It is cool.
I just cringe every time I see someone say something like, "Hey it is my game and if you don't like it go find another game." Nice way to run somebody off. I hope those are mostly exaggerations. That is the thing I would expect a kid to say. I'd expect an adult to at least try to find a way to make it work.
We all have had to work with people we want to punch in the throat. You make it work. It is part of being a grown up.
It is equally cringe-worthy to hear "I can play whatever I want, your 'story' limitations are just being a dictator."
Of course I've never heard either, and I suspect most gamers haven't either.
But hey, one good straw man deserves another.
See the edit. :D
I tend to put GMs on a higher level just because it is extremely rare for a newb to walk into a party and say they want to run the game.
It is cool.
I just cringe every time I see someone say something like, "Hey it is my game and if you don't like it go find another game." Nice way to run somebody off. I hope those are mostly exaggerations. That is the thing I would expect a kid to say. I'd expect an adult to at least try to find a way to make it work.
We all have had to work with people we want to punch in the throat. You make it work. It is part of being a grown up.
EDIT: And before Arssanguinus says it, yes as a player you got to make it work with the GM as well. We all have bosses that we'd love to kick in the ass. You sometimes have to suck it up when they have their head up their rears and just do what they want you to do.
I'd expect an adult to try to at least find a way to make a character that fits in the setting as given. See how that works? Yet you sit here and equate not allowing anything and everything as 'having your head up your rear'.
I've asked this question in every single one of these threads without an answer...
If "settings are mutable", then why should a GM even bother to try and create anything other than a setting that allows for the possibility of any character concept a player may come up with?
If I am "only obligated to allow the character insofar as I obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved", then I should never create a setting that does not, nor ever had, dark elves because you might come along and want to play one some day...
Well, you know, that is basically what Paizo seems to have done with Golarion. But leaving that aside...
I, at least, am not saying that settings should be endlessly mutable, just that there should be some room for negotiation. And more importantly, I think it depends on the setting. Some simply require more rigidity than others. I realize this is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I, for example, find it kind of ridiculous to be strictly canonical about, say, Forgotten Realms, but much more reasonable to be so about at least certain aspects of, say, Birthright or Dark Sun.
But I digress. The point is that you are all there to collaborate and have fun. Yes, you can well say to a player "surely you have some other type of more campaign appropriate character you're interested in telling a story about?" But he can just as easily respond, "Just like you must surely have some other game world you're interested in telling stories about that would be a more friendly setting for the character I want to play."
I'm just making the point that in these kinds of matters there's theoretically no reason to preference the GM's interests over the player's. Ideally, everyone would be flexible and you'd find something that you all would want to play. When I pitch characters to a GM, I usually pitch at least five. But I do the same thing when I pitch games to my players. I say "I'm really interested in running either a classic Birthright game, a sort of psychadelic take on a Dark Sun game, a Firefly influenced, pirates with hearts of gold Spelljammer game, a game set in the world of Dragon Age Origins, or just this Golarion adventure path called Rise of the Runelords. Any takers?" It's all got to go both ways...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is cool.
I just cringe every time I see someone say something like, "Hey it is my game and if you don't like it go find another game." Nice way to run somebody off. I hope those are mostly exaggerations. That is the thing I would expect a kid to say. I'd expect an adult to at least try to find a way to make it work.
We all have had to work with people we want to punch in the throat. You make it work. It is part of being a grown up.
It is equally cringe-worthy to hear "I can play whatever I want, your 'story' limitations are just being a dictator."
Of course I've never heard either, and I suspect most gamers haven't either.
But hey, one good straw man deserves another.
See the edit. :D
I tend to put GMs on a higher level just because it is extremely rare for a newb to walk into a party and say they want to run the game.
I don't think the edit helped man.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked this question in every single one of these threads without an answer...
If "settings are mutable", then why should a GM even bother to try and create anything other than a setting that allows for the possibility of any character concept a player may come up with?
