I tend to prefer incentives to fiat.
I ran a world that was overwhelmingly human, and I wanted the party dynamic to reflect this. Elves and Dwarves were relatively common (<5% of civilized society altogether, though) but the populations of other races was vanishingly small.
So I gave humans ability bonuses at every even level instead of every 4.
I understand the char-op community here will argue that humans are already a vastly superior race, and I won't disagree, but my players don't agree.
I didn't stop people from playing tieflings or whatever, but on the whole I think I achieved my result which was a greater proportion of the party was human than would have been otherwise.
I see nothing wrong with GM limiting source material. I have not (and do not intend to) purchased everything possible.
If I don't know squat about your temple bender theurge then you could easily be mistaken on what it can do without either of us knowing. It could have capabilites that will easily wreck suposedly challenging encounters (I can't plan around what I don't know about). And there have been a very few players that I have to worry about them cheating if I couldn't catch them.
Sometimes that can be coverd by you lending me the book for a few days, sometimes not.
If my world does not have any drow, I might not let you be the only one in existence just because it is published material.
I think it is stupid that lizard folk have a claw attack. So in my world they don't. No it doesn't agree with the bestiary. Too bad. So sad.
I do not allow evil PC's or PvP action. In my experience, it is the very rare group that can handle those in a mature fashion without wrecking the campaign and possibly the friendships.
However, I will let the players know about any and all restrictions way before they start building PC's for my campaign.
I will also give them at least some clues about potential good or bad circumstances that could affect them.
- Just a word to the wise. Outsiders and elementals will be encountered fairly often after a few levels.
- The city of Gimble has a lot of combat monastaries and monks are well regarded there.
- Conversly the capitol of Ramper is fairly chaotic and deuling is very common.
After they start their builds I will offer comments even if they don't ask for them.
- Yes, I did say you can use a race that has a starting penalty of 2 levels. Just want to make sure you realize how fragile you are since 1 hit could easily kill you out right when the others have 3 levels.
- You remember I said you are starting out in pirate town don't you? Your paladin might find it a bit hard to fit in.
- You sure you want to openly worship Rovagug? Not everyone will be too afraid to take issue with that.
But those are just warnings/suggestions. If they make something within the rules I set down at the start, then yes they can play it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I view my GM-ness as a facilitator of fun within the rules of the system we're given. I also greatly enjoy the Golarion setting. So, naturally, everything is in for me race/class/feat/spell/etc wise. I do draw the line at 3rd party material. The only thing I've been tempted to do that I haven't acted on is to try to sway some players to more core races. It's just strange some times to see a place predominately human, lesser so elf and minisculy so gnome to have a sylph, a tiefling, a dhampir and a halfling walking through town together. It just sounds like a setup to a bad joke.
|
It just sounds like a setup to a bad joke.
In a world where you encounter goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, vampires, ghouls, nymphs, dryads, barghests, basilisks, chokers, centaurs, dragons, gargoyles, six types of giants, lamias, lizardfolk, minotaurs, hags, pixies, ogres, sahuagin, satyr, yetis, and so many other things, THAT seems strange to you?
It just sounds like a setup to a bad joke.In a world where you encounter goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, vampires, ghouls, nymphs, dryads, barghests, basilisks, chokers, centaurs, dragons, gargoyles, six types of giants, lamias, lizardfolk, minotaurs, hags, pixies, ogres, sahuagin, satyr, yetis, and so many other things, THAT seems strange to you?
Depends on which continent I'm running the game on.
rule #0...is king.
In the campaign I am running, I specifically said no evil or murderous neutral and no pvp ( I do not intend to change this basis in the near future)
I also said no slingers and no 3pp. (I do not like nor find fun slingers, and 3pp I have not read EVERYTHING on the interwebs there ever was.
I actually did go against this, when one player asked to play a support that was in a 3pp. after looking at it, I said he could.
I limited races to core, plus a smathering of others, mostly to prevent major incidents in the story. (to keep fun for the players)
yes, I was restrictive, but was towards working at fulfilling the only real set in stone rule.
Maybe my players a rare breed but they never have issue, nor I for that matter if the GM says, x is restricted.
It depends very much on the type of game we are playing. For a short one-off I can deal with most things.
If it is a campaign, where the party are going to be together and grow together for a long time, I want all the characters to be able to work together and develop together harmoniously. Our current campaign has characters on L8 and we have been running for nearly a year - at this rate I have another year or two to go with these characters. I don't want to spend two years with a jerk character that I wouldn't have in my house in RL - I spend too much time dealing with jerks in RL for that to be fun.
