in Lopanese Politics? Don't go to Lopan.")This philosophy drives all my settings.
Events happen.
Sometimes they are backdrops in the tales of the PCs.
Sometimes they are the plot of the tales of the PCs.
Events are not the Setting.
They are the things that happen to, in, and around the setting.
Just because the setting is established does not mean there are no stories to tell.
Not really. Just because he has them planned doesn't mean that they players have ever seen them. And if the players have never seen them, how are they not new things to explore to the players?
Things become cluttered by using the "throw it in" syndrome rather than exercising some control over what sorts of things go into the recipe of the campaign world.
This.
just because I (the GM) know what is there does not mean you (The Player) do.I am not going just read you the laundry list of things I have detailed about that location. You still have to explore and discover them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how bad is it if the GM randomizes loot and magic shop items? (Its assumed that this information is known at session zero.)
The melees will suffer more than casters will if the GM ignores the 75% rule.
Personally I would play a caster and likely take the item creation feats(not all of them) just to help the martials out. If you houseruled the creation feats into uselessness then I would be more like to make an optimized caster to make up the difference and help the front line out.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a sufficiently large city anything is readily available.Unless the GM says no.
That is common sense. We like to assume the normal rules here so that statement was not even needed.
Why do you want the adventure to take place in Cheliax if literally none of your players want to be there?
I don't understand why people think that it has to be "Ooh all GM power or no GM power". There are 5 people at the table.
If the other 4 want to do something a bit different, you're outvoted bro.
Just jumping in here - the GM is the one doing all the work, the vote the PC's get to make is whether or not they want to play in the GM's game, not how, when or why the GM is going to be running it for them.
I don't like the idea of a group of people who aren't working getting together and out-voting the one guy who is with regards to how the fruits of his labor should be distributed. Sounds too much like our tax system to me.
I've never quite understood the "you're outvoted" angle on all of this. Perhaps it is something that is a newer invention or occurs at tables I've not been to. In my experiences, you come to play and may be given a brief player synopsis (or in the case of some of us, a huge player synopsis) that lets you know about the world and what to expect in the coming campaign and you get a character together and you play.
There is no vote, there is no "oh wait, this is about blah? I don't wanna do that!" There is "This is the game that is going to go on."
This doesn't mean that you haven't taken your player's considerations and desires in mind BEFORE you began this process. But there isn't a vote after the fact and the GM tosses what they are going to do because people changed their mind after the fact .. that is, unless someone else is going behind the screen.
This, in my mind, isn't GM entitlement or a power trip. Presumably, the GM has let you know what to expect or at the very least, you came there to game and not wrangle about the other aspects. It feels like poor form and a little bit rude to get to the table and demand that things be changed. Some of this is communication problems and some, yes, is a feeling of entitlement. You are entitled or owed a game if you show up.
Again, it might just be my limited experience with this idea that you show up and try to vote out the GM because you want to play in X city or realm or concept and they had something else in mind. The only way would work is if you are blessed like Kirth with multiple GMs ready to go on deck at a moments notice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did this get on to setting creation. Was I sleeping?
Well whatever. I like my settings like I like my men: big and vacant.
By that I mean I hint to my players that the land is vast and sweeping. I create names and a map that seems to go on forever. Then I add a single settlement. Finally I say "go" and the whole thing starts.
I use default gods 'cause, really, who's got the time for all that? I like to make a decent amount of map; enough to sustain at least one campaign. But then my list of place and people names far exceeds the map so I'll just rattle one off and suggest it somewhere on the map or beyond. If the players don't care, it never needs creating. If they do, I've got enough generic info lying around to make it up.
I don't pretend to know every facet of my worlds. Kudos to you that do, seriously. You are obviously passionate, detail oriented folks with a high degree of organization, or at least you play them on TV. Me? I'm kind of a slob with a family, a hectic job, going to school and occasionally trying to game. Needless to say, I don't have the resources to keep it all together.
