But how can I be sure he's reading the same chapter if he won't read my copy, won't buy his own, and won't use the internet?And if you are going to force him to do so much work, why not just pick a player who is less of a pain in the butt...
I'm still not sure how "here read this and tell me what you think" is so much work.
Even if you're a slow reader it shouldn't take you long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how can I be sure he's reading the same chapter if he won't read my copy, won't buy his own, and won't use the internet?And if you are going to force him to do so much work, why not just pick a player who is less of a pain in the butt...I'm still not sure how "here read this and tell me what you think" is so much work.
Even if you're a slow reader it shouldn't take you long.
Depends on what you're talking about.
Usually, I run strongly thematic games. And everyone has to agree up-front to follow the theme. This doesn't require any time to "analyze" a strange race: I just know it will break the theme. But that's not the topic you are addressing.
Currently, I am running a game where I said "anything goes" and I would not put restrictions on the players. I had a player ask me the other day to play a Sorcerer who used the Words of Power system from Ultimate Magic. I started reading it, and realized that it would take me a very long time to learn the system well enough (which includes reading all of the FAQ pages and forum posts on it). Please note that I hold myself to a high standard of GMing. That means, I want to be able to quickly adjudicate combats, and I want to get it right, and I don't want to get into a rules-argument in the middle of someone's initiative round. Because then I'm not delivering a good experience for the group. And to learn all of Words of Power, so that I could consider how every effect works properly, it would have taken me several hours, which, unfortunately, I could not spare. So I apologized, and turned the player down.
In that same campaign, I have another player who likes to brainstorm. He would create a strange archetype-and-PrC laden build and say "how's this?", and I would begin to study it, so that I could adjudicate it quickly and fairly in combat. However, no sooner than was my analysis complete, but he would have come up with another, more interesting build, and say "how's this?" He would end up giving me half-a-dozen builds, because he wanted all of them pre-approved, so he could run DPR and other stats against them, and see which one won out and would be best to play. Eventually I had to say, "sorry, but this is an unfair use of my time. You are only allowed to send me one more build to review, and that's final. You'll have to pick from what you have."
It's easy to analyze an archetype that swaps out 3/4s BAB for extra d6s of Sneak Attack. But new spells, new feats, new systems ... those take a lot longer. And eventually, yes, it does become an unfair burden on the GM, especially when you multiply it times the number of players.
Words of Power I can understand, as well as teh guy who comes up with a half-dozen builds for you to look at.
But I see those as corner cases. Most people don't want to use Words of Power since they don't really understand it very well themselves in my experience, and a half dozen builds to look over basically doubles your workload since, well, you likely have 6 or less people in the first place.
But looking over everyone's build once and looking some stuff up I don't think is too much of a burden. Though there's a bit of give and take there too. I like my players to give a link to where they found a certain archetype or PrC or Feat or whatever if it's hard to find.
Like the Mad Dog Barbarian. I can't find that anywhere on the SRD or PRD unless there's a link attached for some reason.
My players generally plan out to 7 or 10.
And yeah, if they take it level by level (or change their mind on the build) I look that over too. Generally I do so whenever they level up (be it during or after the session).
player entitlement isn't an issue.
i'm with Kirth Gensen's Standpoint
the DM and Player Should Compromise.
i don't care that the DM spent over 120 dollars over the course of 6 months on the new adventure path. a DM who Runs an AP "As Is" either doesn't want to invest the time in accomodating his or her players, or forces players to conform to the guidelines of the AP.
the AP is a storyline in a can. if i could find such a willing DM, i would appreciate the guy who creates a sandbox within his own setting, who actually accepts player input, and allows far more than such a closed minded and Rigid Group as Pathfinder Society Would.
i'd rather have the DM who looks over a build in less than 10 minutes and accepts it on the grounds he or she knows there are far more powerful things out there.
