|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
In our game, we have a rule where if you can't explain with a straight face why your character would be where they are at and go with the group as it exists, you can't play it.
I would suggest that as a universal rule, only some people on the board could say with a straight face that a DM was being "Cruel" not letting their 7 charisma Drow be the party face in Kyonin based adventure.
And this is why I don't go to Cons or play at my FLGS's open game nights.
Those players.
Whenever I go to pick up a miniature or extra dice, those players are in the store shouting over each other about whatever rules manipulation they found to dominate the table and kill the verisimilitude of the setting.
I've always had DM's who laid down clear guidelines and made players talk through concepts with them before the game began. They were generally epic quests spanning months or years, so it mattered we all fit.
In exchange the GM would always write the plots around what we built, with more story going to those who put more effort into story.
But always within the framework of the setting.
We've had power gamers. We had to cap dice rolls after one player stayed up literally all night rolling dice and got a documented 4 18's and two 16's.
But even that character fit in with everyone else as a part of the group, in the setting.
Many people on here don't seem to care at all about setting. They seem to find it an annoyance that interferes with the loopholes they have found to exploit.
Whenever I try to bring outsiders in, the resistance is always to "that guy" status.
I want to tell them it is about sitting around and creating a story with friends. I want to tell them it's like a novel that you create collaboratively.
And then I read the munchkin threads...
My home game is great, my friends are great. But so is the game. I understand many of us come from backgrounds where we want to be inclusive because we were excluded at different times in our lives.
But that guy is a problem. That guy is why people won't give the game a chance. That guy is why people play fantasy football rather than role play.
And I feel like if "That Guy" was stopped when he entered role-playing by having a good DM with a steady hand, he wouldn't have become "That Guy". He would have just been like the rest of us.
If only...
So DM's, hold firm. Put setting first. You aren't cruel,You are setting limits. You aren't stopping creativity, you are demanding it. Creativity isn't getting everything you want just as you want it. Creativity is finding the options that exist with the tools you are given.
And this is why I don't go to Cons or play at my FLGS's open game nights.
Those players.
Actually, that is why my husband and I always run the games at our FLGS's open game nights. So that we can require responsible behavior (yup, not being "that guy") and everyone who shows up for open gaming can have a chance to have fun.
And with that one exception, I agree with everything that you said.
great stuff
Big, fat
It's been my experience that the more firmly you tie a character to the setting (and the particular area you'll be spending most of the game in) the stronger the play experience becomes. The story *matters* to you more.
I hate it when players come to a new game with a character's mechanics laid out already and expect the GM to be able to shoehorn their new pet character build into their game.
I firmly believe that character creation should be done as a group, after the setting and the beginning of the story have been discussed.
|
|
And this is why I don't go to Cons or play at my FLGS's open game nights.
Those players.
Actually, that is why my husband and I always run the games at our FLGS's open game nights. So that we can require responsible behavior (yup, not being "that guy") and everyone who shows up for open gaming can have a chance to have fun.
And with that one exception, I agree with everything that you said.
This I can get behind. And I suspect that Pathfinder society is regimented enough to deal with a lot of this.
You are the type of people that make me want to run games at FLGS. Good on you all!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you must be a fan of the collaborative storytelling experience, apparently above most other game concerns. That's cool.
But the attitude that it makes you a better gamer and that everyone who plays the game for reasons contrary to your own is "that guy", and must be harmful to the hobby?
Less cool.
And before you respond, I'm definitely in the camp where I appreciate believable characters with setting-based foundations.
We've had power gamers. We had to cap dice rolls after one player stayed up literally all night rolling dice and got a documented 4 18's and two 16's.
Why a DM would even run the game for people who are absurd like this is beyond me.
But, thank God for the stories. I really enjoy the little stories you get from playing or running games for people like this. My group has a lot.
As for the topic, though, some people like to be happy. Their way is not inherently worse than your way. Yeah, there are some of those god-damned dirty optimizers roaming around ruining games as immediate actions, leveling up, taking Improved Ruin Game. But like, I don't know how some people on this messageboard get so worked up about it.
Just laugh about it and move on.
|
|
...after one player stayed up literally all night rolling dice and got a documented 4 18's and two 16's.
