I come from a culture of gamers where you don't limit what your player wants to play, you work with the player to fit his/her concept into the game.
If I walked into a game and a GM put a list in front of me of "acceptable player concepts", he'd need to find a new player really quickly.
I play the game to make the characters I find interesting to play, not someone else's.
So you are perfectly fine with someone who is unwilling to work with you or any other player? You would alter your game completely if need be to satisfy his desires? And then what do you do about the other players who are now unhappy with this new direction? Do you force them to change their play because someone else won't cooperate? I can't see that ending happily for any number of people.
I am sorry to see you limit your own enjoyment by avoiding tables based on a simple restriction (like no evil as one example).
In 17 years of gaming I have never run into a person as obtuse as this hypothetical player that keeps being brought up.
We're inventing an extreme that doesn't really exist very often.
And you're damn right I would walk away from a table that had alignment restrictions.
Alignment restrictions are an automatic sign of a less skilled GM.
Evil characters can work within a heroic party quite easily if the player has half a brain.
I'm not limiting my gaming, I'm avoiding bad game tables.
I'm not going to eat poop just because it's there to eat.
The GM wants to tell a certain story. They made guidelines on building a character to fit (however informal they seem to be). The rest of the players want to enjoy this story. Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?Believing that the players are in the GM's story is another fallacy.
Without the PCs's presence and choices, the world is just made of NPCs. And if I want to see fascinating NPCs interact awesomely with each other in a well-defined and rigid setting I can't shape myself, I don't sit at a table with several friends. I read a book.
The game is actually the story of the players's characters within a specific setting, with a GM being arbiter of what happens according to a certain sense of drama and aventure and depending on the characters's choices.
The GM explains the setting ; the players then try to shape the setting with their imagination and their actions, from character creation to ultimate death.
What is it with all your made up fallacies? As I said Role Playing games are interactive stories.
No you are wrong the game is the tale of the PCs as they experience the GMs story. If you don't want a story from your GM I refer you to the advice I gave ImperatorK. And the GM is a lot more than a moderator she is the one who builds the scenarios you will be playing through. She will balance your encounters and create fun and entertaining NPCs and settings.
The GM present the players with a situation. He does not get to decide how they respond to it. If the wants to control characters he should write a book.
Just to be clear if the GM says the adventure will be about exploring the world and everyone agrees, but then a player tries to have a character that refuses to leave his home town then the player might be the issue. On the other hand if the GM gets mad because the players/characters refuse to negotiate with NPC X because he is an annoying prick, and kill him instead that the GM's issue. He now has to find another way to get the players to the next plot point. It comes with the job.
The GM gets to create the plot points, but he does not get to tell the players how to get there.
My players character is Neutral Evil, but sometimes he's more heroic than some of the good guys he encounters.
Most characters I play are LE or NE.
I don't like playing heroes, I like anti-heroes.
I still get the job done. I still help save the kingdom, I just happen to enjoy the killing parts a little more than most.
And my skill set often includes torture.
As long as money is put in hand, I'll save or kill anyone you want.
Well the person in the example wasn't willing to work with the GM or players even when offered.That's his problem, not mine.
And calling your GM stupid after being unwilling to work with her is classic disruptive behavior. You would be booted from the session and your place at the table placed on probation or given to someone else depending on your apology or lack thereof.What do I have to apologize for? Where did I call the GM stupid? Does the GM have telepathic powers that he knows my deepest thoughts?
I am placing words in nobodies mouth.Then don't strawman me.
I asked counter questions which you are obviously unwilling to answer.The irony... Maybe first answer my questions, then start accusing others of not answering yours. Especially when I answered one even though I didn't have to.
Since you don't want story perhaps you would be better entertained with a shooter game or perhaps a good real time strategy. Or if you want to do something similar at your table try old school War gaming like Advanced Squad Leader or Wahammer 40k.Are you... trying to insult me?
And yes playing a disruptive concept usually lessens everyone's fun.Any concept can be played disruptive, they aren't disruptive by themselves.
As I said Role Playing games are interactive stories.No, they are games.
No you are wrong the game is the tale of the PCs as they experience the GMs story.Why does a DM need players to tell a story?
His problem not your?! Huh? You were posting in HIS defense...
You didn't make it clear in your insulting comment that you were only thinking the insults.