i'd rather have a DM who allows reskinning as appropriate. i'd rather hear that my 'wakazashi' doesn't have to be a japanese curved shortsword and i have permission to call it a 'hellcat fang', a short and curved blade of the Chelexian Empire that serves the same purpose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
player entitlement isn't an issue.
i'm with Kirth Gensen's Standpoint
the DM and Player Should Compromise.
i don't care that the DM spent over 120 dollars over the course of 6 months on the new adventure path. a DM who Runs an AP "As Is" either doesn't want to invest the time in accomodating his or her players, or forces players to conform to the guidelines of the AP.
the AP is a storyline in a can. if i could find such a willing DM, i would appreciate the guy who creates a sandbox within his own setting, who actually accepts player input, and allows far more than such a closed minded and Rigid Group as Pathfinder Society Would.
i'd rather have the DM who looks over a build in less than 10 minutes and accepts it on the grounds he or she knows there are far more powerful things out there.
i'd rather have a DM who allows reskinning as appropriate. i'd rather hear that my 'wakazashi' doesn't have to be a japanese curved shortsword and i have permission to call it a 'hellcat fang', a short and curved blade of the Chelexian Empire that serves the same purpose.
It's interesting that you say the "DM and Player Should Compromise" and then list a bunch of ways the DM should change everything to match what the player wants and nothing about the player compromising.
While I agree there's a lot more freedom to adapt in a homebrewed campaign (even a non-sandboxy one) than in an AP, the player always has to bring a character to the table that conforms to the guidelines of the game at hand or the game won't work. It's not always a mechanical limitation (this race or class is banned), but often a conceptual one. Don't try to run Skull & Shackles with characters who don't want to be pirates. Don't try to run sandbox with reluctant hero characters.
most fluff issues and compromises can be fixed with reskinning. setting is a poor reason to ban a class because fluff is generally something mutable.
So, the inner sea hasn't had a lot of interaction with Tian Xia in your Golarion?
in your head, Scratch out every instance of the word ninja and replace it with "Chelexian Hellstalker" then proceed to scratch out "Wakazashi" and Write "Hellcat Fang" in your head. a ninja need not be asian.
a DM should accomodate his players, but a compromise should involve both of them working together to justify why this character has those talents in a way that fits the setting.
and a player should have a minimum of 3 backup characters written at an appropriate level in the case of a dice induced mortal accident or a DM rejection.
the compromise is in the fluff. i have no issues with banning one package of mechanics over another. and that is all a race or class is, a a loosely themed package of mechanics.
I really think we need to reset this debate in some ways. I think the 'Pro-DM' side is making rather large assumptions...and the 'pro-player' side as also done so to a lesser extent(though I am on that side so I may be bias). Also too many extreme examples from both sides are making this discussion useless. I think we have all seen and heard about jerk players and jerk GMs to fill up a 24 book volume.
Anyway If I may sum up what the 'pro-player' sides is about...well atleast what I am defending.
1) A DM has every right to ban anything and everything. But he/she should atleast be open minded about these things and accept discussion with the entire group or that player.
2) A DM has the power to compromise....use it. Not all the time...but I don't think asking for it to be considered to be such a great offense. Again be open minded about things.
3) Don't assume anything about a player or a GM. That player who wants to play a drow might not be a Drizzt fanboy...or just like Bobby that jerk player who played a drow that destroyed your campaign 10 years ago. Likewise don't assume a GM banning something or just say 'No' to you is being a tyraantical jerk who has ego problems. There could be perfectly good reasons...you might disagree with them, but move on.
4) Understand it is about trust. If you are a new player to a group or a GM with a new group/ or player...understand that person might be coming in with different expectations and different experiences. Neither as any reason to trust just yet...so be polite and treat them with some respect if not you might loose out on a great player or great GM.
This is all I am really saying. Anybody here disagree with any of the above?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how can I be sure he's reading the same chapter if he won't read my copy, won't buy his own, and won't use the internet?And if you are going to force him to do so much work, why not just pick a player who is less of a pain in the butt...I'm still not sure how "here read this and tell me what you think" is so much work.
