I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but sometimes things get added to a PCs backstory whether they like it or not due to their actions in game or even actions beyond their control. I've had PCs framed for murdering the King's daughter and they were hunted, which became a part of their background. You don't need permission to do these types of things.If it happens after the game starts it's not part of their backstory any more, so the point is moot.
What I would have done is sent a group of celestials to either kill you and or capture you (aka make another character if you don't get away). If you did survive or escape then plan on looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life.To what purpose?
What kind of fun does that provide for anyone involved except schadenfreude on the GMs part?
I basically agree with shallowsoul here.
The player wrote a backstory that says "I pissed off a bunch of celestials." They're going to be after him. Much like if he wrote a backstory that said "I pissed off the king". The king would be after him.
Now, I wouldn't have a dozen hound archons or a Solar show up at level one. I'm not going to just kill him with no chance. I'd find reasons to keep it challenging, but not overwhelming, but it would be an ongoing thing in the game.
Considering that Celestials are supposed to be GOOD, they'd probably force him to repent in some way or set him up on a quest to redeem himself, unless he's so evil that he could potentially become a threat. And at level 1, a lone sorcerer would hardly be a threat even to the big angry brute living next door let alone to a celestial of any rank.
And that's fine. I don't particularly like it, but whatever. Free EXP if you win I guess, and as long as the encounters are fair then fine. Could be fun even.
But that line in there "Kill or capture you with a group of celestials and you have to make a new char if you fail" (as the character likely would) irks me.
|
So the game isn't about fun, Shallowsoul?
Last I checked, that is the main goal of the game.
You know damn well what I mean.
You can't physically cater to everyone's tidbits of fun because the game would never go anywhere. Some people find dying unfun, some people find being poisoned unfun etc etc etc.
This is not about breaking the game down into bits and pieces for each individual at the table. It's still a game that comes with rules and can also come with consequences. If you do something that enacts consequences then suck it up and play the game or go home.
Read my example on how to handle that given backstory. There are limits to the consequences you can throw at players. You should know that not everyone is going to accept what seems like spiteful punishments for picking choices that seemed fine at first. Some things like dying and getting poisoned are tied to the game mechanics, while other things are up to the DM, and a good DM knows how to make the full use of such while being fair and keeping the game fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read my example on how to handle that given backstory. There are limits to the consequences you can throw at players. You should know that not everyone is going to accept what seems like spiteful punishments for picking choices that seemed fine at first. Some things like dying and getting poisoned are tied to the game mechanics, while other things are up to the DM, and a good DM knows how to make the full use of such while being fair and keeping the game fun.
Yet in the other thread you say GMs can't reject concepts.
So to be clear, at this point your position is
- The GM must accept my concept.
- The GM must not do anything mean to me as a result of the choices I make when I provide my concept to them.
Does the GM also need to give you a foot massage after a long day at work, perhaps cook you dinner and tell you how pretty you look?
|
|
What I see here is someone creating a backstory for their character and they want to be able to dictate each and everything that happens to achieve the exact results they are looking for.
Don't happen in my games. If you say you piss off celestials then I decide when they come along to hand out some pain, not you.
What I would have done is sent a group of celestials to either kill you and or capture you (aka make another character if you don't get away). If you did survive or escape then plan on looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life.To what purpose?
What kind of fun does that provide for anyone involved except schadenfreude on the GMs part?
Isn't this a game where you get to fight things? If I were playing an evil character fighting good outsiders would be fun.
If he meant you just die w/ no dice rolls or due to a grossly unfair fight, I wouldn't like it. If he changed my character (like the OP mentioned), I wouldn't like it. But sending things to try to kill/capture me? Umm...isn't that basically what the GM is already doing by default? (Yeah, there's story too, but I've never played a pacifist game, you know?)
Read my example on how to handle that given backstory. There are limits to the consequences you can throw at players. You should know that not everyone is going to accept what seems like spiteful punishments for picking choices that seemed fine at first. Some things like dying and getting poisoned are tied to the game mechanics, while other things are up to the DM, and a good DM knows how to make the full use of such while being fair and keeping the game fun.Yet in the other thread you say GMs can't reject concepts.
So to be clear, at this point your position is
- The GM must accept my concept.
- The GM must not do anything mean to me as a result of the choices I make when I provide my concept to them.Does the GM also need to give you a foot massage after a long day at work, perhaps cook you dinner and tell you how pretty you look?