Actually NO I wasn't trying to insult you. Although I apologize if it came across that way. I was saying there are excellent games available that cater to the optimizer. Especially if he doesn't want any story out of his GM. And no Maxximilius I don't think they require LESS intelligence to play... if anything you have to be pretty smart to be good at at least two of those.
It's a good sign the player is going to be disruptive when he isn't willing to work with anyone. Regardless of concept.
It wouldn't be much of a RPG without players to play through the GMs content. Again it's interactive. You make a story and see what the players do with that story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will it lessen the uncooperative one's fun to make a character according to the story?It lessens my fun when I have a concept that I'm very keen on playing, but I can't, because the DM is too lazy or stupid to work with me to incorporate it.
Is ONE player's fun more important than everyone else's fun?Where did I say that?
Now please, answer my questions.
The GM wants to tell a certain story.Then what why is he playing a game with people instead of writing a novel or something?
Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?Again, how does my fun deny fun for others? They're not really good friends if me having fun somehow lessens their fun...
Actually...
This happened in a recent campaign.I rolled up a high Int rogue that could hold his own in combat and focused on a massive skill set.
Another player rolled up the optimized switch-hitter ranger, and more or less followed that build 100%.
Another player rolled up a min-maxed paladin of Sarenrae.
Based off of the playstyles of those builds, I would go four or five combats without finding an opportunity to sneak attack. Not only would these players steal flanking opportunities from me, but they'd back enemies into corners where other characters couldn't reach, or engage enemies in such a way that attempting to get into a flanking position would draw more than one AoO.
At level 4, when I did manage to set up a flank, I was dealing 4d6+1 damage with a +8 on my attack roll, or a 2d6+1 at +6 without a flank.
Same level, the paladin was attacking at +9, and dealing 2d6+14. Ranger was just slightly worse, attacking at +7 and dealing 1d8+13.
So under optimal conditions, my non optimized rogue had a lower hit chance and the paladin's minimum damage was still greater than my average damage.
My character ended up dying in combat trying to get into a position to flank after the paladin clogged up a good portion of the front lines. I sat out a full session because there wasn't a good place to introduce a new PC in the middle of the dungeon crawl. All the work I put into developing my character and his role in the community and managing his own storefront and building up my relationships with key NPCs were for nought because I put myself in a bad situation out of frustration of never being able to contribute or participate in the combat encounters. My rogue wasn't ill suited to combat, but due to selfish play and power builds, I spent three rounds bleeding out ten feet from the paladin who couldn't be arsed to drop a Lay on Hands, and in the same room with the ranger with the cure wand who wouldn't drop his bow.
A paladin of Sarenrae, whose player didn't bother to read what Sarenrae was the goddess of. A paladin of Sarenrae, who killed a harpy in the middle of diplomatic relations after she had surrendered because he got a "funny feeling" based on his Sense Motive check. A paladin of Sarenrae who attacked anything that set off his Detect Evil sensor. A paladin of Sarenrae that again proves why paladins get a bad rap for being Lawful Stupid.
I dropped out of that group the next week, and needless to say, I've not gone back.
So if your argument is that power gaming never hurt anyone, or that having an optimized, min-maxed build wasn't preventing others from having fun, you're wrong. Just because you're ok dumping Cha and Int to up your physical stats on your fighter, doesn't mean that everyone playing a fighter wants to play a stupid, socially retarded nosepicker. If your entire group plays that way, and the DM is ok with that, then fine, you've found a great group that works for you, but most Pathfinder games aren't like that.
If your character is deathly afraid of water, and your GM is running a high seas adventure, then you've designed your character poorly. If your character concept does not mash well with the GM's campaign, then you're at fault. It's your responsibility to roll up characters that fit into the campaign world, not your GM's. He'll give you an idea what the campaign is about, and what the setting is. He's not going to rewrite the setting to accommodate the guy that wants to play something weird. This isn't fourth edition Forgotten Realms. I think calling your GM lazy and stupid is going a bit far when you don't know how much time and effort he's put into designing an engaging campaign. He probably doesn't want all that to be ruined by a player who seems hell bent to do just that.
Who is this straw man who is telling his PCs how to play?
Certainly not a GM who just doesn't want 1/2 orcs... That's a simple restriction. If the player can't adapt another race to suit his concept then perhaps he doesn't qualify as a player.
Thank you Martryn. Well said.
It is exceptionally hard to convert a character concept from a half-orc to any other core race.
They do have a quite unique feel to them.
No other core race is half-monstrous.
