|
Man, if we were playing on a Sultan you wouldn't need chains for me.I do have an idea for a human paladin I want to play. Basically free Raise Dead from 7th level on isn't special snowflakey, right?If TOZ, Viv, and Cir*were chained to a The Sultan! with a few of the other posters and told that they must play RoRL together or the universe was doomed
…I think it would be hilarious.
I'm planning on building my own one day, but for now I think my home set up with a converted pool table in my fireplace room is pretty sweet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I agree that the GM ultimately makes the call about what he will and won't allow in the game. He's the one putting in the time to plan/run the thing. If he's willing to cancel the game if no one wants to play characters that conform to the world he envisions, then what more can be said? That's his prerogative.
For myself, I am sometimes very restrictive and sometimes very permissive, depending on what interests me about the campaign I am running. I am just not going to run a Birthright campaign, for instance, if everyone is going to insist on playing dhampirs/kitsune etc. Because in campaign worlds like that, the restrictions and limitations are exactly what make the campaign setting interesting. In other words, some settings are (and inherently must be) minimalist. If, on the other hand, I just really want to run Barrier Peaks adapted to Pathfinder rules, then I don't really care what campaign setting I use, and my players can play any damn thing they want, because in that case my attention and interest are focused on other things.
This is where I sympathize, to some degree, with people who want to play unique things. I think GMs often are not good at communicating the specific genre conventions of the world their campaign exists in, but still become furious at players who (predictably) fail to read their minds. I believe that as a GM you have a responsibility to understand that you are working from preconceptions about genre that other people may not share or be aware of. It is an important part of your job to make your vision of the game's setting and genre (two different things) clear.
Remember that "Fantasy" is actually a very broad genre that includes High Fantasy, Historical Pseudo-Realism, Sword & Sorcery, Wu Xia and Weird Fiction, to name just a few. I think one of D&D's failings has been that it shoves all of these conventions together in the rules, which often causes frustration when you get, say, a GM who want to create stories and challenges aimed at Fafhrd, but a player who wants to be Kubigami Jubei. Sensitivity to genre is very important on both sides of the GM screen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where I sympathize, to some degree, with people who want to play unique things. I think GMs often are not good at communicating the specific genre conventions of the world their campaign exists in, but still become furious at players who (predictably) fail to read their minds. I believe that as a GM you have a responsibility to understand that you are working from preconceptions about genre that other people may not share or be aware of. It is an important part of your job to make your vision of the game's setting and genre (two different things) clear.
I used to think I was a little OTT doing a handout sheet about the campaign-to-be when asking if people wanted to play it.
Then I saw the Player Guides for Paizo's APs. The campaign I'm working on next is likely to come with an 8-page booklet :)
|
|
I'm planning on building my own one day, but for now I think my home set up with a converted pool table in my fireplace room is pretty sweet.My setup is pretty good.
The uber Cheesex :)
I'm planning on building my own one day, but for now I think my home set up with a converted pool table in my fireplace room is pretty sweet.My setup is pretty good.
I spent about a year making a nice set of wargaming terrain boards. Then I stopped wargaming. Wish I'd spent the time making an RPG table now.
Although if I went and finished the half-built Helm's Deep boards it could still make a neat Pathfinder scenario...
|
|
I'm planning on building my own one day, but for now I think my home set up with a converted pool table in my fireplace room is pretty sweet.My setup is pretty good.I spent about a year making a nice set of wargaming terrain boards. Then I stopped wargaming. Wish I'd spent the time making an RPG table now.
Although if I went and finished the half-built Helm's Deep boards it could still make a neat Pathfinder scenario...
I bought a pool table from a guy, and he had been using a large board as a cover. I used gaming paper and plexiglass to make the cover into a board that I take on and off the pool table when we play. And I have a Chessex for quick change or mobile games/
Works really well so long as I don't mix up the dry and wet erase markers...
I think that many times in this thread, although we've spoken about compromise and communication, we're still a little light on the how. With exceptions like pres man's example, most of what I've seen has been ways to work the character into the setting (last drow! he was frozen like Captain America! He was cursed!) or talk of reskinning something.
I'm still seeing little compromise on the player's part outside of things like pres man's example, where being something that is clearly not allowed in the setting carries consequences. The subtext in many cases seems to be "let me find a way to work this into the game or else", which is not really a compromise from what I can tell.
