| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I notice a common theme.
The people experiencing issues with all these problem players are the ones who are saying "If the DM says 'This is The Campaign I'm running, and I will run no other, and will tolerate no alterations,' and they come to the game..."
The people who have no such issues are the ones saying "OK, so all our friends got together to play, and I said, 'What kind of campaign are you guys intrested in...'"
Maybe the problem is only half due to the players, if it can be so easily prevented?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, and the most over looked aspect in all these discussions, is the individuals table and tastes. With due respect to Umbriere Moonwhisper, I honestly would never want to have them at my table. In the two topics I have encountered Umbriere most of the character concepts proposed seem to have at least 5 to 6 adjectives to describe them out the gate and all revolve around a specific theme, that typically doesn't show up amongst my usual players and me. Now, that's my preference nothing wrong with Umbriere's playstyle and tastes, they just aren't mine and I don't think either of us would have fun sharing the gaming table.
When a player shows up the day of a game with a character they knew was at the very least questionable to the agreed terms without talking with the DM, that's a red flag to me that the player is very unwilling to work in the agreed terms. Now, for arguements sake, my players and I ALL agreed on doing a Forgotten Realms(FR) game (using Pathfinder rules) that is a reenactment of the Dwarves flight from Mithral Hall to Icewind Dale. FR is very much a kitchen sink setting, if a player asked me if they could play a Saurial (a race that is in FR) I'd start discussing with the player the why's and how's and I'm sure we can find a way to explain how a Saurial helped the dwarves. That's cool all the way.
Now if agreed to do Dragonlance right before the Cataclysm and the player wants to play a Saurial, I'd have to say no, simply because they don't exist in Dragonlance. That's not to say I won't help them, the continent of Taldas had Lizardfolk, there could be a Lizardfolk in Istar during that time. The endpoint is we both work to find something that can fit. If the player just showed up with a Saurial for Dragonlance then I'm already on edge because of the lack of communication, and a sign that the player has to stand out in a crowd even during another PCs story arc for a session or two.
(For the above examples let us assume that the player was aware that Saurials did not exist in Dragonlance, I'm not going to fault someone for not knowing every detail of a campaign world.)
Players and DMs both want to feel that what they are doing contributes to the game and the world. If I roll up a spear wielding fighter, I do want to know that he has the potential to influnce the world, whether by killing the demon lord or just rescuing the princess. As a DM I want a world that my players feel like they are a part of and can influence it. Though also as a DM, I'd like my players to respect some of the choices that go into the world and game, even if that means I don't fully devulge the reasons they can't have a specific race or class.
Except: There IS an agreement already in place, Kirth. We're getting at the situation where said player wants to play his half-whatever AFTER agreeing to play a certain campaign, with certain limitations. THAT is what we're discussing now.
I would also like to add that it's entirely possible that this view of oddball races and characters is a CONSEQUENCE of having had to deal with quite a few such players, while the "What do you want to play?" style is a result of not having had to deal with them.
I notice a common theme.
The people experiencing issues with all these problem players are the ones who are saying "If the DM says 'This is The Campaign I'm running, and I will run no other, and will tolerate no alterations,' and they come to the game..."
The people who have no such issues are the ones saying "OK, so all our friends got together to play, and I said, 'What kind of campaign are you guys intrested in...'"
Maybe the problem is only half due to the players, if it can be so easily prevented?
I think the bigger problem is actually that these same topics get brought up in just a small subsection of the gaming community, with the same few people answering it. While we all me represent a differnt opinion/playstyle/niche, we still are a very small portion of the entire gaming community.
Except: There IS an agreement already in place, Kirth. We're getting at the situation where said player wants to play his half-whatever AFTER agreeing to play a certain campaign, with certain limitations. THAT is what we're discussing now.
That doesn't sound like said player did agree; it sounds like he got peer-pressured (at best) into something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except: There IS an agreement already in place, Kirth. We're getting at the situation where said player wants to play his half-whatever AFTER agreeing to play a certain campaign, with certain limitations. THAT is what we're discussing now.
Then there is approiximately one person on the whole of the boards who disagrees. There's really no substantive discussion that I'm aware of. If everyone gets together and says "no elves, we're sick of them!" and the DM says, "Right on! Here's a no-elf campaign for you!" -- and Bob shows up with an elf, then Bob is a dick. That should have been settled months ago.
