| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erick, what I see is a little different. While I am willing to admit that there are GMs who feel their "wants" trump the player's, I don't think that's any more common than players who think their "wants" trump the GM's.
What I see some of in this thread, and I think is a legitimate point, is that while the wants of each are equivalent, the work involved to accommodate the other's wishes is usually not. In general it is much more work for a world-building GM who has invested years in their creation to accommodate the player's request than it is for the player, who is generally only creating a single character.
It is this imbalance that creates a problem for compromise since the position in the middle of the two "wants" generally has far, far more "effort" involved on one side.
That needs to be acknowledged as part of the discussion. It matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a stronger believer in the setting is the GM's area of concern and the PC is the player's area of concern. That is because those are the things they will be responsible for running as the game goes on. Thus they should be very careful of infringing on the other person's area of concern.
What does that mean for me. If a character requires a major adjustment in the setting, that is the player, perhaps unintentionally, infringing on the GM's area of concern. In that case the player can request a change in the setting, but should realize that the GM has ultimate say in the setting and the character may not be supported, thus the player should come up with a new character that fits the setting.
On the other hand, if the character would have little to no effect on the setting, then the GM should be very careful of micromanaging the player's character choices.
Now there may be cases where a player may think a character has no noticeable effect on a setting, but does. And a player can be upset for what they think is the GM unfairly infringing on their area of concern. And there can be cases where a GM makes changes to a setting that aren't necessary for a character to be in it. And the GM can be upset for the what they think is the player unfairly infringing on their area of concern.
Regarding long term campaign settings. The same applies from above, but I would like to point out that unless you are carving your setting details in stone, there is nothing stopping you from making a change for one campaign, and then later deciding that feature doesn't really fit and removing it from future campaigns. In fact, I would wager good money that if someone did have a campaign setting going for 20-30+ years, they have already done this on at least a few occasions.
EDIT: And again, I am not saying they HAVE to make the change, after all it is their area of concern, merely that doing so need not ruin the campaign setting for all time. THAC0 didn't have to be part of the Realms for all times, just because it was in an earlier edition, thankfully.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pres, believe it or not, I take a certain amount of pride in the fact that "my" campaign world has a rather considerable amount of "player created content" in it. In fact many NPCs in the world were once PCs that have been retired as PCs but live on as NPCs. Including one dwarf that has become a demigod with his own followers and temples.
I find a pretty significant amount of pleasure in having my world be a world where choices matter, and history is made, recorded and frequently sung about by bards. I might almost say that if the campaign doesn't have the potential to significantly impact the future history of my world, I'm not sure why I would want to go to the trouble of running the campaign.
So to run a short campaign that has no lasting impact on the world is actually exactly the opposite of one of my primary goals and sources of satisfaction for my world.
I can only speak for myself, but I frankly have no desire to do what you suggest. Although I have a few times in the past run true one-off campaigns that have no connection to my world. I prefer not to do that because any campaign I run is going to require quite a bit of work on my part, and I sort of like being able to see the results of that work years later.
So both of your claims are that there has never been times when you included something in your decades spanning setting that later you decide wasn't really a good fit. You'll have to forgive me being skeptical of such claims.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know for my group, my players and I are generally pretty picky when it comes to races, as none of us are all that interested in Mos Eisley. There's at least a few people in this thread that would get bodily thrown out of our group by my players (much less before I get my hands on them) if they somehow sneaked by a screening process due to their 'weird' race preferences. (For example, even the idea that a DM is 'obligated' to 'seriously consider' an orc or a drow in an agreed-upon Dragonlance campaign would make my players aghast at such idiocy - instead, simply don't be a dishonest git and actually come out and say you're not interested in a DL campaign, for pete's sake.)
In the end (and this bears repetition), the DM is not in a service position, and is under no obligation to DM anything he/she doesn't like; and a player is under no obligation to play anything that he/she dislikes. End of story. Sometimes a campaign just isn't compatible with certain
...
Sometimes it is difficult to avoid being incendiary or insulting on these threads, but I have taken a vow to restrain myself as best I can. I will say, though, that the quotes above...well, they do not show the same restraint. What's more, they represent what seems to me a calcified and narrow-minded point of view that is entirely out of touch with the complexity of modern gaming culture.