For me, and my players, sometimes no is really no. I'm sure that you and I could come up with half a dozen scenarios where the special idea could be fabricated. But could that idea be created just as well without the restricted class/race/item?
A straw snowflake IS the one who must ONLY play that ONE character, the game be damned. Straw because I don't believe real snowflakes (who are very creative people) would limit themselves to just ONE character option. And only BAD snowflakes would limit themselves by NOT working with others the GM especially.Knew a guy who would only ever play one specific character regardless of the game. Even when we asked him to play something different, it was still the same character in disguise.
In my 2E days we had a player who played a half ogre barbarian called Gonad every game... GM would say ok this game is about knights loyal to an overthrown king you all have enough XP to be an 8th level fighter no wizards, ok Andrew what's your character concept, he would say a half ogre barbarian called Gonad.... The party ended up having a trial executing Gonad that game because he murdered unarmed prisoners who had given their oaths not to take up arms again.
We convinced him to change his character eventually - his new go to character was a 6' Amazon with double D breasts called Sam Fox.......
|
In my 2E days we had a player who played a half ogre barbarian called Gonad every game... GM would say ok this game is about knights loyal to an overthrown king you all have enough XP to be an 8th level fighter no wizards, ok Andrew what's your character concept, he would say a half ogre barbarian called Gonad.... The party ended up having a trial executing Gonad that game because he murdered unarmed prisoners who had given their oaths not to take up arms again.
We convinced him to change his character eventually - his new go to character was a 6' Amazon with double D breasts called Sam Fox.......
Ours was a Chaotic Evil Unseelie Fey (Dragon Compendium) Warlock (Complete Arcane) with angelic wings and the winter power (10ft aura forcing a penalty to saves equal to her Charisma).
Hated fire creatures and ugly monsters.
We asked him to try something different for Red Hand of Doom, so he rolled a Lawful Good Cleric of Pelor. Who proceeded to continue attempting to slaughter every creature we ran up against.
Given she has repeatedly stated that players character concept is important and constantly lists setting details as "unimportant" how is this NOT what is being said?GEEEET YOUR STRAAAWMEN HERE!Good, that's great to hear.
So to demonstrate how that is true, please provide me a couple of examples where you think the GM is perfectly reasonable in saying "No, you can't play your [good aligned drow, awakened pony, sentient mud geyser, etc.] in this campaign setting" because so far I've only seen you explain how it is completely unreasonable. Thus my confusion with your position.
You seem to be identifying being a special snowflake player/DM with being in the wrong on a point of conflict. My contention isn't that one group or another is in the right on this conflict. Rather, my point is that it possible to resolve these conflicts so that everyone can have what they want. The DM is only singled out due to their position of power within the group.
I don't think special snowflake players/DMs exist. Or at least, if they do exist, they are incredibly rare. What I think happens is a group of people come together and have desires that, on the face of it, appear to be contradictory. However, I think that a group of friends coming together to play Pathfinder can work it out so that everyone gets what they want. Sure, people might have to compromise on some unimportant details, but I think everyone can end up with the essential components of what they wanted.
... So you are saying that both can win by the gm giving in completely, the player getting exactly what they want and the gm getting nothing.
Niiiiice.
Odd definition of a compromise, but if you are the player, niiiiice.
Well, if you look at the post you were specifically quoting when you fabricated "Viv's" definition of 'compromise', it said:
What I think happens is a...
The post that ciretose quotes directly beneath yours, which in essence says "you don't have to include all fantastic elements in the campaign, just any fantastic element a player wants."
I think that many times in this thread, although we've spoken about compromise and communication, we're still a little light on the how. With exceptions like pres man's example, most of what I've seen has been ways to work the character into the setting (last drow! he was frozen like Captain America! He was cursed!) or talk of reskinning something.
I'm still seeing little compromise on the player's part outside of things like pres man's example, where being something that is clearly not allowed in the setting carries consequences. The subtext in many cases seems to be "let me find a way to work this into the game or else", which is not really a compromise from what I can tell.
For me, and my players, sometimes no is really no. I'm sure that you and I could come up with half a dozen scenarios where the special idea could be fabricated. But could that idea be created just as well without the restricted class/race/item?