But what a lot of people seem to be saying is exactly what I posted -- they disguise their pet peeves as "homebrew setting restrictions" and then use that as a yardstick to declare people to be "problems."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do this apparently very weird thing. I play with my friends. And as a DM, I consider myself a host. It is ofcourse MY game. But I am essentially hosting a gathering for my friends to come to my house (this isnt required but even if its at someone else's place or a store, the dm is still hosting) and have fun. I was raised with very specific ideas about obligation of host and guest. Hosts should work to see to it that their guests have a good time. Guests shouldnt be jerks or exploit that hospitality.
With that in mind, if my friend, is excited about playing a bird man from the land of the green mushrooms, I can work with that. I want my friend to be excited and interested in his character, and in general, my group has moved towards collective setting creation rather then the dm creating things. Now if my same friend wanted to be a bird man because of some super combo from some obscure sourcebook that will make him invincible...i'll smack him upside the head.
Conceptual snowflakes, awesome, lets see what you can come up with roleplaying the half monkey half bird that walks through town.
Mind you I have run campaigns that have been restrictive. Usually they were based around a certain concept, (often drawing from a certain fictional universe), but if I'm running an adventure path by paizo in golarion (which is most of what I do now adays) then its already a kitchen sink setting, one more crazy thing isnt going to offset the giant spaceship in numeria, the western movie going on in the mana wastes or the kung fu movie that exists over the crown of the world.
I really dont understand why someone introducing something else to my world would 'ruin' it or 'break immersion'. Why is the addition of a new element to a fantasy setting immersion breaking? Maybe I've spent too much time in the era of retcon comic books and am too flexible that way? I dont know, it just doesnt seem like a problem.
I notice a common theme.
The people experiencing issues with all these problem players are the ones who are saying "If the DM says 'This is The Campaign I'm running, and I will run no other, and will tolerate no alterations,' and they come to the game..."
The people who have no such issues are the ones saying "OK, so all our friends got together to play, and I said, 'What kind of campaign are you guys intrested in...'"
Maybe the problem is only half due to the players, if it can be so easily prevented?
I have a menu of campaign options that I have prepared. You can play one of them. Or you can gm. They have restrictions at varying levels and of varying types. If a player has the right to say "I'm not interested in playing unless I can play an 'x' why do you find it any less 'right' for a gm to do the same about a campaign world?
So, as a host, Kolokotroni, if you have invited a bunch of people for a tex-mex dinner, and one guest then, said evening when you have prepared the food already, insists that you instead make ice cream fondue for everybody, what would your reaction be?
So, as a host, Kolokotroni, if you have invited a bunch of people for a tex-mex dinner, and one guest then, said evening when you have prepared the food already, insists that you instead make ice cream fondue for everybody, what would your reaction be?
Isn't he really pulling out said food from his car, and asking to eat it? I mean, yeah, you have to watch him eat it, and it's rude as hell to do that without asking you first, but it's not like you're preparing it, or as if anyone else has to eat that dish/play that character.
Maybe a better analogy is that you're hosting a potluck TexMex dinner, and you make tacos, and Steve makes Mexican rice and brings that, and Joe makes guacamole and brings that, and Bob makes brownies and brings them. Arguably, Bob would have kept the theme a lot better by making churros, but unless everyone's allergic to the smell of chocolate, will his intransigence ruin the rest of the dinner?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, as a host, Kolokotroni, if you have invited a bunch of people for a tex-mex dinner, and one guest then, said evening when you have prepared the food already, insists that you instead make ice cream fondue for everybody, what would your reaction be?Isn't he really pulling out said food from his car, and asking to eat it? I mean, yeah, you have to watch him eat it, and it's rude as hell to do that without asking you first, but it's not like you're preparing it, or as if anyone else has to eat that dish/play that character.
Except, in a game, its like you are dumping it in a communal soup pot.
Except, in a game, its like you are dumping it in a communal soup pot.
See "maybe a better analogy is...," above.
You don't have to play his character. He does. You're just stuck sitting at the same table where he's doing it, and he's not bringing something that you wanted.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I notice a common theme.
The people experiencing issues with all these problem players are the ones who are saying "If the DM says 'This is The Campaign I'm running, and I will run no other, and will tolerate no alterations,' and they come to the game..."
The people who have no such issues are the ones saying "OK, so all our friends got together to play, and I said, 'What kind of campaign are you guys intrested in...'"
Maybe the problem is only half due to the players, if it can be so easily prevented?
Citation? Because I think you are projecting.
Except, in a game, its like you are dumping it in a communal soup pot.See "maybe a better analogy is...," above.
