I still end up with people who make elf druids, claiming to be travelers from a far off land, etc.
Once in a while is fine, but I've seen and heard of players that basically always choose the "option not allowed/not normal". Some people just like to be contrary, and others just always want to be unique (I think they call that the Drizzt syndrome).
Honestly, the DM is as much a player of the game. His fun counts too. Players being contrary for no other reason than to upset the system are playing "my fun at your expense" gaming.
Well, as long as it was only CC giving him a mouthful of the worst beer ever, I'd roll with that. Not very often you get to play oneupmanship with a god.
I would even be ok with the god i pissed off in my background, poisoning, trying(and likely succeeding) to kill me etc. The dm is supposed to control npcs. If i piss them off, they should try to do bad things to me. I expect, and want that as a player. And if my character bites off more then he can chew, so be it. Thats part of the game.
Who is being unfair here? Me for the restrictions, or the player for flagrantly flouting them?
"Fairness" is an often misused term (much like the frequent bandying about of "logic" in the same sentence folks are talking about the necessary behaviors of celestials). In my current Pathfinder campaign, all of the PCs were required to be humans from the 21st-century who had won a morning show contest for a bus trip to a gambling vacation weekend.
This requirement didn't come about by mere fiat. I pitched the idea to my group, and they unanimously signed on for it. Thus, end of discussion about that part of PC generation.
If one of the players had showed up insisting on running a gnome artificer from Cormyr, we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid and then laughed.
So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?
As others have said, a GM "controls" the story and the actions of the world and the people in it. That is ample control enough. All the players have is their own, single PCs (and sometimes companions/cohorts) to control; the GM gets everything else.
Changing a character's background, abilities, etc. without discussing it with the player and getting the players' explicit consent, is generally going WAY too far with GM rights.
There is some give and take on this: If a paladin picks up his baby son and cuts his throat to stop his crying, I think the paladin would probably lose his paladin abilities without much debate. But that's also because that's something laid out and "protected" by the rules of the game--the player of a paladin knows part and parcel of playing that kind of character involves following a code of conduct. It's not just an arbitrary decision made by the GM because he thought it was a good idea at the time.
Even when a player starts to cross a line that may be at odds with class or alignment or roleplaying expectations, a good GM talks to the player about the situation before consequences are chosen. Only a control freak GM just takes, literally or figuratively, the character sheet away from the player and alters or destroys it.
In the example of the Celestial Sorcerer, a good GM would sit down with the player and say, "In my world, the gods that are the source of your bloodline are angry what you did. I'm thinking they wouldn't just turn a blind eye to this. But I don't want to just take your powers away or change them without talking to you. I also need to keep the integrity of my game world, however. What do YOU think I should do?" And go from there. If the ball is thrown into the player's court, often times they'll come up with ideas for their own character that would be equally effective (and some players will punish themselves more than the GM ever would--as long as they get to pick out what happens), and they'll be happy rather than upset because THEY got to help write a chapter in their character's story, rather than have something thrust upon them.
The GM can still make a proposal--"I was thinking the gods might curse you and change your bloodline temporarily until you atone. But I don't know... maybe a Geas/Quest would be a better idea? That way you wouldn't have to re-write your character sheet."
Sometimes players get defensive and you just have to deal with that as it comes. It IS a GM's job to understand and communicate that there will be consequences to the player character' actions. It is still the player's job to control and carry out those actions and deal with the consequences as they choose.
God I hope that made sense.
But once the base char gen rule are out, I leave the back story and such to the players. My group, I'm lucky if they remember to name their PCs, much less invent ANY kind of back story :(
And when we do sometimes you don't even read them. :)
And when we do sometimes you don't even read them. :)
But once the base char gen rule are out, I leave the back story and such to the players. My group, I'm lucky if they remember to name their PCs, much less invent ANY kind of back story :(
I DO read them, just sometimes the game doesn't last long enough for me to write it in :)
Finally, a pet peeve of mine is when a DM says that you can't be Character X because it doesn't fit in with his world or campaign. Again, I feel strongly that a player should have control over who and what his character is.As a DM who does this all the time, I have to counter with- If I lay down the rules BEFORE you agree to play the game (IE I'm running a South East Asian inspired setting, so Paladins, Druids, and Bards are a no go. Also, no Elves, or Gnomes, but you can use 1/2 Ogre and all 1/2 Orcs are called Common Rakhshasa and have tiger heads) then it is more fair? I still end up with people who make elf druids, claiming to be travelers from a far off land, etc. Who is being unfair here? Me for the restrictions, or the player for flagrantly flouting them?
But once the base char gen rule are out, I leave the back story and such to the players. My group, I'm lucky if they remember to name their PCs, much less invent ANY kind of back story :(
I would tell them no far off lands exist in my homebrew world. Actually I would not have such limitations, but if I did want such limitations I would make it impossible for any exceptions to exist, even if it meant mapping the world, and defining so nothing new could be added in.