But even more than that I like the idea that I don't know something. If I get a wild hair to throw a vampire at my players (not a lot of undead so far in my current campaign) they'd be like "where'd that come from?" and I could invent a land of the dead on the spot. I feel that allows me MORE creativity than less. It might be the opposite for some GMs; I don't know, I'm not them.
My players help too in their small way. Sometimes directly by creating settlements in their backstory. Sometimes indirectly by suggesting things they like or would like to see.
This comes back to my philosophy for giving out magic items in my games. I have a lot of pre-generated hoards written up in a notebook and some of these have some weird wild-card magic items in them like handkerchiefs of repair that, after 10 minutes of use on an item provide the combined efforts of a mending and prestidigitation cantrip or a club of dancing that plays subtle techno music and can 3/day cause irresistible dance on a victim by touch. If the players want these, great; if not, they sell the loot and get what they want. If they want something specific and I know about it I'll give it to them somehow.
TL/DR: I make up a lot of Cra...stuff. I jot it down on my laptop, in notebooks and what not. I keep it for a rainy day. Then I just play with my players, see what they want, and provide it. I don't know what's coming up next, and I often forget as much about where we've been as my players do. I hope that doesn't make me a bad GM, but that's my design philosophy for just about everything - world building, magic items, encounters, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: And now my post makes much less sense because I took so long to make it and Coriat already made the point on the last page.
I think Coriat is just trying to point out how impossible it sounds for someone to have planned every detail ever for their campaign setting.
For example if your players decided to leave wherever they were and ride north for 50 miles. They then ride west until they reach the first settlement of village size. Upon reaching the village they ask what the name of the village is, who the leader is, who the leader was 25 years ago (about the time human PCs could have been born), what the name of the largest tavern is and how much they could purchase it for, and what is the wealthiest family that lives there?
Do you trace that route across your map and pull out the notebook labeled villages 100-149 to give them this information that you have prepared? This is why someone claiming to have prepared every detail for their setting to be a bit ridiculous.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what I do.
I have 30 years of development invested into my worlds. (yes multiple worlds).
I have 100 page note books dedicated to individual city blocks.
I have 5 inch D-ring binders stuffed to bursting on the details of individual hamlets/villages/cities. (one city alone has 300 named and fully statted out NPCs).
I have half a dozen such volumes dedicated to the mundane politics of the realms. (Twice that many treatises on the cosmological politics).
I have volumes written up detailing just the economics of the settings.Did I invent this stuff out of whole cloth when I first put on the GMs hat? Of course not...
I started out like Kryt-ryder with a bare bones frame work unfortunately, unlike he and his group, my players could have cared less about contributing to the world construction, they left it all up to my fertile, over active, obsessive imagination.
They would ask a question here or there about this or that (invariably something I had...
Don't take this the wrong way, since creativity is always good, but this level of detail seems better suited for writing a novel, not a campaign. In fact one of the central complaints about Forgotten Realms is the amount of lore, which takes away from player experience. I find that lower levels of details that can be used to add features players make for excellent games (and also significantly easier prep work).
I don't recognize my own thread anymore. I thought this was about magic item availability and dependence. I'm seeing race selection and world building.
With the world building and race selection thing, no matter how vague or how rigidly you plan your setting there is very frequently 'that guy' that wants to play some concept that doesn't fit. As a player I'd rather the GM stop it because I've been in parties with frankenrace monstrocities. Sometimes I get stuck trying to be a part of the world and trying to mold it to my whim with my powers as a main character but instead playing Monty Python and the Toxic Crusaders 2: Our choices in race/backstory matters little Boogaloo.
As a GM I have a set list of races you can play that actually fit in the setting. Session 0 may take in suggestions but at session 1 its a hard limit.
I agree with collaborating with the layers to get thier backstories to fit but understand that 'grew up in a fishing village made of tiefliings' isn't going to exactly work in a setting you were told that fish and outsiders do not exist. Have some wiggle room in that backstory.
Man, Damian and the other guy could probably be rich if they put all that effort into something useful. You should have written a book series, you might be the new Steven Erikson.
In other news, I'd hate to play in that world and I think my group would as well, but to each his own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.
Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....
Man, Damian and the other guy could probably be rich if they put all that effort into something useful. You should have written a book series, you might be the new Steven Erikson.
In other news, I'd hate to play in that world and I think my group would as well, but to each his own.
It really depends on the kind of experience you're looking for.
That level of detail would be amazing for a videogame, for example. For players looking for that sort of 'here we are, what's there to do GM?' gameplay, that world would be like a playground. Everything's there, you just ask and do. It strikes me as something requiring incredibly little effort on the player's part, which has a certain appeal.
I'd hate that aspect of that setting, but I can't necessarily say I wouldn't enjoy playing in it depending on how it was run.
For me I think it depends on what's happening plot-wise. With such a setting as detailed as that I feel like I have a better opportunity to roleplay as opposed to collective storytelling, the difference being that I'm more trying to affect what exists as a character rather than negotiate how the world and plot will work. If the plot isn't very railroady then that heavily detailed of a world is super appealing to sandbox, and the fact that I had no hand in the actual details of the world lends a lot to a sense of discovery.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.
Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....
But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you want the adventure to take place in Cheliax if literally none of your players want to be there?
I don't understand why people think that it has to be "Ooh all GM power or no GM power". There are 5 people at the table.
If the other 4 want to do something a bit different, you're outvoted bro.
Just jumping in here - the GM is the one doing all the work, the vote the PC's get to make is whether or not they want to play in the GM's game, not how, when or why the GM is going to be running it for them.
I don't like the idea of a group of people who aren't working getting together and out-voting the one guy who is with regards to how the fruits of his labor should be distributed. Sounds too much like our tax system to me.
I've never quite understood the "you're outvoted" angle on all of this. Perhaps it is something that is a newer invention or occurs at tables I've not been to. In my experiences, you come to play and may be given a brief player synopsis (or in the case of some of us, a huge player synopsis) that lets you know about the world and what to expect in the coming campaign and you get a character together and you play.
There is no vote, there is no "oh wait, this is about blah? I don't wanna do that!" There is "This is the game that is going to go on."
This doesn't mean that you haven't taken your player's considerations and desires in mind BEFORE you began this process. But there isn't a vote after the fact and the GM tosses what they are going to do because people changed their mind after the fact .. that is, unless someone else is going behind the screen.
This, in my mind, isn't GM entitlement or a power trip. Presumably, the GM has let you know what to expect or at the very least, you came there to game and not wrangle about the other aspects. It feels like poor form and a little bit rude to get to the table and demand that things be changed. Some of this is communication problems and some, yes, is a feeling of entitlement. You are entitled or owed a game if you show up.
Again, it might just be my limited experience with this idea that you show up and try to vote out the GM because you want to play in X city or realm or concept and they had something else in mind. The only way would work is if you are blessed like Kirth with multiple GMs ready to go on deck at a moments notice.
As a GM, I feel that I am sharing great moments with great people when I play because they gave me a big part of their life (ie, their precious free time). Actually, they AGREED to trust me and hope that I will be giving them some great fun back.
Because of this, I feel that I have an obligation to listen to them and their wishes for their characters and do my best to fit it all within the story I plan to share with them.
GMs arguing that they are allowed to ignore their players' expectations and/or disparage them by decrying "player entitlement" because "they spent so much time and money on this" act like spoiled children IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I feel that I am sharing great moments with great people when I play because they gave me a big part of their life (ie, their precious free time). Actually, they AGREED to trust me and hope that I will be giving them some great fun back.
Because of this, I feel that I have an obligation to listen to them and their wishes for their characters and do my best to fit it all within the story I plan to share with them.
GMs arguing that they are allowed to ignore their players' expectations and/or disparage them by decrying "player entitlement" because "they spent so much time and money on this" act like spoiled children IMO.
Which is a great point, and why I talk to people in advance so we are all on the same page. That said, if a player or players show up after I've spent time working on things and decide that they want to change the game, then we have a communication break-down. It's rude in gaming or other social situations to do things like that.
