I agree with everything after the first comma. As you already seem to be implying, rule zero exists not to give the GM absolute cosmic powers, but to allow him to enhance the game to better match his particular group's tastes.Rule zero. The GM can do anything he wants, but that doesn't mean he should. If the players (all of them) enjoyed this random changing of a characters abilities due to a deity being pissed, that's fine, but in this case, it seems the players are not having fun with it, so the GM shouldn't do it. This is a game about having fun, right?
If the GM uses this power, rather or not you agree such power exists, he shouldn't be surprised when he discovers no one shows up to his games.
That is what I'm implying. I think the problem here is that the GM is playing the part of a deity, and deities can in theory do whatever they want. The thing is, the standard Pathfinder setting doesn't have the deities doing this kind of thing. If the GM felt his setting should have deities that do act in such a manner, the players should have been told beforehand so they can understand what consequences their actions might have (rather than it being sprung on them). B/c I can tell you, if a person grew up in a world where the gods commonly punish people quite openly and dramatically, a lot less people would be thinking about screwing a deity, no matter what power was involved.
In short, GM is wrong. Needs to work on communication.
Well there are other powerful beings out there besides the gods.
For sure. In no other case in the campaign setting have I read where a being can not only grant or revoke powers but actually change what they've already granted. As far as I see it, it could have easily well removed them. But, only a proper deity could change the powers they grant, I would think.
It seems pretty clear to most of us that the GM was well within his rights, and well outside the bounds of commonly accepted GM behaviour, to do so. Mind, at least in my opinion, for what that is worth, the player messed up first. Going against type can be fun, but make darn sure that you're on the same page as the GM. That's the player's responsibility.
This stance...
I think the problem here is that the GM is playing the part of a deity, and deities can in theory do whatever they want. The thing is, the standard Pathfinder setting doesn't have the deities doing this kind of thing. If the GM felt his setting should have deities that do act in such a manner, the players should have been told beforehand so they can understand what consequences their actions might have (rather than it being sprung on them). B/c I can tell you, if a person grew up in a world where the gods commonly punish people quite openly and dramatically, a lot less people would be thinking about screwing a deity, no matter what power was involved.
...seems to contradict this one.
So...whose responsibility is it to make sure everyone is on the same page again?
I'd say good clear communication is the responsibility of the whole group.
It seems pretty clear to most of us that the GM was well within his rights, and well outside the bounds of commonly accepted GM behaviour, to do so. Mind, at least in my opinion, for what that is worth, the player messed up first. Going against type can be fun, but make darn sure that you're on the same page as the GM. That's the player's responsibility.This stance...
I think the problem here is that the GM is playing the part of a deity, and deities can in theory do whatever they want. The thing is, the standard Pathfinder setting doesn't have the deities doing this kind of thing. If the GM felt his setting should have deities that do act in such a manner, the players should have been told beforehand so they can understand what consequences their actions might have (rather than it being sprung on them). B/c I can tell you, if a person grew up in a world where the gods commonly punish people quite openly and dramatically, a lot less people would be thinking about screwing a deity, no matter what power was involved....seems to contradict this one.
So...whose responsibility is it to make sure everyone is on the same page again?
I'd say good clear communication is the responsibility of the whole group.
I only wrote the second quote...if that clears up some confusion. Communication is of course important for everyone at the table, but I believe it's the GM's responsibility to make sure everyone understands the rules and what to expect in the game. The GM should make sure players know if a particular backstory/character won't work or will be difficult in a particular setting.
Although, I would say it's the players responsibility to inform the GM if they have future plans the GM should know about. For instance, any of the spells or feats that are commonly argued about on these forums b/c they are vaguely worded or easily interpreted in different ways.
It seems pretty clear to most of us that the GM was well within his rights, and well outside the bounds of commonly accepted GM behaviour, to do so. Mind, at least in my opinion, for what that is worth, the player messed up first. Going against type can be fun, but make darn sure that you're on the same page as the GM. That's the player's responsibility.
You do understand this is a hypothtical, right?
I didn't (and don't) understand his issue. I took something he included and made it interesting. He felt differently.You really don't understand his issue?
Next time you have vanilla ice cream, I'm going to add olives to it. How will that make you feel?