Arnwyn, who said that anyone is being dishonest? The situation you mentioned regarding the Dragonlance game happened to me, but with some significant differences. The GM in question wanted to run Dragonlance and, out of his five players, two (of which I was one) were seriously underwhelmed by the idea, and the other three were more or less neutral about it. And I DID tell him that I was not especially interested in the Dragonlance setting, but it was all he wanted to run. So I said fine, but work with me regarding character leeway. Needless to say, he was recalcitrant.
And by the way, I was not asking to play half-celestial ooze drow. I wanted one character (an elf) to have some extremely minor nature type powers that were somewhat supernatural. He wouldn't go for it because "Elves aren't like that in Krynn". This was said with authority and borderline indignation (much like many of arnwyn's comments above), as if Krynn actually exists, which of course it does not. Another character (a human fighter with a bastard sword, for crying out loud) was too amoral (not evil, mind you, just sort of mercenary) for his taste: "Dragonlance is about heroism." Another used a scorpion whip, and apparently those don't and must never exist in this non-existent fantasy world either (I think I even suggested we could visualize it as a flail). Another was supposed to be something roughly like a Buddhist, but sadly "no religion like that exists in Krynn." And so on and so on. A couple of the other players met similar resistance.
It's not as simple as "the GM isn't obligated to run something he doesn't like and the players aren't obligated to play something they don't like." Often GMs and players have a lot of trouble just getting together enough people for a campaign, and thus are more or less forced to compromise assuming they want to have a game at all. And it's not "idiocy" to want to play X race, or to be less than thrilled with Y campaign setting, though I agree that players should be honest about their preferences. Now, you did say that the GM doesn't need to consider allowing (pick your poison) in an "agreed upon" game. But that is adding a parameter that I, at least, was not previously dealing with. Granted the situation is less fluid when there is overwhelming and obvious preference, at a given table, for one particular gaming style which another player is attempting to disrupt. But that, to me, is so removed from what I am saying as to be almost a separate issue. In my experience, many if not most groups are much more mixed and varied in their tastes/styles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So both of your claims are that there has never been times when you included something in your decades spanning setting that later you decide wasn't really a good fit. You'll have to forgive me being skeptical of such claims.
You are welcome to be skeptical of whatever you like Pres. The fact of the matter is that once something has been added to my world, it has remained. I have never "backed out" any aspect once it has been introduced.
In fact the idea has truly never occurred to me before. It would violate so many core principles of my world that it has never even been anything I've thought about.
So, yes, that does mean I am quite deliberate about what I add to it.
Edit: As soon as I sent that I realized that there is actually one thing that has been changed, and it has been a real pain in the ass. And that is the theology. Originally the world had Egyptian and Norse gods, as well as some custom Native American theologies. But as the divine classes became more and more aligned with the actual gods, and the gods became proprietary ones, I eventually decided that I no longer wanted to reconstruct every divine class and instead created a "meta" layer of theology so that the theology of the PF universe appears to be the theology of the world, even though there is actually another layer beyond the theology that I have maintained. So, purely for convenience, my world's "gods" actually create avatar gods to allow for the PF theology to apply.
But that's the only retconning I recall doing in the world.
So both of your claims are that there has never been times when you included something in your decades spanning setting that later you decide wasn't really a good fit. You'll have to forgive me being skeptical of such claims.You are welcome to be skeptical of whatever you like Pres. The fact of the matter is that once something has been added to my world, it has remained. I have never "backed out" any aspect once it has been introduced.
In fact the idea has truly never occurred to me before. It would violate so many core principles of my world that it has never even been anything I've thought about.
So, yes, that does mean I am quite deliberate about what I add to it.
So how many elves have to take their race as a class in your setting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how many elves have to take their race as a class in your setting?So both of your claims are that there has never been times when you included something in your decades spanning setting that later you decide wasn't really a good fit. You'll have to forgive me being skeptical of such claims.You are welcome to be skeptical of whatever you like Pres. The fact of the matter is that once something has been added to my world, it has remained. I have never "backed out" any aspect once it has been introduced.
In fact the idea has truly never occurred to me before. It would violate so many core principles of my world that it has never even been anything I've thought about.
So, yes, that does mean I am quite deliberate about what I add to it.
You are confusing the game rules with the setting. Also, see my edit above.
You are confusing the game rules with the setting.So how many elves have to take their race as a class in your setting?So both of your claims are that there has never been times when you included something in your decades spanning setting that later you decide wasn't really a good fit. You'll have to forgive me being skeptical of such claims.You are welcome to be skeptical of whatever you like Pres. The fact of the matter is that once something has been added to my world, it has remained. I have never "backed out" any aspect once it has been introduced.