And to answer the question/comment that is sure to pop up, the GM could wing it, sure. You can GM with a napkin full of notes and some improv skills .. assuming that you can do that. Many GMs much like many people aren't good with that sort of thing or don't feel comfortable just rolling randomly and tossing things at the players in a desperate desire to fill game time since things went off book for them.
To tilt this back towards the topic of items and getting what you want, I'd suggest that this might be one of the questions that you ask the GM/table at the beginning so if you are someone who likes to plan out their purchases/needs in advance you know what you are getting into before you are deep into the game and can make an informed decision.
Man, Damian and the other guy could probably be rich if they put all that effort into something useful. You should have written a book series, you might be the new Steven Erikson.
In other news, I'd hate to play in that world and I think my group would as well, but to each his own.
It really depends on the kind of experience you're looking for.
That level of detail would be amazing for a videogame, for example. For players looking for that sort of 'here we are, what's there to do GM?' gameplay, that world would be like a playground. Everything's there, you just ask and do. It strikes me as something requiring incredibly little effort on the player's part, which has a certain appeal.
I'd hate that aspect of that setting, but I can't necessarily say I wouldn't enjoy playing in it depending on how it was run.
Writing a novel? I lack the skill (and perhaps the confidence to a degree) to invent the main characters and their interactions with those worlds.
Video game? maybe... If I had invented the worlds in that level of detail in a short time? sure I would be rich.But they got that detailed over the course of 30 years.
I started pretty much like you do Kryt.
I started with some vague basics (world map, major movers and shakers, etc...) the rest grew organically from adventures I ran in those worlds. The Players would ask questions that would get me thinking in a new direction and it would flow from there.
If I ever build another new world it will in all likely hood develop the same way.
Man, Damian and the other guy could probably be rich if they put all that effort into something useful. You should have written a book series, you might be the new Steven Erikson.
In other news, I'd hate to play in that world and I think my group would as well, but to each his own.
It really depends on the kind of experience you're looking for.
That level of detail would be amazing for a videogame, for example. For players looking for that sort of 'here we are, what's there to do GM?' gameplay, that world would be like a playground. Everything's there, you just ask and do. It strikes me as something requiring incredibly little effort on the player's part, which has a certain appeal.
I'd hate that aspect of that setting, but I can't necessarily say I wouldn't enjoy playing in it depending on how it was run.
Writing a novel? I lack the skill (and perhaps the confidence to a degree) to invent the main characters and their interactions with those worlds.
Video game? maybe... If I had invented the worlds in that level of detail in a short time? sure I would be rich.
But they got that detailed over the course of 30 years.
I started pretty much like you do Kryt.
I started with some vague basics (world map, major movers and shakers, etc...) the rest grew organically from adventures I ran in those worlds. The Players would ask questions that would get me thinking in a new direction and it would flow from there.
If I ever build another new world it will in all likely hood develop the same way.
So what you're saying is, your world started incomplete, and you allowed things to be added as they went forward, presumably some of it with player input and participation.
So why were you arguing with me about it, dagnabbit?
I don't recognize my own thread anymore. I thought this was about magic item availability and dependence. I'm seeing race selection and world building.
Magic Item availability is part and parcel of world building. So the tangent was inevitable.
With the world building and race selection thing, no matter how vague or how rigidly you plan your setting there is very frequently 'that guy' that wants to play some concept that doesn't fit. As a player I'd rather the GM stop it because I've been in parties with frankenrace monstrocities. Sometimes I get stuck trying to be a part of the world and trying to mold it to my whim with my powers as a main character but instead playing Monty Python and the Toxic Crusaders 2: Our choices in race/backstory matters little Boogaloo.
As a GM I have a set list of races you can play that actually fit in the setting. Session 0 may take in suggestions but at session 1 its a hard limit.
I agree with collaborating with the layers to get thier backstories to fit but understand that 'grew up in a fishing village made of tiefliings' isn't going to exactly work in a setting you were told that fish and outsiders do not exist. Have some wiggle room in that backstory.
That is a big part of the debate here.