I would tell them no far off lands exist in my homebrew world. Actually I would not have such limitations, but if I did want such limitations I would make it impossible for any exceptions to exist, even if it meant mapping the world, and defining so nothing new could be added in.
Finally, a pet peeve of mine is when a DM says that you can't be Character X because it doesn't fit in with his world or campaign. Again, I feel strongly that a player should have control over who and what his character is.As a DM who does this all the time, I have to counter with- If I lay down the rules BEFORE you agree to play the game (IE I'm running a South East Asian inspired setting, so Paladins, Druids, and Bards are a no go. Also, no Elves, or Gnomes, but you can use 1/2 Ogre and all 1/2 Orcs are called Common Rakhshasa and have tiger heads) then it is more fair? I still end up with people who make elf druids, claiming to be travelers from a far off land, etc. Who is being unfair here? Me for the restrictions, or the player for flagrantly flouting them?
But once the base char gen rule are out, I leave the back story and such to the players. My group, I'm lucky if they remember to name their PCs, much less invent ANY kind of back story :(
I think those kinds of restrictions layed down prior to the session are reasonable. A player should try to fit into the campaign world. The key is that they are layed out before the players start making characters. The fewer ideas you as the dm have to shoot down the better.
"With great power comes great responsibility."
As a DM I have taken liberties with PCs (I took a kobold rogue PC and gave him the backstory that he was a cursed fiend, and later on he discovered that he was actually a fallen angel and was eventually redeemed and became a planatar). I didn't discuss it with the PC beforehand because I wanted to keep the full story a mystery until the proper time. I knew the player would dig it, or else I wouldn't have done it. This is just one example.
As a player I have not agreed with a DM's ruling but I have accepted it. A DM in a 3.5 game once disallowed the use of the Energy Immunity spell (from Complete Divine or Complete Arcane, I forget which) for my druid even though he allowed another player to build several custom prestige classes for other players (among several other totally customized things he was allowed to do). The DM didn't want the use of that spell to trivialize encounters against monsters that relied on certain types of energy damage. Never mind that we used Resist Energy and Protection from Energy to much the same effect. Just one example.
DM's must use their power to the betterment of the game. Players should respect that DM's will do so. Break the covenant and the game suffers.
I would tell them no far off lands exist in my homebrew world. Actually I would not have such limitations, but if I did want such limitations I would make it impossible for any exceptions to exist, even if it meant mapping the world, and defining so nothing new could be added in.
The fun part is my world is pretty well mapped out, and several of the players have adventured in multiple regions, so they "know" these other areas exist. So far it has not been a big problem with my current group, I think because I try to temper what I take away with the goodies I replace them with. It's that balance thing.
So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?As others have said, a GM "controls" the story and the actions of the world and the people in it. That is ample control enough. All the players have is their own, single PCs (and sometimes companions/cohorts) to control; the GM gets everything else.
Changing a character's background, abilities, etc. without discussing it with the player and getting the players' explicit consent, is generally going WAY too far with GM rights.
There is some give and take on this: If a paladin picks up his baby son and cuts his throat to stop his crying, I think the paladin would probably lose his paladin abilities without much debate. But that's also because that's something laid out and "protected" by the rules of the game--the player of a paladin knows part and parcel of playing that kind of character involves following a code of conduct. It's not just an arbitrary decision made by the GM because he thought it was a good idea at the time.
Even when a player starts to cross a line that may be at odds with class or alignment or roleplaying expectations, a good GM talks to the player about the situation before consequences are chosen. Only a control freak GM just takes, literally or figuratively, the character sheet away from the player and alters or destroys it.
In the example of the Celestial Sorcerer, a good GM would sit down with the player and say, "In my world, the gods that are the source of your bloodline are angry what you did. I'm thinking they wouldn't just turn a blind eye to this. But I don't want to just take your powers away or change them without talking to you. I also need to keep the integrity of my game world, however. What do YOU think I should do?" And go from there. If the ball is thrown into the player's court, often times they'll come...
I think you're in the right ballpark, but this goes a touch too far for my taste. When people make radical characters (or normal characters with radical backstories) of any type for a game I'm running, they've got to work with me to make sure it fits within the logic of the world. Even a fantasy world in which dragons fly and 110 lb. barbarian women swing swords that look like they weigh 30 lbs. needs an internal logic, and the DM needs to supply that and keep the PCs from abusing it, or the sense of immersion quickly goes out the window for everyone. If someone proposes a radical character, they are making a deliberate choice and player choices have consequences. I'll let them know there will be consequences and will give them an idea of how severe those consequences will be, but I'm not going to discuss each consequence specifically and clear it with them.
