John Kretzer wrote:
Who said anything about it being a secret? The family could be looked upon as a bunch of crazies. It was not like people threw away their swords and armor the moment guns were invented. It took a very long time(and the invention of rapid shooting, and rifling, and about the same number of invention to get guns in the first place) before it became the primary weapon of people and changed the world. Guns changed the world long before rifling.
Cannons changed the nature of fortifications.
Guns were used in warfare just about as fast as innovations were made. The newest advances always gave a huge advantage to whoever had them. Facing an army with even primitive firearms without your own was a really bad idea. Same with facing an army with more advanced ones than you had.
It's not like there were a handful of tinkerers playing with them for hundreds of years until they finally perfected them and they caught on. Each successive advance was widely used and changed the world.
Certainly by the time a gun is a useful primary weapon for an adventurer, even more primitive versions are going to be useful for soldiers. (This, honestly, is also my problem with guns in Golarion. I don't believe in long term military technological secrets. They might be dismissed for awhile, but the moment that one nation proves they're effective in battle, everyone else is going to grab and duplicate the tech.)
Again, if your GM wants to run with this, more power to him. But making these kinds of arguments to try to convince him when he's saying "No" is the kind of thing that makes GMs not want to explain. It can quickly switch from "Give me an idea where you're coming from" to "Justify to my satisfaction that you are right."
Vincent Takeda wrote: The gm plays the world and how it reacts to the players, which includes the npcs... He creates the story, but is restricted in creating a world where every chosen player fits or else it doesnt get off the ground. Clearly this is the exact opposite of my experience. The GM creates the setting, and the player develops a PC that fits the setting. If I'm running Dark Sun, you can't play a kender. (there are no kender on Athas)
Vincent Takeda wrote:
If someone at the table wants to play a race/class/variant that someone else at the table doesnt like, then that campaign wont ever be run. They literally can't coexist, so they don't. If you as a gm cant run dark sun without tieflings well then we won't be running dark sun until the guy who likes playing tieflings can think of something more dark sun...
This implies that all PCs essentially require approval of all the other players - is that accurate?
MrSin wrote: Referring to it as a committee instead of a group of friends out to have fun is just insulting. It's simply something which is entirely different from my experience. Whoever GMs in our group - they develop the campaign, set the tone, and tell us 'here is what this game is about, develop your PC'.
A lot of comments in this thread simply confuse me - if I tell you 'we are playing a 1920's cloak/dagger game using the Savage Worlds ruleset' and you come to the table with a Pathfinder half-golem dragon mage and say 'I'm ready to go!' - I just don't see how that makes sense.
I don't see how that silly example is that much different from a table of players who dictate to the GM what classes/races are to be played.
Blake Duffey wrote: But then you aren't playing Dark Sun. You are playing 'Dark Sun as determined by committee'.
And that's absolutely fine with me, and pretty much everyone I've ever gamed with. We know the Dark Sun SS isn't going to kick in our door and shoot us for playing it "wrong."
If the thought of us doing so puts your knickers in a twist, OK, no need for you to ever play in my game, and vice versa. You can be as rigid as you like in your own games, and it doesn't affect me at all.
If one guy wants to run skull and shackles and the whole table says yay!
Then one guys says 'I want to run a paladin!'
Under gm authority model he'd only have to convince the gm that its a good idea.
Under the table authority model he has to convince everyone else at the able that its a good idea as well.
Even if its a horrible idea, if the whole table decides 'sure, lets try it' then off ya go.
---
If one guy likes being catgirls no matter what the setting is
Under the gm authority model all he'd have to do is convince the gm that a catgirl would be ok.
Under the table authority model he'd also have to get the rest of the table to say running a catgirl is ok.
---
Those above examples cover special snowflake characters but the same also holds true of settings. If you want to run dark sun ad the rest of the table is happy with one guy running a gunslinger, either the gm is ok with having a gunslinger in his game or the game doesnt happen, but it doesnt end there. If any other player at the table doesnt like a gunslinger in dark sun then the campaign never goes in the first place.
Theres an infinite combination of campaigns and settings and characters... Eventually the table always finds one they can all agree on, or you're not gaming. Better not to play at all than to play something that ruins someone else's fun. And that person doesnt have to just be the gm.
Orfamay Quest wrote: you tend to end up with an unfocused mess Maybe you do; some others might consider it a test of their creativity to make them mesh in an internally-consistent, relatively seamless whole.
