|
Not sure how to answer this. I guess people like to be free of "you wake up with herpes" type GMs. You know the "rocks fall you die no save" kind of GMing. Those are extreme examples but you sort of set this up as you are one way or another.
I guess I have to point to the "I play with reasonable people" thread. I give trust to my GMs because I trust them to run a good game and not bushwack me. Yes its the GMs world, but I like to have at least a part to myself.
So I draw the line when a GM tries to pull stuff on a character without giving me any say so or chance to avoid. No saves it just happens is where I draw the line. Of course there is always context which is why I also have a difficult time answering this question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a DM'ing standpoint, I have the most fun when I basically give up any semblance of control. Counter-intuitively, these are also the times where I have the most influence on the mood and energy of the game.
It sounds weird and scary. It works well and is a ton of fun once you get used to it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've found I (and my players) are more comfortable with a certain understanding.
I, as the GM, control the WORLD and everything in it. I control the horizontal, and the vertical as it were.
BUT my players control their CHARACTERS. Now I can manipulate the world to try and get them to where I want 'em to go, but I can't just say "You guys decided to go here so here you are". They always have the right to refuse and go off to do something else if they want, just like I always reserve the right to have them be attacked by the combined might of Asmodeus and his 9 Archdevils if I so choose.
Neither of these things has happened yet.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am the GM.
I am not here to tell you what to do.
I am here to tell you the consequences of what you do.
That's my primary statement when I discuss such things, but as everyone is liable to do, I forget once in a while. I try to keep my fingers out of the character's pie unless I think they're going to do something another player may easily accomplish. I find that when players start coming up with radical stunts (of which I try to say roll, instead of no) it leads to stage hogging, with other players minimizing their interactions as they get bulldozed by the action man.
That being said, there are also players who, for their private reasons, usually end up trolling. These are the 'I'm going to kill the offical because you need him to monologue an important part of the campaign.' players. For whatever reason they look for ways to break your game in goofy, witty(drudgingly so) or annoying ways. These are the guys I let hang themselves with their own rope, since it's all I'm allowed. If I were to actively attack those characters/players, then none at the table would trust me to keep it above board when they need it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am the GM.
I am not here to tell you what to do.
I am here to tell you the consequences of what you do.
I, as the GM, control the WORLD and everything in it. I control the horizontal, and the vertical as it were. BUT my players control their CHARACTERS.
These +1..IMHO the GM has 2 basic responsibilities the overall story of the campaign and ajudicating the rules based on the decisions that the players have made. But the players are responsable for making those decisions and their characters individual stories.
That being said, there are also players who, for their private reasons, usually end up trolling. These are the 'I'm going to kill the offical because you need him to monologue an important part of the campaign.' players. For whatever reason they look for ways to break your game in goofy, witty(drudgingly so) or annoying ways. These are the guys I let hang themselves with their own rope, since it's all I'm allowed. If I were to actively attack those characters/players, then none at the table would trust me to keep it above board when they need it.
And oddly enough on a board that seems to be mostly populated with threads that are pretty much DM bashing in nature none of these people seem to address this player. I've run into these types more than I've run into overcontrolling GM's.
With both of these people they really should understand that just because you CAN do something doesnt mean that you SHOULD do something.
I've had GMs who have come from all over the place on this question.
The strictest GM I've had worked together with his players to develop a backstory, but he determined final backstory so as to best fit his setting. Once that decision was made, the players had complete control over the actions of their character. The GM would play any NPCs or cohorts (but not animal companions) and use their responses to PC actions to subtly direct the adventure. This particular game didn't have any characters with alignment restrictions, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who would enforce those pretty strictly. (Which might be why there weren't any characters with alignment restrictions, but I was only in the one campaign.) He did outright ban a class though- because he felt that it would be suicide for the party given events that were to transpire later on.
The loosest GM I've had was so far down the opposite end of the spectrum that it was frustrating. We were playing an AP, but beyond "you get to choose a campaign trait" there was no decision making about the character at all. He not only didn't interfere with a character's back story- he refused to read one if it was presented to him.