That said I agree with you and most posters here that, as the OP describes it, this was poorly handled by the GM. Far better to spike the ludicrous backstory at creation (or at least modify it) than to approve it or passively allow it and then slap on arbitrary changes later on.
|
As a DM who does this all the time, I have to counter with- If I lay down the rules BEFORE you agree to play the game (IE I'm running a South East Asian inspired setting, so Paladins, Druids, and Bards are a no go. Also, no Elves, or Gnomes, but you can use 1/2 Ogre and all 1/2 Orcs are called Common Rakhshasa and have tiger heads) then it is more fair?
No. You've still crossed a personal boundary. You can ask the question (as opposed to laying down the smack/rules) "Can we all agree not to play...?", but you may get back a "No".
If I wanted to be limited in options, I'd play a video game. This is fantasy. I should only be limited by my imagination. Granted, I need to fit my character concept into the rules and take a level adjustment if my character is too strong. But those should be the only restrictions.
Who is being unfair here? Me for the restrictions, or the player for flagrantly flouting them?
You. It would be like me as the player informing you as the DM about some aspect of the world. For instance, you say "You see a dragon appear off in the distance." I say "No, I don't, dragons don't exist in this world." You counter "I'm the DM, I control that." I reply "How dare you flagrantly flout my no dragon rule!" See? As a player, I've overstepped your personal boundary as DM. Respect for that boundary should exist on both sides.
|
|
Honestly, the DM is as much a player of the game. His fun counts too. Players being contrary for no other reason than to upset the system are playing "my fun at your expense" gaming.
Okay first, the "my fun at your expense" thing should be pinned on the DM telling the player he can't play such and such character...because as soon as he tells me that, I'd refuse to play as I'd know I'd have no fun.
The DM is certainly entitled to have fun too, but again if the only way he can achieve that is by controlling who/what the players can be, then I think he has issues...as in control issues. I mean why stop there? Why not tell the players what their characters do during the game too? Better yet, don't invite the players over at all. Just put up cardboard figures in their place.
Snobi, I'm going to assume these last couple comments were intended tongue in cheek, otherwise they come off as rather immature and trollish. The "I'M GONNA PLAY WHATEVER I WANT AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!!!!" attitude is probably the worst one to come to ANY table with. Yes, the player has a great deal of control POST creation, but the DM gets to set the terms OF creation. It's in the GMG, I'm not making this up :)
|
Well, as long as it was only CC giving him a mouthful of the worst beer ever, I'd roll with that. Not very often you get to play oneupmanship with a god.I would even be ok with the god i pissed off in my background, poisoning, trying(and likely succeeding) to kill me etc. The dm is supposed to control npcs. If i piss them off, they should try to do bad things to me. I expect, and want that as a player. And if my character bites off more then he can chew, so be it. Thats part of the game.
Not when it's the Chaotic Good god of drinking. Totally out of character.
|
The DM is certainly entitled to have fun too, but again if the only way he can achieve that is by controlling who/what the players can be, then I think he has issues...as in control issues. I mean why stop there? Why not tell the players what their characters do during the game too? Better yet, don't invite the players over at all. Just put up cardboard figures in their place.
I have a problem with this way of thinking and frankly if you came to my game table and immediately took this strong of an aggressive anti-GM posture, I'd rather you leave anyway.
GMs need to be careful what they control in the campaign, but if the campaign elements and GM expectations are outlined ahead of time in order to make a cohesive story world and prevent surprises, I really don't have a problem with them, and I don't believe the GM is having control issues.
For example, let's say you're running Council of Thieves AP (or any AP for that matter). It's pretty clear what the expectations of how the players will operate are laid out. If somebody comes in and says, "I want to be a member of the House of Thrune" or "I want to be an Order of the Rack Hellknight" you're going to have some major story breaking problems, to the point that nobody at the table is going to have fun. The same holds true for Organized Play; as much as you want, you cannot play the evil backstabber, or you'll be kicked out of OP environment. In both cases, ground rules are laid out which everybody understands and strengthens the play environment, and both are perfectly reasonable GM expectations. Saying "I'm not going to listen the ground rule and I'm going to play X" is not only puerile but it really indicates a lack of appreciation to the amount of work a GM has to put into their job to make something everybody can enjoy.
I'm not advocating for the heavy-handed control that the OP indicated his GM partook in, but rather for a participatory attitude by all involved.
Not when it's the Chaotic Good god of drinking. Totally out of character.Well, as long as it was only CC giving him a mouthful of the worst beer ever, I'd roll with that. Not very often you get to play oneupmanship with a god.I would even be ok with the god i pissed off in my background, poisoning, trying(and likely succeeding) to kill me etc. The dm is supposed to control npcs. If i piss them off, they should try to do bad things to me. I expect, and want that as a player. And if my character bites off more then he can chew, so be it. Thats part of the game.
fair enough, the npc's personality means something as well. But it all depends on how the dm wants to play the npc. Even good gods of drinking can be offended. And offending a god is a bad idea.
|
|
The "I'M GONNA PLAY WHATEVER I WANT AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!!!!" attitude is probably the worst one to come to ANY table with.