In fact the idea has truly never occurred to me before. It would violate so many core principles of my world that it has never even been anything I've thought about.
So, yes, that does mean I am quite deliberate about what I add to it.
I am comparing the setting with "an issue of verisimilitude and game immersion?" Those are your words with respect to an issue of a character leveling. If your elves no longer grow in power in the same way, the setting has changed, the elves have changed. You have removed a feature of the development of elves in your setting and put a new one in. You don't see this as a major change in your paradyme for the discussion, for you it can't be because if it was your claim would be in error.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The creation and setup of the world is the one time in the whole process the spotlight gets to be on the gm - the rest of the time it goes to the players. Unless you are suggesting the gm is a public utility, there should, perhaps, be SOMETHING within the game that is actually "his"
If someone wants to run their game as a commune, they are welcome to it. Ts not interesting me to creat and put forth the effort to create a world if I don't have executive control over its general contents. Especially when the players do(or should) be getting control thereafter.
First of all, I should probably point out that somewhere around 80+% of my total lifetime gaming time has been spent GMing, not playing. I am sympathetic to what you're saying. But I'm not suggesting that the GM give up all content control. But I AM suggesting that most GMs can probably give up a lot more than they think they can, and still be true to the spirit of their campaign setting. I certainly found that to be the case.
One problem with this thread is that everyone is choosing the most aggravating possible hypotheticals, like catfolk gunslingers. Yes I recognize that players want unreasonable and even ridiculous things. No you shouldn't have to indulge those. But a lot of the time, the knee jerk reflex you have developed by fending off catfolk gunslingers and half-fiend minotaur samurai winds up actually causing you to turn away things that actually might not have been bad at all if you had stopped to consider them.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pres, I am done with trying to reason with you. I am trying to explain how things work in my world and how I game. I am attempting to be rational and reasonable in explaining how the process of world creation works in relation to "special snowflakes". That's all. I'm not attempting to justify and pass your inspection for how I create and maintain my world.
You are just trying to "win".
Fine. You win.
I am weary of these never ending contests on these boards to see who can outlast the other in torturing logic and rhetoric to score points.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erick, I have not even begun to describe the adjustments and inclusions I have done to accommodate players.
And frankly, if someone actually wanted to play a catfolk gunslinger I would probably finally get off my lazy ass and update my world to include the catfolk race and introduce gunslingers. I really don't have an objection to doing it, it's just a lot of work and lately I've had other projects that I have wanted to invest my time in. That's all.
My whole effort here (probably wasted and better spent updating my world with catfolk, frankly) was to demonstrate how it is not a simple request to make an adjustment to a GM like me who takes their world as seriously as I do.
Anyway, if my points are not clear and compelling enough to reasonable, rational lurkers, they never will be. So I'll again back away from this radioactive subject and let it return to its "you suck!" "No, YOU suck!" regularly scheduled programming.
Just realize that your issues are self-inflicted in this case. "If I include something once, I am now forced to have to deal with it as major part of my setting for now until the end of time." That is a standard that not even game companies hold themselves to. In that case, your settings do qualify as "carving your setting details in stone" and above statement doesn't relate to your settings at all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just realize that your issues are self-inflicted in this case. "If I include something once, I am now forced to have to deal with it as major part of my setting for now until the end of time." That is a standard that not even game companies hold themselves to. In that case, your settings do qualify as "carving your setting details in stone" and above statement doesn't relate to your settings at all.
You win. I do it all wrong and have done it all wrong for 35 years. Too bad I intend to continue doing it all wrong in perpetuity.
Good luck in your gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I have to work out the impact that gunpowder and guns have on my world. Now I know a lot of the folks on this thread are going to say "heck, that's no problem! Just have someone invent one!" But it's not their world. It's mine. Technology is a key aspect of my world. To introduce guns would mean introducing the history behind the development of both guns and gunpowder. What would that mean for my world-spanning spelllcasting illuminati? Well, right of the bat, they probably would have an interest in the development of such an impactful new technology. What would they do? I'd have to spend quite a bit of time working it out. Which is WHY I don't yet have guns in my world.Then there are catfolk. If they exist, I have to figure out where. That may mean creating an entirely new habitable part of the world. It may mean putting them in the heart of darkness in my southern continent. But wait, what sort of culture do they have? How do they govern themselves? How do they trade with the people around them? What are their main political goals and motivations? What are the trade routes?