Even if you're a slow reader it shouldn't take you long.
You really do think that the GM exists to serve you personally, don't you?
I notice that some player advocates seem to be treating character ideas as a scarce resource, i.e., "If I can't play my orc gunslinger, I can't play at all!" That's wrong. If you can't play your orc gunsligner, you CAN play a halfling paladin, or a human oracle, or a hundred other things that will fit the game and be just as enjoyable. Your orc gunslinger can wait in the wings.
Unlike character concepts, game/campaign concepts are by far the rarer and more precious resource. Respecting them should always take priority over any single character concept, since any player worth having can easily come up with a half-dozen viable alternatives on the spur of the moment.
Character concepts are simply not uniquely irreplaceable. If you always wanted to play Batman, wait for a superhero game; in the meantime, come up with something suitable for the offered Pathfinder game.
I wouldn't say campaign/world concepts are rarer that character concepts. They do however take a lot more time to build, plan, alter existing material for, and check for consistency.
I see campaign ideas as a dime a dozen: every would-be GRRM in the world thinks their personal game setting is the be-all and end-all. It's a lot more rare, in my experience, to see character concepts that go much past being ripoffs of Conan, Gandalf, etc.
I really think we need to reset this debate in some ways. I think the 'Pro-DM' side is making rather large assumptions...and the 'pro-player' side as also done so to a lesser extent(though I am on that side so I may be bias). Also too many extreme examples from both sides are making this discussion useless. I think we have all seen and heard about jerk players and jerk GMs to fill up a 24 book volume.
Anyway If I may sum up what the 'pro-player' sides is about...well atleast what I am defending.
1) A DM has every right to ban anything and everything. But he/she should atleast be open minded about these things and accept discussion with the entire group or that player.
2) A DM has the power to compromise....use it. Not all the time...but I don't think asking for it to be considered to be such a great offense. Again be open minded about things.
3) Don't assume anything about a player or a GM. That player who wants to play a drow might not be a Drizzt fanboy...or just like Bobby that jerk player who played a drow that destroyed your campaign 10 years ago. Likewise don't assume a GM banning something or just say 'No' to you is being a tyraantical jerk who has ego problems. There could be perfectly good reasons...you might disagree with them, but move on.
4) Understand it is about trust. If you are a new player to a group or a GM with a new group/ or player...understand that person might be coming in with different expectations and different experiences. Neither as any reason to trust just yet...so be polite and treat them with some respect if not you might loose out on a great player or great GM.
This is all I am really saying. Anybody here disagree with any of the above?
I am on the opposing side of this issue and I agree with everything you said in this post, John. It is primarily a matter of trust and respect, from both parties.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see campaign ideas as a dime a dozen: every would-be GRRM in the world thinks their personal game setting is the be-all and end-all. It's a lot more rare, in my experience, to see character concepts that go much past being ripoffs of Conan, Gandalf, etc.
This is sort of true. As you say good character concepts (i.e. ones that go past being ripoffs) are uncommon. A "good" campaign setting/idea is dependent on putting the time in more than being inspired. Creating a believable fantasy setting that is interesting takes a lot of work answering thousands of question before they get asked.
|
|
At a table I played (just a player, not a GM) at, this conversation took place. The GM was the brother of the player, and we were fairly high level at this point (13th or 14th I think) It was a "good" campaign in Forgotten Realms, and this was the players 3rd or 4th character (by choice), but he had been playing this character for most of the campaign and none of his other concepts were that great so no one cared that they "went away".
The player had asked to be a Red Wizard of Thay (remember we are a good party) and this had been allowed and worked into the plot under the "greater" evil premise.
The player was also transmutation specialist who had selected Necromancy as one of the two opposing schools (which in 3.5 meant you couldn't access them, period)
Suddenly, with no prior indication they announced that they wanted to become a Lich.