Just like the "I'M THE DM, AND I'VE GOT COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE WORLD AND NPC'S!!!" attitude? Because I thought I as the player controlled my character.
Yes, the player has a great deal of control POST creation, but the DM gets to set the terms OF creation. It's in the GMG, I'm not making this up :)
I think it's the opposite. I control who/what my character is. Post-creation, the DM has some indirect control. Yes, I can say "I walk down the street."...but if the DM says "A meteor crashes into Golarion. You're dead."...then I'm no longer walking down the street.
I don't care if it's in the GMG that the DM can control the player's character. In my mind, that should always be in the player's domain.
Likewise, our group wouldn't tolerate a DM who restricted our character options.
So are you saying a player should be allowed to play absolutely anything they want, even if it has no logical interaction with the setting?
After all if you wanted to play a gnome artificer why are you not playing Ebberon which is where they are from? If the ref is runing an Asian themed campaign it is rather rude to tell him he sucks because you cannot play your Gnome Artificer where none logically exist.
Now if your WHOLE group plays your way then fine (pretty much like anything in RPing, if your group ALL loves it them rock on) but generally speaking, forcing an out of context character into a setting simply because you want to play THAT SPECIFIC IDEA is considered very rude at all the tabls I have played at over the years.
I mean I love Jedi Knights and the concept of Warforged and Paladin Cyborgs but I would never dream of trying to force my ref to wedge any of them into her home brew world simply because I want to play one. Frankly there are no characters that I absolutely HAVE TO PLAY in any game. I have so many character concepts to try that I can find any number if interesting personalities and builds to appropriately fit into nearly any setting.
Having fun is important yes, as is playing something you like, but remember that RPGing is a SHARED experience and part of a players obligation to the table (and that includes obligation to the ref) is to work with the rest of people at the game.
If your set on playing character X no matter what the setting and are unwilling to even consider anything else then it is not the ref who is being selfish or inconsiderate. Your well within your right to not play of course but your still being somewhat rude for not even attempting to play within setting, no matter how badly you like concept 'X'.
Saying "I'm not going to listen the ground rule and I'm going to play X" is not only puerile but it really indicates a lack of appreciation to the amount of work a GM has to put into their job to make something everybody can enjoy.
I find irony in a statement that says the "GM put alot of work into the campaign!" while at the same time underlining how that same campaign has a number of class and races removed.
"I mean look at it - it's missing half the core races and classes. It must be the hardest-worked campaign ever!'
After all if you wanted to play a gnomem artificer why are you not playing Ebberon?
Why should he have to play Ebberon? The Artificer is just a class that tinkers with magic items. What the hell in that is specific to Ebberon?
I mean I love Jedi Knights and the concept of Warforged but I would never dream of trying to force my ref to wedge either one into her home brew world simply because I want to play one.
Way to obfuscate the issue there.
Just like the "I'M THE DM, AND I'VE GOT COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE WORLD AND NPC'S!!!" attitude? Because I thought I as the player controlled my character.
Setting ground rules for what sorts of characters fit into the campaign world or setting really isn't the same thing. The attitude you quote above is really DM setting ground rules with the hyperbole turned up to 11. Disallowing things like tinker gnomes or kender from a setting based on Oriental Adventures or from a non-Krynn setting isn't an obnoxious attitude at all.
The "I'M GONNA PLAY WHATEVER I WANT AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!!!!" attitude is probably the worst one to come to ANY table with.Just like the "I'M THE DM, AND I'VE GOT COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE WORLD AND NPC'S!!!" attitude? Because I thought I as the player controlled my character.
Yes, the player has a great deal of control POST creation, but the DM gets to set the terms OF creation. It's in the GMG, I'm not making this up :)I think it's the opposite. I control who/what my character is. Post-creation, the DM has some indirect control. Yes, I can say "I walk down the street."...but if the DM says "A meteor crashes into Golarion. You're dead."...then I'm no longer walking down the street.
I don't care if it's in the GMG that the DM can control the player's character. In my mind, that should always be in the player's domain.
So wait, are you saying the dm shouldnt limit concepts or options? Do you require your dm to allow all printed options for the game system? I honestly just want to be certain of your position here, because it almost sounds like if show up to a pathfinder game with a mutants and masterminds character, my dm is being an ass for saying, hey thats not gonna work.
What? There are no gnomes or Elves in the faux-Far East? This makes no sense.
|
|
I find irony in a statement that says the "GM put alot of work into the campaign!" while at the same time underlining how that same campaign has a number of class and races removed.
"I mean look at it - it's missing half the core races and classes. It must be the hardest-worked campaign ever!'