Here are three quotes from Vivianne Laflamme, discussing how the character could sacrifice resources (skill points and/or wealth) to aid in fitting into the setting.
"...Or the drow character could have ranks in disguise. Or a hat of disguise. ..."
It maybe that I don't understand what you mean by compromise. Perhaps you could give an example of what how a reasonable GM and a reasonable player who was interested in playing a race that typically is seen as "one of the bad guys" could work together to maximize the fun for everyone.
A bit off point, but I remember someone saying something like, "Why is your as a player fun more important than mine as a GM." Or something close to that. I would agree, that a player's fun is not more important than the GMs, but it is also not less important either.
The post that ciretose quotes directly beneath yours, which in essence says "you don't have to include all fantastic elements in the campaign, just any fantastic element a player wants."
Honestly, if there is something that neither GM or the players are interested in, why would you waste a lot of time trying to include it?
I think that many times in this thread, although we've spoken about compromise and communication, we're still a little light on the how. With exceptions like pres man's example, most of what I've seen has been ways to work the character into the setting (last drow! he was frozen like Captain America! He was cursed!) or talk of reskinning something.
I'm still seeing little compromise on the player's part outside of things like pres man's example, where being something that is clearly not allowed in the setting carries consequences. The subtext in many cases seems to be "let me find a way to work this into the game or else", which is not really a compromise from what I can tell.
For me, and my players, sometimes no is really no. I'm sure that you and I could come up with half a dozen scenarios where the special idea could be fabricated. But could that idea be created just as well without the restricted class/race/item?
Here are three quotes from Vivianne Laflamme, discussing how the character could sacrifice resources (skill points and/or wealth) to aid in fitting into the setting.
"...Or the drow character could have ranks in disguise. Or a hat of disguise. ..."
It maybe that I don't understand what you mean by compromise. Perhaps you could give an example of what how a...
The problem is the concept that compromise has to mean something that specifically was stated to, and does not exist in the world has to spring into existence rather, than for example finding an alternate race or class or combination of things that can fulfill a concept that do, in fact, actually exist there as a compromise.
Not the politicians idea of a compromise, which is "I get 95% of what I want and you get a few token sops to make it look like you got something."
I think that many times in this thread, although we've spoken about compromise and communication, we're still a little light on the how. With exceptions like pres man's example, most of what I've seen has been ways to work the character into the setting (last drow! he was frozen like Captain America! He was cursed!) or talk of reskinning something.
I'm still seeing little compromise on the player's part outside of things like pres man's example, where being something that is clearly not allowed in the setting carries consequences. The subtext in many cases seems to be "let me find a way to work this into the game or else", which is not really a compromise from what I can tell.
For me, and my players, sometimes no is really no. I'm sure that you and I could come up with half a dozen scenarios where the special idea could be fabricated. But could that idea be created just as well without the restricted class/race/item?
Here are three quotes from Vivianne Laflamme, discussing how the character could sacrifice resources (skill points and/or wealth) to aid in fitting into the setting.
"...Or the drow character could have ranks in disguise. Or a hat of disguise. ..."
It maybe that I don't understand what you mean by compromise. Perhaps you could give an example of what how a...
... Your answer makes no sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just the ones that I want.
Me always getting what I want regardless of what anyone else wants is reasonable.
People not wanting things I want is unreasonable.
Does that about sum up your position?
Yes, that is my position. You caught me. When I said stuff like
Rather, my point is that it possible to resolve these conflicts so that everyone can have what they want... However, I think that a group of friends coming together to play Pathfinder can work it out so that everyone gets what they want. Sure, people might have to compromise on some unimportant details, but I think everyone can end up with the essential components of what they wanted.
or
I do think that it's possible for both of us to get what we want.
or
The goal is for everyone to have fun. Each player being able to play the character they want contributes to that. The DM running the game they want to run contributes to that. The kicker is that, outside of really extreme cases, it's possible for everyone to get what they want at the same time.
or
I do think it's possible to run a game where everyone can have what they want. I can run the campaign I want with the setting details I want while each player can play the character they want. I prefer this. The game is more fun if everyone is playing the character they want and no one feels like their ideas were shot down.