If I am "only obligated to allow the character insofar as I obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved", then I should never create a setting that does not, nor ever had, dark elves because you might come along and want to play one some day...
Well, you know, that is basically what Paizo seems to have done with Golarion. But leaving that aside...
I, at least, am not saying that settings should be endlessly mutable, just that there should be some room for negotiation. And more importantly, I think it depends on the setting. Some simply require more rigidity than others. I realize this is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I, for example, find it kind of ridiculous to be strictly canonical about, say, Forgotten Realms, but much more reasonable to be so about at least certain aspects of, say, Birthright or Dark Sun.
But I digress. The point is that you are all there to collaborate and have fun. Yes, you can well say to a player "surely you have some other type of more campaign appropriate character you're interested in telling a story about?" But he can just as easily respond, "Just like you must surely have some other game world you're interested in telling stories about that would be a more friendly setting for the character I want to play."
I'm just making the point that in these kinds of matters there's theoretically no reason to preference the GM's interests over the player's. Ideally, everyone would be flexible and you'd find something that you all would want to play. When I pitch characters to a GM, I usually pitch at least five. But I do the same thing when I pitch games to my players. I say "I'm really interested in running either a classic...
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.
It is cool.
I just cringe every time I see someone say something like, "Hey it is my game and if you don't like it go find another game." Nice way to run somebody off. I hope those are mostly exaggerations. That is the thing I would expect a kid to say. I'd expect an adult to at least try to find a way to make it work.
We all have had to work with people we want to punch in the throat. You make it work. It is part of being a grown up.
It is equally cringe-worthy to hear "I can play whatever I want, your 'story' limitations are just being a dictator."
Of course I've never heard either, and I suspect most gamers haven't either.
But hey, one good straw man deserves another.
See the edit. :D
I tend to put GMs on a higher level just because it is extremely rare for a newb to walk into a party and say they want to run the game.
Yeah. The edit didn't even remotely make things better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is cool.
I just cringe every time I see someone say something like, "Hey it is my game and if you don't like it go find another game." Nice way to run somebody off. I hope those are mostly exaggerations. That is the thing I would expect a kid to say. I'd expect an adult to at least try to find a way to make it work.
We all have had to work with people we want to punch in the throat. You make it work. It is part of being a grown up.
I think it's *mostly* exaggerations (and mostly down to exaggerated examples of over-problematic players that none of us have ever experienced being used as the baseline)
I think there's a big difference between asking for what seems like a decent fit but isn't listed as being available, and making a "I play this or else" statement when it's obvious it will be completely out of place.
Likewise there's a big difference between a GM replying "no, love it or leave it", or "I'm not sure that can work. Lets talk it over and see if we can make it work, or maybe discuss alternative options"
If I'm running a demo game, I'm doing the most generic thing I can find and not caring about adhering to any particular setting, style, or theme.
If I'm running a one-shot game with friends, we're doing it simply to have fun together and not caring what it is.
If I'm playtesting a specific module, then obviously I'm going to want people willing to help playtest it and not people who will want to play something else instead.
If I've said the game is a particular setting/theme, and people have turned up to play that, I have a responsibility to the group to keep it to that setting/theme and not let it drift too far off-track (and that means not only what I do, but sometimes having to reign in what another player does)
One of the most important things I do though (bearing in mind I usually recruit per-campaign and then dissolve the group after, and make that clear up-front), is to do my best to ensure only players that will play well with others get into the group. Nobody wants to turn a leisure activity into something stressful by having a jerk in the group, for example (and bear in mind that can give a new player an equally bad experience to having a bad GM.) I've turned away maybe five people in the past ten years, and had no real issues with anyone ruining the game. I'm not sure if that says I'm a good judge of character, or just that we just don't have many jerks in the hobby :)
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.
Which is why you save yourself the aggravation of prepping the entire campaign until you know you have enough players who are really interested in playing it and won't want to play things in it that will be difficult.
I'd expect an adult to try to at least find a way to make a character that fits in the setting as given. See how that works? Yet you sit here and equate not allowing anything and everything as 'having your head up your rear'.
