|
So I have two potential players. I'm trying not to be biased about them being an adolescents and male, and never having touched a proper TRPG game in their lives. They had wanted to come into the game playing "wacky/zany/crazy" super barbarians who got up to wacky hijinx all the time. This was before they even bothered to find out what kind of game I'm running.
I flat out said no, because I'm running a more serious diplomatic mission game.
Then one of them wanted to play a CN bloodrager who was "too dumb to know the difference between good and evil".
The other one wanted to play a dour, agnsty, drunk knight type character who's on the run from his dark agnsty past and sleeps with all the women and is drunk all the time.
I managed to talk the bloodrager person down, trying to explain to him the level of play we have, and that how I wouldn't stop the other players from reacting in character to what he was describing.
I thought I was making headway when the subject of alingment came up (because now he has the idea of a drunk monk monkey who's always making horrid puns). He was upset because of how I'm running deities (within one step of your alingment) and therefore he couldn't play a caydenite monk.
Anyway, it came out that he ALSO has the idea that good alingments mean you can't ever do bad things. And apprently the fun of playing an RPG is being allowed to do bad things.
This is all before I've even met him.
Any suggestions on how not to be completely biased and give them a fair chance to play. (I'm starting them with NPCs so maybe they'll clue in into just HOW things are played at our table)
One more thing, I don't know their exact ages, but if they are 18 or under I flat out won't allow them to play because we drink while we play and I don't wish to deal with angry parents. And of course with the issue of that we're not exactly a clean mouthed/saintly group. (everyone in the group is very comfortable with sex and sexuality). I don't want to begin to deal with the liablities and angry parents if they are under 18 (and therefore not legally adults).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would run for them an over-the-top game about a slow-witted amoral barbarian and his drunken knight friend, because that is what your players have requested. And it sounds great. (And honestly, Pathfinder RPG is much better suited to that campaign premise than it is to anything involving diplomacy or social maneuvering. You CAN do it, but it's not the ideal tool for the job)
You get way more mileage out of this hobby by giving players (some version of) what they want instead of trying to tell your own story regardless of the audience's expressed desire. All great writers know: you write with the audience in mind. You don't try to screen kids movies at a horror film festival.
Let me put this another way: the purpose of players is to keep you on your toes as a story teller, and make it so not even YOU know what's going to happen. That's the glory and majesty of roleplaying.
If you want to run a straight-faced game with diplomacy elements, you need to start by finding players who are looking for that.
But the players you described are not looking for that. They've told you what they want, and it sounds pretty fun to me. Maybe give it a try? Don't coddle them or cater to them, but take their premise and run with it. Test yourself as a story teller. Give up narrative control to the dice and the humor of your players.
If you do this for a time, then when the correct time arrives for you straight-faced diplomacy game, you will do a much better job of it because of your open mind and improvisation skills acquired in the sillier campaign.
It's nice that your trying to be objective and remove your own bias, but are you not also ignoring your "people senses"...? You're clearly having serious apprehensions about letting these two play in your game before you've even met them, so my suggestion would be to pass on them joining.
This isn't to say that there is anything wrong with the crazy wonky characters they want to play or that there is anything wrong with your more politically motivated campaign... Everyone plays the game differently, and the fact that Pathfinder can support so many different play styles is great. That said, it doesn't mean you should try cramming them all into a single game, lol.
But those are just my 2 cp based on the information you've given above. Certainly there may be other factors driving your thoughts, so feel free to take my opinion as just that - the opinion of one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before you take them into the campaign, run a one-off with them and your group or parts thereof. If they mesh well and everyone has a good time, invite them into the campaign. If you or anyone else finds them terribly annoying and/or disruptive, then simply don't invite them back.
A "test run", if you will.
It seems like you have the situation under control. Personally, I would start with laying down the "no minors" rule, because that's a non-negotiable issue with you regardless of whether you like the players or not.
I think the idea of starting them with NPCs is a good one. If they complain, explain that this helps them get used to the mechanics and game play before they commit to making a character. That way, they have a better chance of building the character they want--and making it effective in the game.