or
I'm not demanding everyone else change their characters. I could have lots of fun, even if someone plays a race I don't like.
or
It's possible for everyone to have what they want (unless what you want is to micromanage the choices of others)... When I DM or play, I want other people to play characters they want to play. People are more invested in roleplaying and in the game that way which makes it overall more enjoyable. Even in cases where people have played characters I haven't liked, I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do. I don't need my friends to completely conform to what I like in order to enjoy playing Pathfinder with them. Because I have this attitude, I have personally never had any problems with "special snowflake" characters. I've never felt that one of my friends playing the character they want to play was ruining the game for me.
what I really meant was that I only care about getting what I want and no one else should get to do what they want.
Just the ones that I want.
Me always getting what I want regardless of what anyone else wants is reasonable.
People not wanting things I want is unreasonable.
Does that about sum up your position?
Yes, that is my position. You caught me. When I said stuff like
Rather, my point is that it possible to resolve these conflicts so that everyone can have what they want... However, I think that a group of friends coming together to play Pathfinder can work it out so that everyone gets what they want. Sure, people might have to compromise on some unimportant details, but I think everyone can end up with the essential components of what they wanted.or
I do think that it's possible for both of us to get what we want.or
The goal is for everyone to have fun. Each player being able to play the character they want contributes to that. The DM running the game they want to run contributes to that. The kicker is that, outside of really extreme cases, it's possible for everyone to get what they want at the same time.or
I do think it's possible to run a game where everyone can have what they want. I can run the campaign I want with the setting details I want while each player can play the character they want. I prefer this. The game is more fun if everyone is playing the character they want and no one feels like their ideas were shot down.or
I'm not demanding...
Yet you have also stated that "the setting doesn't have to contain all fantastic elements just every fantastic element any player wants". Which is, in essence the player automatically wins the argument, and get to put in an elf where there were none before, and then the GM in return gets damage control. Instead of, for example, the player trying to find an alternate route to realizing their creative vision that does not include the nonexistent element with the assistance of the gm. In essence, you say 'everyone gets what they want except for unimportant details'. And then constantly call the elements of the setting 'unimportant details'. You honestly don't see where that particular grouping leads?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are three quotes from Vivianne Laflamme, discussing how the character could sacrifice resources (skill points and/or wealth) to aid in fitting into the setting.
"...Or the drow character could have ranks in disguise. Or a hat of disguise. ..."
"At least a couple of those (using diplomacy or using disguise) don't make any changes to how the race is perceived."
"What's disruptive about a character who disguises herself as an elf everywhere they go? There's even a 2nd level spell in the ARG to do this for 24 hours, so it's really easy. I can even use a mundane disguise on top of the spell, so that if it's dispelled there's no issue"
It maybe that I don't understand what you mean by compromise. Perhaps you could give an example of what how a reasonable GM and a reasonable player who was interested in playing a race that typically is seen as "one of the bad guys" could work together to maximize the fun for everyone.
A bit off point, but I remember someone saying something like, "Why is your as a player fun more important than mine as a GM." Or something close to that. I would agree, that a player's fun is not more important than the GMs, but it is also not less important either.
Perhaps it is because I see many of the examples given as trying to get around the restriction rather than trying to work within the framework. There isn't much of a compromise going on; if the character is going to be disguised 99.999999999% of the time as another race, then what is the point? Could the character not work as the disguised race?
The amount of imagination and work being put into getting around things somewhat mystifies me, which is why I believe these are theoretical positions and not real. And, as I've said, if we've got this much problem with just the race issues, I'd hesitate to play with the person given that I use house rules. This is why I have a 'whatever' setting so that people can blow off steam with some strange creation if they must.
But trying everything in your power to get around a restriction isn't compromising .. that involves giving up something.
Again, this is why some people should not play at the same table. Which is great! Not everyone likes the same play style, or music, or food, or partners, or ...
...I think that many times in this thread, although we've spoken about compromise and communication, we're still a little light on the how. With exceptions like pres man's example, most of what I've seen has been ways to work the character into the setting (last drow! he was frozen like Captain America! He was cursed!) or talk of reskinning something.
I'm still seeing little compromise on the player's part outside of things like pres man's example, where being something that is clearly not allowed in the setting carries consequences. The subtext in many cases seems to be "let me find a way to work this into the game or else", which is not really a compromise from what I can tell.
