Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I've dealt with several players with "crazy stories" and it has never bothered me. They could say they were Aroden reborn. Honestly, stupid claims like that allows everyone to laugh at the person's PC at their expense, when the inconsistencies are pointed out. So what I've saying is that "it doesn't matter".
Interesting you should choose that example :-)
I've seen a character with exactly that background brought to the table. And you know what? It's a great enabler. It promotes all sorts of in-character interactions between members of the party. The player is good enough (and has put enough thought into it) to be able to handle most of the straightforward challenges to the position effortlessly. If this means the other players put a little more thought into coming up with (in-character) tests, etc., what's wrong with that? Everybody at the table is having more fun. And as long as it doesn't get in the way of the overall mission objective I think that's something to be encouraged.
|
|
One of my characters presents herself to be something entirely non-canonical (because the canon version just makes a person with access to special goo), but in a way that tries to tie-in much more of the lore and feeling of Golarion than what I see for how the archetype in its brief description. The only objection I have heard (and there may be many more about this) is that the NPC knows exactly what she is (having made the appropriate Knowledge check), so she should stop lying to people.
I have seen many minor exceptions to the canon of the world, but the extreme ones come from players not reading anything about the world. And in discussing it with those players, they have no interest in immersing themselves in the world (they just want adventures for their character). I can work with that.
I guess I don't understand why people are seemingly (at times) consumed with dictating how others enjoy PFS. Now, if and when there is a meaningful and coherent storyline (and the level cap isn't at a ridiculously low level), I will manage some concern about all of "us, the players" being true to the world, its history, and the evolving storyline.
|
As table GMs, we are ambassadors, of sorts, introducing the world of Golarion and the Pathfinder RPG to a lot of people, through the PFS OP environment. Some day, there may be as many players who know about Absalom or the struggles between Cheliax and Andoran as there are who have heard about Iuz the Undying, or about Waterdeep. But they won't, if we mock them for their early efforts to participate.
Yes, I know. You may not know, but there's ways to do everything in a fun/nice way (for both parties). See the smiley face :) ? It means I'm kidding. And sometimes, a little friendly (tactful) teasing is the best way to get a point across. It's a lot better than being pushy and "enforcing canon" and telling the player "they can't do or say that". Wow, can't say anything around here without someone jumping down your throat and presuming the worst.
In game I would say "Who is this Elminster? Should I know of him? Oh, he's a powerful Archmage? There are too many of those walking around changing the world to suit their whims. I hope I never meet this Elminster or I'll have to give him a piece of my mind"
You see, that's a really good example of teasing.
I've seen a character with exactly that background brought to the table. And you know what? It's a great enabler. It promotes all sorts of in-character interactions between members of the party. The player is good enough (and has put enough thought into it) to be able to handle most of the straightforward challenges to the position effortlessly. If this means the other players put a little more thought into coming up with (in-character) tests, etc., what's wrong with that? Everybody at the table is having more fun. And as long as it doesn't get in the way of the overall mission objective I think that's something to be encouraged.
Exactly! I agree 100%. Wild claims have never been a problem.
|
As table GMs, we are ambassadors, of sorts, introducing the world of Golarion and the Pathfinder RPG to a lot of people, through the PFS OP environment. Some day, there may be as many players who know about Absalom or the struggles between Cheliax and Andoran as there are who have heard about Iuz the Undying, or about Waterdeep. But they won't, if we mock them for their early efforts to participate.Yes, I know. You may not know, but there's ways to do everything in a fun/nice way (for both parties). See the smiley face :) ? It means I'm kidding. And sometimes, a little friendly (tactful) teasing is the best way to get a point across. It's a lot better than being pushy and "enforcing canon" and telling the player "they can't do or say that". Wow, can't say anything around here without someone jumping down your throat and presuming the worst.
In game I would say "Who is this Elminster? Should I know of him? Oh, he's a powerful Archmage? There are too many of those walking around changing the world to suit their whims. I hope I never meet this Elminster or I'll have to give him a piece of my mind"You see, that's a really good example of teasing.
I've seen a character with exactly that background brought to the table. And you know what? It's a great enabler. It promotes all sorts of in-character interactions between members of the party. The player is good enough (and has put enough thought into it) to be able to handle most of the straightforward challenges to the position effortlessly. If this means the other players put a little more thought into coming up with (in-character) tests, etc., what's wrong with that? Everybody at the table is having more fun. And as long as it doesn't get in the way of the overall mission objective I think that's something to be encouraged.Exactly! I agree 100%. Wild claims have never been a problem.
How is that teasing? My character would have no idea who Elminster is and would be wanting to know about him.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between enforcing interpretive canon and hard-coded canon.
Hard-Coded Canon:
The world we play in is Golarion, it is a fantasy world, there is an organization called the Pathfinders, and there are countries and deities with specific names and specific portfolios. The countries have leaders and boundaries and politics with other countries. All this stuff can be found in the appropriate source material. If it says something is A, then it is A, and a player should not create a character concept where its actually B.
Interpretive Canon:
Anything not specifically nailed down in setting material is not hard-coded. It is information that is extrapolated from hard-coded canon, and can be interpreted differently by different folks (i.e. the whole Pharasma separatist Undeath subdomain argument.) Expect table variation.