GM: You have necromancy as a forbidden school, I am already stretching to get an evil red wizard into a good party, are you kidding me?
Player: It doesn't say it requires necromancy spells
GM: You are turning yourself into an undead. How would it not require necromancy.
Player: But it doesn't say...
And on and on...eventually the player accepted the ruling of the GM. No one thought he was wrong to ask (silly, dumb, but not wrong), and because the GM was the final arbitor, we didn't all have to figure out a way to have a good campaign that included an undead evil wizard as part of the party (Just an evil wizard who was actively plotting to kill us...literally...the number of times he almost became the BBEG...)
Asking is fine. But someone has to be in charge or no one is in charge, and when no one is in charge, anarchy reigns and the game stops being fun.
It isn't that the players can't ask for things. It is that someone needs to be the voice of reason sometimes, because that isn't always something players are good at.
Even good players.
|
|
I see campaign ideas as a dime a dozen: every would-be GRRM in the world thinks their personal game setting is the be-all and end-all. It's a lot more rare, in my experience, to see character concepts that go much past being ripoffs of Conan, Gandalf, etc.This is sort of true. As you say good character concepts (i.e. ones that go past being ripoffs) are uncommon. A "good" campaign setting/idea is dependent on putting the time in more than being inspired. Creating a believable fantasy setting that is interesting takes a lot of work answering thousands of question before they get asked.
And this becomes much more challenging when players aren't interest in creating believable characters to exist in the setting.
And this becomes much more challenging when players aren't interest in creating believable characters to exist in the setting.
Here we go again. Being interested in a nonstandard race/class =/= not interested in the game/hates other players/is a total dick. You can repeat this "equation" as often as you like, but I've never had a player at my table for whom it's been true.
And this becomes much more challenging when players aren't interest in creating believable characters to exist in the setting.Here we go again. Being interested in a nonstandard race/class =/= not interested in the game/hates other players/is a total dick. You can repeat this "equation" as often as you like, but I've never had a player at my table for whom it's been true.
Usually when I players come to me with an odd choice or see it happen at other tables they honestly just have a personal preference or a vision they want to meet. I know someone that adores grippli singers and another who likes playing androids because he can't express emotion very well and he feels much more comfortable with characters with limited emotion themselves. I've never seen someone do it with malevolence or doing it just to be a thorn in the side.
|
|
And this becomes much more challenging when players aren't interest in creating believable characters to exist in the setting.Here we go again. Being interested in a nonstandard race/class =/= not interested in the game/hates other players/is a total dick. You can repeat this "equation" as often as you like, but I've never had a player at my table for whom it's been true.
Being interested is fine.
Demanding is not fine.
As I just posted, the guy asking to be a Lich is still part of our gaming circle.
You can ask for whatever you want. You aren't entitled to get it.
Stop with the hyperbole Kirth, you are better than that. Don't lower yourself to my level :)
|
|
Usually when I players come to me with an odd choice or see it happen at other tables they honestly just have a personal preference or a vision they want to meet. I know someone that adores grippli singers and another who likes playing androids because he can't express emotion very well and he feels much more comfortable with characters with limited emotion themselves. I've never seen someone do it with malevolence or doing it just to be a thorn in the side.And this becomes much more challenging when players aren't interest in creating believable characters to exist in the setting.Here we go again. Being interested in a nonstandard race/class =/= not interested in the game/hates other players/is a total dick. You can repeat this "equation" as often as you like, but I've never had a player at my table for whom it's been true.
If I take the last piece of pizza without asking, I am not malicious.
But I am rude.
It isn't malice that it the problem. It is selfishness. Because "you" want to do something doesn't mean others want to put up with you doing it.
See "Kender"
|
|
Some people don't seem to be...After reading these latest threads they SHOULD be. :)
This is what "Should" happen.
- Before the game starts, the GM "should" lay out clear guidelines and expectations of what they are seeking to run so people can decide if they want to join.