And I'm not even taking mechanics here, I'm talking pure character background.
Most of the other core races are pretty interchangeable, but the half-orc is unique.
If the player came to the table with a really good half-orc concept only to have the GM refuse him, that's really crappy on the part of the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally these threads aren't my cup of tea. However, I'm going to chime in for Aranna here.
I've been running tabletop games for a heck of a long time; most recently a Pathfinder game over the past two years.
As GM, my goal is to make sure the table is having a good time.
Sometimes that means saying NO to disruptive players, disruptive character concepts, and the like.
It may be disruptive because it breaks verisimilitude, or unbalanced power levels break the roll-play, or the RP concept breaks the role-play, or the player is a sociopath who enjoys being disruptive.
It is the GM's responsibility to prevent and correct such things, so that everybody can have fun. Sometimes an incorrigible player gets the boot ... so it goes.
Some of the comments on this thread make me think the poster has never spent any time behind the GM screen.
I get the feeling Aranna has logged some time behind the screen. If not, I think she would be a very good GM if she tried.
Who is this straw man who is telling his PCs how to play?
Certainly not a GM who just doesn't want 1/2 orcs... That's a simple restriction. If the player can't adapt another race to suit his concept then perhaps he doesn't qualify as a player.
Really, that depends on what the GM is trying to accomplish. I'm in a game that is set up as Elves versus Dwarves. Players in one half of the campaign are playing half-elves, elves, or humans, and the players in the other half are playing dwarves, gnomes or humans. Everyone's fine with that because of the way it fits into the feel of the campaign. The GM is still within his rights to say no half-orcs because it'll screw with the plot, but that is rather a sign of an inflexible GM than an inflexible player. I had to tell a player that his goblin fighter "Paladin" wouldn't work because I could not see a way that his first visit to Sandpoint wouldn't end in a dead goblin character. He was upset, and I felt like a jerk, but he came up with another character concept, a hobgoblin samurai, I allowed that because, while it would still cause tension, it wouldn't end in a dead PC.
Going back to your example for a bit. Saying someone doesn't qualify as a player because they can't or won't adapt a concept to a different race is, to be blunt, a dickish thing to say. For a munchkin, a player who plays to win the game, kill the most monsters, and is generally a jerk to other players, you have a valid point. Let's say that I'm the player in question. I build characters based around an idea or an interesting combination. Generally the fluff behind the race/class/system of magic/or what have you is more a deciding factor than any of the mechanics behind it. Take Gkirkhan for instance. I wanted to see if I could build a Jagermonster in Pathfinder. I'm happy to say I think I succeeded. Gkirkhan is a half-orc because there is no other race that has the right feel. Gkirkhan as an elf or a dwarf wouldn't feel right. Everything else, the mechanics, the personality, the odd love of hats, could be there, but the concept doesn't work if he isn't a half-orc. If I took this character to your hypothetical GM, and he said I couldn't play it as a half-orc, are you then saying that I am unqualified as a player because my concept will not work, for me at the least, if the character is not a half-orc? That's pretty harsh to say, especially since I'm sure that we have never played a game together.
Will it lessen the uncooperative one's fun to make a character according to the story?It lessens my fun when I have a concept that I'm very keen on playing, but I can't, because the DM is too lazy or stupid to work with me to incorporate it.
Is ONE player's fun more important than everyone else's fun?Where did I say that?
Now please, answer my questions.
The GM wants to tell a certain story.Then what why is he playing a game with people instead of writing a novel or something?
Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?Again, how does my fun deny fun for others? They're not really good friends if me having fun somehow lessens their fun...Actually...
This happened in a recent campaign.
I rolled up a high Int rogue that could hold his own in combat and focused on a massive skill set.
Another player rolled up the optimized switch-hitter ranger, and more or less followed that build 100%.
Another player rolled up a min-maxed paladin of Sarenrae.Based off of the playstyles of those builds, I would go four or five combats without finding an opportunity to sneak attack. Not only would these players steal flanking opportunities from me, but they'd back enemies into corners where other characters couldn't reach, or engage enemies in such a way that attempting to get into a flanking position would draw more than one AoO.
At level 4, when I did manage to set up a flank, I was dealing 4d6+1 damage with a +8 on my attack roll, or a 2d6+1 at +6 without a flank.
Same level, the paladin was attacking at +9, and dealing 2d6+14. Ranger was just slightly worse, attacking at +7 and dealing 1d8+13.