It also has to fit my concept of a fantasy world - gunslingers and summoners don't - so I don't much like them as characters. I would never play them, I don't really understand the rules for them, and I have no real desire to learn them.
So, at MY table, if a player comes up with a character using a standard race and class, who doesn't want to take an alignment extreme there won't be any problems at all.
If someone comes up with a Neutral Evil Smurf Summoner/Gunslinger - they had better have an incredibly good back history and show me how it can fit into the world I have to create and moderate.
If someone else is putting all the effort into running the world and adjudicating the rules/rolls - cool then that is their game at their table and they can do it as they will. HOWEVER, if it moves too far from something that I am comfortable with - then I will vote with my feet and go find a game I want to play in.
Edit - Lovely, I turned into a Smurf!
My question is, do you necessarily agree with that presumption? Does the GM have any particular place in putting qualifiers on what the PCs can play? Is is "appropriate" for the GM to put restrictions on certain options? To want approval over a character's build? To restrict certain books, even though the players have bought them and want to use them (and they're "official")?
If so, what circumstances are those appropriate in? A lot of people seem to agree that certain classes can be banned pre-emptively for thematic reasons (e.g. "gunslingers don't fit my world design"). Is it never appropriate for the GM to comment on a player's character without being asked? Or are there times when the GM should offer an objection?
I belueve the GM does have a role in character creation. The GM can set limits...etc. But I also believe the GM should keep a open mind.
More importantly I think the other players at the table should also have a voice. I mean generaly people asks others what are you making at my table as to not step on other people's toes and such. This I think is far more important than a GM's say at times.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I love how the internet is such a polarizing place. If someone tries to describe the "social contract" between GM and players and suggests that the core of it is that the GM owns the world but the players own the player characters, the immediate result is something like Charlie Bell's " Hell, if I want to play a Strong Hero 2/inquisitor 3/Hellknight Signifer 3/Mecha Pilot 4 with a particle rifle, the GM should let me because otherwise he's trampling all over my player agency!" rant because we all know that every player is going to immediately demand the most ridiculous possible PC.
Players and GMs should cooperate to create the most enjoyable gaming experience. That means that the intersection of GM control (the world) and Player control (the PC) needs to be managed carefully and delicately. The GM should not arbitrarily mandate unreasonable limits to what the player can do and the player should not demand every conceivable possible character option.
If the group can't navigate this process in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner, there's really no point in playing the game.
Come on, AD, I even LINKED what I really thought in the spoiler. I was merely having a laugh at the OP's expense, not ranting.
It just sounds like a setup to a bad joke.In a world where you encounter goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, vampires, ghouls, nymphs, dryads, barghests, basilisks, chokers, centaurs, dragons, gargoyles, six types of giants, lamias, lizardfolk, minotaurs, hags, pixies, ogres, sahuagin, satyr, yetis, and so many other things, THAT seems strange to you?
Mostly. Usually races tend to stick together except elves who break a lot of assumptions. So, yes.
There's another reason the GM might have ideas about characters, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been mentioned.
The players need to be balanced against EACH OTHER. If they're not, you get BMX bandit and Angel Summoner (Watch it if you haven't). That leads to problems with spotlight time, and is a very difficult problem for the GM to fix.
The reason is because it's transparent. Opponents which threaten the Angel Summoner are going to wipe out BMX bandit, and that's not fun. Those opponents could just "not attack him", but those moves are often obvious, and can also build resentment. Sometimes that comes from BMX bandit "why don't you take my character seriously" and sometimes from Angel Summoner "why do I have to do 90% of the work"
So, in the interest of a better game for everyone, I feel the GM needs to work to put the characters on an even footing. Some of you may say "25 point buy for all IS an even footing", but that's only true if you have players of equal skill.
Even that might not be enough. I run into the greatest number of players in PFS play, and two players who are equally familiar with the rules might set different goals for themselves. One might try to build a fighter with the greatest AC possible, another might try to build a swashbuckling halfling rogue with a gift for languages and diplomacy.
The GMs job, as I see it, is to help steer the group toward being a well-balanced party that fits naturally into the campaign setting. So, I'm all for an interventionist GM.
Players get to exercise their creativity within the established boundaries, which actually helps creativity.
The way I see it, one of my jobs as GM is to help everyone have a successful game. That includes helping them come up with and fit concepts to the campaign setting and themes. It also includes advising them on advancements and other aspects of the build. If someone is pulling ahead in some way that's likely to cause trouble, I'll ask them to tone it down. If they're falling behind, I'll ask them to boost it up. If they don't, we'll revisit after they've started to experience the difficulties they're setting themselves up for.