- Players "should" try to work with each other and the GM to create a group that will have a reason to exist and adventure in the setting, and propose those ideas to the GM. Ideally players will propose more than one concept for the GM (and even other players) to choose from.
- If a GM has a concern about a concept offered, the "should" discuss the concerns with the player and offer advice on what the player needs to do to address these concerns.
- The player "should" be placing the fun of the group first, and therefore take the feedback and try to make a character that will work best for everyone.
But apparently a GM saying no to a furry, luchadore mask, custom race, is unacceptable, as players are entitled to play whatever they want and the GM has to find a way to make it work rather than the player even considering another concept.
(See Kirth, leave the hyperbole to me :) )
Demanding is not fine.
Again, in 30+ years of gaming, I've never had a player "demand" anything. I've had them ask, and I sat down with them and we worked something out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't assume that everyone else has been as lucky
What luck? After 30 years as a consistent, I'd say "luck" had little if anything to do with it. Then again, I don't get players by submitting personal adds to Neckbeards News that read "Dick players wanted! The ruder the better! Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons a must!" If you bother to sit down with people before you play and see whether or not they're a dick, you need never have a single dick player. Ever.
Now, this won't work for pick-up games in a public venue, but generally those sorts of games aren't a venue for the DM's Special Snowflake Setting, either, so that's a moot point.
Seriously, for the people who always seem to have such problems with belligerent, entitled players trying to ruin your perfect setting, where in god's name are you finding them? And why do you keep looking there?
Being interested in a nonstandard race/class =/= not interested in the game
On the other hand, being NOT interested in a standard race/class does appear to be fairly close to being not interested in the game.
That, to me, is where the line gets drawn.
"Can I play a ninja catgirl?"
"No, that doesn't fit in with the campaign feel."
"Oh, well, how about an elf rogue, then?"
"Sure, that's fine."
---- that's should be completely acceptable to all parties.
But,...
"Can I play a ninja catgirl?"
"No, that doesn't fit in with the campaign feel."
"But the rules say I can play a ninja catgirl."
"No, they say you can only play one with the GM's permission, and you don't have that."
"Show me where it says I need the GM's permission!"
"Right there in the section where it says 'the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules.'"
"That doesn't count!"
---- that's the mark of a bad player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's the mark of a bad player.
Again, where are you finding all these "bad players" who are so demanding? I've never had one at the table, past about 3rd grade or so.
most fluff issues and compromises can be fixed with reskinning. setting is a poor reason to ban a class because fluff is generally something mutable.Not to the extent you might seem think it is. You can't reskin a light sabre to a sword nor a hammer to a dagger. Reskinning can't go beyond a slight adjustment, like say a mediocrely made katana to a bastard sword without breaking versimilitude entirely.
I don't like the use of the word fluff. It borders on lowering the valuation of setting and atmospheric to the pejorative level. Mechanics may be the way you play, but they are merely the means to an end, not the end itself unless your play is primarily gamist as opposed to roleplaying.
I won't say that being gamist is a nonvalid way of playing, but quite frankly it's not the kind of gamer I prefer to GM for.
You can totally reskin a katana as a bastard sword or vice versa. Just change the label. In the end its just 18-20/x2 and D8 damage or its 19-20/x2 and D10 damage. Who ask to reskin a war hammer as a dagger?
Changing things and adding to the game does not involve taking away. Many of the players I meet who want to add something don't add anything that wouldn't be part of the setting. They want to play this game for something in particular and I want to help them meet this expectation and idea. We work to add, not to reduce.
But apparently a GM saying no to a furry, luchadore mask, custom race, is unacceptable, as players are entitled to play whatever they want and the GM has to find a way to make it work rather than the player even considering another concept.
Who says that the GM has to find a way to get it to work? Sometimes things are completely incompatible. That said, sometimes its really easy to include things. Most of these games are some sort of fantasy with magic and science and some highly unbelievable things after all.