The GM is (apparently according to common thought) expected to have wiggle room in his character (The World) but players do not have to budge.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, Damian and the other guy could probably be rich if they put all that effort into something useful. You should have written a book series, you might be the new Steven Erikson.
In other news, I'd hate to play in that world and I think my group would as well, but to each his own.
It really depends on the kind of experience you're looking for.
That level of detail would be amazing for a videogame, for example. For players looking for that sort of 'here we are, what's there to do GM?' gameplay, that world would be like a playground. Everything's there, you just ask and do. It strikes me as something requiring incredibly little effort on the player's part, which has a certain appeal.
I'd hate that aspect of that setting, but I can't necessarily say I wouldn't enjoy playing in it depending on how it was run.
Writing a novel? I lack the skill (and perhaps the confidence to a degree) to invent the main characters and their interactions with those worlds.
Video game? maybe... If I had invented the worlds in that level of detail in a short time? sure I would be rich.
But they got that detailed over the course of 30 years.
I started pretty much like you do Kryt.
I started with some vague basics (world map, major movers and shakers, etc...) the rest grew organically from adventures I ran in those worlds. The Players would ask questions that would get me thinking in a new direction and it would flow from there.
If I ever build another new world it will in all likely hood develop the same way.So what you're saying is, your world started incomplete, and you allowed things to be added as they went forward, presumably some of it with player input and participation.
So why were you arguing with me about it, dagnabbit?
Because you once again are making an assumption. The only player input I have ever received is "hey, Damian, what is the major export of the Claíomh Fola Barony?
No one ever suggested I make changes (to them that would be the same as me telling them how their character would act) just fine tune the existing.You are arguing that the now existent result of those 30 years is rubbish. (gee I wonder why I responded like I did?)
I don't recognize my own thread anymore. I thought this was about magic item availability and dependence. I'm seeing race selection and world building.Magic Item availability is part and parcel of world building. So the tangent was inevitable.
With the world building and race selection thing, no matter how vague or how rigidly you plan your setting there is very frequently 'that guy' that wants to play some concept that doesn't fit. As a player I'd rather the GM stop it because I've been in parties with frankenrace monstrocities. Sometimes I get stuck trying to be a part of the world and trying to mold it to my whim with my powers as a main character but instead playing Monty Python and the Toxic Crusaders 2: Our choices in race/backstory matters little Boogaloo.
As a GM I have a set list of races you can play that actually fit in the setting. Session 0 may take in suggestions but at session 1 its a hard limit.
I agree with collaborating with the layers to get thier backstories to fit but understand that 'grew up in a fishing village made of tiefliings' isn't going to exactly work in a setting you were told that fish and outsiders do not exist. Have some wiggle room in that backstory.
That is a big part of the debate here.
The GM is (apparently according to common thought) expected to have wiggle room in his character (The World) but players do not have to budge.
I find that with access with multiple planes of existence, magic in general, and an entire world to work with... I have yet to find a concept that does not make sense in Pathfinder.
I will confess I envy your attention to detail. (Well, part of me envies it, part of me shivers at the idea of having THAT MUCH STUFF run through my head ;] )
I think a big part of the difference is as you said, having different types of players (and the duration of the groups.) I tend to seek out creative players with an interest in taking part in the world, the one time I didn't and sort of 'stepped into' an existing group that was in love with Golarion and wanted to play simple characters along for the ride... well... it didn't work out (although the biggest issue wasn't clashing playstyles, it was my own busy schedule at the time.)
I can hardly imagine maintaining the same world for even ten years at this point, let alone thirty. My groups tend to survive somewhere around 1-3 years and then dissipate due to life issues, and I like to start from scratch with a new group. (Granted it's always possible those old worlds might just be different continents in the same world. I do tend to run the same style of kitchen sink fantasy after all.)
I have 4 fantasy worlds, 3 modern, and 2 future and 1 space opera.
After a certain point it just becomes re-inventing/re-treading the same ground.Maintaining the worlds just became easy for me when I realized I had living world. It doesnt matter the group now... It is the same 10 settings always. The players love the stories they help build not the settings in which they exist. But they associate the settings with those amazing stories.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.
Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....
Yes, and I have. I told my players "no guns/gunpowder in my homebrew." One guy said "Why?" and I politely responded "I just don't like them and how they feel in my fantasy world. I try not to be judgmental or obtuse, but on this I am." He shrugged and went on with it anyway. After only a session zero and one adventure with the team he's asking me when the next game is.
Bottom line: GM's need to work WITH their players all the way. If they're not willing to budge on something, they need to be brutally honest. Mom always said honesty is the best policy, and she was right.
But on the other hand if you are willing to budge, even a bit, you SHOULD. Why? Because you want to work WITH your players, not around them.
So, you've got a guy; his build depends on greatswords and later gloves of dueling (IDK if that's a real build but whatev). If you're willing to see those in the game somewhere and he's been up front with you about his guy wanting them/building on them, why would you NOT put them in? Are they a random drop? A shopping trip? A sacred quest? I have no idea, but by adding them somehow to the game you're telling your player "your choices are valid and I'm willing to work with you for your fun at my table."
GM's aren't gods; they're customer service reps. Your player could've chosen from ANY game available in the local area or online. They chose yours. Now your job is to satisfy their request while also maintaining the integrity and interests of the company you work for (the game). You can't give away the store, but at the same time you'd never say to an internal or external customer "no, you can't ever have what you're asking for" as a CSR.
I find that with access with multiple planes of existence, magic in general, and an entire world to work with... I have yet to find a concept that does not make sense in Pathfinder.I don't recognize my own thread anymore. I thought this was about magic item availability and dependence. I'm seeing race selection and world building.Magic Item availability is part and parcel of world building. So the tangent was inevitable.
With the world building and race selection thing, no matter how vague or how rigidly you plan your setting there is very frequently 'that guy' that wants to play some concept that doesn't fit. As a player I'd rather the GM stop it because I've been in parties with frankenrace monstrocities. Sometimes I get stuck trying to be a part of the world and trying to mold it to my whim with my powers as a main character but instead playing Monty Python and the Toxic Crusaders 2: Our choices in race/backstory matters little Boogaloo.
As a GM I have a set list of races you can play that actually fit in the setting. Session 0 may take in suggestions but at session 1 its a hard limit.
I agree with collaborating with the layers to get thier backstories to fit but understand that 'grew up in a fishing village made of tiefliings' isn't going to exactly work in a setting you were told that fish and outsiders do not exist. Have some wiggle room in that backstory.
That is a big part of the debate here.
The GM is (apparently according to common thought) expected to have wiggle room in his character (The World) but players do not have to budge.
You assume that access to those other planes is a simple matter of going to the corner store.
This aint Rifts.Some of us restrict planar travel.
Besides If I see one more "it is there because of a Rift/Portal"... excuse to work around a GM/World restriction...
It has been my experience that players who are inflexible enough to not follow guidelines are going be problems later on down the road in other areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plane Shift can be cast by a 9th level Cleric, there are areas that have permanent gates and sometimes things manage to slip in. If demons/devils/angels/azatas and others can get in no reason Joe's character can't make sense. Sure its not as simple as going to the corner store but its pretty normal in Pathfinder-verse. Even more normal for an already exceptional PC.
And yes... players who are inflexible do tend cause problems... even if that player is the GM.
Because you once again are making an assumption. The only player input I have ever received is "hey, Damian, what is the major export of the Claíomh Fola Barony?
No one ever suggested I make changes (to them that would be the same as me telling them how their character would act) just fine tune the existing.
The problem here is you're conflating "no one has ever" to "No one should ever because that's bad", and it's not. You should be glad if your players care enough to come up with a new town somewhere, or a minor noble family they'd like to be a part of, or whatever.
How does it harm you if they do so?
Because you once again are making an assumption. The only player input I have ever received is "hey, Damian, what is the major export of the Claíomh Fola Barony?