And that is why I haven't allowed stat rolling since the early days of 3.0.
...a DM was being "Cruel" not letting their 7 charisma Drow be the party face.
Reminds me of one particularly overbearing, power-gamery player who tried to be the face no matter what he was playing, even when he described every character he played as a loner with no family or friends. I really enjoyed having NPCs snub, berate and/or tell his CHA 6 Dwarf to shut up every time he opened his mouth. Not gonna lie.
There will always be that one player that doesn't really care about character concept, setting or context of the situation. They will build their character stat first, trying to exploit or flat-out abuse the system, without even being able to come up with a name for their Generic Fightar Dude XII. They will ask to play a completely exotic race for this or that ability, or ignore the plot hooks of the campaign that might offer some nice character concept they can play. Are they playing the game incorrectly because of this?
No.
There is no wrong or right way to play an RPG. If they want to play it like that, they should, and there is nothing you can say that objectively proves that they are doing it wrong. You might dislike them as you want, or decide it's not worth to play with them, but that's just you. Players and even groups like these will likely continue to exist. You may have a solid, experienced group of bros that share your exact same playstyle and love for in depth backgrounds, but most of us aren't in this situation. I've been roleplaying for 7 years, changed various group, and I still can't remember a time when there wasn't at least one of the following:
- a rollplayer that doesn't speak if not to declare his dice result;
- a powergamer that b$*~~es about balance when he rolls a natural 1;
- a rules lawyer that rolls always the cheesiest character possible.
I still had fun. I can't tell them to piss off and make the TRU ROLEPLAYER enjoy their game in peace. They have the same rights as mine, and I wasn't lucky enough to find a group where there wasn't a "That guy".
You either live with this situation, or try to change them by making them more interested in what they are doing. Discuss their characters without being judgemental. Explain the idea behind YOUR character. Discuss the setting, pointing out all the cool stuff that you can play that isn't necessary uberpowerful. If you make them say "cool" about something that is not cheesy for once, about something that is a cool idea and not only a +1 to this or that, you are basically made it. They will start to come up with concept themselves, and use their creativity for once. If that doesn't work, it's still better that not allowing them to play at all, because that's just asshattery.
Telling them "you're having badwrongfun", instead, is not gonna help.
-I also wouldn't define games like Pathfinder "collective storytelling". They are about challenges that needs to be overcomed. Yeah, a story might happen in the middle, but that's not necessary and the players may not contribute. I am both a fan of epic emotional rollercoaster campaigns AND of pure hack and slash dungeoncrawls and, let's face it, PF is more tailored to the latter. If you want active collective storytelling, then go for Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, Spirit of the Century, Reign, Mouseguard, Primetime Adventures...
Question-Why are there ninjas in a western flavored setting?
Answer- Conservation of Ninjutsu
Back home, they wind up grouped up with another 200 ninja and will be instantly obliterated by one lone hero out for revenge. But in Avistivan they're the only ninja... they'll be unstopable!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They will ask to play a completely exotic race for this or that ability, or ignore the plot hooks of the campaign that might offer some nice character concept they can play. Are they playing the game incorrectly because of this?
No.
And I fundamentally disagree with you.
What you are describing is a player selfishly derailing a game. The analogies you gave would instantly have someone not invited to future games, period.
As to dice rolling, yes you will have players who have higher scores than others at the table. It happens. But if the setting is the focus, and everyone has a reason to be there and be a part of the group because that is the standard you hold the players to, everyone still has moments to shine. There are no aquamen if everyone has a place and a purpose within the group.
If you are making a character that has no reason to be there or be a part of the group, the DM can't create those moments. If you are doing it just so you can make a loophole power build, you derail the game in order to "win" the game.
If you do that, you are being selfish and would not be welcome at my table.
|
|
I guess you must be a fan of the collaborative storytelling experience, apparently above most other game concerns. That's cool.
But the attitude that it makes you a better gamer and that everyone who plays the game for reasons contrary to your own is "that guy", and must be harmful to the hobby?
Less cool.
And before you respond, I'm definitely in the camp where I appreciate believable characters with setting-based foundations.
I don't like the storytelling label, as I am not a fan of making the story happen a certain way.