I would too, that is why I said, "yes as a player you got to make it work with the GM as well."
And no I did not. What I equated it to was a player that was frustrated with a GM, for whatever reason. Just like you can get frustrated with your boss because they are coming across as douche, so can a player get frustrated with their GM. What do you do as an adult in that case. Kick your boss in the ass or annoy the hell out of your GM? No. You suck it up and you do what they are telling you. It doesn't matter if you personal think they are idiots, sometimes as an adult you got to just let them do their thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.Which is why you save yourself the aggravation of prepping the entire campaign until you know you have enough players who are really interested in playing it and won't want to play things in it that will be difficult.
Then you'll be saying "ok. We've decided what to play. See you in a month"
You know, some people don't have infinite amounts of time to prep campaign material. You do it inbetween work and your life, as the opportunity presents itself.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most amazing thing about this entire thread is that it's past 1,500 comments and the only really relevant thing that's been said is "Play nice together, you know, like you were taught to in kindergarten."
But apparently that's a lesson that isn't taught that much after all, or it just doesn't stick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.Which is why you save yourself the aggravation of prepping the entire campaign until you know you have enough players who are really interested in playing it and won't want to play things in it that will be difficult.
That'd be a problem for me. I can spend a couple of months doing that prep. If I'd recruited my group before, by the time we're ready to start playing they're probably not interested any more :)
However, my method of "tell people what it's about, see who wants to play it" works there for me (and for them), so it just shows there's more than one workable solution.
I'd expect an adult to try to at least find a way to make a character that fits in the setting as given. See how that works? Yet you sit here and equate not allowing anything and everything as 'having your head up your rear'.I would to, that is why I said, "yes as a player you got to make it work with the GM as well."
And no I did not. What I equated it to was a player that was frustrated with a GM, for whatever reason. Just like you can get frustrated with your boss because they are coming across as douche, so can a player get frustrated with their GM. What do you do as an adult in that case. Kick your boss in the ass or annoy the hell out of your GM? No. You suck it up and you do what they are telling you. It doesn't matter if you personal think they are idiots, sometimes as an adult you got to just let them do their thing.
And I do "at least try". - but - and here is the important thing - trying does NOT always lead to yes, or at least not to yes in the original form. For example. 'No. There are no elves. But what was it you wanted to get out of an elf? I might have some other options that work."
The most amazing thing about this entire thread is that it's past 1,500 comments and the only really relevant thing that's been said is "Play nice together, you know, like you were taught to in kindergarten."
But apparently that's a lesson that isn't taught that much after all, or it just doesn't stick.
Hush, adults are speaking.
Hush, adults are speaking.
<throws rattle out of pram and starts crying>
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.Which is why you save yourself the aggravation of prepping the entire campaign until you know you have enough players who are really interested in playing it and won't want to play things in it that will be difficult.That'd be a problem for me. I can spend a couple of months doing that prep. If I'd recruited my group before, by the time we're ready to start playing they're probably not interested any more :)
However, my method of "tell people what it's about, see who wants to play it" works there for me (and for them), so it just shows there's more than one workable solution.
That's interesting. I can't even begin the serious work of planning a campaign until I know who the characters are going to be. How can you write a book without any characters?
Hush, adults are speaking.The most amazing thing about this entire thread is that it's past 1,500 comments and the only really relevant thing that's been said is "Play nice together, you know, like you were taught to in kindergarten."
But apparently that's a lesson that isn't taught that much after all, or it just doesn't stick.
LOL, then perhaps you should listen.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting. I can't even begin the serious work of planning a campaign until I know who the characters are going to be. How can you write a book without any characters?
There are lots of ways to build and run a campaign. Building a story around existing characters is one way, and I've done that. Another way is to build a stage that allows a wide variety of characters to exist and build their own story. I think of it as providing a stage for the characters to act on.