No one ever suggested I make changes (to them that would be the same as me telling them how their character would act) just fine tune the existing.The problem here is you're conflating "no one has ever" to "No one should ever because that's bad", and it's not. You should be glad if your players care enough to come up with a new town somewhere, or a minor noble family they'd like to be a part of, or whatever.
How does it harm you if they do so?
because I have found that the when a player does interject those things they want complete control of what happens to those elements.(including but not limited to number of siblings, line of succession, and financial standing... The last a thinly veiled attempt at circumventing monetary constraints).
I have plenty of noble houses, if a Player wishes to be from one of them they may.If they want to GM then they need to just bite the bullet and sit on my side of the screen and stop telling me how to do my job.
Plane Shift can be cast by a 9th level Cleric, there are areas that have permanent gates and sometimes things manage to slip in. If demons/devils/angels/azatas and others can get in no reason Joe's character can't make sense. Sure its not as simple as going to the corner store but its pretty normal in Pathfinder-verse. Even more normal for an already exceptional PC.
And yes... players who are inflexible do tend cause problems... even if that player is the GM.
Missed the part where I said "restrict" didn't you?
Never assume everything is available or negotiable. That is where the whole PC Entitlement image stems.I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...
But none on Players being flexible.
The players whims must be catered to at all costs even if it detracts from the GMs fun? The GM is a Player also yet so many of these threads tend to ignore that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.
Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....
What I don't understand is why a single player's fun is given so much more of an imperative than the GM's fun by so many posters on these forums. Is the GM simply a non-entity who gives up the right to have any fun of their own when they take up the role of the gamemaster? Is there ever, in your mind, a situation where the GM actually gets to tell a player "no"?
Why bother having a GM if the players control every aspect of the world and adventure creation? Is it that inconvenient for the player to roll the dice for the monsters/NPCs?
:P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...
But none on Players being flexible.
Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.
Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player's "whims" are easy to cater to. Why not? How does Jim playing an X, Y, or Z in anyway impact anyone elses fun. There isn't much talk about Player flexibility, because its their job to play a character they want to and unless their picking something wildly inappropriate there's not much need for them to be flexible. Many GM's however do need to be more flexible, mainly because they tend to be the ones who seem to be inflexible. Even though they have lots of tools to make the player's idea work, they are unwilling and when someone points this is out they cry "HOW ENTITLED!".
|
|
Plane Shift can be cast by a 9th level Cleric, there are areas that have permanent gates and sometimes things manage to slip in. If demons/devils/angels/azatas and others can get in no reason Joe's character can't make sense. Sure its not as simple as going to the corner store but its pretty normal in Pathfinder-verse. Even more normal for an already exceptional PC.
And yes... players who are inflexible do tend cause problems... even if that player is the GM.
Missed the part where I said "restrict" didn't you?
Never assume everything is available or negotiable. That is where the whole PC Entitlement image stems.
I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...
But none on Players being flexible.
The players whims must be catered to at all costs even if it detracts from the GMs fun? The GM is a Player also yet so many of these threads tend to ignore that.
Then you have not read the same threads I did. Or maybe you missed all those posts from the poor GMs confronted with all these greedy unrepentant players.
Most of these threads actually originate with some GM railing against "player's entitlement", often in the shape of "special snowflake". I believe I never saw any thread start the other way around.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...
But none on Players being flexible.Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.
Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.
The GM gets the whole world. The Player gets their character. Therefore not letting the player have the character they want is inflexibility on the GM's part. It would be like the player telling the GM there's a village of Dragons disguised as humans somewhere and I've never met that player.
|
|
What I don't understand is why a single player's fun is given so much more of an imperative than the GM's fun by so many posters on these forums. Is the GM simply a non-entity who gives up the right to have any fun of their own when they take up the role of the gamemaster? Is there ever, in your mind, a situation where the GM actually gets to tell a player "no"?
Why bother having a GM if the players control every aspect of the world and adventure creation? Is it that inconvenient for the player to roll the dice for the monsters/NPCs?
:P
You definitely might want to re-read all those threads. I do not remember even one poster arguing that the GM should not have fun.