Lol. This just made my day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But not everyone likes sprinkles. My question, would it really be any trouble to ask the player before you make a change like that? You might be surprised, he might like it. Or, you may inspire him to be a little more imaginative all on his own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But not everyone likes sprinkles. My question, would it really be any trouble to ask the player before you make a change like that? You might be surprised, he might like it. Or, you may inspire him to be a little more imaginative all on his own.It wasn't a 'change'. He didn't tell me his grandfather was head of the clown college and I went and changed the back story. The player simply said his PC had yellow eyes and I developed an interesting backstory which explained this unusual trait.
I think it's fully within the GM story-telling role to develop past associates, relatives, sensible affiliations, etc.
'You recently retired from the local town guard' isn't a massive alteration of the PC concept. It simply fills in the holes, rather than simply accepting that this PC appeared out of thin air. It provides depth to the setting and the PC.
You changed him from what I assume was a human into the descendant of an orc. That's a serious change. I have no problem w/ filling in holes, like you say, but there's really no reason to not include your players when doing so. You can provide depth while still including the players in the process. If they didn't want to be involved, and enjoyed the random backstory elements, that's fine, but if he's not, then that's a problem that requires almost no effort to fix.
If adding a relative to the PCs background is out of bounds, where exactly are the boundaries? Does the GM have to get approval for the 'old friend' that appears to deliver the plot hook? I suppose that 'lost love' NPC has to go because it didn't get appropriate player approval?
Yes, that lost love has to go if that love was supposed to be mutual (another person who held an unrequited love for the PC, however, should be fair game). There are lots of things you can affect, but don't step on how a PC feels about people or things. That's not your job. When in doubt, get permission. In the case of the yellow eyes controversy, you should have asked the PC if he had a particular reason for the yellow eyes in mind. If not, then you should have asked if he would let you provide an answer to it. Once you get that out of the way, then you get carte blanche to do pretty much anything that doesn't also invalidate any part of the approved PC background.
There are aspects of the PC and the world around him you can control. I would expect PC backgrounds to be submitted to the GM for approval. That allows the GM to weed out things that wouldn't or couldn't work in the campaign setting as well as lay down some ground rules ("Dude, you can't be the Black Prince of Taldor and expect to have all these resources and political power. That's way overpowered compared to the other PCs."). You also have lots of leeway to adjudicate how the world works around the PC, his background, and actions. If he's supposedly got the celestial bloodline because he duped or coerced higher powers, they will seek justice and that will complicate that PC's life as an ongoing concern.
As a GM, I'd find that incredibly limiting and utterly two-dimensional. You tell me that your PC is a fighter and his name is Fred. Based on your explanation, I can never introduce an old friend, a lost love, a dead uncle, a favorite dog, a childhood home, or anything else. Your fighter simply came into being from the ether and any/all stories have to be completely disassociated with his past? I can never touch on any events form his past (apparently he didn't have any). Fred never had a job, never went anywhere, and never did anything. He simply appears, fully grown, standing in the town square.
This is why, in another thread related to this one, I advocated engaging with the player over these questions. "Why do you have yellow eyes? What was your PC's life like before he showed up for this adventure? Does he have family?" If he resists, then he doesn't get backstory-related hooks or more advanced story options and engagement. I'll spend my time on players who want that attention and that involvement.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't a 'change'. He didn't tell me his grandfather was head of the clown college and I went and changed the back story. The player simply said his PC had yellow eyes and I developed an interesting backstory which explained this unusual trait.
It went from 'undefined' to 'Orc grandfather'. That is a change. Not only that, a famous grandparent. Maybe he wanted his fighter to come from humble beginnings? To be pure blooded? And maybe he didn't think yellow eyes was an unusual trait.
You developed a backstory that was interesting to YOU, and then couldn't understand that it wasn't interesting to HIM. That's a lack of empathy.
Actually, I believe the GM shouldn't be making changes to the one thing in the world that's yours without your approval first.
If I have a long lost love, I'd like to know about it before you pop them up in game.
The story doesn't have to be directly related to my background. There are plenty of stories that don't require you amend backgrounds, or add things that the player didn't put in themselves. But heck, you don't need to ask stop there. Just ask me before you decide that my fighter's father was actually a paladin and the paladin order shows up offering me his sword, mmmkay?
Otherwise, if I'm not fine what you did, show up with a paladin offering a sword and asking us to help out on a quest without adding in that my father was a member of their order. Plot hook? Check. Angry player who feels their character has been sullied? Nowhere to be seen.
As a GM, I'd find that incredibly limiting and utterly two-dimensional. You tell me that your PC is a fighter and his name is Fred. Based on your explanation, I can never introduce an old friend, a lost love, a dead uncle, a favorite dog, a childhood home, or anything else. Your fighter simply came into being from the ether and any/all stories have to be completely disassociated with his past? I can never touch on any events form his past (apparently he didn't have any). Fred never had a job, never went anywhere, and never did anything. He simply appears, fully grown, standing in the town square.
