I've been following the thread since page 1, I haven't seen that going on, at all.
I have been saying that:
- telling the player to sit in the corner is disrespectful
- the GM could have created an opportunity for the character to come back
- that some people do play a game style where character death is rare, so the situation would be an opportunity to talk about the tone and style of this game in particular
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe I was referencing any of your posts in my summary.
Putting that aside, we either have a large perceptual difference on how we read the posts or we are parsing the data differently. If you truly don't see where any of these guys espoused what I said, let me know, and I will throw together references and how I interpret them. Basically, I think when you cut away all the floral phrasing, the shucking and jiving, I've given you a pretty fair distillation of what was argued. Either that or I'm still stunned from the responses in the 'Sunder' thread and I'm recalling more of the comments from there since it seems to be the same cast of characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never said that a player should sit in the corner. I am all for the player rejoining the game immediately. I am not sure where you are getting this from.
I have used the time the player spends making the new character to get the party to a place where they can believably take on a new member.
As a "GM" I lay out my style of play right at the beginning. Players know what to expect from me.
I do my best to be fair to all, I do not give players preferential treatment. It's not fair for the other players, it sets up a terrible precedent.
Say for example I allow a do over or a fudge for background guy, then when diplomacy guy will expect a do over or a fudge when he fails, or skill monkey guy wants his fudge when he fails at cracking the safe.
If I don't give them the fudge then I am indicating that background guy is the GMs favourite and that is just not cricket.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you fudge, you obviously don't reveal that fact. That would just be silly.
My point is a simple one. If your action as the GM makes the table as a whole unhappy, try to find a way to rectify it. You might mutually agree that this particular encounter should be done over. You might decide that there is some sort of a plot hook there. I don't know the specifics of this game, I just know that as a GM, I'm there to provide a fun experience. Resentment, frowns and awkward moments at the table are not fun. Creating awkward situations due to strict adherence to the rules is actually clearly against the rules as written, for they say to ignore them if necessary for a good time.
There is an old adage in the legal field - "The law never requires an unjust result." That means that if strictly following the law would be unfair or would not really help anybody, you should try to find some way to get around it. If we take that approach with our laws, shouldn't we be even more liberal in our leisure pursuits?
I should mention here that I would feel the same sympathy for a player with much less backstory. The amount of backstory is irrelevant, really - it's the level of attachment. Often times, that goes along with lengthy backstories, but not always.
I don't believe I was referencing any of your posts in my summary.
Putting that aside, we either have a large perceptual difference on how we read the posts or we are parsing the data differently. If you truly don't see where any of these guys espoused what I said, let me know, and I will throw together references and how I interpret them. Basically, I think when you cut away all the floral phrasing, the shucking and jiving, I've given you a pretty fair distillation of what was argued. Either that or I'm still stunned from the responses in the 'Sunder' thread and I'm recalling more of the comments from there since it seems to be the same cast of characters.
I haven't really seen what you're saying you saw.
No one has said that just because he wrote a backstory he is automatically guaranteed an immunity from death. I, and I believe several others, have said that if the player finds the backstory interesting, and it was compatible enough with the campaign to allow inthe first place, then why not let the player find a way to continue tying it into his new character? Maybe not a twin, but there is a lot of room for compromise and working together.
8th Dwarf: again, my examples of a redo at the table is when we all agree that something happened, it was lame and not beneficial to our enjoyment of the story at all. It doesn't matter if it affects one character or not. I tend to forget lame parts of the story anyway, so I have no problem going back and changing them.
These aren't "get out of jail free cards", these are "that was boring, let's change the story to be more exciting". Get out of jail free cards are handled with game mechanics, like action or hero point style rules.
It's in the OP. He told the player that he had to sit and watch everyone else play instead of being allowed to reincorporate the backstory of his previous character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I flip over a chess board because I'm losing, I'm called an immature moron. If a player blackmails the other gamers into changing their game, he's called a victim.