These are very important things for me to work out. And they can't be done overnight. They can't be done in a week. Not to the level of detail and consistency that I personally feel is necessary for me to remain invested in my own gaming world.
So if someone wants to play a catfolk gunslinger, my immediate reaction is going to be "Well, that's a problem unless you are willing...
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, you are actually being very reasonable about how you're considering the player's request. On the other hand, I feel like you're way overthinking things.
For example, I used to oppose guns in my campaigns for the same sorts of reasons you mention. Then, finally, I said: "Screw it. This is a fantasy world where technology just does not, for whatever reason, advance in the same way as it does in the real world. So, for whatever reason, they have invented basic guns but will never invent better ones, in the same way that they have learned to forge steel but will never learn to split the atom. It is simply outside the area of this story's concern, and worrying about it is more trouble than it is worth, considering some players really want to use this stuff."
And incidentally, I can even envision, if I try hard enough, a catfolk gunslinger concept that could be really cool. But still I admit that such a character is, in reality, over 99% likely to be ridiculous.
Oh, and yes, the player who wants to play something not already in the world should at the very least be willing to cooperate with you in creating and integrating the relevant world-features needed for the character to exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erick, on more than one occasion I've had a player offer some very good suggestions for how to work something they like into my campaign. I would certainly sit down with the player requesting to play a catfolk gunslinger and take suggestions from them.
But there are still some things I have not accepted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just one final comment. "My world" is no longer even merely my own since another GM has liked it so much that he has begun using it himself and has added his own history and world building to it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, well... I guess one more..
I am not suggesting, much less asserting, that the way I do things is the "right" way. It's just A way, and it's THE way I do it.
Like virtually every other endeavor undertaken by the human species, it has positives and negatives.
In my opinion, based not only on my own judgment, but based on the overwhelming statements of my players that they would rather play in one of my campaigns than any other campaign world they've played in, I feel like at least for our group the benefits outweigh the negatives.
And, yes, one negative is that sometimes a player has to accept the word "no." But they get a whole lot of "yes" to make up for it, and they seem to find the balance amenable. And one "yes" that seems to REALLY engender player appreciation is when their PCs become part of the ongoing mythology, legends and history of the world. Seriously, they REALLY seem to like that. A lot.
You two should totally game together.
And I've actually gone from no lawful good deities and no paladins, to a mountain city state with a warrior culture led by the priesthood of a lawful good god ... And a campaign centered around a party of three paladins, a ranger and a sorcerer. Because one player took the time and effort, and carefully constructed his idea to not only fit, but to fill a hole.
It was placed in a place that had not yet been detailed, and fit into the few details there were, and the cosmology, and the history rather well.
You do the work, you can, quite often, get the reward.
Um ... Yes? Not in this thread, but the prime example was a setting that had only deities with a neutral component to their alignment by nature, and no paladins - however, one player described and pitched to me a specific city state, looking through the campaign background, tied it into the history of the place, pitched a deity which fit very well into the background and history as presented ... And the campaign went from no paladins to three paladins, a sorcerer and a ranger. And the focus ended up shifting to that city state after some jerry rigging and alterations to make it fit a few things they didn't know about yet. The player put in work to make it fit in and fit in well, and it got included.
Ps: the god was, indeed, lawful good. And its hard to use those examples because then I would end up posting an entire campaign synopsis book in this thread which would be, shall we say, rathe wall of text. Any restriction described merely in terms of blurbs without the supporting material will sound odd.
Never saying I will never include something - but I do reserve unabashedly the right to say no, that isn't being added.
|
I tend to see if I can include a character that is non-core in my games. And adapt accordingly. I once had a player play a Lawful Evil half-orc fighter who eventually became lawful neutral and the champion of a good aligned god. We both made it work. I do think both sides need to allow for some sort of compromise. Sometimes. Not all the times. As sometimes you just can't add a special snowflake to every game. That being said as long as both the DM and players remain respectful to each other. Any DM that points to the door and tells me to leave I leave. Better no gaming than bad gaming imo. Any Dms pulling power trips or being rude and disrespectful at my place will be kicked out. Rain, snow, hurricane I don't care. Spent 10-20 years working on your special snowflake of a setting too bad. Next time make sure to pull the "DM is god" attitude at your place. Same thing applies to players. Being disrespectful. Demanding to play something even after I politely said no. I don't have time for that BS.