The other annoying thing about that GM was that he was loath to give advice. He believed so strongly in the players right to run their own character that it inhibited my ability to learn the system. Our exchanges would be along the lines of him giving a piece of advice, me questioning how that would be effective (or possibly saying "so someone with experience would take this?") and him shrugging it off with "hey, it's your character." this led to my overly complicated, advanced concept gish character dying within 2 sessions because he was completely ineffective in battle.
But all the choices I made were my own. He'd never dream of getting in the way of my creativity. (S)
I suppose the overall goal was to let my characters die repeatedly until I made something that worked, and learn from there. As it was, I ended up secretly violating one of the few iron-clad rules that group had (don't read optimization guides from the Internet) just to put together a character that could live.
The group ended up rolling over into another group before we got very far, and the antisocial player left after a few sessions. The old group's GM is a MUCH better as a player than as a GM.
Otherwise, I've usually had GMs that are somewhere inbetween. Usually, that means a GM looks over the character history and nixes anything he doesn't like, and the player is otherwise allowed to create whatever he wants. I actually haven't played with any plot destroying players yet. The only railroading GM I've had was when I first got into RPGs in high school, and at the time I needed it.
One of these days, I hope to find a GM who will let me take the Leadership feat and retain complete control of the character (from creation to role play). Leadership is either banned outright or the GM allows it but creates and controls the cohort. Even the free-form GM didn't allow that.
I feel the GM has absolute control over the setting.
I feel the player has absolute control over their character.
In the middle during the back story is where the two meet and work together to make a memorable hero.
Player should have control over the character's decisions - assuming no outside force currently controls the character's body or mind, obviously. What would be point of coming to the game otherwise? To watch GM reciting his dreamed plot?
Not all the decisions will lead to intended actions - conditions prese t can make the actions challenging or outrightly impossible
All the decisions taken by the character will have Obviously idiotic decisions will have dire consequences (serial senseless, ridiculous and out-of-character decisions that spoil the game for others will end with no invitations to future sessions).
Personally, as a GM, I even prefer to steer away from mind-controlling effects being used on PCs leaving them only to be used by major NPCs to not cheapen their impact.
Gm: It's never enough.
Player: I'll never be what you want me to be!
*Booted*
I know that when I GM and the players came up with back stories for their Characters I would change names and places (My world was home brew) to fit the area a bit. All with their approval.
They make decisions, I describe consequences.
I know I audit character sheets frequently. I will make suggestions if I see someone struggling for feats, skills, magic items, and/or whatever. I ask them why they took certain powers or feats. (It gives me a sense of an adventure or obstacle they would like to try and face.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM: I have this idea for a campaign set in a Mediterranean-setting, where the players start out as the best and brightest youths in a humble fishing village but eventually grow into fantastic heroes, and the game world expands as these heroes explore more of the unknown around them. A sort of 'heroes journey' with a backdrop of 300. Anyone interested in that?
Players: Wow, that sounds fantastic! Sign us up.
Player A: So, I made my character. He's a viking from the far North and here's an overly long and convoluted reason why he's down here.
Player B: My character is an elderly blacksmith from somewhere completely different. He's just passing through.
Player C: My character is a travelling doctor from the East. He's just passing through.
Player D: ...uhm, well. My character is an up-to-no-good rogue-like kid who grew up in the village we're supposed to be from.
GM: *sigh*
Basically, everyone was so intend on being the special snowflake that the one guy who actually cared to work the setting into his character concept ended up being the odd man out.
Am I too controlling?
GM: I have this idea for a campaign set in a Mediterranean-setting, where the players start out as the best and brightest youths in a humble fishing village but eventually grow into fantastic heroes, and the game world expands as these heroes explore more of the unknown around them. A sort of 'heroes journey' with a backdrop of 300. Anyone interested in that?
Players: Wow, that sounds fantastic! Sign us up.
Player A: So, I made my character. He's a viking from the far North and here's an overly long and convoluted reason why he's down here.