In the first case if a character dies or a player decides to change to a new one, the story has to be adjusted. In the second case it's just a new actor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting. I can't even begin the serious work of planning a campaign until I know who the characters are going to be. How can you write a book without any characters?Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.Which is why you save yourself the aggravation of prepping the entire campaign until you know you have enough players who are really interested in playing it and won't want to play things in it that will be difficult.That'd be a problem for me. I can spend a couple of months doing that prep. If I'd recruited my group before, by the time we're ready to start playing they're probably not interested any more :)
However, my method of "tell people what it's about, see who wants to play it" works there for me (and for them), so it just shows there's more than one workable solution.
The same way you write a movie without knowing yet who the actors will be? You set up the world and you set up sets of circumstances and possible plot directions. You pepper circumstances around the place to possibly appeal to a wide variety of character types. Then, once you have characters, its a matter of homing in on the appropriate parts and fluffing them out to fit your group. Sort of a reverse sandbox.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting. I can't even begin the serious work of planning a campaign until I know who the characters are going to be. How can you write a book without any characters?
However, my method of "tell people what it's about, see who wants to play it" works there for me (and for them), so it just shows there's more than one workable solution.
Look at any published campaign setting and adventures ;)
I don't need to write the story though. Just the Prologue and the "Guide to the World of _______". The players take Chapter One and we run with it from there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting. I can't even begin the serious work of planning a campaign until I know who the characters are going to be. How can you write a book without any characters?There are lots of ways to build and run a campaign. Building a story around existing characters is one way, and I've done that. Another way is to build a stage that allows a wide variety of characters to exist and build their own story. I think of it as providing a stage for the characters to act on.
In the first case if a character dies or a player decides to change to a new one, the story has to be adjusted. In the second case it's just a new actor.
Ninja'd
But yes, I tend towards the second. I set the stage and the myriad things going on in the world, what may or may not happen in the next while if some plucky adventurers do or do not interfere. I can merrily build all sorts of things without the PCs, with little pockets of activity here and there waiting for whomever plays to find or not as the case may be.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad you made that distinction, Viv. I agree that it's an important one.First, Erick Wilson said "sole arbiter", not "final arbiter". Those have different meanings.
I hope you realize the final arbitor is the most important one.
You talk about wiggle room from both sides but the fact is you aren't always going to get it and if I am running the game then I hold the most cards. If I don't want to budge in my restrictions then its up to you to convince everyone else to side with you.
All I have to do is pitch my idea and wait for everyone to vote.
That's interesting. I can't even begin the serious work of planning a campaign until I know who the characters are going to be. How can you write a book without any characters?There are lots of ways to build and run a campaign. Building a story around existing characters is one way, and I've done that. Another way is to build a stage that allows a wide variety of characters to exist and build their own story. I think of it as providing a stage for the characters to act on.
In the first case if a character dies or a player decides to change to a new one, the story has to be adjusted. In the second case it's just a new actor.
Ninja'd
But yes, I tend towards the second. I set the stage and the myriad things going on in the world, what may or may not happen in the next while if some plucky adventurers do or do not interfere. I can merrily build all sorts of things without the PCs, with little pockets of activity here and there waiting for whomever plays to find or not as the case may be.
The other thing it does for me is make it really easy to avoid total campaign derailment. If the players completely surprise me and go a different direction than I was thinking, it's no biggie - because I have a good idea what lies in that new direction and after a brief fluffing up of certain portions of the notes ... Its off to the races boldly going in the new direction.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the only time I've built any sort of campaign or even a few sessions around a particular set of characters has been for special purposes, or one-shot sessions.
Almost all of my campaigns are run in my 30+ year old campaign world that can be played like a giant sandbox if the players want to. My general style is to give the players a general overview of the world, find out what kind of campaign they want to run, pick the part of the world best suited for that, allow them to create characters and then provide them with some juicy bait to follow if they feel like it.