I believe the setting exists as the DM sets it up. The characters are introduced into the setting and what happens depends on how the players interact with the setting. Even in APs the game can go millions of different ways depending on who the players decide to be.
But if you have players who refuse to integrate into the setting, you can't make a coherent story happen. You have to fudge narrative in the same way some people fudge dice.
|
|
We've had power gamers. We had to cap dice rolls after one player stayed up literally all night rolling dice and got a documented 4 18's and two 16's.Why a DM would even run the game for people who are absurd like this is beyond me.
Normally he wouldn't, but this was an exceptionally good player who was trying to show 3.5 fighters could be viable.
He was the dominant force in the party, but he also played it so we all have fun playing with him.
And I fundamentally disagree with you.What you are describing is a player selfishly derailing a game. The analogies you gave would instantly have someone not invited to future games, period.
As to dice rolling, yes you will have players who have higher scores than others at the table. It happens. But if the setting is the focus, and everyone has a reason to be there and be a part of the group because that is the standard you hold the players to, everyone still has moments to shine. There are no aquamen if everyone has a place and a purpose within the group.
If you are making a character that has no reason to be there or be a part of the group, the DM can't create those moments. If you are doing it just so you can make a loophole power build, you derail the game in order to "win" the game.
If you do that, you are being selfish and would not be welcome at my table.
Suit yourself. Not everybody here can afford to put down a player that wants to join only because they don't like their play style. I'm not this lucky. And even I were, I still wouldn't do that. Because what do you suggest is giving up on the hope that this player might become "better". That he will, by looking at how you and more focused players handle their character, improve and become more interested in setting, plot hooks and developing a character concept. No, for you these people aren't worthy of your attention, because apparently you were an awesome and dedicated roleplayer since the first day you started gaming and they must be like you or else go away.
Roleplaying is something that can be learned, and taught. As with everything else, it takes time. One of my best gaming pal was exactly like you describe it, rolling halforcs in elven campaigns with a character concept that boiled down to HE BARBARIAN. Now he likes to discuss settings, different character concepts, and he's bothered by other rollplayers like I was when he started.
Following your logic, I shouldn't have allowed him to play with me instead. To this I reply: bullcrap.
The only players I will avoid are the ones that do disgusting and pointless things both in character and out of character, like murdering childrens, raping, cheating at dice and generally being a&*$~&@s. Those are the real That Guys that deserve no attention and have no place at my table.
Not having a decent character concept at the start is not enough reason for banning a player from you table.
|
|
No, I think it was the, what's the phrase they were using? Gamemaster Entitlement Syndrome? Yes, the GMES vibe that was just oozing forth.I'm freakin' psychotic. I read the thread title and knew instantly who the OP was before clicking.Was it the poor grammar and spelling, or the anger? :)
Were you in the "My GM is being mean to my Venerable Drow Noble Lich" thread yesterday?
GMES...please...
|
|
Suit yourself. Not everybody here can afford to put down a player that wants to join only because they don't like their play style. I'm not this lucky. And even I were, I still wouldn't do that. Because what do you suggest is giving up on the hope that this player might become "better". That he will, by looking at how you and more focused players handle their character, improve and become more interested in setting, plot hooks and developing a character concept. No, for you these people aren't worthy of your attention, because apparently you were an awesome and dedicated roleplayer since the first day you started gaming and they must be like you or else go away.
Maybe you can't get other players to join because of that guy. I certainly wouldn't join a group with "that guy".
That is actually the point of the post.
We have to narrow our group down because running with more than 6 players is a nightmare. Why? Because everyone like playing.
If you don't make "That Guy" conform to integrating into the game with everyone, rather than going off on his own and alienating the table, of course you won't be able to get anyone into your game.
I suspect this is why I run into so many of "those guys" at the FLGS. It's the only place they can find a game.
|
|
My eye may have passed over it, yes.
Were you in the "My GM is being mean to my Venerable Drow Noble Lich" thread yesterday?
GMES...please...
To be clear, I'm not saying cool builds should be excluded. Your monk acrobat for example, is a fun cool build. But I'm betting he had a hook into the setting and the group.