Usually when I players come to me with an odd choice or see it happen at other tables they honestly just have a personal preference or a vision they want to meet. I know someone that adores grippli singers and another who likes playing androids because he can't express emotion very well and he feels much more comfortable with characters with limited emotion themselves. I've never seen someone do it with malevolence or doing it just to be a thorn in the side.And this becomes much more challenging when players aren't interest in creating believable characters to exist in the setting.Here we go again. Being interested in a nonstandard race/class =/= not interested in the game/hates other players/is a total dick. You can repeat this "equation" as often as you like, but I've never had a player at my table for whom it's been true.If I take the last piece of pizza without asking, I am not malicious.
But I am rude.
It isn't malice that it the problem. It is selfishness. Because "you" want to do something doesn't mean others want to put up with you doing it.
See "Kender"
I've never had to take the last slice of pizza. I'm usually the one buying it and giving away shares. Your analogy fails to meet as it has nothing to do with what I stated. These are people asking for things, not forcing them.
You took my statement and then included malice that wasn't mentioned. You make it sound like this situation is one where the GM has to include whatever you want and the other players have to put up with it. This is not the case, this is me explaining peoples wishes. It is not rude to want something and ask for it. None of these people made any sort of demands or did so with vehemence.
Again, where are you finding all these "bad players" who are so demanding?
Well, read up above....
GM: You have necromancy as a forbidden school, I am already stretching to get an evil red wizard into a good party, are you kidding me?Player: It doesn't say it requires necromancy spells
GM: You are turning yourself into an undead. How would it not require necromancy.
Player: But it doesn't say...
And on and on...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a purely tactical level, I see "giving the GM deference" is a way to keep the game going. In my experience, GM burnout is a very real thing and real problem. Coming up with plotlines and investing the creative energy takes time and gusto. And if the GM loses interest in the campaign, then it tends to end in only a couple months.
Most people I play with nowadays don't want to play in a campaign that lasts less than 10 sessions. They want something enduring, and want to see something grow and flourish. And that requires work. It involves cultivation.
The way things have always worked in my circle of friends as we all sit around and pitch ideas for our campaigns. Then we all vote on which sounds the coolest, and we do that for as long as we can get it to last. Originally, we used to pick the campaign that sounded coolest or that we most wanted to personally play in. In other words, we used selfish logic. Then, as time passed, we realized something: the key determining factor in a game's success and longevity wasn't how cool the premise was, or how much we wanted to play it, but how enthusiastic the GM was about it. A passionate GM creates and amazing game. A burned-out GM creates a terrible game. So we learned: cultivate passion. And that means deference to the creative visionary.
Now, any good visionary lets other people contribute to the work, and create their own riffs and expansions on that shared work. But someone has to "be the keeper of the flame", and be the arbiter that decide what stays in and what stays out. Otherwise, you lose the vision, and you get a compromised work that isn't what sparked the passion to begin with.
Now, you could turn my argument around and say I play with "thin skinned GMs" if you wanted. *shrug* I personally don't see it that way. I just know that in my experience, creative passion is a hard thing to keep cultivated when you have a career, marriage, and young kids. So we all work together to keep it well-fed, no matter who it is we happen to be feeding. Because we want long-campaigns. (Thus none of my logic applies to one-shots or short arcs.)
Don't forget the rest of that quote quest. Eventually he goes on to say he was silly and dumb for asking. Not wrong though.
And on and on...eventually the player accepted the ruling of the GM. No one thought he was wrong to ask (silly, dumb, but not wrong), and because the GM was the final arbitor, we didn't all have to figure out a way to have a good campaign that included an undead evil wizard as part of the party (Just an evil wizard who was actively plotting to kill us...literally...the number of times he almost became the BBEG...)
Asking is fine. But someone has to be in charge or no one is in charge, and when no one is in charge, anarchy reigns and the game stops being fun.
It isn't that the players can't ask for things. It is that someone needs to be the voice of reason sometimes, because that isn't always something players are good at.