If the GM rejects concepts simply out of spite instead of having a good justification for it, he's not doing a very good job at making sure everyone is having fun. And you apparently ignored the part where I just said that poisoning and deaths happen in the game (luck of the dice), and the player has to suck it up because that is how the game works. Punishing someone for creating a backstory you don't like is something you can decide to do, but will probably not earn you any sympathy points the next time you cry about players not behaving.
I'm not sure if I did mention it earlier in this thread, but the backstory did seem a little extreme for a level 1 character. That simply means that he should come up with something different, not that I have free reins to send a SWAT team of Solars to personally slay him the moment he steps outside the local tavern.
To put shortly, I agree with the two posts above mine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way some people talk in this thread makes me think it's no wonder creativity is dead in some play groups.
|
|
If the GM rejects concepts simply out of spite instead of having a good justification for it, he's not doing a very good job at making sure everyone is having fun. And you apparently ignored the part where I just said that poisoning and deaths happen in the game (luck of the dice), and the player has to suck it up because that is how the game works. Punishing someone for creating a backstory you don't like is something you can decide to do, but will probably not earn you any sympathy points the next time you cry about players not behaving.Read my example on how to handle that given backstory. There are limits to the consequences you can throw at players. You should know that not everyone is going to accept what seems like spiteful punishments for picking choices that seemed fine at first. Some things like dying and getting poisoned are tied to the game mechanics, while other things are up to the DM, and a good DM knows how to make the full use of such while being fair and keeping the game fun.Yet in the other thread you say GMs can't reject concepts.
So to be clear, at this point your position is
- The GM must accept my concept.
- The GM must not do anything mean to me as a result of the choices I make when I provide my concept to them.Does the GM also need to give you a foot massage after a long day at work, perhaps cook you dinner and tell you how pretty you look?
Spite...
How about the GM just thinks your concept is dumb.
How about that since the GM plans to give you the freedom to play they character you both agreed on in whatever what you want for the rest of the campaign, the GM wants to make sure the character isn't going to disrupt the rest of the campaign. Because a campaign can mean literally years of investment of time and energy.
How about that indivual player getting exactly what they want at that time isn't as important as making the game fun for everyone involved, including the GM who is running the campaign.
Spite...punishing...
Maybe instead of the Player entitlement crowd, we should refer to them as permavictims...it's shorter and seems more accurate the more I think about it.
While I like the term permavictim a lot, the partisans on either side of the "player entitlement vs. tyrannical GMs" war won't accept it, as it applies equally to both...
|
|
If a GM feels victimized by his players, he is just as much of a problem as his players.
It is a game. If you aren't having fun, do something else. If the people you are playing with aren't interested in making it fun, find new people.
No one makes a GM run a game.
No one makes a player play a game.
Anyone on either side who tells the other people they must participate is wrong.
I have an XBOX. I don't own any number of games that are very popular because I am not interested in those games. No one is making me buy them or play them.
I am also not going to various software studios demanding they make the game I want, exactly as I want it, because I am entitled to it.
I may write a letter occasionally, but I don't feel entitled to get what I ask for, just because I want it.
For the purposes of this thread, the GM shouldn't "make" a player do anything with an approved character. Things will obviously happen that effect the character, but the character must make choices.
As a new GM I made a mistake once of telling a player they couldn't cast a spell, because they were metagaming. I had planned an ambush, and the party saw a group of people who gave no indication they were dangerous, and a caster burned a short term buff spell.
I should have let them. I apologized later, as I was wrong.
But now I also occassionally have things occur that are inoccuous, so people do burn spells as penalty for metagaming.
"You hear something in the bushes, roll initative"
All the caster cast buffs,
"It's a puppy!"
Table groans...
But I don't tell the players what they can and can't do. That isn't my purview as a GM.
But if I'm creating a world where they will have complete freedom to act as they wish, I sure as hell reserve the right decide if that players concept will be allowed in the game in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just in case that was directed at me, ciretose, I'm completely apathetic to the whole "GMs are nasty!" or "Players are entitled!" thing. I'll get involved in threads on specific issues or situations, but I find that half the time my view will align with the "permavictim players", and the rest of time I feel the same as the "despotic GMs".