In other words, if you want to be a character from some other world, go play in that other world. Seriously.
But Matthew expressed a real good way of dealing with someone bringing a non-canon character into the campaign. Discuss with them why they want that particular character, and then try to show them what from Golarion will fit their concept.
|
|
There are of course greater and lesser issues when bringing in a character that is non-canon.
Saying you are the King of Galt and seriously expecting everyone else at the table to believe it is probably not going to fly with anyone. There is already a King of Galt. The country, however, is rife with tons of politics, coups, overthrows, wars, etc. As such, to say he was an exiled King of Galt (i.e. he was born of the noble who was to take the crown, but during the last coup his mother and bodyguard fled Galt and now he's the rightful king in exile) probably isn't out of the question.
The child of Desna probably doesn't follow canon exactly (although I would put this in the interpretive category) and isn't all that egregious, so I'd probably just leave it alone.
Saying you are the son of Elminster (or that you are Elminster) and expecting every NPC and PC in Golarion to know what that means is egregious and should be nipped in the bud.
As for authorial rights, I don't believe that plays any part in this discussion.
Our PCs are not part of Canon, and will not be part of canon. We are using a shared universe to play in with our characters. So authorial rights has no bearing. That being said, if your PC openly claims to be the son of a god, expect NPCs (and probably some PCs) to scoff or roll their eyes.
|
I believe this thread gives some interesting and relevant insight onto the topic at hand.
Boiling it down for those who don't want to read 3+ pages of angry posts:
In PFS does a GM have the right to overrule a player's view of what is and is not canon?
If so, SHOULD he?
To editorialize, in my view the GM is no more priveleged than the players. None of us own golarion. In fact, it is only a matter of circmstance that any GM has any referee authority at any given table. The roles between people could and would quite easily be reveresed at another table/slot. So if there's differences of opinion about what is and is not canon, the GM has a duty to consider accomodation first and exclusion ONLY after reasonably ruling out accomodating.
|
The first proviso: I'm not addressing the type of non-canon stuff that is based on Golarion canon; i.e., Dresna's child.
The second Proviso: I am not addressing the new-character played by a person who just doesn't know the setting, and the custom of not borrowing names of well-known NPCs. (this one is easily corrected.)
What I am addressing is the type of player who insists on bringing non-canon material into the game. It is often the case that when challenged, the player becomes more entrenched and will often be emphatic about flaunting their non-canon material, with a "you can't stop me" attitude. This is obviously being a jerk, should be put to a pointed and immediate end.
Imagine this scenario: we're all playing a Star Wars RPG. Some guy comes along, and brings to a game a charater who he insists is the son of Captain Kirk. The player is insistent that the two story universes *could* exist in the same world, and so they should be allowed to. ... No, they shouldn't. It's a principle. They are seperate. Period.
Golarion is not D&D with SpellJammer and Planescape joining all the known worlds for sake of fan service.
Golarion is it's own universe with it's own established cosmology, and Toril is not in it. Unless your "elminster" happens to be referring to some lady down on the corner of Fourth & Vine in Absalom, selling love potions, that name has absolutely no place in Golarion.
If you want to be a character from some other world, go play in that other world. Seriously.
If you like that other world, and think that it's so cool: Go play in it. Leave writing the canon of Golarion to people that get paid to do it.
Now get your chocolate out of my peanutbutter.
|
|
The only issue I have with restricting canon revolves around new and young players who have just been introduced to fantasy and want to play their hero in PFS. I think young people should have a bye from these sorts of restrictions, and I don't really think that many experienced or older gamers are going to try and play a character from another series of books.
|
|
Given the right circumstances with a local player, sure, that's fine, but at a large convention with a kid that sits at your table, this sort of time-suck is not that suitable.Funny, at most of the conventions NAGA hosts, we find the time. I know this because we've groomed quite a few tykes all the way up to volounteer status. It helps to fill out staff when you grow your own. :)
My opinion in this mostly comes from Tier 1 GMing at GenCon and Origins and knowing the high pace of events at both conventions.
|
Does Cannon not have mechanical impacts when it comes to religion, off the top of my head, if a Cleric of Phrasma cast Animate Dead there is a good chance that the spell either should not work, or the Cleric finds his divine powers cut off. Like wise if a paladin of Torag violates his oath (as published in Faiths of Purity) by telling a lie (misleading by omission or otherwise) should he not lose his paladin abilities until he seeks an atonement.
I'm not as familiar with the ins and outs of PFS GMing, but does a PFS GM have the authority to mete out a character crippling punishment like that upon a divine character for in essence breeching cannon?
The Pharasma bit would be more easily punishable, as I am pretty sure it is mentioned somewhere in the Core Assumption books. But anything out of the Faiths of books, or anything else from the Additional Resources, should really only be enforced if the player owns that material and is using it. If that paladin of Torag sits at your table and the player owns Faiths of Purity, then that oath is fair game. But if the player does not own it, and maybe has never even seen it, then a GM enforcing the oath on the player would be wrong. It is almost like we need a third list in addition to Core and Additional, that covers the fluff and canon of Golarion. Even if the list is only the Inner Sea World Guide and Primer and no one is required to buy it, but basically says that all world details in these books are canon and cannot be violated by GM or player unless a newer sourcebook has officially altered or updated the details.