You don't have to play his character. He does. You're just stuck sitting at the same table where he's doing it, and he's not bringing something that you wanted.
Except in the analogy you mention, his food doesn't interact with your food. You can just eat what is on your plate and ignore what's on his. You can't do that in game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citation? Because I think you are projecting.
"Okay, people, we're going to play an intrigue/political campaign set in Kyonin, specifically its court and its noble villas."
"If I've decided on an intrigue/political campaign (as opposed to a dungeon crawl), then that's what I'll end up running."
"It's not about what is reasonable, in your eyes, but the DMs vision is for the base campaign."
"Supply and demand says 'start GMing yourself or get used to the GM you have setting whatever limitations he feels like', or more succinctly, 'suck it up'."
etc., etc., etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except in the analogy you mention, his food doesn't interact with your food. You can just eat what is on your plate and ignore what's on his. You can't do that in game.
You still don't play his character, though. You see and smell his food, you don't eat it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If GM allow character that not fit in the world then HE will not have fun. And as GM it is my responsibility to deliver fun to players, as player i must ensure my GM is having fun.
Except in the analogy you mention, his food doesn't interact with your food. You can just eat what is on your plate and ignore what's on his. You can't do that in game.You still don't play his character, though. You see and smell his food, you don't eat it.
And if he brings Limburger cheese, it's going to ruin the other guests appetites.
And if he brings Limburger cheese, it's going to ruin the other guests appetites.
And, as we've all agreed, if the other guests ask him not to bring it, and he does it anyway, he's being a dick.
What we don't agree on is whether, if the person organizing the dinner personally dislikes it, but everyone else is fine with it, is he still a total dick for asking to bring it? You say "YES!"; Ciretose says "all guests always agree with the host," and I say, "not so much."
And if he brings Limburger cheese, it's going to ruin the other guests appetites.Except in the analogy you mention, his food doesn't interact with your food. You can just eat what is on your plate and ignore what's on his. You can't do that in game.You still don't play his character, though. You see and smell his food, you don't eat it.
Not if they've got decent taste it won't. :P
If GM allow character that not fit in the world then HE will not have fun.
Seems like your fun is pretty fragile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if he brings Limburger cheese, it's going to ruin the other guests appetites.And, as we've all agreed, if the other guests ask him not to bring it, and he does it anyway, he's being a dick.
What we don't agree on is whether, if the person organizing the dinner personally dislikes it, but everyone else is fine with it, is he still a total dick for asking to bring it? You say "YES!"; Ciretose says "all guests always agree with the host," and I say, "not so much."
And I don't think the guests get to outvote the host in his own home.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not if they've got decent taste it won't. :PAnd if he brings Limburger cheese, it's going to ruin the other guests appetites.Except in the analogy you mention, his food doesn't interact with your food. You can just eat what is on your plate and ignore what's on his. You can't do that in game.You still don't play his character, though. You see and smell his food, you don't eat it.
Point being, acting like the other player can play whatever he wants and it won't effect, one way or another, the fun of everyone else at the table seems rather erroneous as a concept to me ...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If GM allow character that not fit in the world then HE will not have fun.Seems like your fun is pretty fragile.
Seems like that players fun is pretty fragile, if he can't have it without that specific character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, you have a VERY problematic way to quote people. One of those was from another thread, and the others were taken out of context. Basely done.
Honestly, you don't see that what one player plays impacts the other players at all, Kirth? Then I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.
Seems like your fun is pretty fragile.
It is, if you look at the game as a story, that players write along with you. If one of them turn heroic story into a goofy mess it is not fun for me, and most likely other players.
...because Michigan state has a poor defense and cannot sustain offesive drives from far backfield, it's painfully obviousSee, Sissyl this is the very reason we have trouble fixing the monk class. I really do not understant why you can't build a better pancake with four less colors than that.
Gwuh ug ub nurb???
I do this apparently very weird thing. I play with my friends.
That isn't weird.
And as a DM, I consider myself a host.
Though that opinion might actually be weird.
You (and certain others) may have to accept that this isn't necessarily the case with everyone else. Some people might consider that a game is just a bunch of friends getting together, and that the person agreeing to DM isn't any different than anyone else who got together. (I.e. the DM isn't necessarily any sort of "host" at all.)
Something to keep in mind, since the whole rest of your post is predicated on your interesting opinion.
It might account for your confusion.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So reading through...