I think you may be misunderstanding us. I don't think anyone here is saying you can't have people show up. We are saying it would be polite to ask your players before doing so. Just look at the player that didn't like his grandfather being an orc. It doesn't really matter if you understand why it bothered him, it did, so I would think knowing that simply asking him ahead of time could have prevented that (and increased the fun of playing), then asking would be worth it. Why create a problem at your table that could be solved with a text message? It takes like 3 seconds.
I feel like I'd have a number of 3D PCs and a cardboard cutout. I think that would detract from the enjoyment of the entire group.
If he resists, then he doesn't get backstory-related hooks or more advanced story options and engagement. I'll spend my time on players who want that attention and that involvement.
Depends how he's played. The "Man with No Name" or "Mysterious Stranger" characters have been pretty successful in spaghetti westerns. No reason to think they wouldn't work OK in Pathfinder.
I feel like I'd have a number of 3D PCs and a cardboard cutout. I think that would detract from the enjoyment of the entire group.
If he resists, then he doesn't get backstory-related hooks or more advanced story options and engagement. I'll spend my time on players who want that attention and that involvement.
What does that have to do w/ rather or not you ask the player before deciding the backstory for your player's characters? You could do exactly the same thing, ask your player, and he wouldn't have been upset. You could have worked together to have a character w/ depth. How is that a problem?
How did that old saying go?
:P
GM has no control, period. All changes to a PC are part of an agreement between GM and player, and as such should include a discussion if either are unconfortable.
GM: The orc crits you with a greatsword for 30 damage. You have 3 HP left, so your character is dead.
Player: Well, since we didn't have a prior discussion about the exact effects of orcs with greatswords hitting my character, I do not agree to you changing my character's status from living to dead, and thus that hit is negated...
If would seems that DM has zero control is a ridiculous extreme to stick to.
Actually, I believe the GM shouldn't be making changes to the one thing in the world that's yours without your approval first.
So I guess the GM can't attack and kill your character without your approval? Killing your PC is about the biggest change you can make.
If I have a long lost love, I'd like to know about it before you pop them up in game.
The story doesn't have to be directly related to my background. There are plenty of stories that don't require you amend backgrounds, or add things that the player didn't put in themselves. But heck, you don't need to ask stop there. Just ask me before you decide that my fighter's father was actually a paladin and the paladin order shows up offering me his sword, mmmkay?
Otherwise, if I'm not fine what you did, show up with a paladin offering a sword and asking us to help out on a quest without adding in that my father was a member of their order. Plot hook? Check. Angry player who feels their character has been sullied? Nowhere to be seen.
And if you said your character was an orphan?
Another example:
Destined<--name of bloodline
Your family is destined for greatness in some way. Your birth could have been foretold in prophecy, or perhaps it occurred during an especially auspicious event, such as a solar eclipse. Regardless of your bloodline's origin, you have a great future ahead. <---flavor text
Class Skill: Knowledge (history).<--bonus skill
Ooooh! Ooooh! But on the other hand if the part you're referring to as flavor text actually isn't flavor text, but rather is THE RULES, then taking the Destined bloodline means that, RAW, the DM simply can't kill you off in the first session to a lowly goblin. Because THE RULES say that your character has a great future ahead!
Dang that's a powerful class feature! Thanks to this thread opening my eyes to the extra class features and requirements that those blurbs spell out, I know what my next sorcerer's bloodline is going to be!
RAW-mandated plot-shields ahoy! ;-)
Good point.
I never even thought of that.If I write that my greatness will be that I can't die until I do _____ the GM really can't kill me if flavor text is rules. :)
I wonder if Vod Canockers will still argue that flavor text is rules?
It seems pretty clear to most of us that the GM was well within his rights, and well outside the bounds of commonly accepted GM behaviour, to do so. Mind, at least in my opinion, for what that is worth, the player messed up first. Going against type can be fun, but make darn sure that you're on the same page as the GM. That's the player's responsibility.
If the GM is doing something like what the OP did, that is against the norm, it is his job to inform the player. The player can't guess at every abnormality a GM has in his game. Unless otherwise specified rules are rules, and flavor text is not.
I didn't (and don't) understand his issue. I took something he included and made it interesting. He felt differently.You really don't understand his issue?