Sometimes a player is just not cut out to properly place a special snowflake. A player wanted to play a Drow. The player wanted to model the character after Drizzt. Not a Ranger yet do his part to show that not all Drow are evil etc. The DM warned the player from the start. That unlike Drizzt he would be facing a lot of racism and hate for being a Drow. The player understood and seemed to accept that. Instead the player expected to just waltz up to people in the Forgotten Relams and expect to be treated like Drizzt. Eventually the player accused the DM of being a racist. As the player was also a black person. The DM was willing to work with the player. Except the player expected to be accepted right off. Some sometimes a DM has to make the hard call of saying no to a special snowflake.
Either way I play this rpg to have fun. If I'm not having a fun as a player amd/or DM I just stop playing for awhile.
RD, I think Prez may actually have been genuinely trying to be nice.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I think that at this point AD is right. We're more or less rehashing the same arguments. I think I can safely assert that we have established rough consensus on the following points:
1- A lot of players bring up ridiculous concepts and show an almost total insensitivity to the GMs vision of the campaign.
2- A lot of GMs have overly rigid campaign settings and show a marked inability to compromise.
3- A lot of people on both sides of the screen feel entitled, and try to paint the other side as selfish when they don't get what they want.
4- When there is not a clear consensus among group members about campaign elements, play style, etc, then the GM and player should cooperate, each of them willing to nudge their original concept toward accommodating the other.
5- When there is a general, established consensus on these issues, the player entering the new environment is obliged to compromise far more.
6- When a player's character does not fit the GM's idea of the campaign setting, the player is obligated to carefully consider creating a different character, or at least altering certain aspects of what he wants to play.
7- In the same circumstance, the GM is obligated to carefully consider how the character might possibly be worked into his campaign with as few changes to the character's concept as possible.
8- If one or both of the parties involved are feeling more than a little aggravation over the process, it is probably best to simply part ways while you can still do so amicably, rather than try to force the game to occur. However, if there will be no game (or a seriously diminished game) without both of the parties' participation, then both should probably reflect upon their mutual need for each other, and try again in that spirit.
Perfectly captured Erick
Since we're the same person and I never even try to hide it,yeah.
I have an account I signed into once to buy stuff on my ipad. And a different one I once used on my iPhone. Why is it even remotely...
I had the same situation, but found out it is technically against the rules of the site. You should call customer service and have them merge your accounts before Paizo gets upset with you. It's a pretty painless process.
Perfectly captured Erick
Why, thank you. And sorry about that bit of snark earlier. I'm working on it, but my threadiquette still leaves a lot to be desired.
137ben
So far since working together, the other GM and I have been in every campaign as player that the other has run as GM.
One thing that my world really hadn't explored that he really loves is undead. He created an entire undead dominated geographic area, complete with vampires, liches, etc. Up until then I had only done very basic undead. He created an entirely new powerful NPC who essentially wants to take over the world with undead hordes.
I think it has added a lot to the world and feel sort of embarrassed that I had overlooked such a rich area of gaming. So I've enthusiastically adopted the whole concept and have tried to weave his NPC and the pantheon of undead he created into my world's geopolitics. So to answer your question, we've done our best to fuse his addition seamlessly into the larger world.
Right now he is running a very low level campaign so that is fairly easy to deal with and doesn't need a lot of integration.
Because archetypes never add things...Unless you are suggesting actually new mechanics there wouldn't really be any purpose to that...just take guns and rename them "crossbows" and use the gunslinger mechanics.I'm surprised this hasn't been an archetype yet.I've thought about a modified crossbow concept to allow gunslingers. Just haven't had anyone ask to play one yet.I believe I said this to someone else in a similar thread way back, but I would be so much more grateful to a GM that let me play a crossbow Gunslinger than one who would let me play a Gunslinger in his non-Gunslinger-y world.
when the play test for the gunslinger came out i fought for this so hard all on death ears.... drives me nuts to this day
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD, I think Prez may actually have been genuinely trying to be nice.I don't know. Maybe. And if that was the intention, I can apologize. But the general thrust of previous posts has predisposed me to less charitable interpretations.