For me, and my players, sometimes no is really no. I'm sure that you and I could come up with half a dozen scenarios where the special idea could be fabricated. But could that idea be created just as well without the restricted class/race/item?
Here are three quotes from Vivianne Laflamme, discussing how the character could sacrifice resources (skill points and/or wealth) to aid in fitting into the setting.
"...Or the drow character could have ranks in disguise. Or a hat of disguise. ..."
It maybe that I don't understand what you mean by
When the issue in question is that something DOESN'T EXIST then making it exist and imposing a punishment on the player is not a compromise. Its like saying, for example, that you are a little bit pregnant.
A compromise would be finding an alternate way to express the concept that doesn't violate the setting background.
The problem is the concept that compromise has to mean something that specifically was stated to, and does not exist in the world has to spring into existence rather, than for example finding an alternate race or class or combination of things that can fulfill a concept that do, in fact, actually exist there as a compromise.
Actually the quotes were from talking about a setting where drow do exist, but are view almost exclusively as an evil only race meant for killing by the "heroes".
Not the politicians idea of a compromise, which is "I get 95% of what I want and you get a few token sops to make it look like you got something."
And yet the player was still willing to let the GM have that 95% and take a measly drow character that burnt a significant portion of the character's resources to make it work.
Perhaps it is because I see many of the examples given as trying to get around the restriction rather than trying to work within the framework. There isn't much of a compromise going on; if the character is going to be disguised 99.999999999% of the time as another race, then what is the point? Could the character not work as the disguised race?
The amount of imagination and work being put into getting around things somewhat mystifies me, which is why I believe these are theoretical positions and not real. And, as I've said, if we've got this much problem with just the race issues, I'd hesitate to play with the person given that I use house rules. This is why I have a 'whatever' setting so that people can blow off steam with some strange creation if they must.
But trying everything in your power to get around a restriction isn't compromising .. that involves giving up something.
Again, this is why some people should not play at the same table. Which is great! Not everyone likes the same play style, or music, or food, or partners, or ...
Well it seems to me that you honestly think that a player have to expend valuable resources to fit the character in isn't "giving up something". I have to wonder why that is. My players always view skill points and wealth as limited resources, if they were told they have to spend some of them just to play their character, I imagine they would be a bit ticked off. To do so willing seems to be giving something up to me. But maybe I'm crazy like that.
Also I think we have different ideas about what getting around something is. To me paying for the right, isn't getting round it. Trying to get it without paying is.
EDIT:
Also if the character had initially wanted to play drow cleric that was evangalizing to the masses trying to get them to see that not all her people were evil and they just needed help, well that aspect of the character now has to be dropped. She has to play a less obvious role. So saying nothing was sacrificed about the character concept is also wrong.
(Psst, Arssanguinus. When you quote someone, you don't have to include everything automatically inserted into the textbox.)
Yet you have also stated that "the setting doesn't have to contain all fantastic elements just every fantastic element any player wants".
Yes, that is what I said. When I DM, if a player wants something to be an aspect of the setting, I'm willing to let that happen. For example, last game I ran, someone wanted to play a kobold paladin. Suddenly, an appropriate order of paladins came to exist in the world and a place on the map I hadn't fleshed out came to have kobolds living there. I really liked his character! I'm glad the campaign was run with that character and not with what would have been my player's second (or third or etc.) choice. My player played a character he was invested in and it made the roleplaying, the encounters, and the game in general more fun.
And then constantly call the elements of the setting unimportant details'.
I could probably stand to clarify what I mean by unimportant details. I don't think every element of the setting is unimportant. When I DM, there are setting details that exist because I specifically wanted to do something with them. This typically includes things like major NPCs, locations, artifacts, organizations, etc. Unimportant details are those which are more incidental.
Maybe it's easier to see what I mean if I analogize to characters. Say I want to play a character who focuses on illusions. Being able to cast illusion spells is an important detail. Unimportant is whether I put a skill rank in Disguise or in Sleight of Hand. If I needed to instead put those skill ranks in Knowledge (Planes) so that someone in the party had that skill, I'd do so. That change to my character doesn't impact anything essential to what I wanted to play.