Next time you have vanilla ice cream, I'm going to add olives to it. How will that make you feel?
A role playing game isn't ordering from a menu. It's a story telling vehicle where I, the GM, tell the story. It's not like he wanted to play a fighter and I made him play a mage. I added something interesting to his PC concept. Everyone else at the table loved it.
If you want to add sprinkles to the ice cream, I'd say thank you.
What is interesting is subjective. It is better to ask what people like.
It doesn't matter if everyone else "loves" what you did to the character. They don't have to play him. While its important that he doesn't disrupt the game, if the other players want more character based flavor in the game let them submit their own characters for tampering, not someone else's.I'm guessing you believe in an extremely limited GM role? If adding a relative to the PCs background is out of bounds, where exactly are the boundaries? Does the GM have to get approval for the 'old friend' that appears to deliver the plot hook? I suppose that 'lost love' NPC has to go because it didn't get appropriate player approval?
I've not played in a game where the story is limited by the initial PC concept.
What is out of bounds will vary by group. The "lost love" may need approval. Maybe the character does not believe in love, so if that was me and my character does not believe in love I would not acknowledge that NPC. I know for sure arbitrary mechanical changes that are nowhere near what I am looking for will cause issues.
Actually, I believe the GM shouldn't be making changes to the one thing in the world that's yours without your approval first.
If I have a long lost love, I'd like to know about it before you pop them up in game.
The story doesn't have to be directly related to my background. There are plenty of stories that don't require you amend backgrounds, or add things that the player didn't put in themselves. But heck, you don't need to ask stop there. Just ask me before you decide that my fighter's father was actually a paladin and the paladin order shows up offering me his sword, mmmkay?
Otherwise, if I'm not fine what you did, show up with a paladin offering a sword and asking us to help out on a quest without adding in that my father was a member of their order. Plot hook? Check. Angry player who feels their character has been sullied? Nowhere to be seen.
As a GM, I'd find that incredibly limiting and utterly two-dimensional. You tell me that your PC is a fighter and his name is Fred. Based on your explanation, I can never introduce an old friend, a lost love, a dead uncle, a favorite dog, a childhood home, or anything else. Your fighter simply came into being from the ether and any/all stories have to be completely disassociated with his past? I can never touch on any events form his past (apparently he didn't have any). Fred never had a job, never went anywhere, and never did anything. He simply appears, fully grown, standing in the town square.
Maybe I am still working on a more detailed background. I am sure you can find another way to advance the story.
Personaly as a player I expect the GM to have a impact on my character as he exists in the world run by the GM.
Conversley I expect as a player to have a impact on the world.
Also I expect my character to have a impact on the other PCs as well as them having a impact on my character.
The OP's example...is kinda of a weak example. If I was playing a assimar..or celestrial bloodline sorcerer...and that just happens I probably not like it. But if it happens after say descrating a god's temple...I could see that. Especialy if I use my seemingly celestrial orgin to help me do it(IE gaining the trust of the high priest before sacrficing him to my dark gods...etc).
Also while this kinda change can be cool...and stuff...it is not if it is overdone. There is a WoD GM in my area who is famous(or infamous) for asking for your character sheet and altering it usualy in major ways.
GM has no control, period. All changes to a PC are part of an agreement between GM and player, and as such should include a discussion if either are unconfortable.GM: The orc crits you with a greatsword for 30 damage. You have 3 HP left, so your character is dead.
Player: Well, since we didn't have a prior discussion about the exact effects of orcs with greatswords hitting my character, I do not agree to you changing my character's status from living to dead, and thus that hit is negated...
If would seems that DM has zero control is a ridiculous extreme to stick to.
Those who argue semantics normally dont have a real argument. Would you like to try that again with a GOOD example?
Another example:
Destined<--name of bloodline
Your family is destined for greatness in some way. Your birth could have been foretold in prophecy, or perhaps it occurred during an especially auspicious event, such as a solar eclipse. Regardless of your bloodline's origin, you have a great future ahead. <---flavor text
Class Skill: Knowledge (history).<--bonus skill
Ooooh! Ooooh! But on the other hand if the part you're referring to as flavor text actually isn't flavor text, but rather is THE RULES, then taking the Destined bloodline means that, RAW, the DM simply can't kill you off in the first session to a lowly goblin. Because THE RULES say that your character has a great future ahead!
Dang that's a powerful class feature! Thanks to this thread opening my eyes to the extra class features and requirements that those blurbs spell out, I know what my next sorcerer's bloodline is going to be!