Blake Duffey wrote:
This implies that all PCs essentially require approval of all the other players - is that accurate?
This is totally accurate. If anyone at all at the table doesnt like your concept, its no good.
If everyone at the table is ok with your concept even if its' not appropriate (gunslinger kender on athas) then it goes!
Just because you're the gm doesnt give you the authority to approve or deny something that would spoil someone else's fun, and no player has the authority to force a gm to run something they couldnt get on board with either.
Kirth Gersen wrote: And that's absolutely fine with me, and pretty much everyone I've ever gamed with. I've never played with people who said 'your ability to create a campaign setting is constrained by the players approval of it'.
Vincent Takeda wrote: thejeff wrote: Who decides if a concept is a 'special snowflake'? There are no snowflakes. Either the whole table likes your concept or the campaign doesnt go.
thejeff wrote: Can I bring my 'special snowflake' snowflake in, no matter how it screws with the setting or even the ongoing campaign, since players are more important than the setting or narrative? I want to play a gunslinger? Poof, there are guns even though there didn't used to be, because setting and narrative consistency aren't important. Definitely. We dont have people coming into our campaigns in the middle of them though. Replacements for dead characters would be the other case. But I think I understand a little better and I see that it wouldn't normally be a problem.
Though in theory, by your rules, one player needing a replacement character could kill the game by suggesting a character that doesn't fit. OTOH, that would be a jerk thing to do.
Vincent Takeda wrote: thejeff wrote: How do you avoid the 'special snowflakes'? Any objection from anyone at the table would shut it down. If one players fun would be ruined by another player playing a gunslinger then that game never gets off the ground. Its funny to me how people thing 'god that would be insane!' but it doesn't come up, at least at our table, enough to cause any problems at all.
The gm plays the world and how it reacts to the players, which includes the npcs... He creates the story, but is restricted in creating a world where every chosen player fits or else it doesnt get off the ground.
In our tables style an entitled player is also a bad thing because if anyone at the table thinks your character concept is no good then its no good. Everyone has to be on board or someone is ruining someone else's fun.
Workable. I assume the GM counts as a player and can also reject concepts (or shut things down, if you'd rather).
Not so much the GM doesn't have a veto as everyone has a veto.
I read your initial post as "No one has a veto", which would be much different.
I assume in practice the general reaction isn't to stop everything if someone objects to a particular concept, but to rework the concept or try a different one. Probably works out not all that differently from the way most people do things.
If I proposed the all-Halfling game I mentioned, I'm not going to force people to play it if they're not willing to play Halflings, but I'm also not going to run it with a non-Halfling party.
Blake Duffey wrote: I've never played with people who said 'your ability to create a campaign setting is constrained by the players approval of it'. If the mere thought of it bothers you so much, then don't. No need to step outside your comfort zone in a casual hobby. Just be aware that other people are perfectly happy playing with different assumptions than yours. For my part, past high school or so, I have pretty much always considered player approval as a prerequisite for my settings.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: you tend to end up with an unfocused mess Maybe you do; some others might consider it a test of their creativity to make them mesh in an internally-consistent, relatively seamless whole. They might. Some others are often wrong. There's a reason that "referring the matter to a committee" is a standard method of killing off an idea in the real world. Brooks' The Mythical Man Month discusses this method quite extensively and argues quite compellingly that design-by-group is almost never a good idea.
Or to put it somewhat more sarcastically, some others might consider it a test of their creativity to come up with a recipe for making an Anglican cathedral a tasty, satisfying dish.
Vincent Takeda wrote: This is totally accurate. If anyone at all at the table doesnt like your concept, its no good.
If everyone at the table is ok with your concept even if its' not appropriate (gunslinger kender on athas) then it goes!
Thanks, I appreciate the direct answer. It's entirely contrary to my experience, but thank you.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Just because you're the gm doesnt give you the authority to approve or deny something
We'll simply have to disagree on this. If my current game is Ravenloft-esque I'm going to disallow a half-dragon bard of the clown god who plays pranks on PCs while wearing floppy red shoes and squirts water on enemies from a lapel flower.
I'm trying to create a feel for the game (horror, high fantasy, low magic, gritty, pulpy, whatever). When the others in my group fill the GM chair, they should have the same ability to craft the game to their tastes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kirth Gersen wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: you tend to end up with an unfocused mess Maybe you do; some others might consider it a test of their creativity to make them mesh in an internally-consistent, relatively seamless whole. Not only a test of creativity (that clearly some gms dont appear to be up to) but a table wide exercise in learning to work with others (which clearly some gamers dont appear to be up to)...