They usually feel like it. But do I care what characters they build? Not really, so long as they fit within the story. Have I expanded the setting to include new races, classes, etc? Of course I have, and I will do so again. But does that mean I'll allow a player to play "whatever they want?" Not necessarily. But it hasn't yet occurred that the player and I can't work out a perfectly acceptable solution to whatever it is they want to do with their character.
But then again, I do play with very mature, responsible adults, most of whom I've played with now for over a decade. So I consider myself pretty blessed.
Yeah, the only time I've built any sort of campaign or even a few sessions around a particular set of characters has been for special purposes, or one-shot sessions.
Almost all of my campaigns are run in my 30+ year old campaign world that can be played like a giant sandbox if the players want to. My general style is to give the players a general overview of the world, find out what kind of campaign they want to run, pick the part of the world best suited for that, allow them to create characters and then provide them with some juicy bait to follow if they feel like it.
They usually feel like it. But do I care what characters they build? Not really, so long as they fit within the story. Have I expanded the setting to include new races, classes, etc? Of course I have, and I will do so again. But does that mean I'll allow a player to play "whatever they want?" Not necessarily. But it hasn't yet occurred that the player and I can't work out a perfectly acceptable solution to whatever it is they want to do with their character.
But then again, I do play with very mature, responsible adults, most of whom I've played with now for over a decade. So I consider myself pretty blessed.
Very much this.
And I do "at least try". - but - and here is the important thing - trying does NOT always lead to yes, or at least not to yes in the original form. For example. 'No. There are no elves. But what was it you wanted to get out of an elf? I might have some other options that work."
See I would say the important thing was to actually try.
Now lets say a player approached me and said they had a really cool way they could play an elf in the setting, much cooler than my lame medusa/break enchantment thing.
As a GM, what do I do? Say screw it to the history of my setting and my extinct elf race, whose loss has left emotional scars of guilt on the other "good" races? Or do I say screw you player?
The answer is I don't do either initially. I don't knee-jerk react one way or another. Instead I engage the player. I outline my concerns with bringing an elf into my setting (e.g. I don't want to set a precedent, where I start getting PC elves popping out of the ground in my extinct elf setting). I am also open to the fact that a single solitary elf doesn't invalidate the idea that as a species elves are extinct.
Maybe before I hear the player's awesome idea, I instead try to find out what it is about elves they are interested in and if we can instead use something already in the setting instead, or maybe come up with something that could reasonably be in the setting. Maybe they like the whole fey angle of gnomes, but hate small races. Elves seemed to be the closest fit. Okay, how about we make up a raced descended from some fey like nymphs or fawns and humans. We try the "standard" approach first, no elves.
Or maybe I say, "let's hear your idea". And it blows me away and I wet my pants it is so awesome, and I go, "We have to do that!"
Or maybe we can't come to an agreement, his idea was even lamer than my medusa/break enchantment idea, and he didn't want to do that either. My suggestion of a fill in race doesn't work. So, yeah maybe I have to say, "This isn't going to work for this campaign. Sorry. We'll have to come up with something else." Frankly, I have never reached that point with a player, but I can see that it could happen.
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.
I really hope you're joking, for your own sake.
Someone wants a new race added into the campaign world?
All that requires is basically reworking one area or one ethnicity/culture of the setting.
You really aren't sounding like a good DM if one edit causes your entire setting to collapse.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.I really hope you're joking, for your own sake.
Someone wants a new race added into the campaign world?
All that requires is basically reworking one area or one ethnicity/culture of the setting.
You really aren't sounding like a good DM if one edit causes your entire setting to collapse.
But he's probably still a better and more imaginative player than the guy who can only enjoy playing "With this one inappropriate character only."
This is true, but who here has actually been that kind of a player?