So under optimal conditions, my non optimized rogue had a lower hit chance and the paladin's minimum damage was still greater than my average damage.
My character ended up dying in combat trying to get into a position to flank after the paladin...
That is not a powergaming issue. That is a "selfish player" issue. There is no reason why the players could not flank with you or use lay on hands. Killing someone in the middle of diplomacy also has nothing to do with powergaming. You can make a powerful character and still be diplomatic.
With all of that aside, did the GM have opportunities for you to use your skill set?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Find it oddly amusing how most people tend to give powergamers a hard time, while "role-players" who make characters that mechanically are plain garbage, get a free pass.
I say both ruin the game unless everyone is "in on it" in either extreme.
And doubly so when you MIX them in a game. Dear god. In the game where I currently play a bard, there is a magus that has AC closer to 30, +15 to hit and does 30-50 damage per hit across 2-3 attacks. At lv7. But we ALSO have a Ninja/Monk that strikes once per round (archetype that loses flurry) and does 1d6+2 damage(+2d6 if he gets in a sneak attack) at the same level.
----
Regarding the whole "GM tells the story, so he gets final say in everything" argument: Poppycock. The GM is NOT the story. He is the props-guy, the stage lighter, the extras. He is the guy that creates opportunities for the main actors (PCs) to shine. If the PCs does not want to follow his railroad, they are well within their rights to exercise their free will to undo his planning.
A GM should never MAKE the players go in a certain direction. He should make them WANT to go where he intends. By giving their characters incentive, and promising amusement and glorious adventure. It is the subtle difference that makes it fun, rather than a chore.
Find it oddly amusing how most people tend to give powergamers a hard time, while "role-players" who make characters that mechanically are plain garbage, get a free pass.
I say both ruin the game unless everyone is "in on it" in either extreme.
And doubly so when you MIX them in a game. Dear god. In the game where I currently play a bard, there is a magus that has AC closer to 30, +15 to hit and does 30-50 damage per hit across 2-3 attacks. At lv7. But we ALSO have a Ninja/Monk that strikes once per round (archetype that loses flurry) and does 1d6+2 damage(+2d6 if he gets in a sneak attack) at the same level.
----
Regarding the whole "GM tells the story, so he gets final say in everything" argument: Poppycock. The GM is NOT the story. He is the props-guy, the stage lighter, the extras. He is the guy that creates opportunities for the main actors (PCs) to shine. If the PCs does not want to follow his railroad, they are well within their rights to exercise their free will to undo his planning.
A GM should never MAKE the players go in a certain direction. He should make them WANT to go where he intends. By giving their characters incentive, and promising amusement and glorious adventure. It is the subtle difference that makes it fun, rather than a chore.
I agree. The player who makes a weaker character in a party of powergamers is just as guilty as the powergamer in an party that does not powergame.
PCs can do whatever they want and a GM just ... makes the world alive.
Emphasis added.
Come on people! RPGs are games of imagination. If you restrict it too much you're completely missing the point.
I understand reasonable restrictions like "No Evil alignment". But not allowing a half-orc monk just because nobles are racist? Really?
Yeah, it reminds me of the time my old GM wouldn't let me play an Elf Ninja.
He's all like, "This is a campaign set in the American Wild West. There were no ninjas in the wild west. There were no elves in the wild west."And I'm all like, "Nuh-uh! There was too a ninja in the wild west!"
And he's all like, "No. Just, no. You can play your ninja in the next campaign."
And I'm all like, "Fine. Whatever. I'll just play a Samurai then."
And he's all like, "No. Just, no. You can play your ninja in the next campaign."
And that reminds me of the time my old GM lied!
He said I could play a ninja in the next game.
I saved the character sheet and gave it to him when he started his next campaign.
He's all like, "This campaign is set in the stone age. You're all cavemen. There were no ninjas back then."
And I'm all like, "But you promised! See I even changed the stats on the katana like you asked."
And he's all like, "There were no swords in the stone age. Or steel, or forges, for that matter. How would a caveman get a katana?"
And I'm all like, "But you said I could play my ninja!"
And he's all like, "No. Just, no. You can play your ninja in the next fantasy campaign."
And I'm all like, "Fine. Whatever. I'll just play a Hacker then."
Come on people! RPGs are games of imagination. If you restrict it too much you're completely missing the point.