Basically at our table not only is authority an illusion, entitlement is also an illusion. (stalinist gms ought to like the sound of that)
Everyone has to be on board, and no snowflakes will be permitted either on the funky player race/class side or the stalinist unbending setting gm side. Either everyone agrees or the game dont go.
Orfamay Quest wrote: There's a reason that "referring the matter to a committee" is a standard method of killing off an idea in the real world. Meseems you might be taking this whole hobby a bit too seriously for my taste. Which is fine -- have at it -- like I said, there's no reason that you and I ever need sit at the same table (nor would we; I'd screen you out as a player, and I'd sound you out and beg off, if you were the DM. No harm, no foul.)
Also, I like to remember that powered flight was impossible, until it was developed. And that Orville had a brother.
Blake Duffey wrote: MrSin wrote: Referring to it as a committee instead of a group of friends out to have fun is just insulting. It's simply something which is entirely different from my experience. Whoever GMs in our group - they develop the campaign, set the tone, and tell us 'here is what this game is about, develop your PC'.
A lot of comments in this thread simply confuse me - if I tell you 'we are playing a 1920's cloak/dagger game using the Savage Worlds ruleset' and you come to the table with a Pathfinder half-golem dragon mage and say 'I'm ready to go!' - I just don't see how that makes sense.
I don't see how that silly example is that much different from a table of players who dictate to the GM what classes/races are to be played. Okay, its different yeah. That's not a bad thing.
That's not what is being described. No ones bringing a vampire the masquerade character with a vampire the masquerade characters sheet to a forgotten realms game in the exaulted setting. Don't compare it to such.
Its much much different. You've all come together to play pathfinder. Create a setting together, and agree on what to play. That's how I've done it in a few groups. If someone wants an adventure with a brothel, and no one is against it, you can do it. If someone wants to play his flirty catgirl magus and everyone doesn't want to deal with that, you don't. Is this a bad way to play?
Vincent Takeda wrote: Blake Duffey wrote:
This implies that all PCs essentially require approval of all the other players - is that accurate?
This is totally accurate. If anyone at all at the table doesnt like your concept, its no good.
If everyone at the table is ok with your concept even if its' not appropriate (gunslinger kender on athas) then it goes!
Just because you're the gm doesnt give you the authority to approve or deny something that would spoil someone else's fun, and no player has the authority to force a gm to run something they couldnt get on board with either. But the GM does have the authority to deny something. It's just that all the other players do to, right?
If the GM is the only one who isn't okay with the gunslinger kender on athas, then there is no gunslinger kender on athas, and possibly no game, unless another concept gets made.
Vincent Takeda wrote: Theres an infinite combination of campaigns and settings and characters... Eventually the table always finds one they can all agree on, or you're not gaming. Better not to play at all than to play something that ruins someone else's fun. And that person doesnt have to just be the gm. This is not compromise, but some twisted illusion of it.
Blake Duffey wrote: We'll simply have to disagree on this. If my current game is Ravenloft-esque I'm going to disallow a half-dragon bard of the clown god who plays pranks on PCs while wearing floppy red shoes and squirts water on enemies from a lapel flower.
I'm trying to create a feel for the game (horror, high fantasy, low magic, gritty, pulpy, whatever). When the others in my group fill the GM chair, they should have the same ability to craft the game to their tastes.
This is what i'm talking about. If everyone at your table agrees with what you've created then you dont have a problem. If even one person doesnt agree with it then your game wouldnt go, but you being a gm doesnt play into it at all. The whole table decides.
By the same token if someone decided to play a half dragon bard of the clown god, you alone could shut it down because it would ruin your fun, but again the fact that you're the gm carries no more weight than if one of the other pcs had said it. "No i dont think i'd be able to enjoy travelling with the half dragon bad of the clown god." and his voice would be just as relevant as yours.
But if the whole table decided the half dragon bard of the clown god was ok in your ravenloft campaign and you decided it was ok too, what would stop you.
Brian E. Harris wrote: Vincent Takeda wrote: Theres an infinite combination of campaigns and settings and characters... Eventually the table always finds one they can all agree on, or you're not gaming. Better not to play at all than to play something that ruins someone else's fun. And that person doesnt have to just be the gm. This is not compromise, but some twisted illusion of it. Everyone agreed to something. If that isn't a compromise, what is it?