So far as I've seen, that "player" is just a strawman being thrown around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player can enjoy playing another sweet concept that is appropriate to the campaign, no problem arises. So if that player doesn't exist, this thread is even more completely pointless than it appeared to be :)
I only started having problems with my former DM because EVERY campaign he made had the same restrictions, and probably still do, which means I might never be able to play some of those cool ideas I have wanted to play. He takes the fluff seriously enough for me to enjoy his games otherwise (unlike the other group, where it's sometimes hard to get immersed due to their constant joking around), but his lack of flexibility has been grating on my nerves for quite a while. I'm still enjoying the change of pace that taking the DM seat for myself has given, since I decide what exists and what doesn't. The fact that my players (the former DM being one of them) seem to be enjoying it more than his campaigns only makes it more fun for me.
While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
I only started having problems with my former DM because EVERY campaign he made had the same restrictions, and probably still do, which means I might never be able to play some of those cool ideas I have wanted to play.
Well. That certainly sucks.
I have just started a concurrent drow only Underdark sandbox campaign with a pair from my RotRL campaign who enjoy evil characters and more "interesting" races than the core ones. I wouldn't let them go all gonzo in the regular game (though I did let one go NE against my preference), so I started this game so they can get it all out :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.I really hope you're joking, for your own sake.
Someone wants a new race added into the campaign world?
All that requires is basically reworking one area or one ethnicity/culture of the setting.
You really aren't sounding like a good DM if one edit causes your entire setting to collapse.
If collapse were the threshold, maybe.
But I go with the "Make the setting worse and less fun to play" threshold.
Not everyone wants every campaign to be Mos Eisley...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only started having problems with my former DM because EVERY campaign he made had the same restrictions, and probably still do, which means I might never be able to play some of those cool ideas I have wanted to play.
And and I've said before, maybe he doesn't think your ideas are cool. Maybe he doesn't want to run your ideas. Maybe you were at the wrong table and maybe you aren't a victim, but just someone who was in a group that was incompatible with your tastes.
Rather than your old GM being a demon of some sorts who actively sought to ruin your fun.
|
|
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?
Exactly. In the examples provided all you were saying was "We should compromise."
But you seem to define compromise as "We should let the player have any concept they want, all the time. The GM can decide ways to do that."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll repeat again: should the GM (and the rest of the group) be obligated to accept this character?I'm not sure where obligation is entering the picture. My concern is making the game the most fun for everyone involved. The DM is only obligated to allow the character insofar as they are obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved.
So yes.
In order for your concern to be "making the game the most fun for everyone involved." you would actually need to be concerned about what other people think would be fun.
Since you don't seem to care what the GM (or other players) want...
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
And if a GM doesn't want to run a menagerie like that, they are a bad GM...
This is true, but who here has actually been that kind of a player?
So far as I've seen, that "player" is just a strawman being thrown around.
I've seen it twice. Two different players.
I've seen it twice. Two different players.This is true, but who here has actually been that kind of a player?
So far as I've seen, that "player" is just a strawman being thrown around.
One demanding to play a four armed sahuaghin, (he got it, but chucked a hissy fit when it was balanced), another who refused to play if he could not play an elf in a non-Tolkien setting with no elves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah-ha! This gives me an idea.
Al talks to GM about their character. In this campaign world, Drow are extinct.
They work with the GM to come up with a great back story about being the last surviving Drow, with an ongoing subplot that will hinge on their despair of being alone and possibly resolve itself somehow in a year or so (real time) of play.
Bob talks to GM about their character. Wants to play the last surviving Drow.
Story-wise, this will utterly ruin the concept for both of them. Being "the last two surviving Drow" just isn't the same in dramatic terms, and neither are happy with it.
So, everyone. You're the GM. What do you do?
Ooh I like this one... So they're both from different dimensions where they are both the last of the drow race... They stepped through a rift and wound up by staggeringly incalculable odds onto a planet... Chock full of drow and nothing else...
I love this game... Lets do another! Hyperbolethetical is my middle name!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen it twice. Two different players.This is true, but who here has actually been that kind of a player?
So far as I've seen, that "player" is just a strawman being thrown around.
I've come across it numerous times, strangely all from novice players.
Its much easier to change a character than to redo the prep for an entire campaign. So, really, they aren't equivalent things.I really hope you're joking, for your own sake.