RAW-mandated plot-shields ahoy! ;-)
Good point.
I never even thought of that.If I write that my greatness will be that I can't die until I do _____ the GM really can't kill me if flavor text is rules. :)
I wonder if Vod Canockers will still argue that flavor text is rules?
Your great future was to provide the XP that goblin needed to make a level and become the leader of his tribe. The deity the goblin worships placed you in an exalted place in the after life.
In theory, I'd say the GM totally has the right to do whatever--but the player also has the right to decide not to play anymore.
So I'd instead go for 'should' and encourage communication, because pulling out the nuclear options like that is totally unnecessary.
When I run, I'm hands-off on the PCs in play--it is their responsibility and task to get to decide what their character does, and also to actually make their character. If the GM has issues with that, she's got two recourses:
1) Veto in chargen; the GM's responsibility includes ensuring that the group can be a harmonious whole with each other and with the setting, so i she has issues with a concept, that's where it should go.
2) If it comes out in play that it's a problem, the GM should talk to the player and make clear the issues. But this should be done ideally in a cooperative fashion with the player; if the GM can't cooperate honestly and openly with the player, then that player should not be in her game.
So basically I wouldn't go 'alter their build unilaterally', not because the GM doesn't have the right in theory, but because it's rude and breaks down the necessary trust between GM and player.
But then, I'm not into evil PCs, so I'd just tell my players that from the outset. Each group should really be making its own resolution rules for these things.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you believe the GM has 100% authority in this situation to interpret character options through the lens of the setting...
It's *still* a bad move for a GM to leverage that power without player consent. Not because he can't, but because competing with the player instead of working to enhance their experience is unnecessary, frustrating, and immature.
Your job as GM isn't to use the letter of the rules to ensure some stringent notion of balance or fairness, or even faithful execution of the setting's themes. Your job is to preside over the group experience, which means exercising good judgement about your /friends' tastes/ and what will result in the best game in the long run. *Sometimes* this means being the bad guy, or killing a character, or making a ruling against the players.
But it would be a very rare (albiet possible) situation where you had to distort the meaning of character options—which are definitely perceived as part of player agency— in order to make it a better game. If you really want character options to be tied up in morality and setting-based decisions, there is precedent for that (in paladins and the like)... but proceeding without player buy-in is shoddy GMing. Just as with paladin codes, it is never a bad idea to have an open dialog with the player before making rulings as GM. The example in the OP (about the meaning of the celestial bloodline through a setting lens) is something that some players —myself included — could maybe enjoy; but it doesn't make sense to go ahead without checking in first, because someone might not enjoy it.
It isn't that the GM lacks the authority to do it, it's that even with the authority, working with the player and the player's vision is always the best approach. If at any point you find yourself working against the player's vision, a moment of self-reflection is called for. It *is* possible that it's still the right move, but only expert, empathic GMs need apply.
Those who argue semantics normally dont have a real argument. Would you like to try that again with a GOOD example?GM has no control, period. All changes to a PC are part of an agreement between GM and player, and as such should include a discussion if either are unconfortable.GM: The orc crits you with a greatsword for 30 damage. You have 3 HP left, so your character is dead.
Player: Well, since we didn't have a prior discussion about the exact effects of orcs with greatswords hitting my character, I do not agree to you changing my character's status from living to dead, and thus that hit is negated...
If would seems that DM has zero control is a ridiculous extreme to stick to.
You find as a part of a treasure hoard a Belt of STR +2. When you put it on you discover that it is fact a Belt of Opposite Gender.
Can the PC say "No that didn't happen?"
Can the PC say "No that didn't happen?"Of course not. That was a choice the PC made. And he can unmake it with the right choices.
Which is the whole point.
But your previous position is that the GM can't make changes without the players permission.
I would also say that the actions that made the deity change the Sorcerors Bloodline the players choice, and that he could unmake it the right choices.
Can the PC say "No that didn't happen?"Of course not. That was a choice the PC made. And he can unmake it with the right choices.
Which is the whole point.
Exactly. The real issue here is rather or not a GM can screw a player's character by not informing the player of things during the character creation process. Let's all remember the OP. I'm certainly not arguing that GM's can't have random family members show up and ask for help or that player actions shouldn't have consequences. I am saying that if a certain part of the character is going to completely screw it later, then the GM needs to tell the player before hand so the player knows what he's getting into. I'm sure in the fictional scenario in the OP, that the player would have chosen a different character if informed of the alterations to the character, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, randomly making your character a quarter orc, not cool. :P