Proper response: He better have a damn good reason to wander so far back in time before viking culture even started... Especially that in this world time travels don't exist! (from the 300 backdrop I read that it is Ancient Mediterranean)
Basically, everyone was so intend on being the special snowflake that the one guy who actually cared to work the setting into his character concept ended up being the odd man out.
"Screw this campaign guys... We're playing Warhammer, 1st edition... Roll for race and profession."
Am I too controlling?
Nope. You just offered specific setting. Demanding that players keep to the setting offered is not "too controlling".
All those outsiders in a game that's supposed to start small and expand into the vast unknown just don't work.
And it didn't, sadly. I'd put a lot of work into that campaign, but it kinda fell apart after not too long. Which, I think, would be my fault for not being controlling enough. I don't really like to tell players 'no' unless it's really far fetched. If I'd been more controlling and told them no, the campaign might have fared better (or never get started in the first place, and saved me a lot of time.)
Proper response: He better have a damn good reason to wander so far back in time before viking culture even started... Especially that in this world time travels don't exist! (from the 300 backdrop I read that it is Ancient Mediterranean)
It was an Exalted game, so technically possible. Still, there wasn't really any reason why his character had to be from the North. It wasn't really an important part of the character that he was a foreigner. I suspect the player decided early on that he wanted his character to be named 'Ragnar' and everything else just sprang up around that to justify the name.
Certainly taught me a lesson about not enforcing the campaign parameters.
I am of the, "The GM sets up and controls the world and the NPCs. The players control the characters" camp.
HOWEVER, I feel that the GM must have a strong say in the characters' backgrounds.
For my Rise of the Runelords campaign, I had each player tell me their character's race, class, alignment, and a little bit about their back stories. Then I wrote them the way I felt they would best fit into my campaign. The players were overjoyed with the results, and it's the best campaign I've ever run. I have had no control of the characters whatsoever since writing up their backgrounds. (Well, OK, one's a paladin, so Sarenrae gets to yell at her a bit, but that's different.)
For my Kingmaker campaign, we're almost done with Module 1, and I still have a player who refuses to back down on having a background with political and social ties to the River Kingdoms. As a GM, I tell him, "No, this won't work, because you're going to be engaging in politics with these nations and I can't have you having pre-existing ties to them," and he insists, "But it's for my ROLE-PLAYING!"
Honestly, I'm stepping down from GM'ing that campaign because I can't ask him to leave the table for 'real life' reasons, and I'm tired of the every-session arguments about what he 'should' know or 'should' be able to do because of HIS background. The player is so insistent on absolute control of his character that he's losing his GM. (And the GM that's taking over is a wonderful no-nonsense fellow who's already stated that he won't resume the campaign until that background is complete and approved, so the player has the choice of agreeing or having no campaign.)
Long-winded way of saying:
- Character Background: GM should have significant say
- Once the campaign has started: Players have control, except they can only purchase items the GM says are available. (Controlling the world and all that.)
It's not unreasonable to try to have a Player be consistent with his backstory and all. If someone does something really unreasonable for their character there's nothing wrong with the DM asking for an explanation of why that was done. This doesn't, however, extend to a player saying "I go right" and the Dm saying "NO YOU GO LEFT!"
But what if the player doesn't come up with a good RP explanation?
Let me put an example:
Player A runs a devoted human Paladin of the god of Valor and Justice.
Player B runs a flashy semiorc Monk whose has been a childhood friend.
Player B's PC dies in a gruesome battle (it involved a Black Dragon and many lizardfolk) which the rest of the party barely survived.
After the escape, and having lost sight of the enemy, the party discuss what to do with the fallen comrade's corpse (low-level party, no Resurrection).
Player A then said: "Unload him to the last copper. Throw the body to a marsh. Let it rot... I want that Amulet of Natural Armor +1."
Everyone at the table jaw-dropped.
GM: Without a proper burial? Why would you do that!?
Player A: I want that Amulet of Natural Armor +1.
As a GM, what would you do?
It's not unreasonable to try to have a Player be consistent with his backstory and all. If someone does something really unreasonable for their character there's nothing wrong with the DM asking for an explanation of why that was done. This doesn't, however, extend to a player saying "I go right" and the Dm saying "NO YOU GO LEFT!"But what if the player doesn't come up with a good RP explanation?