Someone wants a new race added into the campaign world?
All that requires is basically reworking one area or one ethnicity/culture of the setting.
You really aren't sounding like a good DM if one edit causes your entire setting to collapse.
So perhaps you can explain how changing a region of humans into elves would change nothing culturally, philosophically or otherwise? If you added a long lived race that could see empires rise and fall in a single lifetime Into the middle of a place where they previously didn't exist, you honestly think there would be no ripple effect?
(A note; I don't actually have a no elves setting, but there are obvious reasons why their absence or presence would be entirely significant)
And if a GM doesn't want to run a menagerie like that, they are a bad GM...While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
It's not about good or bad. It's about what the players and DM have the most fun with.
I only started having problems with my former DM because EVERY campaign he made had the same restrictions, and probably still do, which means I might never be able to play some of those cool ideas I have wanted to play. He takes the fluff seriously enough for me to enjoy his games otherwise (unlike the other group, where it's sometimes hard to get immersed due to their constant joking around), but his lack of flexibility has been grating on my nerves for quite a while. I'm still enjoying the change of pace that taking the DM seat for myself has given, since I decide what exists and what doesn't. The fact that my players (the former DM being one of them) seem to be enjoying it more than his campaigns only makes it more fun for me.
Do you really want to be running your "cool concept" in the game of a gm who viscerally dislikes it anyway?
It's not about good or bad. It's about what the players and DM have the most fun with.And if a GM doesn't want to run a menagerie like that, they are a bad GM...While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
And if it greatly reduces the gms fun quotient, are you telling me there is no other option that would only marginally reduce the players fun quotient that he could play, thus reducing the fun quotient of the entire table by less overall?
I made this comment about 13 or 14 pages of thread earlier, right before it got hijacked by some sort of LGB/Tr---y drama that I skipped over, so I'll make it again now that the discussion seems to be back on track: "Snowflakes" (at least, those that make even the merest attempt at being at least marginally reasonable) are only a problem for novice DM's.
That word's a slur. Don't use it.
In order for your concern to be "making the game the most fun for everyone involved." you would actually need to be concerned about what other people think would be fun.
Since you don't seem to care what the GM (or other players) want...
You seem to be skipping over my posts where I say the opposite of what you claim I think. Nonetheless, I will make one concession. I don't have much sympathy for people who claim they can only enjoy the game if they get to control the choices of everyone else. I don't hold Alice's desire that no one play a spellcaster to be as important as Bob's desire to play a witch. I don't hold Chris's desire that the setting never have dragons to be as important as Diana's desire to run a campaign centered around dragons.
Of course, I don't think such people actually exist. I think Alice could enjoy the game perfectly well playing her barbarian while Bob plays his witch. I think people recognize that other people can like different things and that's okay!
And if it greatly reduces the gms fun quotient, are you telling me there is no other option that would only marginally reduce the players fun quotient that he could play, thus reducing the fun quotient of the entire table by less overall?It's not about good or bad. It's about what the players and DM have the most fun with.And if a GM doesn't want to run a menagerie like that, they are a bad GM...While pondering on the actions of my former DM, I realized the ultimate irony. My current group consists of a Hobgoblin, a Ratfolk, a Tiefling and a Human. The Human is obviously the Special Snowflake around (his background was bordering on Gary Stu now that I think about it), and that character is played by my former DM. This character only ended up "normal" due to Reincarnate, which turned the man into a Bugbear. The fact that said player had hogged the spotlight so much that the other players complained to me about it just highlights the hypocrisy of that man.
At least I have the moral high ground, since I've never mocked his ideas behind his back like he has mine.
Depends on how much it really does reduce the GM's fun quotient.
I am willing to reduce mine for the sake of my players, since they are my friends.
So riddle me this. Does my willingness to do that make me any better or worse as a DM?
The overall fun at my table hasn't been reduced despite my reduction in DM fun, which is still high.
On the contrary, compared to my former DM, the overall fun at the table has been higher than average.