I understand reasonable restrictions like "No Evil alignment". But not allowing a half-orc monk just because nobles are racist? Really? Ever heard of Disguise? Magic? Does he even have to talk with the nobles? I'm not understanding the problem here.
Same here. If nothing else, it gives everyone a chance to explore an area the GM may not have thought of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I come to a session prepared for a delve into Kettle Keep since the story the main group is following leads there next. And I get some player being a jerk and saying he heads off to play river pirate on the Ket river... then I let him leave the group. But he is going to have a very boring night since I will be running the rest of the players into Kettle Keep. If the whole group for some reason wants to jump off plot then I suspend play for the night and we play a card game or something. Why? Because I am the story. I can't and won't run something I haven't prepared for first. That only leads to a lame story and worse challenges. I will then talk to the group as a whole to see why they jumped ship. If they are just bored with the main plot I end the game. If there was some valid reason I had not thought of then I prepare the side quest they want to explore.
As you can see there is NO story except where I prepared a story. Do I railroad... nope the players are free to interact as they see fit with the story I built. But if it's a "Save the Kingdom" story then I will VETO any concept that wouldn't care about saving the kingdom. I want involved players not disruptions. My players know this and trust me to make a good story. I know them and trust them to build a character that IS interested in the story I am creating. If some newbie showed up from this entitlement culture I am clashing with on this thread, and demanded to play some mutated monster that hates the kingdom I would VETO his character. If he got insulting then his chair would be empty and waiting for a new player next session. A GM does a LOT of work to make a good game. If a player can't respect that then they get what they get. Learn to work with others or get out. I am all done being the game mommie and making sure everyone is catered to. I want to have fun too and part of my fun is telling good stories. My only reward is seeing how much fun others are having in the situations I created for them.
Er... sorry if that sounds like a rant. I guess it is a rant even if I didn't start it as one.
I've kept reading this thread even after I stopped participating in it seriously, and while I think Aranna has made some good points (as too have those who disagree with her), at least until things got heated again, I do want to chime in on the "DM's story" thing.
Even when DMing I think the outlook of "DM as Storyteller" is a pernicious one, frought with peril, that can lead to justifying railroading and excessive (unnecessary) fiat.
While the DM is the final judge on rules, they should not be an arbitrary one. Sometimes you do have to rule out certain character options or feats but in the interest of everyone's fun* (not "control over my story"), and in the interest of keeping to the campaign concept everyone already agreed upon. (and, IMO, disallowing options should be rare, and limited).
From the point of the campaign story, it's always - done rightly - a collaborative project. From the "meta" standpoint of when the group discusses what kind of game they'd like ("We could run this AP, or I have this other idea for a campaign." "Hmn, I dunno, what about X?" "Well, we could mix in part of that" "Ok, sounds fun") to the story itself: every good story has protagonists. In RPGs, the DM does not run the protagonists. The players do.
But, then, I've always preferred a style closer to what is now called 'sandbox' style - even when we ran published adventures it was because OOC the players were interested, and IC that's where they decided to go and what they decided to do. The PCs could, if they so choose, walk away from it at any time and do something else - naturally with in-game consequences, but they wouldn't be placed "back on track" (which is always "back on the railroad tracks") of an adventure they decided to leave in order to do some other thing (note: simply walking away from an adventure rarely happened; I can't recall a specific instance. But part of this is because they had the freedom to do so, so that helped them maintain interest - they were determining their fates, not being told what their fates were to be. Much less, ug, being the innocent bystanders in someone else's story, a la the "adventure" "modules" of the Avatar series).
Sorry; I probably shouldn't even dip my toe into this thread again. But the whole "Storyteller" concept of DMing/GMing is a pet peeve of mine. Even from the PoV as the DM, much less player.
*Everyone's fun *does* include the DM's ability to enjoy the game. But, again, this is not carte blanche authoritah. It remains a collaborative situation.
Sandbox style... ugh.
Maybe I have never seen a good "sandbox" style GM yet. But so far to date every time a GM says they want to run sandbox style it means they have NO ideas on what to run and are expecting the players to write the story themselves. It always ends with people all going off and doing their own thing and the games usually die quick deaths since the GM has no real interest in running anyway.
"This is a campaign set in the American Wild West. There were no ninjas in the wild west."
Oh really?"There were no elves in the wild west."
You sure?
Great! Now I can tell my old GM!
Hey, can you find any caveman-ninja videos?