That's a straw man and you know it. The number of races/classes in a campaign has absolutely zero impact on the amount of work one has to put into designing a campaign from the ground up. If that were the case, playing a D20 Modern campaign would take only hours (after all, everybody's human and there are only a handful of classes).
|
|
For example, let's say you're running Council of Thieves AP (or any AP for that matter). It's pretty clear what the expectations of how the players will operate are laid out. If somebody comes in and says, "I want to be a member of the House of Thrune" or "I want to be an Order of the Rack Hellknight" you're going to have some major story breaking problems, to the point that nobody at the table is going to have fun.
If those are module specific things, I can see your point. I still feel the player should have control over his character though. If the players still control their characters, who says they're going to go through any parts of the module anyway? They may decide that they want to sail around the world or go explore other cities/worlds.
The same holds true for Organized Play; as much as you want, you cannot play the evil backstabber, or you'll be kicked out of OP environment. In both cases, ground rules are laid out which everybody understands and strengthens the play environment, and both are perfectly reasonable GM expectations. Saying "I'm not going to listen the ground rule and I'm going to play X" is not only puerile but it really indicates a lack of appreciation to the amount of work a GM has to put into their job to make something everybody can enjoy.
Organized Play has never interested me because of all the restrictions. I wouldn't show up trying to play an evil character, I just wouldn't show up.
I appreciate the work my DM puts in, which is why we generally choose to go where we as players think the module is taking us. But if the DM can't appreciate the work I put into my character by telling me what/who my character can be, how can I appreciate any of his work?
I think you're in the right ballpark, but this goes a touch too far for my taste. When people make radical characters (or normal characters with radical backstories) of any type for a game I'm running, they've got to work with me to make sure it fits within the logic of the world. Even a fantasy world in which dragons fly and 110 lb. barbarian women swing swords that look like they weigh 30 lbs. needs an internal logic, and the DM needs to supply that and keep the PCs from abusing it, or the sense of immersion quickly goes out the window for everyone. If someone proposes a radical character, they are making a deliberate choice and player choices have consequences. I'll let them know there will be consequences and will give them an idea of how severe those consequences will be, but I'm not going to discuss each consequence specifically and clear it with them.
That said I agree with you and most posters here that, as the OP describes it, this was poorly handled by the GM. Far better to spike the ludicrous backstory at creation (or at least modify it) than to approve it or passively allow it and then slap on arbitrary changes later on.
I think the difference between your and my perspectives on this probably boil down to individual tastes in style--and moreover, in the play style of our given players.
There is a different need for give and take amongst players and GMs. I find for me, personally, when in doubt, to chat it out with the player. I have as a player been in circumstances where the GM decided to radically change something about my character abilities or backstory without touching base with me--had they done so and I could have prepared for it, I probably would have gone along with it. The way they went about it just made me feel helpless and used, and I decided never to play with that GM again. Whether that's my loss or theirs probably depends upon POV, but I certainly feel better off having left that particular gaming group---and having found a much more fun, responsible, and respectful gaming group instead.
No. You've still crossed a personal boundary. You can ask the question (as opposed to laying down the smack/rules) "Can we all agree not to play...?", but you may get back a "No".
As a DM who does this all the time, I have to counter with- If I lay down the rules BEFORE you agree to play the game (IE I'm running a South East Asian inspired setting, so Paladins, Druids, and Bards are a no go. Also, no Elves, or Gnomes, but you can use 1/2 Ogre and all 1/2 Orcs are called Common Rakhshasa and have tiger heads) then it is more fair?
I think as much as I have pushed for GMs working with and compromising with players, I have to say I agree with Ender_rpm on this one: the setting (which includes allowable races and classes) is the GM's bailiwick. If the players agree, AHEAD OF TIME, to play in the GM's sandbox, they don't get the right to piss in it because they want a green bucket when the only buckets available are blue and red.
There is a difference between
1. DM: "Okay guys, I want to run a game where everyone is human, and there are no arcane spellcasters. The world is like x,y, and z. I know this game won't appeal to everyone, but I'm hoping that if you join the game, you'll go along with me on this because I have a really cool idea."
Potential Player: "You know what, I really want to play a gnomish wizard. I think I'll sit this one out. But you guys have fun. Let's get together for pizza still on Thursday."
(OR: "I really want to play a gnomish wizard. I can see you've worked really hard on your setting, so I'll make a human rogue for this adventure, but can we please play in a setting where I can play my awesome concept next time?" To which the GM should probably have little problem agreeing to.)
and
2. DM: "Okay guys, I want to run a game where everyone is human, and there are no arcane spellcasters. The world is like x,y, and z. I know this game won't appeal to everyone, but I'm hoping that if you join the game, you'll go along with me on this because I have a really cool idea."
Potential Player: "Sounds like an awesome idea! An all human, no wizardry campaign, cool! Count me in!"
Two days later: "So here's my gnomish wizard I rolled up. You'll let me play him, right?"
