That is probably the best solution... even snobi agrees:
I'd apologize for creating an elven thief, leave, and find a group where the players' and DM's fun isn't ruined by the background/class/race I select for my character.
|
No, the world is low magic, remember? There is no planar hoping.So, would you make the character insane or disallow the character concept?
One option is the DM can say that inexplicably my character is there. No one, including my character is sure how he got there. A second option would be the insanity thing. I'm sure there are others. I'd be okay with the insanity option if that was the only way I could play the concept I wanted to play.
No, the world is low magic, remember? There is no planar hoping.
Do other planes exist? No planar hopping != singular plane.
Wow, this topic.
I'm firmly of the opinion that roleplaying games require an understanding that the game (and the game world) are a shared responsibility of the players and the game runner. Most of what I've read here is a throwback to a very adversarial attitude between dm's and players and its more then a little disheartening.
Players need to STOP thinking about the disparity of power between themselves and their DM. I've never yelled at my PS3 for being unfair to me when I'm playing an RPG, it's just as absurd to do so with your GM (unless he's being an ass, and if so see my prior point about it being a shared responsibility).
GM's need to stop power tripping and taking responsibility for the game world. Running something published? GREAT, but there goes most of the "massive burden" involved with GM'ing. Let's all be realistic for a minute on this, we are coming together to enjoy a shared story, if it's THAT huge of a burden on either side of the screen then maybe we should be doing something we...enjoy? Instead.
Almost everything I've seen here has stemmed from poor communication. Responding to the original post for a second... had the GM talked to the player about the story, and they made changes together I'm sure the outcome would have been far more beneficial to everybody. As a 19+ year DM, I have NEVER changed a players character without discussion and trying to reach a workaround, and if that were done to me I would quit on the spot.
The players have as much power over the experience (which is what we're really discussing here) as does the GM. All those pieces need to be working together well or none of it matters.
The fact that the question is "How much power should a GM have" points to a disturbing trend in player/game runner culture. Don't stress the things that cause problems in your group, come together, talk, and work on your strengths rather then against your faults.
You don't control your character concept. The only thing you control is whether you accept the opportunity to play under the GM's rules.
Likewise, the only thing the GM controls is the rules by which you play, not whether you will play.
You're free to demand 100% control over your character concept, but not if you want to play in any particular GM's game. The minute you agree to play in a game with other players, you surrender control of your character.
B$%@**+s. The GM can dictate the rules, but the minute he starts dictating who your character is, what it is, and what it does, it is has ceased to be D&D and has become a game of DM playing by himself with a bunch of saps recruited to move pieces around the board for him.
Though it fails to surprise me that you would suggest such a thing.
Crap
But a player may have no interest in relating to the campaign or linking their background to it.
Frankly, it has been my experience that players have an easier time relating to the campaign and building their own interesting story within it if they make use of the DM's knowledge of the setting.
At that point, why would they even submit a character to the campaign? I can see having a closely encapsulated background that doesn't require any major signicant links to DM content, but if they have no interest in relating to the campaign, why play? Why even submit the outlier concept at all?
b#&*!*&s. The GM can dictate the rules, but the minute he starts dictating who your character is, what it is, and what it does, it is has ceased to be D&D and has become a game of DM playing by himself with a bunch of saps recruited to move pieces around the board for him.
Does that include dictating what your character is not? That's been more of the question for the last day or so.
Does that include dictating what your character is not? That's been more of the question for the last day or so.
b#&*!*&s. The GM can dictate the rules, but the minute he starts dictating who your character is, what it is, and what it does, it is has ceased to be D&D and has become a game of DM playing by himself with a bunch of saps recruited to move pieces around the board for him.
That was most certainly not what Lillith put forward.
I'd still like to hear your answer as to how you'd respond when a player asks to run a computer hacker in a "fall of the Roman Empire" style game.
You do realize you can only say "still" if you ask a first time? Luckily, I already answered a similar assertion of his position.
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?
No one is asking to play a computer hack in a Roman Empire. Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
To quote myself again:
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?
Addition: And so what if he wants to play a computer hacker in the Roman Empire? What is he going to do? Hack computers? No, he will swing a sword like everyone else.
It actually, most certainly, -is- what I've been putting forward.What I most certainly have -not- been putting forward is your straw man of the GM railroading the PCs.