I find that generating characters and leveling-up as a group really helps because the other players get to toss in their 2 coppers as well and can coordinate with each other.
In some games, this sort of thing is more necessary than others. In 1e/2e, not much needed to be done because there weren't the vast arrays of choices available (at least not until 2e's kits). In games like Champions, GURPS, and Mutants and Masterminds, GM oversight is very important given the more atomic elements of character building blocks. 3e and PF can fit much closer to the point-based RPG model, particularly if the GM gives the PCs free rein in gearing up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I'm old, but when did things change so much? When I used to play this game we never talked about the social contract between Players and Dungeon Masters. We never talked about Player Privilege or Dungeon Master abuse of the fiat.
And I suppose it may be because every time I played this game, it was with people who I considered to be my friends, not my adversaries.
Things changed when the internet rolled around.
It's not that most people don't just get together and play.
it's that now people can sit around and theorycraft about the social implications of game playing.
I've only ever had occasional issues in a game, and only once anything serious. If you go by the internet, every game I've ever had should have been a tsunami of angst and OOC violence. :)
|
|
It is actually very funny that the same player's empowerment (rather than "player's entitlement", an expression which I see mostly used as a smokescreen for GMs looking for vindication on the boards) that leads the OP to the idea of zero-interference from the GM in character creation prods me to do the polar opposite and actually dive right into my players' character creation process.
Because I want them to enjoy as much as possible the time they will spend playing my campaign. But I am the only one with a good understanding of what their PCs will face.
Thus I ask my players to allow me to collaborate with them in creating the best possible PC according to their wishes AND to the specificities of my campaign. In this way, I can also use my ruleslawyering and optimizing skills for their benefits, by proposing options that will allow their PCs to be more fun to play and specifically better at what they want their PCs to be good at.
In the end though, the last word on character's build belongs to the player, just as the last word in-game and concerning houserules belongs to the GM.
Once we will be playing though, my first priority as a GM will be to properly play on the dynamics of our group of friends to maximize the fun we all expect and deserve.
|
|
I know I'm old, but when did things change so much? When I used to play this game we never talked about the social contract between Players and Dungeon Masters. We never talked about Player Privilege or Dungeon Master abuse of the fiat.
And I suppose it may be because every time I played this game, it was with people who I considered to be my friends, not my adversaries.
Nope. I still consider the people I play with to be my friends. And I am happy to be able to play a greater role as a player in creating a character I will enjoy playing even more.
Things are clearer and more explicit now than before but they are basically the same and I for one am quite happy with these ideas being debated out in the open.
Also we are now adults with a higher level of expectation when it comes to spending our very precious free time.
In the end, what it really is is a little thing called evolution. And though the internet accelerated it to lightspeed for ideas, it has been around for a few billion years.
Sorry, fellows, no going back on this track. Enjoy your forward trip with the rest of us. I know I will.
I know I'm old, but when did things change so much? When I used to play this game we never talked about the social contract between Players and Dungeon Masters. We never talked about Player Privilege or Dungeon Master abuse of the fiat.
And I suppose it may be because every time I played this game, it was with people who I considered to be my friends, not my adversaries.
That's really the baseline of the social contract we talke about Terquem. In a nutshell it boils down to "treat the other people the way you'd like to be treated." Also sometimes called the "Golden Rule" or more technically the "Principle of Reciprocity."
However, some people seem to need things spelled out in more detail than that.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
In a nutshell it boils down to "treat the other people the way you'd like to be treated." Also sometimes called the "Golden Rule" or more technically the "Principle of Reciprocity."I use a modification of the Golden Rule as the original involves imposing your standards on others. And it's especially inappropriate towards people that are vastly different in culture and background.
So my rule is "Treat People the way they wish to be treated."
Sounds good to me. I wish to have all your money and property. I can send you details on delivery in a PM.
As a DM I usually disallow specific books or sources, but inform the players that they should approach me about allowing a specific part, such as a feat. I almost always say yes. As a DM I try to say yes as much as I can, so that an answer of no means something. That being said, the GM should allow a player a great deal of freedom, as long as eyebrow raising choices can be rationalized with background or role-playing. A little effort goes a long ways here. Finally, the GM also has a responsibility to the players' fun, and can steer them away from bad choices. For example, if a player has made sunk all his ranger's resources into tracking and operating in the wilds, and the game primarily takes place in a metropolis, I would feel obliged to drop a hint without spilling the beans.