DM: *bangs head against wall repeatedly*
I think the problem that others are complaining about are with players that do 2 -- the ones who pretend to go along with you, and then start pushing to break the agreed-upon rules and try to get away with as much as possible. This not only becomes incredibly frustrating for the GM, it is also ENTIRELY unfair to other players, who have probably followed the GM's guidelines without complaint, and who are trying to work together on the new game while the "gnomish wizard" player is too busy trying to be the rebellious wildcard to care.
That kind of player SHOULD go off and play video games, because it's clear compromise and teamwork are not in his vocabulary. The same in fact goes for the GM that rewrites their players' character sheets for them against their will. Both are disrespectful, selfish control freaks the gaming group world can do without.
DISCLAIMER TIME: I am saying that snobi is a disrespectful control freak; I am pointing out the issues that make people cringe when they start talking about player versus character control. I am sure snobi is a remarkable and creative player and has many good thoughts about player free will that should be heeded. None of this should be taken personally by anyone: these are my general observations on the gaming world at large that I have had, having been a gamer for a really long time.
What it all comes down to is:
-- Agree on things ahead of time, and all who make that agreement shall be consistent in upholding it
-- When appropriate, be willing to compromise within reason (and "compromise" means both sides give and take)
-- GMs need to be respectful of player's control of their characters, and players need to be respectful of the hard work GMs put into building their world and into being arbiter of the game
-- If in doubt, talk about it with your GM/fellow players
-- All of those should be taken with a "within reason and adjusting for the needs and predilections of your group" ((Why do I have to qualify this explicitly? It should really go without saying, but...))
That's a straw man and you know it. The number of races/classes in a campaign has absolutely zero impact on the amount of work one has to put into designing a campaign from the ground up.
But, to be fair, if content is limited to that not built on strawman, not containing blatant self-contradictions, and/or not full largely of troll snark, there'd be a lot less to read on the Internet.
Of course, I feel compelled to note the irony that limiting races (for examples) means less work when it seems quite likely that the large majority of games pretty much just default to the standard races, which requires no real work at all.
I mean, at least I had to type up, "All the PCs for our new campaign start as normal, 21st-century humans who won a morning show contest for a weekend getaway to gamble in Louisiana." That might be a lot of work, but it's certainly more than none at all.
:)
Mark L. Chance
Spes Magna Games
If those are module specific things, I can see your point. I still feel the player should have control over his character though. If the players still control their characters, who says they're going to go through any parts of the module anyway? They may decide that they want to sail around the world or go explore other cities/worlds.
Ah, Ok I get it, you don't actually play with other people. Thanks for clarifying.
Because if you did, you'd have to make allowances for the other players wanting to go along with the storyline, and we just couldn't have THAT now could we?
/sarcasm
I appreciate the work my DM puts in, which is why we generally choose to go where we as players think the module is taking us. But if the DM can't appreciate the work I put into my character by telling me what/who my character can be, how can I appreciate any of his work?
Does this mean you wouldn't respect the work the DM put in on the coherence his vision of the campaign world - what cultures are there, what races and classes are available, and so on? To put the question back around, why should a DM respect the work you put in on your character's backstory if you won't respect the campaign work he's done and any thematic or content restrictions that don't fit the campaign? If you're willing to go where the module boundaries takes you, why aren't you willing to go where the campaign boundaries take you?
No. You've still crossed a personal boundary. You can ask the question (as opposed to laying down the smack/rules) "Can we all agree not to play...?", but you may get back a "No".
That's cool. If they want me to run a game and put all that effort into it and then dictate terms to me, they may get a "No" as well. It is not the DM's job to be the player's doormat - it is quite specifically the DM's job to set the background and the boundaries. If you do not like them you are perfectly entitled not to play the game.
If I wanted to be limited in options, I'd play a video game. This is fantasy. I should only be limited by my imagination. Granted, I need to fit my character concept into the rules and take a level adjustment if my character is too strong. But those should be the only restrictions.
Sadly for you, the requirement and right of the DM to set boundaries is IN the rules. Respect has to run both ways, and the players have to respect the DM: he's the guy with the hardest job at the table, and he's entitled to have fun as well. If he says at the outset "There are no XYZ in this world," in order to try and make a better adventure you have to respect that. Likewise, the DM has to respect the players wishes - if he can fit something in, he should try and do so. Cooperation, respect and trust are required on all sides - but that does not mean demanding the player or DM be the b*tch of the other.
That's a straw man and you know it. The number of races/classes in a campaign has absolutely zero impact on the amount of work one has to put into designing a campaign from the ground up. If that were the case, playing a D20 Modern campaign would take only hours (after all, everybody's human and there are only a handful of classes).I find irony in a statement that says the "GM put alot of work into the campaign!" while at the same time underlining how that same campaign has a number of class and races removed.
"I mean look at it - it's missing half the core races and classes. It must be the hardest-worked campaign ever!'
Speaking of scarecrows... Comparing a different game as a whole against a different game with its core elements removed? Really? You think I wasn't going to call that?
Maybe not taking out races, but when you start taking out core classes, you start significantly reducing difficulty.
