|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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")?
I a home game: yes. The GM has both the right and the responsibility to guide character creation. If characters don't mesh well with each other and with the campaign style, the game will suffer.
Learning when and how to say no is one of the most important lessons a good GM can learn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The gm should be involved in a number of ways. First and foremost, the gm set the world, the pc has to fit in that world. If you are playing skull and shackles the player needs to create a character that works in a pirate game. That limits player choices some (cavalier for instance, doesnt work very well on a boat).
As for what to allow, I allow the core rulebook, and everything else is by approval. Mostly that is because if they have to submit it for approval then I can read up on what they are doing and understand how it works. Both to be able rule correctly if some corner case comes up, but also to not be surprised by what they can do. If I know what my players can do I can work in their abilities to give them opportunities to shine and to work in encounters that challenge them on what they are best at and what they are not best at. But there area also a few things I dont allow, even from paizo material (where as I do allow a host of 3rd party material from several publishers).
And it is always appropriate for a gm to comment on a players character without being asked. For any number of reasons. If a player is for instance building an undead hunter ranger and you know your campaign wont feature much in the way of undead opponents, its your responsibility as a gm to speak up and let the player know its probably not going to work. If the player if playing something that doesnt fit your campaign world (ninja samurai and gunslinger are often cited here) its another case where the gm is allowed to comment or object to a pc choice.
I think you are mixing "game balance" with "player entitlement" and they are different critters entirely.
"Balance" is entirely concerned with actual play sessions. Does one class dominate your play style? If so then nerf or ban it.
You have a good grasp of "player entitlement" however, if someone published the option I should be allowed to play it with NO input from the GM.
Do I agree with player entitlement? NO!
The good GM most certainly MUST put qualifiers on what players can play. Anything goes campaigns can be fun but they lack any sense of story and only work in a sandbox style of play (which is storyless). And I play for story. So obviously I despise both sandbox and anything goes.
There are numerous valid reasons to ban a class, book, or option or even to police a build. Thematics, game balance, unfamiliarity with the rules or option the player wishes to use, or even to prevent in game fights (like banning Pete from ever playing a paladin because every time he does it you end up with endless table arguments over alignment and code), and the big reason Story.
The best GMs tell a compelling story. They build your character into the game world and your actions can shape that environment. To do this you need to have strong GM control during character creation.
Absolutely, you should exercise whatever control you need to make the game work.
I want the players to know what my expectations are for the campaign, at least in broad terms, so that they have a better chance to work within that framework. End of the day, if character creation goes wrong and you or the player aren't happy with a particular PC, it's a source of frustration for the whole adventure. As the GM, you're in the best position to solve that problem before it happens.
Players often come into a game with expectations and hopes for what their character will be able to do. Sometimes they've found some mechanical trick they're very excited about using. I find it very helpful to sit down and talk through these things with each player beforehand to make sure we're on the same page with the rules, so that the mechanics will work the way the player expects, with no unfortunate surprises, and also so that I know what will get the player excited.
I also want to make sure everyone is on the same level mechanically. If you have a new person joining a group and you know some or all of the group focuses on optimization, you should take steps in character creation to keep everyone's character viable. Having to plot challenges for a skewed party is rarely fun for anyone.
Communication is key. Engage the players about their characters. They're usually very happy to talk about them. Make sure they understand why you're making any restrictions or rule adjustments you feel are necessary. Listen to feedback, but don't let it devolve into a long debate. You have the final say, and you know best what will make your game work.
Hope that helps! :)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
No, the GM should not have any say whatsoever in how I build my character. If I want to play a 3PP class with everything from the Genius Guide to Horrifically Overpowered Feats, the GM should not be able to veto any of it. Anything for which rules exist is just fine. 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.
Detailed information on the setting should be provided by the GM, so the players can make characters consistent with the campaign world. The GM can work with the players to fit their character background into the world.
All my players are long time players, all I need to give them is some idea of the game system, setting, house rules, and such, and they go with it. They will ask questions but I don't generally limit their options as to what they want to build as long as they can give me some good background of their character concept and how it fits.
They will even bounce ideas off of me and other players while creating.
Of course we all have 30+ years experience gaming, with multiple systems and none of us are really interested in breaking the game, we are very interested in concepts, even if those concepts might be less than powerful characters. They always send me copies of their characters and will take criticism and suggestions for changes from me, but i don't force them on them.
As a good example?
We are starting the RotRL AP this week, they have made:
A Dwarf Barbarian
Half Orc Zen Archer
Human Fighter
Human Rogue.
They realize they have no magic support, but don't care and want see how they stack up. They are extremely creative players and will get around there limitations using that creativity. They also realize if they really are borking themselves, they will adjust and dip into other classes and use NPC as needed. It would not shock me if they go really far without dipping.