Brian E. Harris wrote: This is not compromise, but some twisted illusion of it. Call it what you want -- I never argue with results, though. If it works for their table, why not allow that they can do things that way?
Vincent Takeda wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: you tend to end up with an unfocused mess Maybe you do; some others might consider it a test of their creativity to make them mesh in an internally-consistent, relatively seamless whole. Not only a test of creativity (that clearly some gms dont appear to be up to) but a table wide exercise in learning to work with others (which clearly some gamers dont appear to be up to)...
Basically at our table not only is authority an illusion, entitlement is also an illusion. (stalinist gms ought to like the sound of that)
Everyone has to be on board, and no snowflakes will be permitted either on the funky player race/class side or the stalinist unbending setting gm side. Either everyone agrees or the game dont go. Can you please lose the Stalinist GM language? It doesn't help. I've never even heard of a GM sending his players to Siberian labor camps. :)
Some GMs might like more narrowly focused niche kind of games, but they still can't force anyone to play in them if they don't want to.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Brian E. Harris wrote: Vincent Takeda wrote: Theres an infinite combination of campaigns and settings and characters... Eventually the table always finds one they can all agree on, or you're not gaming. Better not to play at all than to play something that ruins someone else's fun. And that person doesnt have to just be the gm. This is not compromise, but some twisted illusion of it. The only time this philosophy comes to a head if you've got one guy at the table who alway dissents and so nothing ever happens, which means he ruins every idea anyone has, including his own, so eventually the table kicks him out of the group, which is what should naturally happen anyway.
MrSin wrote: Okay, its different yeah. That's not a bad thing.
That's not what is being described. No ones bringing a vampire the masquerade character with a vampire the masquerade characters sheet to a forgotten realms game in the exaulted setting. Don't compare it to such.
My example was hyperbolic on purpose. It just doesn't compute with me that if the GM develops the backstory for a setting that the players should 'have the right' to develop something entirely different. Running PCs from different games isn't that far from trying to run an entirely antithetical PC.
MrSin wrote: Its much much different. You've all come together to play pathfinder. Create a setting together, and agree on what to play. That's how I've done it in a few groups. If someone wants an adventure with a brothel, and no one is against it, you can do it. If someone wants to play his flirty catgirl magus and everyone doesn't want to deal with that, you don't. Is this a bad way to play? I don't believe there are 'bad ways' to play. I just find it confusing that if I am running 'Lord of the Rings' and player B wants to play 'Bozo the fantasy clown' - it just doesn't fit. Imagine Frodo and Samwise making their way through Mordor accompanied by Ronald McDonald. Now I can't run the game that I've taken the time to develop. I have to 'water it down' to suit each/every player. I don't consider that a creative endeavor, although others obviously do.
Blake Duffey wrote: I just find it confusing that if I am running 'Lord of the Rings' and player B wants to play 'Bozo the fantasy clown' - it just doesn't fit. Imagine Frodo and Samwise making their way through Mordor accompanied by Ronald McDonald. Heh. Frodo and Samwise already seem like Ronald McDonald to me, so having an actual clown wouldn't actually change my opinion.
Blake Duffey wrote: MrSin wrote: Okay, its different yeah. That's not a bad thing.
That's not what is being described. No ones bringing a vampire the masquerade character with a vampire the masquerade characters sheet to a forgotten realms game in the exaulted setting. Don't compare it to such.
My example was hyperbolic on purpose. It just doesn't compute with me that if the GM develops the backstory for a setting that the players should 'have the right' to develop something entirely different. Running PCs from different games isn't that far from trying to run an entirely antithetical PC.
MrSin wrote: Its much much different. You've all come together to play pathfinder. Create a setting together, and agree on what to play. That's how I've done it in a few groups. If someone wants an adventure with a brothel, and no one is against it, you can do it. If someone wants to play his flirty catgirl magus and everyone doesn't want to deal with that, you don't. Is this a bad way to play? I don't believe there are 'bad ways' to play. I just find it confusing that if I am running 'Lord of the Rings' and player B wants to play 'Bozo the fantasy clown' - it just doesn't fit. Imagine Frodo and Samwise making their way through Mordor accompanied by Ronald McDonald. Now I can't run the game that I've taken the time to develop. I have to 'water it down' to suit each/every player. I don't consider that a creative endeavor, although others obviously do. As said, that doesn't happen. That can get shut down by other players pretty fast. Can't make someone play something they don't want and you can't make someone play with something they're entirely against. I don't know who calls bozo the fantasy clown creative, but if he can find a group of like minded individuals he's free to play it. In PFS there is a guy playing a prankster bard for instance. Not big on playing with him, but he has loads of fun. Its good that he has fun. He can't force me to play with him though.