Or, suppose I have an idea to run a campaign focusing around an extinct civilization of elves. An important detail would be that this civilization is extinct. An unimportant detail would be that every elf ever in the world was part of this civilization. I can compromise on the latter and nothing essential about the game I want to run is changed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it is because I see many of the examples given as trying to get around the restriction rather than trying to work within the framework. There isn't much of a compromise going on; if the character is going to be disguised 99.999999999% of the time as another race, then what is the point? Could the character not work as the disguised race?
The amount of imagination and work being put into getting around things somewhat mystifies me, which is why I believe these are theoretical positions and not real. And, as I've said, if we've got this much problem with just the race issues, I'd hesitate to play with the person given that I use house rules. This is why I have a 'whatever' setting so that people can blow off steam with some strange creation if they must.
But trying everything in your power to get around a restriction isn't compromising .. that involves giving up something.
Again, this is why some people should not play at the same table. Which is great! Not everyone likes the same play style, or music, or food, or partners, or ...
Well it seems to me that you honestly think that a player have to expend valuable resources to fit the character in isn't "giving up something". I have to wonder why that is. My players always view skill points and wealth as limited resources, if they were told they have to spend some of them just to play their character, I imagine they would be a bit ticked off. To do so willing seems to be giving something up to me. But maybe I'm crazy like that.
Also I think we have different ideas about what getting around something is. To me paying for the right, isn't getting round it. Trying to get it without paying is.
Actually, I said that your example and others showed some compromise and communication. As far as the rest, paying for the right is great, if it fits in the setting. If being told that there are no elves, no way no how in the setting and you still persist in attempting to play an elf, even if paying for it in some way, you are attempting to get around the issue. It doesn't make elves exist if you say "but I'll give you ten skill points and my unborn child for the opportunity."
Again, sometimes no is no. Not everything is negotiable, and concepts do not rot. Jot that one down and pull out the next.
I could probably stand to clarify what I mean by unimportant details. I don't think every element of the setting is unimportant. When I DM, there are setting details that exist because I specifically wanted to do something with them. This typically includes things like major NPCs, locations, artifacts, organizations, etc. Unimportant details are those which are more incidental.Maybe it's easier to see what I mean if I analogize to characters. Say I want to play a character who focuses on illusions. Being able to cast illusion spells is an important detail. Unimportant is whether I put a skill rank in Disguise or in Sleight of Hand. If I needed to instead put those skill ranks in Knowledge (Planes) so that someone in the party had that skill, I'd do so. That change to my character doesn't impact anything essential to what I wanted to play.
Right. So when you come to me with your Human illusionist, and I say "meh, there's an awful lot of human PCs in this game", and you say "well its the illusionist part that was important, we can change the race", I see that as both of us working together to fit your character into the campaign nicely (although its not that good an example as I'd not have a problem with an all-human group to be honest, but it serves to get the point across I guess)
The chances are, the things that are important to you are unlikely to clash with the things that are important to me. As I'm the type to have published those things in the campaign guide I've given to anyone who displayed an interest in playing, I think it's fair enough to say you wouldn't even be asking for a spot in the game if you'd seen something in there you just couldn't work with (and I've probably stuck an asterisk against the small number of things I'm unwilling to change while I'm happy to discuss changes to any of the rest), so we can hopefully reduce the chance of that clash to nil.
I'd like to hope (although as usual, I'm probably hoping too much) that example is something nobody here can find any problems with, and that maybe - just maybe - we're approaching common ground here.
When the issue in question is that something DOESN'T EXIST then making it exist and imposing a punishment on the player is not a compromise. Its like saying, for example, that you are a little bit pregnant.
A compromise would be finding an alternate way to express the concept that doesn't violate the setting background.
The problem with what you're saying is that none of this stuff we're talking about exists. It's a fantasy world. You're making it all up anyway. So it's partially a question of how collaborative that process is supposed to be. Many people here are raising the legitimate question, "Why is the GM the sole arbiter of what does and does not exist in the story that we are collaboratively telling about this made-up fantasy world?" You have to admit they have a point. Now, the typical response (whether explicitly stated or not) is "I, the GM, have more power over deciding what is in this made up fantasy world because I am putting far more time than you, the player, into making it come alive." And that's fair enough. But what if the "snowflake" player in question also spends his time running a game that you, the GM, play in, and lets you play whatever you like?