Maybe not taking out races, but when you start taking out core classes, you start significantly reducing difficulty.
Somewhat agreed, but with the caveat that I generally add something back in (Updated Oriental Adventures classes, alternate class features, etc), plus provide tons of back ground, maps, my house as a place to play, several hundred minis, building blocks, a tolerant wife who sometimes bakes fresh cookies (ok, for the monthly, not weekly) etc. So it ends up a wash, IMO.
|
|
So are you saying a player should be allowed to play absolutely anything they want, even if it has no logical interaction with the setting?
Yes.
After all if you wanted to play a gnome artificer why are you not playing Ebberon which is where they are from? If the ref is runing an Asian themed campaign it is rather rude to tell him he sucks because you cannot play your Gnome Artificer where none logically exist.
Because travel from other parts of the world/universe/multiverse isn't possible.
Now if your WHOLE group plays your way then fine (pretty much like anything in RPing, if your group ALL loves it them rock on) but generally speaking, forcing an out of context character into a setting simply because you want to play THAT SPECIFIC IDEA is considered very rude at all the tabls I have played at over the years.
What's considered rude at all the tables I've played is the DM controlling the player's character.
Having fun is important yes, as is playing something you like, but remember that RPGing is a SHARED experience and part of a players obligation to the table (and that includes obligation to the ref) is to work with the rest of people at the game.
It's everyone's job to work with each other, not step over others. The DM is trampling the player when he starts controlling his character.
If your set on playing character X no matter what the setting and are unwilling to even consider anything else then it is not the ref who is being selfish or inconsiderate.
Yes, I'm selfish and inconsiderate because I won't let the DM control my character.
Maybe not taking out races, but when you start taking out core classes, you start significantly reducing difficulty.
I'm not sure whether you believe that or it's just the point you've taken for arguments sake. I don't have all the core classes in my game. On the other hand I have a number of customized / homebrew classes that fit in. I have a significantly different take on the core races and several alternate player races as well. I have highly detailed human and non-human cultures and a ton of other work that's gone into my game world. And you're saying because I don't have all the core classes I have "significantly reduced difficulty"? That it somehow took less effort to craft a cohesive world than to just pop in all the standard stuff? I'm not sure whether to laugh or be, mildly, insulted. I think I'll just laugh it off :D
I'm not sure whether you believe that or it's just the point you've taken for arguments sake. I don't have all the core classes in my game. On the other hand I have a number of customized / homebrew classes that fit in. I have a significantly different take on the core races and several alternate player races as well. I have highly detailed human and non-human cultures and a ton of other work that's gone into my game world. And you're saying because I don't have all the core classes I have "significantly reduced difficulty"? That it somehow took less effort to craft a cohesive world than to just pop in all the standard stuff? I'm not sure whether to laugh or be, mildly, insulted. I think I'll just laugh it off :D
Maybe not taking out races, but when you start taking out core classes, you start significantly reducing difficulty.
If you care to insult yourself, go ahead.
Removing classes reduce difficulty. Fact. Adding stuff back in increases difficulty. If you want to lump 50 different piece-parts together to feel indignant and insulted, I'll support you.
The DM has every right to control what flavor and theme his game world contains. That's his prerogative. He designed it. It's his concept. It is neither selfish nor inconsiderate. The DM is not obligated to indulge your every whim as a player.
"It's everyone's job to work with each other, not step over others."
Have you ever considered working with the DM's concepts, hmm? Why not expand your roleplaying experience by trying new and different concepts that fit within the game world? Surely your sense of fun is not limited to one character concept.
Failing that, just don't play in his game. No one's forcing you to play. Find a group and a DM that better fits your needs, if you are unwilling to try new concepts.
It makes no sense to go into a Wendy's and demand a Big Mac.
Yes, I'm selfish and inconsiderate because I won't let the DM control my character.
OK, hypothetical situation for you: You (and others) are at a general games meeting and the guy meant to be running the game for you has called in sick, and you realise no-one else has a game you can play. There's a new guy at the club you get talking to who offers to run a game as he has a scenario on him, but he says:
"As I only have the basics here, and we don't know each other and we have to start from scratch, I want to keep it Pathfinder core only, all characters from Golarian."
Is he (a) being a nice guy by offering to run a game for a bunch of strangers he doesn't know and doesn't owe anything to, or (b) a disrespectful bastard for insisting that the game be core-only and characters all be from Golarian and this impairing your creativity?
|
|
There is a difference between1. DM: "Okay guys, I want to run a game where everyone is human, and there are no arcane spellcasters. The world is like x,y, and z. I know this game won't appeal to everyone, but I'm hoping that if you join the game, you'll go along with me on this because I have a really cool idea."
Potential Player: "You know what, I really want to play a gnomish wizard. I think I'll sit this one out. But you guys have fun. Let's get together for pizza still on Thursday."