thejeff wrote: Can you please lose the Stalinist GM language? It doesn't help. I've never even heard of a GM sending his players to Siberian labor camps. :)
Some GMs might like more narrowly focused niche kind of games, but they still can't force anyone to play in them if they don't want to.
I would lose the stalinist gm language, except that then it would be someone else talking and not me... I view a gm who doesnt play well with others due to an overadherence to their own personal view of how a world should be to be dictatorial and just as bad as a player who wants to play captain whackadoo the paladin on a pirateship.
The freedom not to play the kind of games you dont want to play is true for every player and every gm, and that freedom means every gm and every player being able to say i dont think i could enjoy your darksun kender or your darksun world without my kender that every else seems to be ok with... And the answer is always that either the dissenting player/gm steps off, or changes are made until everyone (including the gm, but not just the gm) is happy.
thejeff wrote: Can you please lose the Stalinist GM language? It doesn't help. I've never even heard of a GM sending his players to Siberian labor camps. OK, but the essence of the disagreement does seem to hinge on personality types to a large degree: some of us are more permissive and prone to compromise, because we value the social interaction more than the "purity" of the imaginary constructs. Others are far more rigid, and they don't want to run the risk of anyone else "ruining" what they view as their own proprietary imaginary construct -- and they're not willing to entertain any compromise on that.
That's how I see it from the DM end of things, anyway. I see an obnoxious pushy player making demands as I would anyone else doing the same thing -- and wouldn't invite him to my home anyway.
Vincent Takeda wrote: This is what i'm talking about. If everyone at your table agrees with what you've created then you dont have a problem. If even one person doesnt agree with it then your game wouldnt go, but you being a gm doesnt play into it at all. The whole table decides. Again, just not consistent with my experience. We don't treat things as requiring some kind of unanimous consent. The GM develops the setting, the players develop compatible characters, and the tone is set by the GM. If it's a trainwreck, we say 'hey, let's do something else next week'.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
By the same token if someone decided to play a half dragon bard of the clown god, you alone could shut it down because it would ruin your fun, but again the fact that you're the gm carries no more weight than if one of the other pcs had said it. "No i dont think i'd be able to enjoy travelling with the half dragon bad of the clown god." and his voice would be just as relevant as yours.
But if the whole table decided the half dragon bard of the clown god was ok in your ravenloft campaign and you decided it was ok too, what would stop you.
Our group has a different premise - the role of the GM is to develop the setting, control the NPCs, and make rules decisions. The GM develops the plot, the PCs interact with that game world. I find odd some of what you have suggested.
GM: Ok, you are travelling down a dark road in the woods
Player1: objection, I prefer golden brick roads
GM: fine, you are walking down the golden brick road. it begins to rain
Player2: hey, my PCs hair frizzes when it rains. We need low humidity
Player3: No, my sahagin gunslinger PC prefers the rain
GM: fine - you are wet but you have an umbrella. Now, as you approach - a ghoul emerges from the shadows! Make a will save or be terrified!
Player4: I squirt the ghoul with my foam spray then run over it with my clown car - what's it's AC?
I just don't see how this works? I'm not saying it can't work or it won't work or it shouldn't work. I'm not the badplaywrong police.
Blake Duffey wrote: MrSin wrote: Okay, its different yeah. That's not a bad thing.
That's not what is being described. No ones bringing a vampire the masquerade character with a vampire the masquerade characters sheet to a forgotten realms game in the exaulted setting. Don't compare it to such.
My example was hyperbolic on purpose. It just doesn't compute with me that if the GM develops the backstory for a setting that the players should 'have the right' to develop something entirely different. Running PCs from different games isn't that far from trying to run an entirely antithetical PC.