1) Player presents strange concept, GM refuses to even discuss - Bad GM
2) Player presents strange concept after game has been decided by all, and concept goes against the campaign - Bad Player
3) Player presents strange concept, GM declines, player insults GM - Bad Player
4) Player presents a strange concept, GM and player discuss it, concept may or may not be allowed - All is right.
Overly simplistic, but does that sound right?
Kirth, you have a VERY problematic way to quote people. One of those was from another thread, and the others were taken out of context. Basely done.
All from this thread.
Honestly, you don't see that what one player plays impacts the other players at all, Kirth? Then I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.
Impacts? Sure, that's why I keep saying if they all don't like it, he shouldn't do it. What I don't agree with is that, if ONE other person doesn't like it, that other person should declare that she can never have any fun now, and the entire game is just ruined, ruined, ruined!
|
@ OP - You lost me at loli characters...
TBH I am much more permissive with character concepts that my posts would let on, but that is simply because i know my players and i know that they can and will make it work. But, I've been playing with them for years.
Whenever i run a FLGS game, i make certain to disallow anything that I deem problematic. Or, quite frankly, that would annoy me. Stuff like:
- Anything anime-ish (i love Anime, i hate Anime fanboys)
- Anything weird (like the aforementioned (another thread) awakened giant dung beetle wizard)
- Any sort of hybrid of some such that is not in the bestiaries, and still, the 'monster' races are subjected to heavy screening.
- Anything 3pp
Things i have allowed in my home game:
- Gobling gunsilnger (he was a riot)
- An expy of the ugly guy from Good Bad and the ugly. Played to perfection.
- A half-satyr. Just for the hooves and libido.
- A narcoleptic fighter. (sometimes we had to pause combat from laughing)
But all of this stuff was played by players i knew wouldn't be disruptive to the game in any way. And who knew how to play.
When encountering a new player, i will disallow any weird stuff until they prove themselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If GM allow character that not fit in the world then HE will not have fun. And as GM it is my responsibility to deliver fun to players, as player i must ensure my GM is having fun.
As a GM and a player its my job to make sure everyone is having fun. Ideally your all friends, and you all came together to have fun. Acting against that is self destructive imo.
Overly simplistic, but does that sound right?
Sounds about right. I think you could reword #2 though. You'd be shocked how many people I've met thinks something makes perfect sense, but not everyone will, which is why discussion always helps.(Such as me thinking brownies makes since at a tex-mex meal. Not too keen on tex-mex apparently...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is important to define what a special snowflake character is. To me it is someone that goes outside of the games normal character creation rules in order to support their concept. Now this can be good or bad depending on the creation. I have seen munchkin special snowflakes and I have seen cool snowflakes (and allowed them). Usually the less mechanically rigorous the snowflake the better.
As long as the concept fits within the theme of the campaign and the other players are okay with the concept I allow the snowflake, but if they happen to die I generally don't allow a replacement snowflake. I also try to have only one snowflake at a time so they can actually be sort of special. Though with my groups these types are pretty rare anyways since we all prefer standard fantasy tropes.
What is appropriate criteria for a snowflake character will vary from group to group as it really is all about that groups preferences. Allowing all snowflakes or disallowing all snowflakes doesn't make anyone a better gamer or a better group they just have different preferences. Each group must decide how their preferences align and how best to have fun playing the game. Fun isn't the most important thing, it is the only thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If GM allow character that not fit in the world then HE will not have fun. And as GM it is my responsibility to deliver fun to players, as player i must ensure my GM is having fun.As a GM and a player its my job to make sure everyone is having fun. Ideally your all friends, and you all came together to have fun. Acting against that is self destructive imo.
I guess i am too selfish then, because i cant put much effort into something i do not like :(
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that is my point. If you create a special snowflake, and then through the course of play every interaction your character has is no different from other player’s character interactions (shop keepers, barmaids, local constables, farmers, children in the streets all treat your character the same way they treat the Halfling Rogue) then where is the harm? If the player is allowed to feel good about the game because their choice was respected, then that is great in my opinion, but if the player has as a goal the attitude of being a point of disruption every time there is an interaction with their character, then the concept of the special snowflake isn’t the problem, the player’s understanding of what the game is supposed to mean to everyone involved is the problem.
You still don't play his character, though. You see and smell his food, you don't eat it.
I think these two items above bring up good points that may not have been examined enough in these 'special snowflake' discussions. What, really, is the expectations of the player that brings in something that is, for lack of a better word, 'weird'?