Actually, I should apologize. Like 137ben, I wasn't aware of who was posting, initially. I should have figured it out earlier, but I didn't. Then you made the comment about the paladin and I was, "Hey, just a minute." because I had actually used it as an example of how good a collaboration between a player and a GM about something that hadn't exist before could be. So I respected your example of that, which is why I remembered it.
I wasn't trying to be malicious, it just struck me as funny. Partially because I knew I should have recognized the situation earlier and also given an early comments between other people (those comments didn't survive The Cleansing unfortunately, so you might not have seen them). It just was a funny (to me) realization, and I was just making a stupid joke.
Honestly, I feel really horrible about it now because I had no idea about the issue that was brought up afterwards. If I had, I would never had said anything. I hope you don't end up dealing with any hassle about it.
This thread is now over. Congratulations!You know, I think that at this point AD is right. We're more or less rehashing the same arguments. I think I can safely assert that we have established rough consensus on the following points:
1- A lot of players bring up ridiculous concepts and show an almost total insensitivity to the GMs vision of the campaign.
2- A lot of GMs have overly rigid campaign settings and show a marked inability to compromise.
3- A lot of people on both sides of the screen feel entitled, and try to paint the other side as selfish when they don't get what they want.
4- When there is not a clear consensus among group members about campaign elements, play style, etc, then the GM and player should cooperate, each of them willing to nudge their original concept toward accommodating the other.
5- When there is a general, established consensus on these issues, the player entering the new environment is obliged to compromise far more.
6- When a player's character does not fit the GM's idea of the campaign setting, the player is obligated to carefully consider creating a different character, or at least altering certain aspects of what he wants to play.
7- In the same circumstance, the GM is obligated to carefully consider how the character might possibly be worked into his campaign with as few changes to the character's concept as possible.
8- If one or both of the parties involved are feeling more than a little aggravation over the process, it is probably best to simply part ways while you can still do so amicably, rather than try to force the game to occur. However, if there will be no game (or a seriously diminished game) without both of the parties' participation, then both should probably reflect upon their mutual need for each other, and try again in that spirit.
Tune in next week when Shallowsoul makes another thread with the same topic, and we all reach the exact same consensus within 1800 posts again!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just realize that your issues are self-inflicted in this case. "If I include something once, I am now forced to have to deal with it as major part of my setting for now until the end of time." That is a standard that not even game companies hold themselves to. In that case, your settings do qualify as "carving your setting details in stone" and above statement doesn't relate to your settings at all.
The creation of an ongoing continuity game world may be the very reason the players are playing in the first place. It can be fun (for everyone involved) to watch over the years as player actions create historical events ranging from saving villages to commanding armies in empire-spanning wars, shaping history and the world itself as they go. That feeling you get when your characters meet the king, and you suddenly remember he was the NPC another of your characters helped into power, or when you enter a once-glorious city now turned into a haven for pirates and brigands, and curse yourself for helping the Thieves Guild six years earlier :)
Just another example of how different people like to play different ways, and how for some groups flexibility isn't a primary concern.
One of things that I have heard of that would drive me batty as a player, though how real it is I am not sure of, is a situation where a group has been in a city for a level or two. The rogue decides they want to take a level of barbarian, because it fits their idea of their character being a bit more of a thug than pick pocket and it might synergism with the character better than another martial class. The GM says, "You can't take a level of barbarian, you have been in the city for the last 2 levels. You need to spend time in the wild to be a barbarian." Basically a GM micromanaging the PCs and having a different idea of what a class is than the player. Player sees it as a collection of traits, the GM sees it as a status.
Now while I wouldn't do the above scenario, I do ask that my players at least make an attempt at justification for their actions and raises. Prestige classes require finding the group (should they have one) and working to get into them. Learning something outside the bounds of what you've learned before requires finding someone to teach you, that sort of thing. People are welcome to advance as they will, but let's at least give a passing nod to role play and development rather than "I take this and this and this" as if selecting from a menu that you can access in each town.
But then, I do similar with magic items: every town/city doesn't have a buffet line that just happens to have the magical woobie that you want just because you have the cash. Which, I expect, is why some of the theory crafting bugs me so much as every PC just happens to find the exact items they want for the win.
The creation of an ongoing continuity game world may be the very reason the players are playing in the first place. It can be fun (for everyone involved) to watch over the years as player actions create historical events ranging from saving villages to commanding armies in empire-spanning wars, shaping history and the world itself as they go. That feeling you get when your characters meet the king, and you suddenly remember he was the NPC another of your characters helped into power, or when you enter a once-glorious city now turned into a haven for pirates and brigands, and curse yourself for helping the Thieves Guild six years earlier :)
Just another example of how different people like to play different ways, and how for some groups flexibility isn't a primary concern.