Let me put an example:
Player A runs a devoted human Paladin of the god of Valor and Justice.
Player B runs a flashy semiorc Monk whose has been a childhood friend.
Player B's PC dies in a gruesome battle (it involved a Black Dragon and many lizardfolk) which the rest of the party barely survived.After the escape, and having lost sight of the enemy, the party discuss what to do with the fallen comrade's corpse (low-level party, no Resurrection).
Player A then said: "Unload him to the last copper. Throw the body to a marsh. Let it rot... I want that Amulet of Natural Armor +1."
Everyone at the table jaw-dropped.
GM: Without a proper burial? Why would you do that!?
Player A: I want that Amulet of Natural Armor +1.
As a GM, what would you do?
In that particular case? (assuming that local expectations of valor and justice demand respect for fallen comrade's body and possessions?): Good bye Paladin. Hello Fighter without bonus feats.
In case of Cleric of the same deity it would be: I'll put your spells, domain powers and channeling energy in this nice safe. You can have them back any time you want. Passcode is A-T-0-N-3-M-3-N-T.
I exaggerate the reaction of course. A bit. It would be a serious black mark on the Paladin's rooster, however to be remembered in light of other (and future) infractions.
That's right @thejeff. That's why the GM only asked for a RP explanation for not giving to his long time friend a proper burial, not for taking the Amulet.
Anyway, Player A didn't say anything beyond that.
And that is where my question comes. What would you do as GM?
In that particular case? (assuming that local expectations of valor and justice demand respect for fallen comrade's body and possessions?): Good bye Paladin. Hello Fighter without bonus feats.
In case of Cleric of the same deity it would be: I'll put your spells, domain powers and channeling energy in this nice safe. You can have them back any time you want. Passcode is A-T-0-N-3-M-3-N-T.
Then I'm assuming you would allow it even if the character doesn't have a reason to do so, only because the player want to do it.
The RP explanation I was talking about is not to justify the character's action, but to allow the player's action.
In any case, obviously the Paladin goes to the world of the Fighter-without-bonus-feats until Atonement.
Was this Paladin part of a culture that made a big deal out of honoring the corpses of the dead? If it was a culture that didn't really care about corpses, he may have been able to pass it off as wanting to get rid of the body before that became the way he'd remember his friend.
Not only the church which the paladin belongs honored the dead (a proper burial prevents the curse of undeath, among other reasons) but the deceased was a childhood friend. In the standard set of values of D&D, he deserves at least a good hole in the ground.
GM: I have this idea for a campaign set in a Mediterranean-setting, where the players start out as the best and brightest youths in a humble fishing village but eventually grow into fantastic heroes, and the game world expands as these heroes explore more of the unknown around them. A sort of 'heroes journey' with a backdrop of 300. Anyone interested in that?
Players: Wow, that sounds fantastic! Sign us up.
Player A: So, I made my character. He's a viking from the far North and here's an overly long and convoluted reason why he's down here.
Player B: My character is an elderly blacksmith from somewhere completely different. He's just passing through.
Player C: My character is a travelling doctor from the East. He's just passing through.
Player D: ...uhm, well. My character is an up-to-no-good rogue-like kid who grew up in the village we're supposed to be from.
GM: *sigh*
Basically, everyone was so intend on being the special snowflake that the one guy who actually cared to work the setting into his character concept ended up being the odd man out.
Am I too controlling?
I've become convinced that guided character creation as a group works really well. The GM sets up certain choices the players can pick from. Not pre-made characters. Basically archetypes (using the literary definition, not the PF definition) and each archetype has questions with it. Most of the questions require at least a sentence to answer. The answers provide the players with lots of information about the character, plus the GM gets information to use for the game that directly pertains to the PC's.
The GM gets more say about the PC's.
The players get more say about the setting and background of the adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is kind of topical. I'll leave it here, with the superscript that both sides can be wrong at once in these questions. And the other guy being wrong doesn't change how wrong you might be.