(OR: "I really want to play a gnomish wizard. I can see you've worked really hard on your setting, so I'll make a human rogue for this adventure, but can we please play in a setting where I can play my awesome concept next time?" To which the GM should probably have little problem agreeing to.)
and
2. DM: "Okay guys, I want to run a game where everyone is human, and there are no arcane spellcasters. The world is like x,y, and z. I know this game won't appeal to everyone, but I'm hoping that if you join the game, you'll go along with me on this because I have a really cool idea."
Potential Player: "Sounds like an awesome idea! An all human, no wizardry campaign, cool! Count me in!"
Two days later: "So here's my gnomish wizard I rolled up. You'll let me play him, right?"
DM: *bangs head against wall repeatedly*
I think the problem that others are complaining about are with players that do 2 -- the ones who pretend to go along with you, and then start pushing to break the agreed-upon rules and try to get away with as much as possible. This not only becomes incredibly frustrating for the GM, it is also ENTIRELY unfair to other players, who have probably followed the GM's guidelines without complaint, and who are trying to work together on the new game while the "gnomish wizard" player is too busy trying to be the rebellious wildcard to care.
I'm not advocating option 2. I'd sit it out and eat pizza on Thursday.
Yes, I'm selfish and inconsiderate because I won't let the DM control my character.OK, hypothetical situation for you: You (and others) are at a general games meeting and the guy meant to be running the game for you has called in sick, and you realise no-one else has a game you can play. There's a new guy at the club you get talking to who offers to run a game as he has a scenario on him, but he says:
"As I only have the basics here, and we don't know each other and we have to start from scratch, I want to keep it Pathfinder core only, all characters from Golarian."
Is he (a) being a nice guy by offering to run a game for a bunch of strangers he doesn't know and doesn't owe anything to, or (b) a disrespectful bastard for insisting that the game be core-only and characters all be from Golarian and this impairing your creativity?
How dare he limit my choices, even though he is doing me a service by volunteering to DM for people he barely knows! Doesn't he realize I must play a katana-wielding, trenchcoat-wearing Samurai?!
So are you saying a player should be allowed to play absolutely anything they want, even if it has no logical interaction with the setting?
Yes.
A classic player's "rightsist" (to borrow a term from Glenn Cook). Note "player" is singular. It seems to involve no consideration for the DM or other players.
After all if you wanted to play a gnome artificer why are you not playing Ebberon which is where they are from? If the ref is runing an Asian themed campaign it is rather rude to tell him he sucks because you cannot play your Gnome Artificer where none logically exist.Because travel from other parts of the world/universe/multiverse isn't possible.
If the world is well defined, or for that matter the campaign theme is important, travelling from elsewhere may not be appropriate. Of course those starting first level charactewrs just go zipping around the multiverse...
Now if your WHOLE group plays your way then fine (pretty much like anything in RPing, if your group ALL loves it them rock on) but generally speaking, forcing an out of context character into a setting simply because you want to play THAT SPECIFIC IDEA is considered very rude at all the tabls I have played at over the years.
What's considered rude at all the tables I've played is the DM controlling the player's character.
Then play with another group rather than ruin everybody else's day. Theres an idea. All things considered, I gather you haven't played at too many tables, especially if you consider setting some ground rules for a campaign "controlling".
Having fun is important yes, as is playing something you like, but remember that RPGing is a SHARED experience and part of a players obligation to the table (and that includes obligation to the ref) is to work with the rest of people at the game.
It's everyone's job to work with each other, not step over others. The DM is trampling the player when he starts controlling his character.
As opposed to you trampling the DM and the other players? The point is you are the one who seems unwilling to work with others.
If your set on playing character X no matter what the setting and are unwilling to even consider anything else then it is not the ref who is being selfish or inconsiderate.
Yes, I'm selfish and inconsiderate because I won't let the DM control my character.
Yes, you are. Glad we have that straight. This isn't about outright "control", this is about having some boundaries. Your sense of entitlement is... immense.
*edit* Thinking it through, I beleive I have over reacted to your post. You don't compromise, fine. As long as you don't mind sitting out games I can't see it as a problem. If you try to force your views on others (which I don't believe you mean) then it's no loss to anybody except you. Personally I think most concepts, with some changes, can be worked into most games. I would think the challenge, and fun, would be to do that. My apologies if I got offensive, you struck a nerve obviously.
If you care to insult yourself, go ahead.Removing classes reduce difficulty. Fact. Adding stuff back in increases difficulty. If you want to lump 50 different piece-parts together to feel indignant and insulted, I'll support you.
Oh, don't worry I'm not insulted. Even mildly. Amazed by the lack of thought in your over generalized previous post, yes. I don't have a problem with creativity or effort. You're support, while unneccesary, is appreciated.
Amazed by the lack of thought in your over generalized previous post,
I am likewise amazed by your continued insistence on being condescending about some made-up insult I made that you yourself created.