MrSin wrote: Its much much different. You've all come together to play pathfinder. Create a setting together, and agree on what to play. That's how I've done it in a few groups. If someone wants an adventure with a brothel, and no one is against it, you can do it. If someone wants to play his flirty catgirl magus and everyone doesn't want to deal with that, you don't. Is this a bad way to play? I don't believe there are 'bad ways' to play. I just find it confusing that if I am running 'Lord of the Rings' and player B wants to play 'Bozo the fantasy clown' - it just doesn't fit. Imagine Frodo and Samwise making their way through Mordor accompanied by Ronald McDonald. Now I can't run the game that I've taken the time to develop. I have to 'water it down' to suit each/every player. I don't consider that a creative endeavor, although others obviously do. You don't have to water it down. He can't play 'Bozo the fantasy clown'. You can veto that. As can anyone else.
It's just that, if he wants to be a jerk he can then veto your game.
Now, in practice, since you're all friends in a long standing group, he's not going to be a jerk. He's going to find something that will work. Unless he really doesn't want to play in your Lord of the Rings game anyway, in which case the group finds something else to play.
Unless, by "water it down", you mean make a game that all your players want to play, which would seem to be a good idea. :)
Again, please minimize the back and forth/personal arguments. If it can't stop in this thread, it will be locked.
Kirth Gersen wrote: OK, but the essence of the disagreement does seem to hinge on personality types to a large degree: some of us are more permissive and prone to compromise, because we value the social interaction more than the "purity" of the imaginary constructs. Your premise is flawed. We share the GM chair (6 of us, over the past 25 years) and we all take a 'the GM develops the theme of the setting' approach the same. It's not an issue of compromise or rigid thinking or however you are trying to portray it.
The GM develops the setting and the players develop PCs that fit that setting. The GM can say 'no, that's not a good fit' and everyone is fine with that. A PC that fits in a normal fantasy game may not fit in an Asian themed game brimming with ninjas. A Viking warrior may not fit in ravenloft. And there are no kender on Athas. That's the GM's call.
Blake, the mistake you're making is assuming that the players can object to every element in the setting, on the fly, which isnt true. They can object to conflicting restrictions within the setting (I'm a gunslinger so the setting has to include access to gunpowder) before the campaign begins, but not the setting itself. The color of the bartenders fingernails is not up for debate.
While I agree with you that the 'gm can say no' in which case the campaign shuts down until everyone can work out how to handle it to everyone's satisfaction, or it ends there, our table also gives that same power to say 'no' to everyone else at the table, not just the gm.
Vincent Takeda wrote: Blake, the mistake you're making is assuming that the players can object to every element in the setting, which isnt true. They can object to conflicting restrictions within the setting but not the setting itself. Where is that line drawn?
When you tell me that things have to be approved by the table, I'm unclear as to where that ends and the GM starts making decisions.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Others are far more rigid, and they don't want to run the risk of anyone else "ruining" what they view as their own proprietary imaginary construct -- and they're not willing to entertain any compromise on that. Or, to look at it from another angle, the compromise already happened when the players agreed to play the game the GM chose to ran, and abide by the guidelines already laid down.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Brian E. Harris wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: Others are far more rigid, and they don't want to run the risk of anyone else "ruining" what they view as their own proprietary imaginary construct -- and they're not willing to entertain any compromise on that. Or, to look at it from another angle, the compromise already happened when the players agreed to play the game the GM chose to ran, and abide by the guidelines already laid down. If that's the way you want to play, that's fine.
The line is drawn at character creation. Does everyone like my setting (dark sun, ravenloft, space ninjas, contemporary zombie, post apocalyptic cthulhu....) Yes? Moving on.
Everyone chooses character concepts.
Does the gm like all the character concepts? No? Figure it out or the game is dead already.
Yes? Great! Moving on!
Do all the other players like all the character concepts? No? Figure it out or the game is dead already.
Yes? Great! start the game.
Once the game is going, the gm runs the world. There is no 'voting' to how the world reacts to the players... But there is voting to make sure the world can contain what the players have chosen to be within that world, and that should be a uninimous consensus of every player and the gm, or its not going to last very long.
Brian E. Harris wrote: Or, to look at it from another angle, the compromise already happened when the players agreed to play the game the GM chose to ran, and abide by the guidelines already laid down. It's not actually a "compromise" if one person issues orders in all cases and the others have no choice but to submit or flee, but if that sort of dynamic works at your table, go for it. (Again, I wouldn't sit with you in a game, nor you with me, but the hobby is still big enough for both of us.)
Vincent Takeda wrote: thejeff wrote: Can you please lose the Stalinist GM language? It doesn't help. I've never even heard of a GM sending his players to Siberian labor camps. :)
Some GMs might like more narrowly focused niche kind of games, but they still can't force anyone to play in them if they don't want to.