Mourn the lost mage, Rtilliu
(Hurloff his first name)
Who wanted to be half-ogre
(Just 'big' was not the same)
The GM said, "Your eyes don't glow"
"Your teeth are normal, too"
But Hurloff had his self-image
'The demon-mage Rtilliu'
I recount so you'll be assured
None of these weighed a wit
And all was fair and above board
When Hurloff, while stirge-bit
Did cast his lonely magic spell
And Mage Armor did form
Around Hurloff, and the stirge too!
(Which kept both snuggly warm)
Mourn the lost mage, Rtilliu
(Hurloff his first name)
Who wanted to be half-ogre
(just 'big' was not the same)
For me, gms create/set up the world. Players must fit their characters into it, in many cases using things like campaign traits. I really like that idea because it offers players choice, but also makes sure the characters fit into the story. If a gm handed me my background and character profile for me, i'd walk away from the table. I dont want to be an actor in a play, i want to play a roleplaying game.
As was said. Dire consequences. If you do something that's drastically out of character such as that then there needs to be a really good explanation or there will be dire consequences. Assuming Clerical type rules haven't changed you can lose your powers if you go off the deep end. If he doesn't have a good explanation he's going to lose part of his powers until he atones for his sins. He didn't go off the deep end and actively do something like f*+& the corpse but he was negligent of his duties to a degree it deserves punishment.
Then again, you (as a GM) would allow such action, since the player want to do it, regardless of the fact that the PC doesn't have any reason to do so.
Right, I get that dire consequences should befall to that kind of act (from a paladin), but is that really OK?
Role Playing is about context and concept, and unless you are RPing "yourself", your PC behavior should fit to the context and/or concept given for it. Letting a player to be a jerk and allow him/her to do whatever he/she wants might let things like these to happen:
"GM: Well, your companions have fought bravely holding off the hordes of undead so your cleric of the goddess of Life and Fertility could help the newborn son of the princess. She breathes heavily and ask you to let her embrace her son.
Player: I pull off my knife and stab the baby. (with no reason)"
Yes, I know that can be extreme, but there is one that actually happened:
The party was sent off to find the powerful McGuffin that could prevent the planes from collapsing. They found the artifact (a mirror), and then trust it to the fighter. The fighter's player decided to throw the mirror at the first river they cross by... again, with no reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As was said. Dire consequences. If you do something that's drastically out of character such as that then there needs to be a really good explanation or there will be dire consequences. Assuming Clerical type rules haven't changed you can lose your powers if you go off the deep end. If he doesn't have a good explanation he's going to lose part of his powers until he atones for his sins. He didn't go off the deep end and actively do something like f*+& the corpse but he was negligent of his duties to a degree it deserves punishment.Then again, you (as a GM) would allow such action, since the player want to do it, regardless of the fact that the PC doesn't have any reason to do so.
Right, I get that dire consequences should befall to that kind of act (from a paladin), but is that really OK?
Role Playing is about context and concept, and unless you are RPing "yourself", your PC behavior should fit to the context and/or concept given for it. Letting a player to be a jerk and allow him/her to do whatever he/she wants might let things like these to happen:
"GM: Well, your companions have fought bravely holding off the hordes of undead so your cleric of the goddess of Life and Fertility could help the newborn son of the princess. She breathes heavily and ask you to let her embrace her son.
Player: I pull off my knife and stab the baby. (with no reason)"
Yes, I know that can be extreme, but there is one that actually happened:
The party was sent off to find the powerful McGuffin that could prevent the planes from collapsing. They found the artifact (a mirror), and then trust it to the fighter. The fighter's player decided to throw the mirror at the first river they cross by... again, with no reason.
Perhaps I have known too many psychotics in my life, but as a GM I am perfectly prepared for a PC to do something totally and horrifically game-changing and out-of-character. I allow it. And I describe the consequences, which frequently involve the incarceration, torment, or death of the PC who performed the action, as well as his/her friends.
Only takes one or two such events before the other players start policing the rogue player in question, saying, "NO! Don't do that!! Remember what happened last time?!?!?"