I'm generally on the side of tolerance and respect when I'm at the table. As a GM, I'd never change someone's class features (like their bloodline) because they wanted a badass backstory. That's totally disrespectful. If the GM can't, for whatever reason, deal with that backstory, the only way to deal with that (in my opinion) is to negotiate a backstory that both player and GM can accept.
I'd happily send waves of difficult celestial creatures at the sorcerer in the OP though. Not to definitely kill them, but certainly to make them earn their continued, badass life :)
Also, puppy idea is freakin' awesome. I'm swiping it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, since the back-story is simply a creative explanation for how they got their powers, and it is not seeking to get the player more power than he should, why should he face a "punishment"?
You can incorporate the angry celestials into the plot of the story, you can incorporate the scheming devils into the plot of the story. You can have it be the devils were using the weak nobody to achieve a higher end, and that is why they do not bother to hunt down the weak sorcerer until he becomes even sort of a threat.
There is no reason to punish creativity. There is no attempt to get unfair advantages. Why not use the creativity positively. There are infinite ways you could choose to incorporate this event, tons of ways to make it not completely unbelievable for a nobody to do so. Why not just run with it.
|
|
Again, since the back-story is simply a creative explanation for how they got their powers, and it is not seeking to get the player more power than he should, why should he face a "punishment"?
You can incorporate the angry celestials into the plot of the story, you can incorporate the scheming devils into the plot of the story. You can have it be the devils were using the weak nobody to achieve a higher end, and that is why they do not bother to hunt down the weak sorcerer until he becomes even sort of a threat.
There is no reason to punish creativity. There is no attempt to get unfair advantages. Why not use the creativity positively. There are infinite ways you could choose to incorporate this event, tons of ways to make it not completely unbelievable for a nobody to do so. Why not just run with it.
I'm sorry but power level has nothing to do with the argument, nor does punishing creativity. There are certain things that come with consequences and this is one of them. If you basically have a character who is an abomination to the celestials then it would actually be an insult to the creativity if the background wasn't followed up with what would happen.
Again, you want creativity to only benefit the player. If you hit a hornets nest then expect to get stung. Everything is not equal in the game of Pathfinder and all bloodlines come with an equalconsequence.
I'm sorry but power level has nothing to do with the argument, nor does punishing creativity. There are certain things that come with consequences and this is one of them. If you basically have a character who is an abomination to the celestials then it would actually be an insult to the creativity if the background wasn't followed up with what would happen.
Again, you want creativity to only benefit the player. If you hit a hornets nest then expect to get stung. Everything is not equal in the game of Pathfinder and all bloodlines come with an equalconsequence.
Shallowsoul, would you punish an Evil Celestial Blooded Sorceror who didn't get their powers from killing Celestials in their background?
If no, then you are punishing the player for taking the time to fluff up a background. They could have simply come into game and said, under the default assumption they were born with these powers. Instead they choose to construct a cool(abliet far fetched) background; and you would punish them for taking that extra step.
If yes, I... can actually respect that, as long as you're throwing CR appropriate encounters at them.
Shallowsoul, would you punish an Evil Celestial Blooded Sorceror who didn't get their powers from killing Celestials in their background?
If no, then you are punishing the player for taking the time to fluff up a background. They could have simply come into game and said, under the default assumption they were born with these powers. Instead they choose to construct a cool(abliet far fetched) background; and you would punish them for taking that extra step.
It's not punishing them for coming up with a fluffed up background. It's holding them accountable for the crimes and other behavior they perpetrated in their fluffed up background. It makes their background matter for the future of the character.
You may find the background cool, but it's also brutal, vicious, and vendetta-provoking. And, were I running a game with that character in it, I'm going to run with that. If I didn't use it in the ongoing campaign, then that player made up a fluffed up PC background for nothing.
Again, since the back-story is simply a creative explanation for how they got their powers, and it is not seeking to get the player more power than he should, why should he face a "punishment"?
If that's the case, the back story is nothing but a bit of window-dressing that ultimately means nothing, why make one? No, I'm going to use the back stories of the players in the games I run. I want them to be relevant to the PCs and how their lives unfold. Some may end up being bigger issues that others, but I'm going to try to use everybody's. And if yours is a litany of double-dealing and brutality, that's going to have repercussions. Hope you make some powerful patrons who are willing to protect you...