This is what I am saying needs to be the baseline.
|
Actually, Auris was developed to be plugged into ANY campaign, and so was not given a specific hook. A street urchin acrobatic performer that can punch people can be introduced in any number of ways depending on the situation.
And I was wrong, it was GMIAR they were talking about. Personally, I think entitlement in any player on either side of the screen is bad.
Maybe you can't get other players to join because of that guy. I certainly wouldn't join a group with "that guy".
That is actually the point of the post.
We have to narrow our group down because running with more than 6 players is a nightmare. Why? Because everyone like playing.
If you don't make "That Guy" conform to integrating into the game with everyone, rather than going off on his own and alienating the table, of course you won't be able to get anyone into your game.
Again, this assumes that you have plenty of players to spare, and that you can be very restrictive in choosing your fellow player. I am not. I am from Italy, where this hobby is incredibly rare and players are few. I roleplay more here, on this board, than in my IRL gaming group. We don't even HAVE a FLGS in my town, the nearest one is 100km and only sells miniatures. I have to work with what I have here. Some players here are exactly like you describe them, some were and changed for the best thanks to me and other experienced players, some were good right at the start. They all share the same games and group, getting along quite nicely, slowly learning how to create a proper character that fits in the setting (and some aren't doing this, but since I am not the Emperor of True Gaming here I am not allowed to say "you can play, no you can't").
And about lone That Guy that wander from LFGS to LFGS in search of a group, maybe they are doing that because nobody had the patience to accept them in their group and help them improve their playstyle. Probably they don't even know that they are "doing it wrong" because nobody make them realize it. And they never will, without somebody explaining it to them and showing the alternatives.
I completely agree with the OP, but let me try to help explain "that guy's" perspective. It's not always so cut and dry, black and white.
I love playing odd characters. I love templates, half-breeds, dragon-descended, planetouched, etc. On many occasion, from an outside point of view, I could be labeled "that guy," since most of the time the people I game with just play Humans.
The truth is, I just have character concepts I want to see realized in play, just like everyone else. Whenever I make a really "out there" kind of character, it's always with the expressed approval of the DM, and always completely explainable and justifiable in-game(one of Ciretose's conditions).
But, I still get the odd glance and double-take. Sometimes it looks like I'm purposely pushing boundaries of acceptable characters, but all I'm doing is expressing the concept in my head.
spoilered example:
In a Greyhawk campaign we played, I rolled up an unusual Outsider. I wanted something with both fiendish and celestial bloodlines, that was Neutral-ish in alignment. She was born from a demon and angel that had betrayed their respective orders and escaped the outer planes to live in exile. She was mechanically a mix of Teifling and Aasimar, with red feathered wings, a pointy tail, small golden horns on her brow, and golden eyes.
This character reeked of "WTF?", but the DM and I sat down and hashed it out together. He even found a story from 2e Planescape of an angel and demon who fell in love and lived in some other plane. Crazy coincidence, and worked out perfect! He even suggested Paladin of Freedom variant from Unearthed Arcana. For the wings, he let me take the feat from Forgotten Realms which gave tieflings wings, and we agreed on what the stat adjustments would be. All in all I wound up trading in a +2 level adjustment and 2 feats for this concept, but it was worth it. This character was a lot of fun to play, but definitely out of the ordinary for the group.
|
|
I completely agree with the OP, but let me try to help explain "that guy's" perspective. It's not always so cut and dry, black and white.
I love playing odd characters. I love templates, half-breeds, dragon-descended, planetouched, etc. On many occasion, from an outside point of view, I could be labeled "that guy," since most of the time the people I game with just play Humans.
The truth is, I just have character concepts I want to see realized in play, just like everyone else. Whenever I make a really "out there" kind of character, it's always with the expressed approval of the DM, and always completely explainable and justifiable in-game(one of Ciretose's conditions).
But, I still get the odd glance and double-take. Sometimes it looks like I'm purposely pushing boundaries of acceptable characters, but all I'm doing is expressing the concept in my head.
spoilered example:
** spoiler omitted **
I don't think what you posted is an example of "That Guy".
You had an idea, you talked to the GM in advance and worked with him to find a way to work that idea into the campaign and the story.
That is exactly what "That Guy" refuses to do.