Most of the time I'm going to assume we're not talking about immature or jerkish behavior, because if that's the case, the fact that they wrote a long backstory and are now using it to be a jerk, the actual backstory and character death is irrelevant. The real problem is that there is a jerk at the table.
It's in the OP. He told the player that he had to sit and watch everyone else play instead of being allowed to reincorporate the backstory of his previous character.
No.
Read it again.
He ended up leaving and missing a few sessions before returning and still asking about his character. I told him no and that I wasn't going to talk about it anymore. I told him to either make a new character or sit and watch everyone else play.
He did not say "sit in the corner and watch everyone else play".
He said make a new character OR sit and watch everyone else play. A few sessions is WEEKS (maybe months depending on frequency of play) later. He had plenty of time to make a new guy even if it was going to be temporary until they could find some way to resurrect the old guy.
But he CHOSE to keep harping on about it and holding up the other people at the table. He COULD have chosen to make a new character and stop whining, but he did not. He was given a choice, and he picked "sit there and watch everyone else play", just like that little kid on the playground who broke his toy or dropped his cookie.
"Hey Timmy, if you go over to the toy box/cookie jar you can get another one."
"No, I dun wanna. *pout*"
"Fine, sit here then until you're ready to play again."
That's a bad example though because the little kid isn't holding up everyone else' session by arguing about it.
I feel sorry for the guy if this one character was the only interesting idea he's ever had, but that's a problem with him not the GM.
It's in the OP. He told the player that he had to sit and watch everyone else play instead of being allowed to reincorporate the backstory of his previous character.No.
Read it again.
He ended up leaving and missing a few sessions before returning and still asking about his character. I told him no and that I wasn't going to talk about it anymore. I told him to either make a new character or sit and watch everyone else play.He did not say "sit in the corner and watch everyone else play".
He said make a new character OR sit and watch everyone else play. A few sessions is WEEKS (maybe months depending on frequency of play) later. He had plenty of time to make a new guy even if it was going to be temporary until they could find some way to resurrect the old guy.
But he CHOSE to keep harping on about it and holding up the other people at the table. He COULD have chosen to make a new character and stop whining, but he did not. He was given a choice, and he picked "sit there and watch everyone else play", just like that little kid on the playground who broke his toy or dropped his cookie.
"Hey Timmy, if you go over to the toy box/cookie jar you can get another one."
"No, I dun wanna. *pout*"
"Fine, sit here then until you're ready to play again."
That's a bad example though because the little kid isn't holding up everyone else' session by arguing about it.
I feel sorry for the guy if this one character was the only interesting idea he's ever had, but that's a problem with him not the GM.
Just curious, were you there? Because right now all we have is Shallowsouls version of what happened many years ago.
If a player is being SOOO disruptive you have to tell them to "sit and watch" only, then you should probably ask them to leave and talk to them after the session. I'm in complete agreement, but it has NOTHING to do with the specific requests the player has and only to do with their disruptive behavior.
Do you get that about my point?
If someone is being violent, or being disruptively loud and belligerent, you should ask them to leave. A+&&@$# behavior is a*~%~+* behavior.
Would you like to discuss a@~&**~ behavior more?
Edit: extreme example here...
If you tell me that we're going to play in a campaign world where there are no elves, I then respond by pulling a knife out and holding it to your throat saying "well, I'm gonna play one anyways", which would you consider more problematic:
A) I want to play an elf
B) I just pulled out a knife and threatened you with bodily harm
When a player is purposely engaging in disruptive behavior, the problem is not their specific preferences, it's the fact that they are engaging in disruptive behavior.
Most of the time I'm going to assume we're not talking about immature or jerkish behavior, because if that's the case, the fact that they wrote a long backstory and are now using it to be a jerk, the actual backstory and character death is irrelevant. The real problem is that there is a jerk at the table.