I would lose the stalinist gm language, except that then it would be someone else talking and not me... I view a gm who doesnt play well with others due to an overadherence to their own personal view of how a world should be to be dictatorial and just as bad as a player who wants to play captain whackadoo the paladin on a pirateship.
The freedom not to play the kind of games you dont want to play is true for every player and every gm, and that freedom means every gm and every player being able to say i dont think i could enjoy your darksun kender or your darksun world without my kender that every else seems to be ok with... And the answer is always that either the dissenting player/gm steps off, or changes are made until everyone (including the gm, but not just the gm) is happy. I don't have anything against your approach and I think I agree that GMs can be just as obnoxious as players. Even dictatorial I could except.
Stalinist pushes it past "not playing well with others" into "mass murdering monster". It's like Godwin's law. When you're calling someone Stalin or Hitler, you've lost.
Vincent Takeda wrote: While I agree with you that the 'gm can say no' in which case the campaign shuts down until everyone can work out how to handle it to everyone's satisfaction, or it ends there, our table also gives that same power to say 'no' to everyone else at the table, not just the gm. I'm glad this works for your group. I just find the concept odd. In our group, the player determines the actions of the PC. He develops the PC background (subject to GM approval). He doesn't get to dictate who his ancestors were or what classes/races are appropriate to the setting. That's what the GM is for.
If the GM wants to essentially recreate LotR, and player #5 insists on playing a Tengus gunslinger, the GM really can't run "his" campaign. That ability to fashion the setting according to his vision is lost.
Blake Duffey wrote: Vincent Takeda wrote: Blake, the mistake you're making is assuming that the players can object to every element in the setting, which isnt true. They can object to conflicting restrictions within the setting but not the setting itself. Where is that line drawn?
When you tell me that things have to be approved by the table, I'm unclear as to where that ends and the GM starts making decisions. Mind you there are some indy narrativist games that work that way. Or pretty close to it at least. Not my cup of tea, but people make it work.
Vincent Takeda wrote: The line is drawn at character creation.
<snip>
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
Blake Duffey wrote: If the GM wants to essentially recreate LotR... If that's what all the players also want, then you're good to go. But among most of the players I know, that desire is usually best satisfied by writing fiction, not by playing an interactive game in which others might sully what you're trying to achieve.
Blake Duffey wrote: Vincent Takeda wrote: While I agree with you that the 'gm can say no' in which case the campaign shuts down until everyone can work out how to handle it to everyone's satisfaction, or it ends there, our table also gives that same power to say 'no' to everyone else at the table, not just the gm. I'm glad this works for your group. I just find the concept odd. In our group, the player determines the actions of the PC. He develops the PC background (subject to GM approval). He doesn't get to dictate who his ancestors were or what classes/races are appropriate to the setting. That's what the GM is for.
If the GM wants to essentially recreate LotR, and player #5 insists on playing a Tengus gunslinger, the GM really can't run "his" campaign. That ability to fashion the setting according to his vision is lost. You're right. He can't. And if he insists on doing so and player #5 insists on the Tengu gunslinger, there is no game.
How is different than you would play it? I guess you could kick Player #5 out of the group.
The consensus alternative is to keep the group together and find something else that everyone can agree to play.
Of course, that only happens when both sides aren't willing to change. Most of the time, since everyone wants to play and everyone is friends they'll come to some sort of compromise that works for everyone.
Kirth Gersen wrote: It's not actually a "compromise" if one person issues orders in all cases and the others have no choice but to submit or flee, but if that sort of dynamic works at your table, go for it. (Again, I wouldn't sit with you in a game, nor you with me, but the hobby is still big enough for both of us.) Once again, with the extremes.
It's not a choice of "submit or flee" - it's a choice of we can play that game, or we can play another game.
Anyhow, guilty of it myself, people are just talking past each other at this point, so I'm going to remove myself from this thread at this point.
Carry on gaming. May we all find people we enjoy gaming with that fit our play styles, so we're not forced to game with jerks or not game at all.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Blake Duffey wrote: If the GM wants to essentially recreate LotR, and player #5 insists on playing a Tengus gunslinger, the GM really can't run "his" campaign. That ability to fashion the setting according to his vision is lost. Good example. At our table the gm would decide if he was ok making an lotr world that happened to have tengus in it, and as long as he was ok with it then you ask the rest of the table if they're ok with running around with a tengu in an lotr world... If tengus in lotr were something the gm wasnt comfortable with, the game shuts down on the pretense that you shouldnt force the gm to run it with tengu if he doesnt like it, but could then also be resolved by the player compromising and running a non tengu. If neither one could budge, its game over for that idea.