"That Guy" expects the GM to work it out and refuses to adapt to the setting or the party.
You had an idea, you went to the GM and you worked with him on how to get the idea to work in the setting. If the two of you couldn't have figured a way to do it, you would have done something else for the good of the game.
That is the exact opposite of being "that guy".
|
|
Actually, Auris was developed to be plugged into ANY campaign, and so was not given a specific hook. A street urchin acrobatic performer that can punch people can be introduced in any number of ways depending on the situation.
And I was wrong, it was GMIAR they were talking about. Personally, I think entitlement in any player on either side of the screen is bad.
I am afraid to ask...GMIAR...
And as to the main point, "Auris was developed to be plugged into ANY campaign" is the key sentence.
He is designed to fit in. As you said, "A street urchin acrobatic performer that can punch people can be introduced in any number of ways depending on the situation."
|
|
And about lone That Guy that wander from LFGS to LFGS in search of a group, maybe they are doing that because nobody had the patience to accept them in their group and help them improve their playstyle. Probably they don't even know that they are "doing it wrong" because nobody make them realize it. And they never will, without somebody explaining it to them and showing the alternatives.
Part of what I am saying is that a DM needs to tell that guy "No, you need to pick something that fits the setting."
Even in areas where players are few, DMs are even fewer. If you set the expectations from the beginning the player will either adapt or leave. If they adapt, great. If they leave, fine since they were making the game less fun for everyone else anyway.
Dammit TOZ, it's like watching a carcrash. I started curious, but now I can't stop looking. That K guy makes me want to join that forum just to say that he is WRONG.
Dammit TOZ, it's like watching a carcrash. I started curious, but now I can't stop looking. That K guy makes me want to join that forum just to say that he is WRONG.How dare you not realize the entire point of the game it to make sure he wins.
Nuh-uh the entire point is to make sure all the players die. Not the characters, the players. Because if a character dies you can't play for a week and that is like dieing for real. And doing heroin and being kicked in the nuts.
Seriously his arguments are straight out of a Jack Chick strip.Also, what is it with their dislike of our forum? It's weird, what did we do?
I like this thread.
I agree with the opening post 100%.
That said, I think there is a great amount of opportunity in speaking with a GM to make a collaborative idea and find the 'unique' that way, but because of the amount of cheezemunchkinry in the wild most GM's are gunshy.
I find that when you approach a DM with a concept even if its a bit strange or even a bit munchkiny, not uncommonly the DM can work with said player and come up with a backstory you are both okay with. "that guy" ciretose refers to simply does not ask.
|
|
I find that when you approach a DM with a concept even if its a bit strange or even a bit munchkiny, not uncommonly the DM can work with said player and come up with a backstory you are both okay with. "that guy" ciretose refers to simply does not ask.
Exactly.
Josh M above gave a perfect example of how you should try to get something unusual you want to play into the game.
"That Guy" doesn't consult and discuss. He whines and pouts when he can't have what he wants and he only showed up with that so you have to let him play it.
|
|
Essentially, "That Guy" lacks interpersonal skills or a high emotive intelligence. Others, who are more skilled at the art of BS, are not labeled as "That Guy" and can still play venerable drow liches cause they've got charm, ya'll.I find that when you approach a DM with a concept even if its a bit strange or even a bit munchkiny, not uncommonly the DM can work with said player and come up with a backstory you are both okay with. "that guy" ciretose refers to simply does not ask.Exactly.
Josh M above gave a perfect example of how you should try to get something unusual you want to play into the game.
"That Guy" doesn't consult and discuss. He whines and pouts when he can't have what he wants and he only showed up with that so you have to let him play it.
Or they have a DM that says "Ok, we can do that, but we are going to need to run an evil campaign and you are taking two level adjustments. Still want to do it?"
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Question-Why are there ninjas in a western flavored setting?
Answer- Conservation of Ninjutsu
Back home, they wind up grouped up with another 200 ninja and will be instantly obliterated by one lone hero out for revenge. But in Avistivan they're the only ninja... they'll be unstopable!
Secondary answer. They aren't Ninja. They're a clan of western rogues specialized in assassination. Their two goals in life are a) kill for profit and b) make rogues feel inadequate. :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My two C-bills.