These issues are especially thorny when the campaign setting is published, but there is a disagreement of interpretation. Quite often I find myself in a position, as a player, where I have a pretty good idea of the genre of a given campaign setting, and of what kinds of things would reasonably exist therein, that is pretty widely divergent from the GM's interpretation of the same setting. All setting text is at least semi-negotiable; it is simply not specific enough to be otherwise. We are always interpreting the text when we run a published setting. And just because something is not specifically described as existing in the setting does not mean that it necessarily does not exist there, or that its inclusion presents any conflict with the setting's themes and mood. To go a step beyond that: many GMs are even willing to change or ignore certain details of a setting in order to satisfy a pet preference, idiosyncrasy or plot element they want in the game, but are unwilling to extend this same laissez-faire attitude to the player's character concept. That can be as annoying to players as off the wall player requests often are to GMs.
Now, the typical response (whether explicitly stated or not) is "I, the GM, have more power over deciding what is in this made up fantasy world because I am putting far more time than you, the player, into making it come alive." And that's fair enough. But what if the "snowflake" player in question also spends his time running a game that you, the GM, play in, and lets you play whatever you like?
That's a good example to illustrate something I mentioned earlier: The right solution for one group isn't necessarily the right solution for another group.
In terms of social contracts, the players in your example have already formed a permissive one, which makes it far more unfair to say "no" to a player in that situation as it would with, say, my earlier example of a GM setting up a game and then having random strangers asking if they can join.
That's something people tend to overlook in their arguments in either direction, as they tend to think of how they play and place themselves in the examples, without taking into account that the example group may not be organized in the same way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want. If groups actually sat there and tried to discuss every little thing that everyone wanted the game would never begin.
Just because someone lets you do something in their game doesn't mean you have to in yours so lets not use that as a legitimate response.
@Erick
The most important reason the DM is the final arbitor is because the book says so and it does so for a reason.
When the issue in question is that something DOESN'T EXIST then making it exist and imposing a punishment on the player is not a compromise. Its like saying, for example, that you are a little bit pregnant.
A compromise would be finding an alternate way to express the concept that doesn't violate the setting background.
The problem with what you're saying is that none of this stuff we're talking about exists. It's a fantasy world. You're making it all up anyway. So it's partially a question of how collaborative that process is supposed to be. Many people here are raising the legitimate question, "Why is the GM the sole arbiter of what does and does not exist in the story that we are collaboratively telling about this made-up fantasy world?" You have to admit they have a point. Now, the typical response (whether explicitly stated or not) is "I, the GM, have more power over deciding what is in this made up fantasy world because I am putting far more time than you, the player, into making it come alive." And that's fair enough. But what if the "snowflake" player in question also spends his time running a game that you, the GM, play in, and lets you play whatever you like?
These issues are especially thorny when the campaign setting is published, but there is a disagreement of interpretation. Quite often I find myself in a position, as a player, where I have a pretty good idea of the genre of a given campaign setting, and of what kinds of things would reasonably exist therein, that is pretty widely divergent from the GM's interpretation of the same setting. All setting text is at least semi-negotiable; it is simply not specific enough to be otherwise. We are always interpreting the text when we run a published setting. And just because something is not specifically described as existing in the setting does not mean that it necessarily does not exist there, or that its inclusion presents any conflict with the setting's themes and moods. To go a step beyond that:...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the character is imaginary too. The player does have control over their character, created from elements which exist within that world, and then that player, through their actions, can alter the world in permanent ways.
The most important reason the DM is the final arbitor is because the book says so and it does so for a reason.
First, Erick Wilson said "sole arbiter", not "final arbiter". Those have different meanings.
Second, the book says lots of things that are changed by DMs and groups. I'm sure there's lots of reasons behind the XP tables printed in the book, but I don't use them when I DM.
At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.
Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'
|
|
Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.
And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."
@Erick
The most important reason the DM is the final arbitor is because the book says so and it does so for a reason.
There are plenty of people that debate this premise, nevermind what the book (and by the way, which book? -plenty of game systems have rulebooks that say nothing of the sort)says. Hence the rise in "narrativist" gaming. Now, I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do think you have to seriously consider and understand their point of view before you can write it off. The "GM is god/my way or the highway" school of thought frankly sounds a bit dated and out of touch these days.