Now, if the player wanted to have his celestial bloodline be the product of torture and betrayal, maybe he should have had it be inborn as a legacy of one of his parents - who ended up being the one who paid the price. Then the celestial vendetta would be over and the PC would be in the clear... at least until I go all Iggwilv on him with his damned, departed parent. Mwah hah ha!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is fully entitled to use player-established backstory as part of the plot. The GM is also fully entitled to treat NPCs as NPCs (simply being related to a PC doesn't suddenly make them any less of an NPC)
Yup. And a player is entitled to pitch any idea in his back story he wants, though he is not entitled to get all of it approved. He is also entitled to include criminal or other questionable behavior in his back story, but he's not entitled to be immunized from any repercussions that may follow.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but sometimes things get added to a PCs backstory whether they like it or not due to their actions in game or even actions beyond their control. I've had PCs framed for murdering the King's daughter and they were hunted, which became a part of their background. You don't need permission to do these types of things.
You do need permission sometimes if you want to keep the player. What players want and expect is wildly different. Sometimes they're okay with it, other times you might have someone walk because they feel a little violated. That isn't really a background either, its something that should be rather current isn't it?
Spite...
How about the GM just thinks your concept is dumb.
That sounds a lot like spite to me. I can't imagine playing with someone who says my concept is dumb. I'd probably walk away from that. not very friendly and not the type of thing I should put up with. It also sounds like an OOC issue and like it will happen more often, which is not something I want to play with.
Yup. And a player is entitled to pitch any idea in his back story he wants, though he is not entitled to get all of it approved. He is also entitled to include criminal or other questionable behavior in his back story, but he's not entitled to be immunized from any repercussions that may follow.
The GM is fully entitled to use player-established backstory as part of the plot. The GM is also fully entitled to treat NPCs as NPCs (simply being related to a PC doesn't suddenly make them any less of an NPC)
Well, he might be. If I spoke with my GM and we agreed to not have it come up but I like it for a backstory, then we'd be in a verbal agreement and I would feel violated if he broke that. That's an additional detail and not something already mentioned though. Its certainly something I would ask if it came up. Its hopefully something that gets spoken about if the player is truly against that.
|
|
I certainly don't understand.I'm hoping you will understand when I say your answers are not consistent with your earlier quote: "Sir Matt, I don't get to decide how my life goes 100%, but I do get to decide how my characters life goes."They are, actually. You just have to change your perspective.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Which is why I advocate the GM just saying "No, that won't work" and not insulting the player with an honest explanation. :)That sounds a lot like spite to me. I can't imagine playing with someone who says my concept is dumb.Spite...
How about the GM just thinks your concept is dumb.
You explain why you think it is stupid. Not tell them they are stupid. We are adults right? Can't we talk things out instead of giving them nasty titles? It might be dumb to you sure, but explain why and in the right way and you come off as an entirely different(and better) person than someone who just says "No." or "That's dumb"
I am of course still not happy with calling anyone's concept dumb or stupid. Even if I disagree with it, there may be another group that will take it, run with it, and have fun with it.
|
|
I'm sorry but power level has nothing to do with the argument, nor does punishing creativity. There are certain things that come with consequences and this is one of them. If you basically have a character who is an abomination to the celestials then it would actually be an insult to the creativity if the background wasn't followed up with what would happen.
Again, you want creativity to only benefit the player. If you hit a hornets nest then expect to get stung. Everything is not equal in the game of Pathfinder and all bloodlines come with an equalconsequence.
Shallowsoul, would you punish an Evil Celestial Blooded Sorceror who didn't get their powers from killing Celestials in their background?
If no, then you are punishing the player for taking the time to fluff up a background. They could have simply come into game and said, under the default assumption they were born with these powers. Instead they choose to construct a cool(abliet far fetched) background; and you would punish them for taking that extra step.
If yes, I... can actually respect that, as long as you're throwing CR appropriate encounters at them.
Actually I would because they are viewed as an abomination like I said earlier. You fight things in Pathfinder, these celestials would be just more things you fight.
but what if I am a barbarian-unicorn or a vampire warrior-jumper?
but what if I am a barbarian-unicorn or a vampire warrior-jumper?
You may be joking about the Barbarian Unicorn but those stats for only a 4 HD level adjustment, it wouldn't be bad for a monster PC game...
And +1 for what I presume is a Penny Arcade Reference.