Indeed. But we should also realize that the complement of having to carry on anything you have including in a setting once, is not never carrying on something that you have included. Just because you ultimately decide that W doesn't fit in the setting and you fade it out doesn't mean that you don't keep X, Y, and Z. This doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. If that is what someone wants to do, that is fine, but that is a self-imposed issue and not a requirement just because players want to see their characters actions having an ongoing effect on the setting.
Maybe "self-imposed" isn't the right phrase, that indicates the person has some kind of equal options they have decided to take option A instead of options B, C, or D. It maybe due to the person's personality, they actually can't easily choose anything besides A. It is the only one that they natural and comfortably fit in. Just as someone who is introverted can extrovert for times, but expecting them to always do it is not fair to them, it maybe that expecting someone that feels they have to keep everything is unfair to them to expect that they could eliminate something, even if they have painfully eliminated something else in the past.
Now while I wouldn't do the above scenario, I do ask that my players at least make an attempt at justification for their actions and raises. Prestige classes require finding the group (should they have one) and working to get into them. Learning something outside the bounds of what you've learned before requires finding someone to teach you, that sort of thing. People are welcome to advance as they will, but let's at least give a passing nod to role play and development rather than "I take this and this and this" as if selecting from a menu that you can access in each town.
Which I would be fine with, if that was the established method for the game. It would bother me if I hadn't gotten any heads up about it, and when I tried to take a level in the class, the GM suddenly tossed up a requirement that had never been present before and was now impossible for me to meet this level. Maybe it was just something the GM didn't really think about before, everyone was sticking with their same class up to that point. I get that. In that case the GM should chalk it up to a learning moment for themselves, "Next time I need to tell everyone to roleplay out the class they are going to take the next level with." Of course there is the problem that it then promotes build building and less responsive building, but there are cost-benefits to any approach.
To me, it makes less sense that a 1st level ranger, when hitting 2nd level can suddenly fight with two-weapons effectively when prior to that they had never fought with two-weapons at all. Than a rogue that has been battling street thugs and sewer dwelling otyughs, finding out he is a bit tough (d12 hp), more skilled fighter (+1 BA), healthier (+2 Fort), faster (fast movement), and can tap into a reserve of inner strength for amazing actions (rage). There would be nothing that I as a player would naturally assume would have been required, if it had not been required by anyone else prior to that moment. I also don't see (all) classes as both a set of abilities and as a way of life. I think one can have levels in the barbarian class without ever wiping their butt with some tree bark. An uneducated street thug could be a barbarian in my mind.
I don't personally instantly consider a snowflake a bad thing and in general I am willing to work with the player to allow a snowflake that is made for the purpose of exploring that unique point of view, however on the other hand I will not allow the same character if it is made solely for the purpose of statistical optimizing. As I am usually the GM these days I always talk to the players about their character to see why they want to play that even if it is a regular John Farmer so that I can accommodate each player's wants for the character within the established campaign being played.
As a player I like playing unique races exploring what it means to be a member of that race and their mindset, it's fun really and I played some rather unique things (in my opinion) over the years (for reference I started roleplaying in '85) including tree spirit, an earth elemental and a mouse. That being said in the beginning I didn't feel a need to play anything special, a regular fighter or thief would be grand over time though I started to become more and more bored of playing "yet another farmer boy who went off to seek his fortune". All this means I tend to play rather unique characters to get me excited about the game, I found though that very few GMs, that I have encountered, will allow anything that isn't core and that is rather frustrating for me since it greatly lessen my enjoyment of my characters and I get less involved in the game by being forced to (without any sort of leeway) play a standard race/class combo.
Overall I think that player's should be aware and accepting even respectful of the desires and wants for the game that the GM brings and that any game everyone agreed to, the players should try to work within that setting. ON THE OTHER HAND I do feel that GMs in general need to be more open and accepting towards the players and learn to say "yes" and not just "no" a lesson I have seen forgotten far far to many times; whether this is in regard to concept, class/race or even 3pp material.
If we accept each other maybe the game will be even more awesome for all it might not be but at least we game it a chance, in the end it is the synergy between everyone at the table that makes a game fun, at least for me.