| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the Camel-Horse Committee, Scott, you're not wrong about player buy-in. But you also just asked (paraphrasing) "why does the GM get a stronger vote than the players?" And there is a good answer to that question.
The players have a creative agency that is (traditionally) limited to their PC in the framework of the rules. Their heavy lifting is done when the character creation process is finished (traditionally).
The GM has far fewer restrictions, and in terms of managing the creative aspect of the game, that's not really an advantage at all. Furthermore, the GM's job picks up where the players' leaves off — and it keeps going, and going, and going. The players (traditionally) put a few evenings of mostly enjoyable work in at most. The GM gets a second job for the months or years until the campaign ends, albeit a rewarding one.
To lean on another metaphor, if I build the house and you build the door, when it comes time to sell it do you get an equal share?
(Now, the house isn't finished without the door, and you should absolutely consult the doormaker to ensure that the door will fit the house, and look good, and keep the riffraff out. So yes, player buy-in and player agency are essential! But the GM gets a strong vote and a veto. Traditionally.)
The players have a creative agency that is (traditionally) limited to their PC in the framework of the rules.
I'd wonder, if you view their creative agency as being so limited, why you'd be anxious to look for ways to limit it still further?
The players have a creative agency that is (traditionally) limited to their PC in the framework of the rules.I'd wonder, if you view their creative agency as being so limited, why you'd be anxious to look for ways to limit it still further?
Mostly because he sees picking an exotic character as 'drawing outside the lines' and pushing against those traditional limits.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To deal with a snowflake is quite simple. Make everybody the same race as the snowflake and make the other players the "unique" ones. Garner so much attention that there hasn't been an elf sighting in nearly decades or that dwarves were thought to be extinct while every shopkeeper and guard are running around as the very same snowflake race as that one....
Snowflakes are there because they wanna feel special and unique and u combat that by simply taking away the special and uniqueness and bam. Do this and I guarantee that the player will not want to play their character long even though u allowed it and even made it fit lol
|
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 was referring somewhat to Sissyl’s post about a example Kyonin-intrigue game, in which the players supposedly made characters who may not be the best fit, after explaining to them what the game would entail. While I don’t believe that a DM shouldn’t try to fit some concepts in – these forbidden non-elves gaining access via special invitations, etc. – there may be some problems. Such as, a character who is an “elf hater” – maybe that’s part of the player’s idea of a character arc, or maybe they want a problematic character (it’s unclear with the example given) - may run into problems.
I guess the crux of the argument is if all the players want to play ill-fitted characters, they should. But if – and I’m not saying a decent DM shouldn’t adjust some things for the players to make for an enjoyable game – the DM made clear the type of game that would be being played, and the players didn’t pull out, then whatever handicaps they chose (whatever they may be) is just that – their choice.
My initial post needed some clairification, so forgive me if I missed your meaning entirely.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see "picking an exotic character" as something that only really exists in the mind of the GM — and that this is only a problem of communication between player and GM. Like damn near every problem I see brought up on these forums.
There's more to it, though. If the GM feels the need to stifle the player's choices for any reason, this tells us something about the GM, or the story the GM wants to tell. Some GMs can't functionally distinguish their own power tripping from their editorial authority, it's true. But sometimes I just don't want blue winged people in my gritty retelling of the second crusade.
That doesn't make the blue winged PC's player wrong, it means we haven't agreed fully about what the game is. And that's a critical issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy playing large, open-ended campaigns with limitless player options, but sometimes, some campaign setting are very specialized, and not meant for the "kitchen-sink" crowd. I those situations, in the specialized campaigns, I believe the DM does get to enforce allowable character types more heavy-handedly than normal "generic" games.
For example, Ravenloft. That setting itself, land-wise, is very small. Then, it's broke up into smaller domains, each secluded from the others by walls of impenetrable mist. So, we're already looking at very small, very homogenized populations and ecologies. Some PHB/CRB races don't even exist, such as Half-Orcs(replaced by Caliban, which are humanoids mutated in the womb by dark magic). Some realms have no elves, no halflings, etc.
When I've run such specialized settings, I enforce fairly strict guidelines on allowable races and classes, according to the setting. I set these guidelines far in advance, without player input. But even then, I allow players to make whatever would be able to pass through everyday society in the setting, unless they plan on never entering a town.
These kinds of games are not for everyone. But, these games do exist, and I feel strongly about being able to keep a specialized setting within it's acceptable tone and context. Specialized campaigns are just about the only time I feel it is appropriate that "special snowflakes" take a rain check and players at least try to roll up a character fitting the setting. If I'm running what's to be a murder investigation mirroring 1800's London, then no, you can't play a Dragonborn half-dhampir Samurai, dual-wielding greatswords. Sorry, come back on Tuesday when we play the "normal" PF game.
To deal with a snowflake is quite simple. Make everybody the same race as the snowflake and make the other players the "unique" ones. Garner so much attention that there hasn't been an elf sighting in nearly decades or that dwarves were thought to be extinct while every shopkeeper and guard are running around as the very same snowflake race as that one....
Snowflakes are there because they wanna feel special and unique and u combat that by simply taking away the special and uniqueness and bam. Do this and I guarantee that the player will not want to play their character long even though u allowed it and even made it fit lol
So... Why would you do this again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My snowflake brings all the boys to the yard...
Josh and I said versions of the same thing.
Some games have a specific vision. Special Snowflakes become a problem if they don't fit with the campaign concept.
Some GMs are not very good at communicating the fact that they have, for example, a grittier vision of a Golarion nation than the one presented in the books. The onus is indeed upon the GM to communicate this fact. "Hey guys, for this Kingmaker session, I'm going to say that elves and dwarves are really rare in Brevoy. Nobody's seen one for centuries..." or "There are no non-human player races in this game."