We have a ton of fun.
the GM should set the rules in which a character is created
-the level of technology present
-the deities in the setting
-the overall feel of the campaign, and what kind of flavors will mesh with it
beyond that, ive always felt that it was a good GMs job to ensure party balance, mostly because im used to dice rolling systems for stats, one of the last campaigns i played with my main group was awful because a buddy of mine and i rolled only subpar stats compared to the other guys, and when the gunslinger can party face better than my paladin, it kind of takes away from what i designed my character to do
it also doesnt help that all the other players cheated and just gave themselves 18's in whatever stats they deemed the most important, because our only guideling was 'dont average above 2.2 for your modifiers' meaning you could total your modifiers up to 13 and still be legal for play
i think, beyond that, the GM should be involved as much as the player wants him to be, its a game they are going to be playing together, and if the GM knows a particular concept isnt going to see much play, he should advise against devoting resources to it for a player
of course the player can do what he wants, but if he wants input from the GM, there should be no rule that says 'GM doesnt help make PCs'
|
Usually when I start a new campaign I will give a quick list of what I think would need to be covered class/skill wise and what I think might not work as well in that particular campaign. Not that I am usually listened to, but I try at least.
I figure they can play what they want, and if something isn't working, that the campaign itself will fix the issue eventually.
The GM is fine to set limits on character creation. However, once you establish the boundaries of the sandbox keep your paws off my build. My character is mine. Your world is yours. Let me have my sliver of pie.
Hi5, TOZ.
That was almost word-for-word my little mission statement as I completed my prep for my Skull & Shackles campaign.
When my players create characters, I'm there, watching them like a hawk. It let's me adjudicate any legalities for my world, and inform my players where their choices could fit in.
Once play starts, I'm hands-off.
As an advisor and facilitator.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
AD, stop making sense. This is no place for reason.
In best case, the first step in starting a campaign should be players and GM getting together to decide on common theme and background for the party and the story.
However, in prictice I've never got any other reply than "I'm fine with everything. Do whatever you think is best." So I make the descision where the PCs are from and what races, classes, and other customizations are available. Because they asked me to make these descisions for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was almost word-for-word my little mission statement as I completed my prep for my Skull & Shackles campaign.You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me in my court at Camelot?
YOU HAVE MY AXE
|
The gm should be involved in a number of ways. First and foremost, the gm set the world, the pc has to fit in that world. If you are playing skull and shackles the player needs to create a character that works in a pirate game. That limits player choices some (cavalier for instance, doesnt work very well on a boat).
As for what to allow, I allow the core rulebook, and everything else is by approval. Mostly that is because if they have to submit it for approval then I can read up on what they are doing and understand how it works. Both to be able rule correctly if some corner case comes up, but also to not be surprised by what they can do. If I know what my players can do I can work in their abilities to give them opportunities to shine and to work in encounters that challenge them on what they are best at and what they are not best at. But there area also a few things I dont allow, even from paizo material (where as I do allow a host of 3rd party material from several publishers).
And it is always appropriate for a gm to comment on a players character without being asked. For any number of reasons. If a player is for instance building an undead hunter ranger and you know your campaign wont feature much in the way of undead opponents, its your responsibility as a gm to speak up and let the player know its probably not going to work. If the player if playing something that doesnt fit your campaign world (ninja samurai and gunslinger are often cited here) its another case where the gm is allowed to comment or object to a pc choice.
Quite the same here.
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.
Yeah...but...
I think that is also predicated on the person, whether a player or GM, having a solid companionable group around them to share their hobby with.Some folks take what they can get and wind up having a much more 'tap dance through a mine field' sort of experience, because they have little choice but to do the best they can with a small pool of people who share their interest.
I mean though this is not how it goes for me because luckily I have a group that just lets me pretty much herp derp however I want within what little reason I actually possess
As GM, I reserve the right to audit characters at any time. If you find that problematic, you probably should not be sitting at my table.
I probably never will. I hope you feel better having flexed your GM muscle. In either case if you set up constraints for characters and I play within those constraints and you still say no then you're just a dick.
The GM should not dictate player creation, he should guide it. This is a cooperative game, and the relationship between the players and the GM is no exception.
The GM should not dictate player creation, he should guide it. This is a cooperative game, and the relationship between the players and the GM is no exception.
Define "Dictate". Do you mean "You will play a Wood Elf Bard", or do you mean "There are no Halfling sorcerers in this world"?
In PFS it'd be no issue. You can't arbitrarily ban players in a PFS game. As long as their builds conform to the allowed resources and PFS restrictions you have to take that character. I can live with that as I make sure I comply before I go play.
FYI, I may start GMing PFS in my local area. Weee!
The GM should not dictate player creation, he should guide it. This is a cooperative game, and the relationship between the players and the GM is no exception.Define "Dictate". Do you mean "You will play a Wood Elf Bard", or do you mean "There are no Halfling sorcerers in this world"?