Yes, I pretty much grok what you're saying. It's a question of absolute control. You're saying the DM has control over the rules, the players have control over participation. Everything else is negotiated, filtered, or otherwise mixed control.
Yes, I pretty much grok what you're saying. It's a question of absolute control. You're saying the DM has control over the rules, the players have control over participation. Everything else is negotiated, filtered, or otherwise mixed control.
Lillith said, explicitly, the DM has control over the character's concept. That is not remotely the same as having control over the game world.
You can take your "control of my character concept" and place it where I believe the rest of your holier-than-thou opinions should go.
I think there's a difference between who/what a character is and what he can do. If the character is so unbalanced that he's dominating game play, then that's where the DM can step in and do his job. I believe I stated in my original post in this thread that the DM may need to restrict a character from doing something that upsets the players or DM. Banning the race/class/background outright is over the top and unnecessary.
So are you saying that no matter how silly the concept or how unbalanced it is, the DM should allow it? If so I would have to disagree - the concept could end up breaking the game not just for the DM but the other players as well. The main reason for the DM's authority is ensuring a good game for the maximum possible number of players, and sometimes that means one player not getting everything he wants. That's not the DM treading on his toes, that's the DM doing the DM's job.
I fail to see the difference, save that banning things that the DM feels are just not going to go in his/her game and/or are broken and will damage the game for everyone and doing so before the game even starts shows foresight in dealing with a problem so that it can never arise. To me, it's a no-brainer.
True, but if that was the only concept I was interested in, or if the DM has shot down all of my concepts, then my statement still applies.
Because if you can still come up a concept you like that fits within the parameters given, you still have the opportunity of enjoying the game. Just because the DM says that drow are not a PC race doesn't stop you being any other kind of PC race, even if your heart was set on being a drow.
That's fair enough, but your initial posts made it sound as if you would create your character before you even knew what the game was and then walk off in a huff if it didn't fit.
I agree that if there's something dark or whatever in my character's background that would ruin another player's fun if brought out into the open, that it's best not too bring it out in the open. But it can still be his background. If a player is upset because my character is an elven thief, I'm not sure what I'd do about that. I suppose I'd apologize for creating an elven thief, leave, and find a group where the players' and DM's fun isn't ruined by the background/class/race I select for my character.
Further, all the players have a duty within the social group not to spoil one another's fun.
Which is considerate of you, I suppose.
But a player may have no interest in relating to the campaign or linking their background to it.
Actually, if that is the case what are they doing asking to join the game at all? Engaging with the campaign is pretty much a prerequisite to get involved in it.
Actually, if that is the case what are they doing asking to join the game at all? Engaging with the campaign is pretty much a prerequisite to get involved in it.
What, pray tell, does the backstory have to do with engaging in the campaign? I could be a mass-murdering butcher and be a PC trying to save the world from some evil Sorcerer solely because I stumbled into a bar at the wrong(right) time. Or, I could be a 20 year veteran adventurer doing jack squat as the Sorcerer rules the world. Look the second back story fits, the first doesn't, but the latter isn't a PC.
Lillith said, explicitly, the DM has control over the character's concept. That is not remotely the same as having control over the game world.
It appears to me that you have a different definition for explicitly than I have because he didn't say that the DM has control over the character's concept, at least not in the passage you quoted in your initial response.
Lillith said, explicitly, the DM has control over the character's concept. That is not remotely the same as having control over the game world.
It appears to me that you have a different definition for explicitly than I have because he didn't say that the DM has control over the character's concept, at least not in the passage you quoted in your initial response.
Perhaps I do. I don't know how you define it but I define it by something being said word for word, like this:
You don't control your character concept. The only thing you control is whether you accept the opportunity to play under the GM's rules.
Actually, if that is the case what are they doing asking to join the game at all? Engaging with the campaign is pretty much a prerequisite to get involved in it.What, pray tell, does the backstory have to do with engaging in the campaign? I could be a mass-murdering butcher and be a PC trying to save the world from some evil Sorcerer solely because I stumbled into a bar at the wrong(right) time. Or, I could be a 20 year veteran adventurer doing jack squat as the Sorcerer rules the world. Look the second back story fits, the first doesn't, but the latter isn't a PC.
I was responding to this comment, which was not necessarily about back-story but about overall appropriateness of a given concept to the campaign:
But a player may have no interest in relating to the campaign or linking their background to it.