It'd be awesome to finally put him in his place; tell him to make the world alive already, and stop vetoing My Ninja!
Sandbox style... ugh.
Maybe I have never seen a good "sandbox" style GM yet. But so far to date every time a GM says they want to run sandbox style it means they have NO ideas on what to run and are expecting the players to write the story themselves. It always ends with people all going off and doing their own thing and the games usually die quick deaths since the GM has no real interest in running anyway.
That's your misfortune. Perhaps you thrive and your players thrive on the more top-down dictatorial style you describe. But I've run and been in epic-length campaigns of this ("sandbox" for lack of a better word) style, with marathon sessions. This didn't mean we didn't play through specific adventures - but it was because everyone involved expressed interest (like I said, collaborative), not because the DM said so by fiat.
No gnomercy a railroader would never craft a side quest for her players if they felt they needed it. I am sad you can't see the difference.
No wait there are NO specific adventures in Sandbox. It is the very opposite of an adventure path. I like making an adventure path for you and then adapting it as needed. It doesn't sound like you were in a true sandbox campaign. But rather some combination of adventure path (or story path as I prefer) and sandbox.
|
But if it's a "Save the Kingdom" story then I will VETO any concept that wouldn't care about saving the kingdom. I want involved players not disruptions. My players know this and trust me to make a good story. I know them and trust them to build a character that IS interested in the story I am creating. If some newbie showed up from this entitlement culture I am clashing with on this thread, and demanded to play some mutated monster that hates the kingdom I would VETO his character.
And now I want to play a NE mutated guy that hates the kingdom with a passion but is walking around with your Loyal Good party.
"I maaay hete yourr kingg, ooh I wish this impostorr of ze old godss could diie slooly, eateenn alife by zeh crowz !... *shhh* but I hate MUCH MORE the monsterr who could sit at the throonne, this zon'ofawhar who madde me the half-beattin man you sii today. *Hufff* I vill lend you my talentss, and be shoor my blaade will be red from the blood of ur komon enemies."
|
|
And I'm sad that you can't understand that whether the GM makes one rail or two, he's still a railroader.No gnomercy a railroader would never craft a side quest for her players if they felt they needed it. I am sad you can't see the difference.
Now all the talent of the DM is to make us not give a crap about the rails by making them awesome, interesting, and filled of deviation and backdoors according to our deeds in game and our own characters.
I know for sure that our DM assumes whatever could happen during the game and prepares something in advance for it, making it by definitio somewhat of a railroader ; but he never sees us deviate too much from the plot, thanks to awesome roleplay opportunities and interesting scenarii tied to our character's development and backgrounds.
Aranna, check out the log called "Hack and Slash". I think it is an excellent resource for anyone who has had problems with sandbox style games, or having to do a 180 when your party jumps rails :)
Specifically look at the theoretical articles on "player autonomy" (Quantum Ogre) and any other ones in that vein!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The gap between "benevolent director who steers the players and controls the game fairly in order to tell a story" and "power-hungry twerp who dukes out his/her control mania under pretense of storytelling" isn't as big as semantics would lead one to believe it is.
No wait there are NO specific adventures in Sandbox. It is the very opposite of an adventure path. I like making an adventure path for you and then adapting it as needed. It doesn't sound like you were in a true sandbox campaign. But rather some combination of adventure path (or story path as I prefer) and sandbox.
I used the term that is now used, for shorthand, because my posts are long enough as it is.
What I mean is both players and their characters had a wide range of choice to do what they want. Including simply leave whatever they were doing at the time (including an adventure) or detour onto something else that piqued their interest, and other "unplanned" things.
(I will admit that from a DM's standpoint this was a lot easier to run pre-3E; 3E NPC/monster builds are more complex and less amenable to free-wheeling them. But there are ways of dealing with this, too, and I digress).
Anyhow, I knew I prolly shouldn't stick myself back into this discussion; emotions on both sides are far to high for give-and-take. I think if Aranna looked at what I wrote dispassionately, there'd be a lot in it she agrees with (thus, for example, not even citing the fact that it is the PCs who are protagonists in the story, not DM-run characters), just as I don't disagree with everything Aranna said. It's just the "DM's Story"/"Storyteller" way of framing it is a pet peeve of mine.