It's all in the phrasing and tone. Both your example phrases are dictative ones.
Rather, he should say "A Wood Elf Bard would be a good fit for this game" or "In this campaign, the halflings are nomadic barbarians who have no knowledge of arcane magic. As such, classes like 'sorcerer' are inappropriate for their race."
Usually GM's don't NEED to dictate things. Most roleplayers are adult enough to look at the GM's game, advice, and general theme, and decide for themselves whether or not they want to be a part of it (though I acknowledge that this is not readily apparent on the internet).
Conversely, most GMs are smart enough not to let unruly children into their games in the first place.
If anyone actually needs any sort of guide on how to navigate this initial dance in the GM/Player dynamic, the GM's guide has a decent write up on it, and most adventure paths will give you a very good example of how to provide guidance for character creation while not being arbitrary and constrictive about it.
It's really not that hard. That's one reason I tend to get frustrated by the over-the-top strawman shenanigans that come up everytime something that requires a bit of social interaction comes up.
Just as the guidelines on this board suggest, if your group during campaign set-up can follow the simple dictum "don't be an ass" then it's amazing how well things tend to go.
It's all in the phrasing and tone. Both your example phrases are dictative ones.Rather, he should say "A Wood Elf Bard would be a good fit for this game" or "In this campaign, the halflings are nomadic barbarians who have no knowledge of arcane magic. As such, classes like 'sorcerer' are inappropriate for their race."
Usually GM's don't NEED to dictate things. Most roleplayers are adult enough to look at the GM's game, advice, and general theme, and decide for themselves whether or not they want to be a part of it (though I acknowledge that this is not readily apparent on the internet).
Conversely, most GMs are smart enough not to let unruly children into their games in the first place.
I would never dictate what a character should play, that's not my job. I simply provide what you with your options.
Conversely, lizardfolk do not have sorcerers in my world. It's part of the campaign premise. No lizardfolk sorcerers. Period. Non negotiable. The entire world premise hinges on this. It is quite within my right to prohibit lizardfolk sorcerers. Some things are a little less set in stone. No wood elven wizards. But a rebellious wood elf might study wizardry, but that character would be 1 in a million. My players know these things before, or during character creation. They are not surprises, but if I don't adhere to them, my world ceases to make sense, which causes all of the possible stories to cease making sense.
RadiantSophia, my first campaign world ever had no dwarves. The basic premise of the world was that genocide had been committed against dwarves many, many generations before the current period. One of the major goals of the campaign was to restore the race of dwarves.
So when the initial PC party was formed, no dwarves. One of my players almost refused to play because he had always played dwarves. I told him I was sorry, but that if he simply had to play dwarves, he would have to find a new game. He decided to play anyway and was glad he did. When the dwarven race was restored, many, many game sessions later, he rolled up a dwarf and on we went.
Which is perfectly fine for the GM to do.
The GM should have a look at the PCs and make sure that no one builds a pc that will be unable to to what he is built for in the campaign. And the GM should make sure that no pc is very overshadowed by another pc. Like if one plays a synth summoner while another wants to play a natural weapon fighter.
I can see both sides as someone who plays and GM's. I feel that the GM should establish some guidelines ahead of time such as what materials are allowed in their game(s), give advice for what kind of campaign they are going to run, and inform players if there are restrictions on classes/races, especially for a home-brewed game. In my games, I usually outlaw gunslingers (no pun intended) because I don't feel that fit in with my worlds and the flavor I like to instill in them.
At the same time, I feel that GM's shouldn't tell players how to build their characters if they want to dip into 5 classes as long as they have a reason behind it beyond trying to exploit the rules or if they've found some loopholes, not just try to get abilities X, Y, & Z.
Players shouldn't feel entitled to build using all the books and 3PP stuff, they shouldn't try to exploit the grey areas and try to find loopholes to create characters that are uber powerful to the point of breaking the game. I've known some of these kinds of power gamers and don't care for them as a player or as a GM.
When I build characters I like to have a story behind why they evolve (i.e. a rogue who was redeemed and became a paladin of Sarenrae or a fighter who discovered that his faith was strong and became a cleric). I've also encountered GM's who are too strict with players and tell them they can't take X feat because they think it's too powerful, but it would fit with the concept behind what the player was trying to get as far as flavor. I don't like those kinds of restrictions as long as said player isn't trying to exploit things.
In the end, as long as the player lets the GM know ahead of time what they are thinking about building and the GM lets the player know valued information in the process and they keep open communication most things can be worked through and both sides can end up very happy.
Generally the GM should try to work with players. This often means give and take. However, the "don't be a dick" mantra applies to players in this regard as not all characters apply to all campaigns/settings so players should accept this as it's not an unreasonable request.