At our table the answers would most likely be yes i can run lotr with tengus and yes the players are cool with running around with a tengu. Its when the 'no's' come out that things slow down.
Everyone should be happy with whats being run or you should run something else instead, and there's ALWAYS a something else ^_^
Vincent Takeda wrote: (stalinist gms ought to like the sound of that)
Good old hyperbole. Can't have a thread without hyperbole.
Blake Duffey wrote:
I've never played with people who said 'your ability to create a campaign setting is constrained by the players approval of it'.
But if you think about it, isn't that always the case? If none of the players sign on to play because they don't approve of it, no campaign. No matter how you feel about GM vs player authority, this factor is always true. If one side or the other doesn't want to play that campaign, it doesn't happen.
I think there's plenty of room to maneuver around whether the players have to be 100% on board. I'm not too keen on a single player wielding a veto over 4-5 other players unless the group is dead set on everybody playing every campaign.
thejeff wrote: How is different than you would play it? That's why this whole concept is foreign to me. When we play a new homebrew setting, the GM typically sends out an email and says 'ok guys, the new setting I'm working on is X'. It might be Norse elves with a focus on the mythology, it might be flying ships with a flavor of pirates, it might be an apocalyptic setting where the gods have waged war on the prime.
Whatever it is, the players then start coming up with PC ideas. They float them to the GM, who will say 'great', 'needs tweaking', 'sorry, doesn't fit', or whatever. Ideally there is a back/forth between the player/GM to creatively develop a backstory, history, friends/family, etc. I commonly disallow races or classes or whatever. I've never allowed firearms, for example. Doesn't mean I wouldn't consider it in a setting where that fit the flavor. I'm certainly going to disallow a monk in a Norse setting.
That's very different from the situation (if I correctly understand it) where the players come to the table with developed characters and then the GM has to find a way to shoehorn them into the setting. (which is where my hyperbole comes into play). Clowns don't fit in Ravenloft. And yes, I could simply ignore Bozo's obvious out-of-place-ness - but i'm running Ravenloft because I want a horror game. Bozo doesn't fit. It's not scary. I'm running a Norse game because I want to leverage my knowledge of the mythos - a ninja doesn't fit. I want to develop a low fantasy setting where mages are rare and demons eat sorcerers. Or a high fantasy campaign where riding griffins around is commonplace. I don't see how I can do that if all the players get a vote on PC creation rules.
When I am in the player chair, and the GM says 'think LotR' or 'think David Eddings' or 'think Game of Thrones' - I immediately understand I'm not playing a kisune.
Vincent Takeda wrote: Good example. At our table the gm would decide if he was ok making an lotr world that happened to have tengus in it, and as long as he was ok with it then you ask the rest of the table if they're ok with running around with a tengu in an lotr world... If tengus in lotr were something the gm wasnt comfortable with, the game shuts down on the pretense that you shouldnt force the gm to run it with tengu if he doesnt like it, but could then also be resolved by the player compromising and running a non tengu. If neither one could budge, its game over for that idea.
At our table the answers would most likely be yes i can run lotr with tengus and yes the players are cool with running around with a tengu. Its when the 'no's' come out that things slow down.
Everyone should be happy with whats being run or you should run something else instead, and there's ALWAYS a something else ^_^
The issue I'd take with that is that the GM has put effort into whatever his current game is. If a player insisted on trying to force a PC that doesn't fit into that game - I'd be miffed. (I'd be miffed as that GM and I'd be miffed as another player). Save the tengu for a different game. If my friend has spent a couple weeks developing his ideas for his setting, I want to see where that goes. Insisting on the tengu seems like sabotage to me.
I'd never say 'well you spent a lot of time on this but would you be willing to let me drop in a PC that really makes no sense'? So now this tengu is the only tengu in existence. Or the GM has to suddenly invent a tengu culture who invented gunpowder. Suddenly it's not what he created.
Blake Duffey wrote: Insisting on the tengu seems like sabotage to me. Who's "insisting"? He proposes it, everyone discusses and comes to a yes/no agreement together.
|