Exactly. And if the scenario described in the original post is told to us truthfully and without bias, the player is pretty clearly being a jerk.
It feels like a lot of people are arguing just because the guy who made the thread made it for really obvious reasons that had nothing to do with chatting with the chaps who agreed with him. And yes, that sentence ran on a bit. Point is, this argument is dumb and only started because of events on other threads. Which in turn probably started from one original argument over players vs. GMs. Which I already ranted about elsewhere, so I'll back off now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, were you there? Because right now all we have is Shallowsouls version of what happened many years ago.
And if we're going to question the truth of that story, there is no point in this argument. Not that there ever was, but you know.
If a player is being SOOO disruptive you have to tell them to "sit and watch" only, then you should probably ask them to leave and talk to them after the session. I'm in complete agreement, but it has NOTHING to do with the specific requests the player has and only to do with their...
I got the impression that SS meant something like, "Look, if you aren't going to make a character, what are you going to do?"
And stop implying that "sit and watch" was the only option. You aren't stating it, but you keep saying things like "Shallow told his player to sit around and watch", or "he told them to sit around and watch only". The choice he gave was a dead-simple one, and it was definitely a choice: Play or don't play. Not "don't play".
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Yes, but it's all about tone. Does what he said come across as a threat, as joyful, as dismayed? We will never know. Given this poster's posts here, I would say that it would probably have just a hint of glee at it, probably a healthy dose of the threat. You can say the same thing in many different tones, each of which has an entirely different meaning.
Take "I'm going to kill you."
Said lightheartedly, it's a fun jab back at somebody. Said in anger, it's a threat that you don't expect to be followed up on. Said in seriousness, it is more of a threat. Without being there and hearing the OPs vocal inflection and exact wording, we can't really say one way or another definitively....but I do feel confident in saying that questions like this come down largely to GM finesse.
Just curious, were you there? Because right now all we have is Shallowsouls version of what happened many years ago.
Nope. Were you there?
Also no. So yes, all we have to go on is Shallowsoul's version of the story. Unless some evidence pops up that falsifies that story, the assumption you logically work from is that that story is true.
If a player is being SOOO disruptive you have to tell them to "sit and watch" only, then you should probably ask them to leave and talk to them after the session. I'm in complete agreement, but it has NOTHING to do with the specific requests the player has and only to do with their disruptive behavior.
But again, he didn't tell the player "to sit and watch only". He gave the player a choice: Play the game, or sit and watch (with an implied third choice of "or leave").
Being disappointed his character is dead is understandable, and trying to get him resurrected is also understandable.
Shallow gave him a dead simple choice though. That was the end of the discussion, at least for the moment. They're 3+ sessions away from where his character died. He's dead, gone, kaput. Roll up a new one, or don't was the choice he was given, not "you're being a douche so sit this one out". There's a big difference.
Do you get that about my point?If someone is being violent, or being disruptively loud and belligerent, you should ask them to leave. A~&&!&% behavior is a#@&$~@ behavior.
But he's not being disruptively loud and belligerent, nor is he violent. He's just being mildly annoying about the whole dead character thing, hence "just roll a new guy and stop pestering me about it dude, come on."
Would you like to discuss a*!+~~@ behavior more?Edit: extreme example here...
If you tell me that we're going to play in a campaign world where there are no elves, I then respond by pulling a knife out and holding it to your throat saying "well, I'm gonna play one anyways", which would you consider more problematic:
A) I want to play an elf
B) I just pulled out a knife and threatened you with bodily harmWhen a player is purposely engaging in disruptive behavior, the problem is not their specific preferences, it's the fact that they are engaging in disruptive behavior.
u wot m8
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really only "calloused" if you forget that this is a game.
Getting into your RP is all well and good, but at the end of the day it is entertainment and all imaginary. Roll a new guy, become invested in him, and have fun dammit.