This can include backstory, but is not confined to that, as the example of the computer hacker character in a low-magic game set in Imperial Rome circa 200 AD. There it is not just the backstory of the character that is out of synch with the setting, but the entire concept of the character from the ground up.
Perhaps I do. I don't know how you define it but I define it by something being said word for word, like this:You don't control your character concept. The only thing you control is whether you accept the opportunity to play under the GM's rules.
And that does not word for word say that the DM controls the character's concept. In fact, the very next line Lilith's Thrall says:
Likewise, the only thing [emphasis mine] the GM controls is the rules by which you play, not whether you will play.
That actually leaves character concept in the not strictly controlled area between player and GM. Certainly, the rules chosen by the GM will have an impact on the character concept, thus some control is exerted. But that's a far cry from the GM controls the character concept.
This can include backstory, but is not confined to that, as the example of the computer hacker character in a low-magic game set in Imperial Rome circa 200 AD. There it is not just the backstory of the character that is out of synch with the setting, but the entire concept of the character from the ground up.
In what way? What is the hacker going to do? Use his undying laptop to hack into the minds of the Gaelic warriors to stop their advance?
Perhaps I do. I don't know how you define it but I define it by something being said word for word, like this:You don't control your character concept. The only thing you control is whether you accept the opportunity to play under the GM's rules.And that does not word for word say that the DM controls the character's concept. In fact, the very next line Lilith's Thrall says:
Likewise, the only thing [emphasis mine] the GM controls is the rules by which you play, not whether you will play.That actually leaves character concept in the not strictly controlled area between player and GM. Certainly, the rules chosen by the GM will have an impact on the character concept, thus some control is exerted. But that's a far cry from the GM controls the character concept.
If you don't control your character concept, there is no middle ground. So apparently, no one controls character concept. No character concept for anyone! The DM just tells you what you are playing and you roll dice.
If you don't control your character concept, there is no middle ground. So apparently, no one controls character concept. No character concept for anyone! The DM just tells you what you are playing and you roll dice.
Message board conversations get a lot easier if you don't intentionally(?) misinterpret the messages. If nobody's got exclusive control, that makes it all middle ground. Your interpretation that the DM just tells the players what they're playing is pretty much the direct opposite of what he's saying.
In what way? What is the hacker going to do? Use his undying laptop to hack into the minds of the Gaelic warriors to stop their advance?
This can include backstory, but is not confined to that, as the example of the computer hacker character in a low-magic game set in Imperial Rome circa 200 AD. There it is not just the backstory of the character that is out of synch with the setting, but the entire concept of the character from the ground up.
<facepalm>
If you literally cannot understand what is out of synch with a player wanting to play a computer hacker in a game set in a low-magic version of Imperial Rome, you have way more problems than I can possibly address in an internet post.
In what way? What is the hacker going to do? Use his undying laptop to hack into the minds of the Gaelic warriors to stop their advance?
This can include backstory, but is not confined to that, as the example of the computer hacker character in a low-magic game set in Imperial Rome circa 200 AD. There it is not just the backstory of the character that is out of synch with the setting, but the entire concept of the character from the ground up.<facepalm>
If you literally cannot understand what is out of synch with a player wanting to play a computer hacker in a game set in a low-magic version of Imperial Rome, you have way more problems than I can possibly address in an internet post.
If you can't understand my point and put forward a valid rebuttal, you aren't going to win the argument of "you can't play whatever you want!"
|
If you can't understand my point and put forward a valid rebuttal, you aren't going to win the argument of "you can't play whatever you want!"In what way? What is the hacker going to do? Use his undying laptop to hack into the minds of the Gaelic warriors to stop their advance?
This can include backstory, but is not confined to that, as the example of the computer hacker character in a low-magic game set in Imperial Rome circa 200 AD. There it is not just the backstory of the character that is out of synch with the setting, but the entire concept of the character from the ground up.<facepalm>
If you literally cannot understand what is out of synch with a player wanting to play a computer hacker in a game set in a low-magic version of Imperial Rome, you have way more problems than I can possibly address in an internet post.
but you refuse to believe computers didn't exist in 200 ad, and no computers mean no computer hackers, means invalid concept.
not everything a player pulls out of their @$$ is appropriate for every campaign
Okay. I think this thread is done. Locked.