Also, it seems like you are aware of your potential biases and are willing to watch how you interact with them. You might consider discussing this with one or two of your more regular players and ask them to keep an eye for biased behavior and decision, but I'm not sure you can do a whole lot more than that. I think you'll be OK.
As far as the Caydenite monk, if you were OK with the concept, he could look at the Martial Artist archetype, which doesn't require the monk to be lawful but trades out ki pool. Alternatively, he might consider running a Brawler from Advanced Class Guide, which doesn't have an alignment restriction.
I'm not sure how flexible you are with letting players "spin" alignment, but that's another option. For example, I have a completely anti-social Zen Archer with a (well-earned) persecution complex. She's lawful neutral, and I run her as "if I keep my head down, follow the rules, and don't get into trouble, maybe I won't get run out of this town". Essentially, she's lawful out of practical self-preservation rather than any respect for authority or philosophical leanings.
|
Adopted -> Enlightened Warrior (Agathion) allows neutral and neutral good monks (but not paladins), so the rule obstacle is something that can be worked around.
I'd say meet them in person first, run a one-shot adventure, see how you mesh personally. It sounds like you already have a group and campaign going that's kinda serious, so describe that to them and ask if that's really something that interests them. If not, then no harm done.
That said, I've enjoyed both serious and frivolous games. Both are good, but managing expectations beforehand is important.
|
|
The problem with the Caydenite monk is that he just has to be the drunken master, because that class sounds "so cool".
The rest of the party is interested in the diplomatic game, and is quite fine with the more mature and less smashy themes that I'm running. (and also not prone to potentially attacking the scenery, like giant swans (swans with a couple size buffs and advanced template) even if they are very tasty. So these people are coming into an established group, and seem unwilling to change, or udnerstand, when I've told them flat out that it's not a dungeon crawl type game. I don't think the other three players would be pleased that I'm suddenly changing the sort of game the signed up for because the two newbies want to be crazy-zany-agnsty male power fantasy type characters.
I offered them a place in this game because one is the cousin of my friends who is playing, and has been looking for a gaming group for a while now. Apparently the reason he can't find one is because he refuses to modify his playstyle to fit with the group he's joining, and expects people to just accept whatever he wants to bring into the game. I found out AFTER I invited him to join that he's on the entitled side, and spoiled by his mum. He's been bugging me because I used to run PFS (stopped for now due to health reasons) and had wanted to start playing in a group again because he loved his 4th ed group so much and all the zany things they got up to.
Like blackbloodtroll, I think running a one-off is the best option, but I'd recommend that the one-off be similar in tone to your campaign.
Because they might be great at goofy smashing adventures, but still not mesh with a more nuanced social-based campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And apprently the fun of playing an RPG is being allowed to do bad things.
That would be enough for me to simply state 'We are not compatible. Good luck finding a table that better suits your philosophy'.
And apprently the fun of playing an RPG is being allowed to do bad things.That would be enough for me to simply state 'We are not compatible. Good luck finding a table that better suits your philosophy'.
It would be passing up an opportunity to grow as a person and GM, but yeah, you're allowed to do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. To me, a big part of the fun of playing an RPG is doing good things. If they're going to be insisting on playing sociopaths, and that's the only way they're going to have fun, it's going to ruin the game for me.
I grew out of 'hey, let's rape and murder some random townspeople' as being 'fun' 30 years ago.
Meh. To me, a big part of the fun of playing an RPG is doing good things. If they're going to be insisting on playing sociopaths, and that's the only way they're going to have fun, it's going to ruin the game for me.
I grew out of 'hey, let's rape and murder some random townspeople' as being 'fun' 30 years ago.
Oh, I dunno, it can be fun for about 15 minutes in a sandbox video game. Then you reload and get back to actually playing.
The upside is that you aren't forcing someone to sit there and narrate the wailing sobs of the mother of the children you just pulped with a sledgehammer.
|
I dont think they are suited for the game you are planning.
Having said that if you accept them, they are probably gonna get bored, they seem more the slash and hack type, not the inmersive roleplaying type. I myself as a gamer started more fan of hack and slash but as i played more started to apreciate characterization and stories above rules and dices. Question is, are you prepared to go trought the extensive "maturity" period for them? If not dont get him in your game.