Just curious, were you there? Because right now all we have is Shallowsouls version of what happened many years ago.And if we're going to question the truth of that story, there is no point in this argument. Not that there ever was, but you know.
If a player is being SOOO disruptive you have to tell them to "sit and watch" only, then you should probably ask them to leave and talk to them after the session. I'm in complete agreement, but it has NOTHING to do with the specific requests the player has and only to do with their...I got the impression that SS meant something like, "Look, if you aren't going to make a character, what are you going to do?"
And stop implying that "sit and watch" was the only option. You aren't stating it, but you keep saying things like "Shallow told his player to sit around and watch", or "he told them to sit around and watch only". The choice he gave was a dead-simple one, and it was definitely a choice: Play or don't play. Not "don't play".
I never said it was the only option. I said it was an option that I highly disagreed with and would never use as part of an ultimatum. If you want to talk about the original situation, I'm going to talk about how this is also inappropriate behavior, in addition to whatever the player might have done.
So there really isn't a whole lot to talk about as far as immature behavior as far as specifics from the original scenario.
So I agree, immature and disruptive behavior has no place at the gaming table. That includes players and GMs.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
It's really only "calloused" if you forget that this is a game.
Getting into your RP is all well and good, but at the end of the day it is entertainment and all imaginary. Roll a new guy, become invested in him, and have fun dammit.
You just said to become invested in him. Emotions are going to run high if you have invested yourself, especially if the GM is being a dick about it.
You just said to become invested in him. Emotions are going to run high if you have invested yourself, especially if the GM is being a dick about it.
Sure they are, but you should have the self-discipline to control it.
Please don't tell me you're one of those people who writes angry letters to the creator of whatever media just killed off a character you liked.
Just do what I do. Forget about it for now and then cry yourself to sleep later at the unfairness of it all.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Just because the player can control their emotions doesn't mean that the GM shouldn't try to mitigate. Why should a GM NOT try to work with a player in this situation?
Also, what is wrong with a new PC with a somewhat similar back story? Let's say that the PC in question had Bruce Wayne parents - what would be wrong with creating a new PC with a similar parental situation? It hasn't affected the story yet - probably hasn't even come up. As a GM, I would likely work with the player to figure out what they loved about their deceased character and incorporate elements into a new character. I wouldn't throw a character sheet at them and tell them to stop bothering me.
I never said it was the only option. I said it was an option that I highly disagreed with and would never use as part of an ultimatum.
Okey-dokey. If I have a player throwing a tantrum over his death, I will give him different options. "Roll up a new character or..."
Wait, what's the alternative? Allow the incredibly corny clone? Hit him with a hammer? Kick him out?If a player tries to insert a clone of a PC, I will not allow it. Identical twins don't turn out identically, and they certainly don't have the same backstory if one of them is 'long-lost'. At best, I will allow identical stats, but the backstory (and preferably personality) have to be changed to keep my game at all realistic.
If my player doesn't want to play in that sort of game, he is free to leave. He is welcome to leave. His play style obviously does not mesh with ideas of common sense, and mine does. To keep playing in my game is asking for trouble.
However, I will be eager to avoid outright kicking someone out, especially if he's friends with other players. So I'll tell him he should really roll up a new character. If he doesn't do that, after all, he'll have nothing to do but sit and watch--and I already pledged to avoid that option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but it's all about tone. Does what he said come across as a threat, as joyful, as dismayed? We will never know. Given this poster's posts here, I would say that it would probably have just a hint of glee at it, probably a healthy dose of the threat. You can say the same thing in many different tones, each of which has an entirely different meaning.
Right. Which is why it is all the more puzzling to me that anyone here, knowing that any read of a poster's 'tone' is speculative at best, would react to a perceived tone instead of what is actually written on the page. All the talk of "telling a player to sit in a corner" is a reaction to what some people feel was in the tone of the response Shallowsoul gave the 'alleged player', NOT in what he actually wrote. Personally, I try to not read in tone because of how inherently unreliable and utterly subjective it is. I try to restrict my comments to what is actually written because that is the only actual evidence presented.