Some people have suggested that good DMs try to work a concept into the game, even if the DM and/or some (or all) players find the concept 'distasteful' (for whatever reasons). What are the expectations of the player who gets to play said character?
If the players find that character distasteful, they will simply ignore said character, only interacting with him in asking what his next combat action will be, and outside of combat treating the character either as if he wasn't there, or just as another human. Is the player playing the 'weird' character okay with that?
Same goes for the DM - if the DM finds the character distasteful, the DM will simply ignore the character and just treat him by all NPCs and the world as just another human. Is the player okay with that? That, essentially, the only uniqueness that exists is the race name written on the player's character sheet and what is going on just inside his head, because it's not coming out during the game (since one/some/all people find it distasteful).
Or, does the player with the weird character want to foist it on the other players and/or DM, and say "you have to interact with me as well!"?
What is the player really expecting? Because even if the players are all fine with it, the DM is under no obligation to put up with something he doesn't like. At best, if the DM finds it distasteful and allows it anyways, is the player okay with being treated by the NPCs/world as just another human? If so, then there aren't any problems. If not, then the player is a problem.
Though this:
Seems like your fun is pretty fragile.
continues to be complete an utter nonsense. People's preferences are people's preferences, and what's fun for them is not up for debate. The above has no context and is meaningless drivel. Avoid that stuff, please. It's unhelpful.
I guess i am too selfish then, because i cant put much effort into something i do not like :(If GM allow character that not fit in the world then HE will not have fun. And as GM it is my responsibility to deliver fun to players, as player i must ensure my GM is having fun.As a GM and a player its my job to make sure everyone is having fun. Ideally your all friends, and you all came together to have fun. Acting against that is self destructive imo.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation. I wouldn't expect you to play a game you don't like or with people you don't and if you did I'd try and make it better. That's part of friendship right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though this:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
"Seems like your fun is pretty fragile."
continues to be complete an utter nonsense. People's preferences are people's preferences, and what's fun for them is not up for debate. The above has no context and is meaningless drivel. Avoid that stuff, please. It's unhelpful.
I expect you to equally call everyone to the carpet who uses derogatory terms like "special snowflake," or who asks why it will ruin your fun if your character is banned. People's preferences are people's preferences, and what's fun for them is not up for debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the group insists on playing odd characters in a intrigue setting, after the DM clearly stated what kind of game it is, the onus is on the players.
Why does the DM get to declare what kind of game it is without the input of the players (who, in your scenario, obviously want to play in a game that allows for their "odd character" concepts)?
And if you reply back with, "Because he's the DM," I'm going to ask you to actually justify that by breaking it down, so let's just skip right to that, hm?
I expect you to equally call everyone to the carpet who uses derogatory terms like "special snowflake," or ask why it will ruin your fun if your character is banned. People's preferences are people's preferences, and what's fun for them is not up for debate.
I agree. Unlike some, I don't begrudge people who want to play a certain thing - if that's what they find fun, that's what they find fun. They shouldn't play in a campaign if they won't have any fun, no question.
"Your fun is pretty fragile" should neither apply to DMs nor players - it's a dumb statement, period.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crikey, these threads are getting to me. I just agreed with Scott Betts on something?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation. I wouldn't expect you to play a game you don't like or with people you don't and if you did I'd try and make it better. That's part of friendship right?
Yea, along with verbal, somatic and spell component parts. Because friendship is magic.
If i to run game where demons pouring from gate and Legion gathers all able people from around the world then wierd races or clases are welcome, but if i to run campaign about few young people from small village starting their advanture then there is not much chance they will be 2 aasimars, tengu, lizardman and half-vegepygmy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the group insists on playing odd characters in a intrigue setting, after the DM clearly stated what kind of game it is, the onus is on the players.Why does the DM get to declare what kind of game it is without the input of the players (who, in your scenario, obviously want to play in a game that allows for their "odd character" concepts)?
And if you reply back with, "Because he's the DM," I'm going to ask you to actually justify that by breaking it down, so let's just skip right to that, hm?
Because a camel is a horse designed by committee.
But anyway: "What makes you so special that you get to play your special snowflake anyway?"
Because I GMed the last three campaigns that the current GM played in, that's what.
If i to run game where demons pouring from gate and Legion gathers all able people from around the world then wierd races or clases are welcome, but if i to run campaign about few young people from small village starting their advanture then there is not much chance they will be 2 aasimars, tengu, lizardman and half-vegepygmy.
They had a very open minded village. My last character came from one sort of like that. Details won't be given.