Now, if you told your players to not do x and they do x then should you adapt or throw down the ban hammer? It depends. If it utterly breaks your campaign then here comes the ban hammer. Otherwise, I'd try to roll with it and see where it goes.
This. I agree with this completely. I feel that "No, there are no X in my world, so you can't play an X" is just as much "player entitlement" as "X is in the official book, so you must allow me to play it".
Add, if you and I were playing together, and you wanted to make a lizardfolk sorcerer, Id say: No, play something else -or- we can play your campaign instead.
Or rather, think of it this way: I have a world. It has specific rules, universal laws. If you don't want to play something that can fit within those laws, that is perfectly acceptable. However, all of the stories I have to tell take place within the context of that world. So now, you, or another player, has to be GM. Asking me to change my world to accommodate your character isn't going to work. Asking me to change my campaign to accommodate your character is fine.
Wow 3 players wanting to play a luchador wrestling game?
And the GM has a gothic game in mind...
If it were me I would give in and agree to play a luchador wrestling game as long as a majority of players wanted that. I couldn't GM it. So I would step down and save my gothic game for later when people were more interested in the idea. If no one wants to GM a luchador wrestling game then they are probably going to have to give up the wrestling idea or not play.
As a GM I try (I don't always succeed) to do the following :
I ask everyone ahead of time to tell everyone else what they want to play. I often ask them to think of 2-3 options, and I ask them not to step on each other's toes. For example, if there are going to be two rogues, I ask that one be a 'face' type, and the other be a 'trapmiester' type. Then they both get to do roguish type things, without stepping on each other's toes. One of my biggest gripes is people trying to do someone else's schtick (I was playing in a game as a rogue, and the player of the alchemist decided he wanted to be the rogue instead, and kept interrupting me to do roguish things, so I went face route and ended up being basically in charge of everything with regards to dealing with the public at large, but it still annoyed me).
If two people want to do the same concept, I will ask if either of them would be ok moving to one of their secondary concepts. I also try to make sure the party has the basics covered, someone to tank, someone to do magic, someone to do healing, and someone to be sneaky type. Note that I have very broad categories for those, anyone who can take a lot (either via high hp or high ac) is a tank, anyone who can have a high enough UMD to use wands is a healer/magic user, etc.
Finally, I set the limits on what is and is not possible in my world. And that may change depending on what part of it they are going to be in. For example, my world has four continents. The northern continent is pretty wild and wooly, but there are no core races on it (other than some degenerate elves who are cannibals and CE). The southern continent is heavily populated and civilized, so the only barbarians are from the orc desert tribes or the goblins in the mountains. The eastern continent is just that, eastern, no clerics, no druids, no gods worshipped, and no barbarians. The final continent is a continent where there is no magic, or rather too much, highly unstable, and it's a 1 in 20 chance to make a detonation when you cast even a cantrip. So the entire floating continent is full of psionics and winged humans, elves, halflings and stryx (sp?). Again, no gods, and no classes that use magic. And there are no dinosaurs, anywhere (that the PCs have access to).
If the game is set on the northern continent, they can't play anything that's core race or psionic until they reach the major southern port that's still open, which requires about level 7 or 8 (they have to clean out the necropolis that blocks access to the southern swamps). If they're playing southern continent, non-core races are unusual and heavily descriminated against. The eastern continent has almost no visitors (they aren't friendly to outsiders), and so on.
Now, beyond that, I try to let people play whatever concept they want within that framework. And the higher in level they get, the more freedom they get with replacement characters if something happens to their first character.
After I've played with a person for awhile (usually a year or so) I'll try to get them to quit playing a certain type if they are in a rut. But it's up to them. I rarely make flat statements (although I have one player I told he could not make lawful or neutral characters anymore, because he is simply constitutionally incapable of playing anything other than chaotic, and even then it's almost exclusively chaotic neutral, he has a major issue playing good too). Given that even he laughed and agreed, it's not that big a deal, but nobody who has played with him more than 6 months disagrees. :)
It is up to the GM to set rules for building characters as he wishes. How stats are generated, what classes, feats, spells, races, archetypes, etc. are allowed. If as a player you dislike the established rules so much, then don't play, but don't create a character following those rules and then complain constantly about how you don't like the rules. (This actually happened in recent AP. There were six players and the GM decided upon a 15 point build. Two of the regular PFS players whined so much every session, that I quit the campaign.)
I as a GM will never allow Gunslingers, Monks, Samurai, Ninja, Alchemist; certain weapons, feats, races, and spells; and several other things because they do not fit within what I want as fantasy world. If you as a player don't like this, then don't play. If I can't find enough players then I won't be running a game. But don't expect me to change my world to fit what you want to play. (I won't run in Golarion, because those things exist.)
As to campaigns that I have played in. I've played in campaigns where the GM defined initial race, class and severe alignment restrictions. One campaign we all started as Wild Elf Barbarians.