I'm firmly of the belief that everyone should have fun at the table, including the GM. Now I don't say 'the most fun'.
I like weird stuff (Draconic template, tieflings, fey'ri, etc.) I also like the 'weird stuff' that isn't wonky. (Half orcs from loving parents, the noble who willingly steps aside for the younger sibling, etc.) That said, because everyone should have fun, I have to make sacrifices to fit into the game world. When I'm DMing, so do my players. We may not have maximum fun, but we all have fun.
Also if I'm at a new table (which I'm trying to get over my issues to start one, BTW) I'm not going to bring in the 'fey'ri Damascarran/Vanguard' I'm going to bring in the 'half-elf magus' or 'elf abyssal bloodlined sorcerer.' Something that can be built with the basic books. Flavourwise, they're all similar in result, but the later are not as disruptive to world flavor as the original. Basically I hold my players to the same standard I hold myself to as a player.
I completely agree with the OP, but let me try to help explain "that guy's" perspective. It's not always so cut and dry, black and white.
I love playing odd characters. I love templates, half-breeds, dragon-descended, planetouched, etc. On many occasion, from an outside point of view, I could be labeled "that guy," since most of the time the people I game with just play Humans.
The truth is, I just have character concepts I want to see realized in play, just like everyone else. Whenever I make a really "out there" kind of character, it's always with the expressed approval of the DM, and always completely explainable and justifiable in-game(one of Ciretose's conditions).
But, I still get the odd glance and double-take. Sometimes it looks like I'm purposely pushing boundaries of acceptable characters, but all I'm doing is expressing the concept in my head.
spoilered example:
** spoiler omitted **I don't think what you posted is an example of "That Guy".
You had an idea, you talked to the GM in advance and worked with him to find a way to work that idea into the campaign and the story.
That is exactly what "That Guy" refuses to do.
"That Guy" expects the GM to work it out and refuses to adapt to the setting or the party.
You had an idea, you went to the GM and you worked with him on how to get the idea to work in the setting. If the two of you couldn't have figured a way to do it, you would have done something else for the good of the game.
That is the exact opposite of being "that guy".
You're right, but I still get that odd glance as if I was "that guy." Party of mostly human/ half-human characters, and then there's the fire eyed chick with wings and a tail.
Sometimes other players do a double take, but after I explain the "why's" and "how's" they're usually impressed or at least more accepting. The DM is usually all for these kinds of characters, because I'm drawing from specific lore of the setting, and showing a vested interest in the game beyond "human Fighter with a greatsword."
I am afraid to ask...GMIAR...
GM Is Always Right. I'm suprised you had to ask.
okay, so I didn't actually figure it out myself until you asked, but still...
So, TOZ, I'm gonna threadjack a little bit and ask...
Given a group of 5 people, 4 of which will only play PCs, one of which will play PCs or GM...
Where does GMES/GMIAR kick in?
If the solitary GM says 'I want to run DarkSun' and the 4 players say 'we would rather play Eberron', is the GM full of GMES when he says 'no, DarkSun'?
If the 4 players say 'we want 4d6 7 times take the top 6, reroll 1s, drop the lowest, roll 6 characters and pick one, you can take any other player's stat array if you like theirs better than any you rolled', and the GM says 'I want 20-point buy', is it GMES to force point buy?
If the 4 players decide that a certain rule reads better one way, even if it is clearly against RAW and RAI, and the GM chooses to play it by the book, are we in GMIAR land?
I've never really understood the concept of players being annoyed at GM's making judgments. I mean, that's the whole point of the GM, is to be right.
An unentitled GM that isn't always right seems very odd. I'm not talking about a tyranical despot who refuses to let people play what they want and houserules the game to shreds against the players' wishes.
I'm just saying, that given that people have differences of opinion, when a judgment has to be made, it seems like the GM would be the one to make the ruling, and not the players. If the players get to make rule calls and make up the world, then they don't actually need a GM, do they?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most folks here are confusing 'oddball characters' with what the OP is trying to say. You can have the most crazy out of this world character you want.....just as long as it fits the setting. If you play in Golarion, don't expect to play a half-dragon jedi and if you play star wars - no elvish wizards.