As for everything else, back to your previously scheduled heated disputatiousness, already in progress. I'll try to grow quiet again. I'm trying to disengage from heated disputatiousness not because I'm above it all but because I too easily get heated about things myself. last thing this thread needs is one more person throwing logs onto the bonfire.
|
Sandbox style... ugh.
Maybe I have never seen a good "sandbox" style GM yet. But so far to date every time a GM says they want to run sandbox style it means they have NO ideas on what to run and are expecting the players to write the story themselves. It always ends with people all going off and doing their own thing and the games usually die quick deaths since the GM has no real interest in running anyway.
To run a good sandbox game, you have to have players that don't need to be led around by the nose. The players, collectively, have to have an idea of what story they want to tell, and the GM has to be nimble enough, and comfortable enough with the rules to occasionally "wing" it.
It helps if the GM is good at not anchoring his well thought out and deeply developed adventure to one metaplot or geographic location. The players will have no idea if you file the serial numbers off of an adventure and drop it in the path they chose. Minor, usually superficial, changes are all most adventures need to fit whatever metaplot the players are chasing, and a good GM can seamlessly work it in without it feeling forced.
Sandbox =/= chaos. It just means allowing the players to find their way in the backdrop you created, and giving them more creative input into the setting, story-wise.
As to the whole "ninja/samurai/half vampire/blahblahblah": figure out before hand what kind of game the GM likes to run, and if you feel too limited because he wants to run, to use an above example, a Wild West adventure that is more Josie Wales than Kung-Fu, either adapt or find another game. I can't stand 99% of half-"insert 'cool' race, usually with wings and horns and all kinds of crap" character concepts, I have zero analogy to Feudal Japan in my homebrew (I don't run a kitchen sink setting like Golarion or FR, unless I'm running Golarion or FR for whatever reason), and I don't want to spend half of my gaming time running monstrous race ninja PCs out of towns with pitch, feathers and torches. And I don't care what 4e did with Ebberon (seriously, didn't even look after dragonborn were to be included, the 3x attitude of dragons in that setting being sacrosanct in my mind), no dragon humanoid type critters will exist in that setting if I run it.
There are all kinds of published campaign settings where "everything goes" is most definitely not the rule, so I don't see the issue if someone runs a homebrew setting like that.
On the other hand, when I do run Golarion or FR, anything goes, since neither of those settings has anything resembling a common theme running though them, just a bunch of "this group of geeks loves ninjas/pirates/drow/whatever" so let's make sure we throw in a region that, even though it makes zero sense in a non-Earth setting, has every fanboi Earth analogy. Those settings are what they are, they're fun, but I don't even pretend that they make any sense.
"Cooperative" is a two way street, sometimes the players need to relent as well as the GM.
Maxx... Yes.
I would approve that background. Provided of course that you were an evil that could work well with others even if they are good.
And although railroading means something different to me... if it helps you understand then yes a Good GM makes people want to be on those rails. Planning is what makes a so-so game into a great game. It is still hard for me to call it railroading... but it's like laying rails down ahead of the group after seeing which way they intend to spring next.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Cooperative" is a two way street, sometimes the players need to relent as well as the GM.
If I didn't emphasize it enough, I agree with this, too. Not just as DM, but as player. The DMs fun counts too. It's neither "DM dictat" nor "Player dictat/gets everything they want, no questions or limitations."
This is one reason I do agree with some of what Aranna has said - as well as some of what those disagreeing with her have said.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to the whole "ninja/samurai/half vampire/blahblahblah": figure out before hand what kind of game the GM likes to run, and if you feel too limited because he wants to run, to use an above example, a Wild West adventure that is more Josie Wales than Kung-Fu, either adapt or find another game.
Ninja and samurai are just names. You could very well write "assassin" and "lord" on the sheet instead. I find funny the idea of the ninja refused in a stone age campaign when it can be some kind of awesome "child of the night" from a weird order venerating shadows.
Ninja and samurai are just names. You could very well write "assassin" and "lord" on the sheet instead. I find funny the idea of the ninja refused in a stone age campaign when it can be some kind of awesome "child of the night" from a weird order venerating shadows.
As to the whole "ninja/samurai/half vampire/blahblahblah": figure out before hand what kind of game the GM likes to run, and if you feel too limited because he wants to run, to use an above example, a Wild West adventure that is more Josie Wales than Kung-Fu, either adapt or find another game.
That's what I always say and everyone glares at me. You don't have to use the given fluff at all, as long as you can come up with an interesting concept that explains the class's skill set.