As to detecting a 'hint of glee'... come'on.
I never said it was the only option. I said it was an option that I highly disagreed with and would never use as part of an ultimatum.Okey-dokey. If I have a player throwing a tantrum over his death, I will give him different options. "Roll up a new character or..."
Wait, what's the alternative? Allow the incredibly corny clone? Hit him with a hammer? Kick him out?If a player tries to insert a clone of a PC, I will not allow it. Identical twins don't turn out identically, and they certainly don't have the same backstory if one of them is 'long-lost'. At best, I will allow identical stats, but the backstory (and preferably personality) have to be changed to keep my game at all realistic.
If my player doesn't want to play in that sort of game, he is free to leave. He is welcome to leave. His play style obviously does not mesh with ideas of common sense, and mine does. To keep playing in my game is asking for trouble.
However, I will be eager to avoid outright kicking someone out, especially if he's friends with other players. So I'll tell him he should really roll up a new character. If he doesn't do that, after all, he'll have nothing to do but sit and watch--and I already pledged to avoid that option.
When a player has a strong feeling about something, that is an open door to pull them into a story that interests them. If I think there is a problem with it, I'll work with them to improve it, but their enthusiasm is important to me. Enthusiasm is more important to me than the likelihood of twins being perfectly identical.
There is very little I consider sacred in my games, other than the act of gaming itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because the player can control their emotions doesn't mean that the GM shouldn't try to mitigate. Why should a GM NOT try to work with a player in this situation?
Also, what is wrong with a new PC with a somewhat similar back story? Let's say that the PC in question had Bruce Wayne parents - what would be wrong with creating a new PC with a similar parental situation? It hasn't affected the story yet - probably hasn't even come up. As a GM, I would likely work with the player to figure out what they loved about their deceased character and incorporate elements into a new character. I wouldn't throw a character sheet at them and tell them to stop bothering me.
Because it's goofy and uncreative that's why.
And sure, work with them to create a character with SOME of the same elements.
This player wanted an exact clone of the guy that dies. It's not nearly the same thing.
|
To be honest I don't like to sit there and waste the other player's time by spending 30 minutes to an hour arguing about this. I keep me rulings firm but fair because when you let one do something then everyone else begins to expect it because you let the other do something and eventually it turns into a vicious cycle.
I keep my rulings consistent and when you come to my table you will know what to expect and decide whether or not you want to play in my game. I don't want someone 8 to 10 levels in being taken back because of a certain ruling I have. I lay it all out in the open before hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And sure, work with them to create a character with SOME of the same elements.
This player wanted an exact clone of the guy that dies. It's not nearly the same thing.
I'm scratching my head on this suggestion as well. Here's how it seems to me:
1. Player's character gets dead.2. Player says, "Mr. DM, I want this character to live because I spent time on his backstory."
3. DM says, "No, sorry, he's dead."
4. Player says, "OK, how about I play his twin brother - with just a name change?"
It seems like a clear-cut attempt to get around the "your character is dead" part at the cost of changing the character's name from Strix to Strax.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Alright, let me turn this all around, then.
You prepare a campaign - you have 3 nights' worth already prepared. The first combat is a TPK. Do you let a new party attempt the campaign, or do you just put all that to the side and create a new one? If you create a new one, then do you use elements (monster selection, maps, etc.) from the campaign you are no longer able to run?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You lost me... how is this, in any way, comparable to one player asking for special treatment for their snowflake character?
Alright, let me turn this all around, then.
You prepare a campaign - you have 3 nights' worth already prepared. The first combat is a TPK. Do you let a new party attempt the campaign, or do you just put all that to the side and create a new one? If you create a new one, then do you use elements (monster selection, maps, etc.) from the campaign you are no longer able to run?