Even good players.
The player didn't seem demanding to me, but I wasn't there to know. He also went on to say the GM was the final arbiter and that the campaign for some reason involved an evil wizard I guess.
No one has to be in charge imo. Mutual unwritten social contract type thing going on. I like world building as a group exercise myself, but that's certainly not every campaign.
Edit: I should add sometimes the GM is a bad voice of reason. Even good DMs. Its reciprocal, we're all human after all.
|
|
I notice that some player advocates seem to be treating character ideas as a scarce resource, i.e., "If I can't play my orc gunslinger, I can't play at all!" That's wrong. If you can't play your orc gunsligner, you CAN play a halfling paladin, or a human oracle, or a hundred other things that will fit the game and be just as enjoyable. Your orc gunslinger can wait in the wings.
Unlike character concepts, game/campaign concepts are by far the rarer and more precious resource. Respecting them should always take priority over any single character concept, since any player worth having can easily come up with a half-dozen viable alternatives on the spur of the moment.
Character concepts are simply not uniquely irreplaceable. If you always wanted to play Batman, wait for a superhero game; in the meantime, come up with something suitable for the offered Pathfinder game.
This reasoning hinges implicitly on the idea that you have A LOT of opportunities to play, even with many different GMs, and thus that you will soon find an opportunity to play the character concept you like so much.
In the case of my RPG group, this is so much not the case it is not even funny. I love creating characters, but for the past SEVEN years since I started playing DnD/PFRPG again, I have only consistently played FOUR characters.
Because of this, I tend to invest a lot of time and energy in creating the perfect character for the vision/concept I have in mind, because so much of my RPG enjoyment will depend on this particular build.
Note that these visions/concepts have so far always been inspired by the specific game our GMs intended to play (Paizo APs and modules these days).
In this context, a GM who refuses my build had better have better reasons than "I am the LAW".
It isn't that the players can't ask for things. It is that someone needs to be the voice of reason sometimes, because that isn't always something players are good at.
Even good players.
I still do not understand why a GM, even a good GM, would be any better than a player at this.
Some people don't seem to be...After reading these latest threads they SHOULD be. :)This is what "Should" happen.
- Before the game starts, the GM "should" lay out clear guidelines and expectations of what they are seeking to run so people can decide if they want to join.
- Players "should" try to work with each other and the GM to create a group that will have a reason to exist and adventure in the setting, and propose those ideas to the GM. Ideally players will propose more than one concept for the GM (and even other players) to choose from.
- If a GM has a concern about a concept offered, the "should" discuss the concerns with the player and offer advice on what the player needs to do to address these concerns.
- The player "should" be placing the fun of the group first, and therefore take the feedback and try to make a character that will work best for everyone.
But apparently a GM saying no to a furry, luchadore mask, custom race, is unacceptable, as players are entitled to play whatever they want and the GM has to find a way to make it work rather than the player even considering another concept.
(See Kirth, leave the hyperbole to me :) )
Actually, there is another Should that has to come first :
- Before the GM invests time and efforts in his game, he "should" explain what he intends (ie, the concept of his game) to his group of players. So that, if people are not interested, he can change his concept for his game or look for another group.
Again, where are you finding all these "bad players" who are so demanding?Well, read up above....(quotes another anecdote about bad things done by nameless player)
Q: "Where did you get that blue shirt?"
A: "Look! My shirt is blue!"|
|
Again, where are you finding all these "bad players" who are so demanding?Well, read up above....
GM: You have necromancy as a forbidden school, I am already stretching to get an evil red wizard into a good party, are you kidding me?Player: It doesn't say it requires necromancy spells
GM: You are turning yourself into an undead. How would it not require necromancy.
Player: But it doesn't say...
And on and on...
That is not a demanding player. That is a houserule decided on the spot by the GM and not communicated to players before the game starts. And we all know how these are so good for the game.
I agree though that the player should have privately stated his intent to the GM as soon as he envisioned it.