PC stabs the baby? How do the other PCs react? I know that if the cleric didn't immediately seek to end that PC's foul life, I'd cut off the cleric from his/her god. Paladins would fall. Basically, if you're beholden to a god, that god can turn his/her back on you. If not, you can be a psycho, but your comrades may not appreciate it.
Fighter destroys the mirror, causing the planes to collapse and destroy the world? Oh, well, campaign's over. We'll start a new campaign in a couple of months once I can build a new world. What? You'd like to start sooner? Well, sorry, but I have to rebuild a world, and that'll take time.
In the past, I've had complete a**hat players. I let the consequences fall where they may. The other players either whipped them into shape, or kicked them out of the group. I never once said, "Your PC would never do that!"
Yes, I know that can be extreme, but there is one that actually happened:
The party was sent off to find the powerful McGuffin that could prevent the planes from collapsing. They found the artifact (a mirror), and then trust it to the fighter. The fighter's player decided to throw the mirror at the first river they cross by... again, with no reason.
At this point, I wouldn't 'allow' or 'disallow' an action. I'd stop everything and have a talk with the player(s). "Dude! What's up? Why would you do something so dumb, when this is the campaign you agreed to play? Explain yourself." (Maybe not those exact words, but close to that.)
I'd step back and find out why the player(s) are doing such things. They either want to play in this campaign, or they don't. 'Allowing' or 'disallowing' specific actions is far too myopic - I'd want to get to the root of the problem. Bored players? Dicks? Then I can make better decisions going forward.
Fighter destroys the mirror, causing the planes to collapse and destroy the world? Oh, well, campaign's over. We'll start a new campaign in a couple of months once I can build a new world. What? You'd like to start sooner? Well, sorry, but I have to rebuild a world, and that'll take time.
Seems like the Fighter player won on that deal.
Less than 5 seconds of douchery to impel you to undertake months of work? I'd take that deal any time too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter destroys the mirror, causing the planes to collapse and destroy the world? Oh, well, campaign's over. We'll start a new campaign in a couple of months once I can build a new world. What? You'd like to start sooner? Well, sorry, but I have to rebuild a world, and that'll take time.Seems like the Fighter player won on that deal.
Less than 5 seconds of douchery to impel you to undertake months of work? I'd take that deal any time too.
No, see, you misunderstand. You're not actually doing that, you're continuing the game without the douche for those months he thinks you are rebuilding.
No, see, you misunderstand. You're not actually doing that, you're continuing the game without the douche for those months he thinks you are rebuilding.
Pffft, if you were going to do that you should at least have the decency to say "Yeah okay buddy, get outta my house. you're not invited back."
If he shows up anyway? Doors have locks for a reason.
Though I do suppose it would be the better option if for some reason that's not feasible (I know some people play in sports bars and such for example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter destroys the mirror, causing the planes to collapse and destroy the world? Oh, well, campaign's over. We'll start a new campaign in a couple of months once I can build a new world. What? You'd like to start sooner? Well, sorry, but I have to rebuild a world, and that'll take time.Seems like the Fighter player won on that deal.
Less than 5 seconds of douchery to impel you to undertake months of work? I'd take that deal any time too.
And in that case, not just ruined the fun of the GM, but of everyone at the table.
Yes, I know that can be extreme, but there is one that actually happened:
The party was sent off to find the powerful McGuffin that could prevent the planes from collapsing. They found the artifact (a mirror), and then trust it to the fighter. The fighter's player decided to throw the mirror at the first river they cross by... again, with no reason.
At this point, I wouldn't 'allow' or 'disallow' an action. I'd stop everything and have a talk with the player(s). "Dude! What's up? Why would you do something so dumb, when this is the campaign you agreed to play? Explain yourself." (Maybe not those exact words, but close to that.)
I'd step back and find out why the player(s) are doing such things. They either want to play in this campaign, or they don't. 'Allowing' or 'disallowing' specific actions is far too myopic - I'd want to get to the root of the problem. Bored players? Dicks? Then I can make better decisions going forward.
Totally agree. That's the best way to handle that, IMO.