I'd give 'em a redo.
You know why?
Because unlike the scenario presented here (where one player is holding up the rest of the group, and his cooperation would mean everyone else gets to play for about 15-30 minutes longer than he), that scenario holds up the whole table in every other situation.
Having them roll up new characters takes time, during which nobody is doing anything else but rolling up new characters.
You lost me... how is this, in any way, comparable to one player asking for special treatment for their snowflake character?
Just to be clear, if a player is enthusiastic about a character concept, you consider this to be a bad thing?
Related note: I'm currently loving the concept of the 'One Unique Thing' in 13th Age.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
The comparability is simply one of somebody designing something that they like, only to have it no longer make sense in the game world for it to be feasible. While it's not a perfect analogy, I think it has some merit.
If your team is good's One Last Hope (tm), how does it make sense for a second band of adventurers to be able to pick up the pieces?
How would this group of new players even find out about the adventure? Doesn't it strain things to believe that two adventuring groups happened to be in the same town, but had not met each other?
If you write yourself into a corner with your own adventure that's something you f@&@ed up and should take responsibility for.
As far as I can tell, most Paizo APs for example don't have the "Last, True, Hope of Humanity" thing going, which is a good spot to be in when death is an uncertainty.
I don't have a problem with long backgrounds, I encourage them they make for good GM hooks. I have a character in Carrion Crown that has a full page background who writes letters home to his cousins. My character has come very close to being killed twice. If my character dies I all ready have a replacement ready, it will be one of my characters cousins, one is male and one is female one is a full elf and the other is human. I haven't decided on a class for either.
As for re-do's I prefer that they party deals with the consequences of its actions. I have had one do over and that was due to a player not thinking about other players.
The player let his 20th C politics bleed into the game. A republican in Australia is vastly different to a US Republican. The majority are left wing anti monarchists. The player had his character spit in the face of the Baron that was about to offer the party a job and rant about how he was going to introduce rule by the people. I kept asking the player if he wanted to do what he was doing, he kept saying yes.
The baron could not stand for such an attack on his authority and traitorous talk. He ordered his guards to arrest the character and his associates. The player was shocked when the rest of the party surrendered immediately with the Paladin offering to help subdue the other player.
The table told the player to stop being a dick and I offered a do over it was taken. I was happy for the player to continue being a revolutionary but at the same time recognise that derailing the adventure for other players was not fun. He got his own "Barrony" eventually he set it up as a democracy ruled it for two terms and was very unhappy when he was voted out.
|
If your team is good's One Last Hope (tm), how does it make sense for a second band of adventurers to be able to pick up the pieces?
How would this group of new players even find out about the adventure? Doesn't it strain things to believe that two adventuring groups happened to be in the same town, but had not met each other?
I've never seen a game where the party was the One Last Hope (tm). But if there were such a group, and they all failed in their task, I imagine if the players wanted to continue I would come up with a story about their life in the new world the villians created, or in the afterlife if there was no world left.
As for how a new party would find out about the adventure, well, that's my job as a DM. They don't have to pick up the adventure in the same town, or the same year, or even the same plane of existence. If you work it out properly, two groups can be fighting the same evil while on opposite sides of the planet. Or even in opposite sides of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think bad decisions often lead to some of the best gaming stories and lots of opportunities.
Our wizard took a bunch of barrels of oil, lit them on fire and cast Shrink Item. They were going to be used as sabotage explosives against the army outside the city laying siege. The monk took them down to the thieves guild, who were going to help us, as he's handing them over, he tells them the command word... which sets off the Shrink Item spell, on all the barrels, inside the thieves guild, inside the city. It later became known as the Fire District.
You lost me... how is this, in any way, comparable to one player asking for special treatment for their snowflake character?Just to be clear, if a player is enthusiastic about a character concept, you consider this to be a bad thing?
Related note: I'm currently loving the concept of the 'One Unique Thing' in 13th Age.