I think those whom have said to run a one shot is right. But if i was you i would run a two shot first so people really get to see each others true gaming sides and then can decide if they will be happy to play together.
Tho i have to say from what you have said it does sound like your DMing and there playing styles wont mesh.
I offered them a place in this game because one is the cousin of my friends who is playing, and has been looking for a gaming group for a while now. Apparently the reason he can't find one is because he refuses to modify his playstyle to fit with the group he's joining, and expects people to just accept whatever he wants to bring into the game. I found out AFTER I invited him to join that he's on the entitled side, and spoiled by his mum. He's been bugging me because I used to run PFS (stopped for now due to health reasons) and had wanted to start playing in a group again because he loved his 4th ed group so much and all the zany things they got up to.
Have you tried pointing him to your old PFS group? He could interact with different people and potentially find a group of people he does fit in with. At the very least, the episodic nature of PFS means that not every game will be the same tone and approach, and his character concepts have a better chance of fitting in there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have extended an invite (even if you now think that might have been a bad idea). I presume at least one player (the cousin) is on board with expanding the group, hopefully the rest of your players are as well. At this point it would be pretty impolite to refuse them without giving them a chance.
I would prepare a one-shot that is in the style of the game that you want to run. That will let all of you determine if it will work or not. I tend to believe it is important to try and bring along new (and younger) players and yes that usually does involve some time for maturity to develop.
It is perfectly fair for you to have requirements for characters. I have mandated things like alignment ranges, motivations, goals etc for games I have run so that players will have character that are connected to the plot points I have imagined. Those do need to be clear up front though, so the players can express their concerns or simply say thanks but no thanks, not interested in this one.
I am confused about your religious restriction though. What happens if a drunken master monk raised his glass and says "To Cayden! I love you man." And follows the other behaviors typical of all the other worhippers of Cayden Caileen? Does the God come down and smack him because he is lawful or something? I can certainly see a god not granting divine powers to someone who doesn't match his ethos, but stopping anyone else from worshipping them seems pretty improbable.
I would run for them an over-the-top game about a slow-witted amoral barbarian and his drunken knight friend, because that is what your players have requested. .
This sounds nice, MEL, but it's only a good idea if that's what ALL his players want to play, and it's fairly clear that the OP has a number of other players who are mature.
I think Lincoln is saying run it for only those two, not the whole group.
Do you even need more players?
A game of intrigue tends to fit 2-3 players tops, at least according to my experiences.
I think Lincoln is saying run it for only those two, not the whole group.
Run two games, one of which uses a complete different set of assumptions, settings etc?
Or politely tell them no thank you.
There's no rule that says you have to game with people who play games you don't want to run. If there were I'd have quit gaming a long time ago.
When I first started playing there were a lot of things I just would not get no matter how you explained it to me. These two might be in the same boat. You may be better off denying them entry. If you let them play, but then say "you can't do __ and __" etc, then it might just end up wasting your time and theirs.
|
|
For those saying run two groups, one is all I have the health/energy to run. I'm not interested in doing a one-shot, however I can set them up as temporary party members with the NPCs, because of background reasons.
I've shared their conversations with the other party members and everyone is aprehensive. However, I'm going to at least see if he can learn not to be a male power fantasy obsessed juvenile, and if he can prove that he can play something aside from that. I don't want to drive anyone away from gaming, that's just cruel. However if he doesn't mature, he's going to drive away most potential groups.
|
It would be passing up an opportunity to grow as a person and GM, but yeah, you're allowed to do that.And apprently the fun of playing an RPG is being allowed to do bad things.That would be enough for me to simply state 'We are not compatible. Good luck finding a table that better suits your philosophy'.
I gotta say that I really disagree. The game should be fun for the players AND GM.
These two players sound like they want to do whatever THEY want so THEY have fun in the game. I have played in games where players want to play drunkards and they tend to waste a lot of time with poor-quality role-playing.
Character concepts should be a discussion between the GM and players.
I don't want to drive anyone away from gaming, that's just cruel.
Inflicting this guy on gaming may well be cruel to gaming.