Furthermore, the importance of the "GM is final arbiter" stance, at least as it is usually understood, really applies only to the things that happen once play begins. It is much less important to the pre-game stage, which is when most issues about character and setting get resolved.
And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.
I don't actually see anything particularly wrong with the above situation. Bill and Bob don't get to play in this game together, and given their incompatibility over this particular issue it's probably for the best.
So out of curiosity, does anyone actually see anything wrong here?
First, Erick Wilson said "sole arbiter", not "final arbiter". Those have different meanings.
Glad you made that distinction, Viv. I agree that it's an important one.
And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.
Having an element removed doesn't make the game rigid just because you wanted that specific element and only that specific element and could take nothing else.
And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.
Or, as another option, "Hey guys, Bill and Bob cannot agree. Anybody else have something they want to run instead?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, as another option, "Hey guys, Bill and Bob cannot agree. Anybody else have something they want to run instead?"And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.
"Nope, not really."
<pause for Bill and Bob to leave>
"Sure, but I don't want Bill or Bob in it, as they don't seem to be able to work together, and it'd be wrong to invite one but not the other."
So Vivianne, if someone was running a classic Dragonlance game and I wanted to play a drow (no drow in Ansalon), would the GM be within their rights to deny me?
In my view, the onus would be on me to fit the setting.
Edit: change drow to orc - there was a DL module that included drow. But regardless, a drow would be incongruous in a "classic" Dragonlance game.
Or, as another option, "Hey guys, Bill and Bob cannot agree. Anybody else have something they want to run instead?"And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.
To which the answer is almost universally "Oh I don't have the time.". At least in my experience.
So Vivianne, if someone was running a classic Dragonlance game and I wanted to play a drow (no drow in Ansalon), would the GM be within their rights to deny me?
In my view, the onus would be on me to fit the setting.
But, as I understand her position, its illegitimate to limit things on a home brew but ok if its a PUBLISHED setting.
So Vivianne, if someone was running a classic Dragonlance game and I wanted to play a drow (no drow in Ansalon), would the GM be within their rights to deny me?
In my view, the onus would be on me to fit the setting.
Edit: change drow to orc - there was a DL module that included drow. But regardless, a drow would be incongruous in a "classic" Dragonlance game.
Drow in Dragonlance were just plain evil/exiled elves. Not the underground spider worshippers we all know and hate.
So Vivianne, if someone was running a classic Dragonlance game and I wanted to play a drow (no drow in Ansalon), would the GM be within their rights to deny me?
In my view, the onus would be on me to fit the setting.
Edit: change drow to orc - there was a DL module that included drow. But regardless, a drow would be incongruous in a "classic" Dragonlance game.
I don't think drow are incongruous in a Dragonlance game, what with the Dragonlance module with drow you mentioned. Also, generic heroic fantasy is generic heroic fantasy. If drow had existed in Dragonlance from the beginning, no would would think it weird, as there isn't that much difference between Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms.
As for orcs, they do exist in Ansalon. I remember in one of the published books (don't remember which one specifically, sorry) there was a group of people who were orcs who renounced the evil goddess whose name I can't remember and began worshiping the good god whose name I can't remember.
Those were ogres not orcs
As for orcs, they do exist in Ansalon. I remember in one of the published books (don't remember which one specifically, sorry) there was a group of people who were orcs who renounced the evil goddess whose name I can't remember and began worshiping the good god whose name I can't remember.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_%28Dungeons_&_Dragons%29#Orcs_in_Drago nlance
We can apparently blame bad writing/editing/product approval for it, but yup they were accidently included in a published book so it's kinda tricky to de-canonise them after that. Or to put it another way, if TSR allowed it, a GM has less ground to stand on.
I believe they were ogres (Irda), not orcs. But the question remains unanswered. If the goal of the campaign is a classic Dragonlance theme/feel, does the GM need to accomodate a character that runs counter to that goal?
I believe the module in question was called "Wild Elves". Had a cool Brom cover of a Kagonesti. I'm not sure if it's considered canon or not, but it was a sweet module. Quite lengthy, too.