Would you let a player repeat his "one unique thing" in 13th Age if his PC died? If so, is it really a unique thing?
I've never seen a game where the party was the One Last Hope (tm). But if there were such a group, and they all failed in their task, I imagine if the players wanted to continue I would come up with a story about their life in the new world the villians created, or in the afterlife if there was no world left.
We played a party of adventurers in this position once. Our failure led to an entirely transformed campaign... That I was sadly unable to participate in because of scheduling conflicts.
If your team is good's One Last Hope (tm), how does it make sense for a second band of adventurers to be able to pick up the pieces?How would this group of new players even find out about the adventure? Doesn't it strain things to believe that two adventuring groups happened to be in the same town, but had not met each other?
Sounds to me like this is the equivalent of the super-unique PC concept, but for the GM's campaign concept. And it's just as problematic... Unless he's willing to follow through with consequences.
But it's actually easy to involve other PCs in these sorts of campaigns. They have friends and family, don't they? Professional colleagues? Like-minded allies? Or at least they could if they weren't all last-of-a-dying-breed, antisocial loners...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You lost me... how is this, in any way, comparable to one player asking for special treatment for their snowflake character?Just to be clear, if a player is enthusiastic about a character concept, you consider this to be a bad thing?
Never said that, never implied it, and you have to be heavily and inaccurately reading into my question to even draw that conclusion. Just to be clear - your question is leading, skewed, and conveniently ignores important considerations. In other words, it is an intellectually dishonest snare and I'm not wasting time on it.
If you really want to know how I DM and why - just ask... but don't try to slant the questions like a Fox News anchor. That won't fly with me.
You lost me... how is this, in any way, comparable to one player asking for special treatment for their snowflake character?Just to be clear, if a player is enthusiastic about a character concept, you consider this to be a bad thing?Never said that, never implied it, and you have to be heavily and inaccurately reading into my question to even draw that conclusion. Just to be clear - your question is leading, skewed, and conveniently ignores important considerations. In other words, it is an intellectually dishonest snare and I'm not wasting time on it.
If you really want to know how I DM and why - just ask... but don't try to slant the questions like a Fox News anchor. That won't fly with me.
You used a derogatory term and referred to this mythical "special treatment". So you're also using heavy handed language and lots of assumptions.
I'm talking about working with the player so that their enthusiasm is beneficial to the campaign. As far as I can tell, you're talking about telling them "no".
I'm talking about working with the player so that their enthusiasm is beneficial to the campaign. As far as I can tell, you're talking about telling them "no".
Sometimes, telling them "no" is better for the game.
Sometimes, but I've found that flat out saying no is often bad.
It's better to talk, find the good parts of their idea and incorporate those. Because again, for me, nothing is sacred, except the act of gaming.
|
Because it's goofy and uncreative that's why.
The problem I have with that, is that I've yet to see a single campaign (and I've seen many) which didn't include at least parts I consider to be goofy and uncreative. This includes campaigns written by the pros as well as (naturally) my own campaigns.
So in the end, the claim that something is uncreative and goofy (and I'm sure that I have claimed this more than once in the past myself) actually translates into "I simply don't like this".
There may be nothing more goofy and uncreative in the rules than the "raise dead"-spell. Nonetheless it's still considered part of the default assumption about how a pathfinder setting functions.
I don't like resurrection spells at all and can easily imagine to run campaigns where it simply isn't possible (if all players agree beforehand, that is). But assuming shallowsoul's default game includes those spells, I'm wondering why it's considered so bad to allow the player to play a nearly identical twin of it's deceased character if on the other hand it would be considered perfectly valid to revive the character via magic.
It's inconsistent, goofy and not creative? Well, sure, but on the other hands, we all probably know how much creativity a character you're really into can spark.
So if this player is a jerk, the problem isn't the character. But if not, disallowing to play the character he wants to probably causes more harm than good in the long run.