These aren't unreasonable demands, as long as the GM is putting them out there with the campaign's interest at heart. And sometimes, that can come down to GM whims... after all, it's a short road to burnout if you make the GM constantly deal with elements of the game that she dislikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, Ravenloft. That setting itself, land-wise, is very small. Then, it's broke up into smaller domains, each secluded from the others by walls of impenetrable mist.No, it's not. The Core domains are not separated from each other by the Mists. Even the clusters (several Islands of Terror that are physically joined together) do not have Mists between them. Only Islands of Terror are isolated from other domains in the Mists.
Which edition are you playing? I play 3e Ravenloft, and it's pretty specific about each domain being walled in, with the Darklord being the only one that can open or close the borders, should they decide to do either.
For example, Ravenloft. That setting itself, land-wise, is very small. Then, it's broke up into smaller domains, each secluded from the others by walls of impenetrable mist.No, it's not. The Core domains are not separated from each other by the Mists. Even the clusters (several Islands of Terror that are physically joined together) do not have Mists between them. Only Islands of Terror are isolated from other domains in the Mists.
Didn't Ravenloft also have a tendency to drag people forcibly into it? Making it one of the places where you could run into people from several different settings?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't Ravenloft also have a tendency to drag people forcibly into it? Making it one of the places where you could run into people from several different settings?For example, Ravenloft. That setting itself, land-wise, is very small. Then, it's broke up into smaller domains, each secluded from the others by walls of impenetrable mist.No, it's not. The Core domains are not separated from each other by the Mists. Even the clusters (several Islands of Terror that are physically joined together) do not have Mists between them. Only Islands of Terror are isolated from other domains in the Mists.
You could, and I've done that. It's an exception that works sometimes.
Which edition are you playing? I play 3e Ravenloft, and it's pretty specific about each domain being walled in, with the Darklord being the only one that can open or close the borders, should they decide to do either.Nothwithstanding 4E, what I said above is true for both Second and Third Edition Ravenloft. The darklords can close the borders, but by "default" they're open, and only Islands of Terror are naturally sealed off from other domains by the Mists.
It's entirely possible to walk from say, Sithicus into Kartakass normally.
It is, as long as you're not doing anything worth noting, like say, being an adventurer. Incidentally, should "the Dark Powers" deem it so, you could very well not walk into Kartakass from Sithicus, you could wind up across the map into another domain. But even being open by "default," the domains are microcosms; they are literal chunks of their own world shoved up against other chunks of other worlds. Flora, fauna, weather, everything is unique to each domain.
Do we really need to go into the full breakdown of this? We're splitting hairs as it is.
We're both right. I didn't fully elaborate as much as I should have. My bad.
My point being, the smaller the world, the less "wiggle room" for all these different races, cultures, etc. In larger, more "open" settings like Golarion and Greyhawk, you can have a little bit of everything.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
In my personal case, it's because I've designed said game before any other players are invited, and only then do I start recruiting players, showing them the game info and saying "would you like to join this game?" Character creation and any other prep occurs before the first session even starts (as a cooperative process between the player and myself to find a good fit for the game that we both like), to ensure there's none of the above special snowflake issues.
In the event I don't get enough players to run it, I realize my idea must have been a bad one and start again - however in over 25 years of gaming that's only occurred twice that I can actually recall.
It's important to me that everyone at the table wants to play that specific game. That includes me, too. I'm certainly not going to invite half a dozen random people to an undefined game, then ask them what they want to play, and then sit there as GM-slave for the evening running something that I and a couple of the others end up hating. Therefore I make sure from the beginning I get players that want the same type of game that I do, and such issues are therefore minimized if not completely absent.
|
| 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.
Ironically the first one is an example from someone on the other side if I recall....
But are you saying that stating the location and style of the setting prior to the game so players can decide if they are interested or not is appropriate?
Because I could not disagree more with that. Our group has rejected more GM ideas than we have accepted, but we all agree that the GM can come up with ideas and propose them for the group to decide if they are interested or not.
|
|
Crikey, these threads are getting to me. I just agreed with Scott Betts on something?!
Does that make you question your position :)
Seriously, I don't think you are far off from everyone else, you just have a bigger fear of the mean GM bullying players around while my experience is the GM begging people to choose his campaign rather than someone else's to play this week.
|
|
| 2 people 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 in the beginning there was no game.
Then someone said "Hey, who wants to play?"
And the group looked around and said "What do you want to play?"
An a wild GM appeared and said "How about this"
And it was dumb, so the group said no.
So another GM (or the same GM) proposed another idea for a game. And it was good...enough.
And so the players made characters that fit that game, except Steve who wanted to be a pony so he took a pass and played Skyrim instead.
And they played for a few weeks until they got bored with the mediocre setting and another wild GM with a better idea appeared...
And so on, and so on, with interludes of really great campaigns that last on and off for years and years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the crux of the argument is if all the players want to play ill-fitted characters, they should. But if – and I’m not saying a decent DM shouldn’t adjust some things for the players to make for an enjoyable game – the DM made clear the type of game that would be being played, and the players didn’t pull out, then whatever handicaps they chose (whatever they may be) is just that – their choice.
But, again, why is it the DM who is deciding what type of game it will be, and the players being forced into a position of reacting to that decision? Sure, the DM shouldn't be forced to run a game he doesn't want to run, but neither should the players be put into a position where their only option is to play in a game they don't want to play. There should be enough flexibility on both sides that the players and DM can find a style of game agreeable to everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because in the beginning there was no game.
(etc)
I see a slightly different version, although it's certainly similar.
In the beginning there were no games, and everyone drifted aimlessly in the void.
Then someone said "Hey, who wants to play?"
And a great many people looked up from their mundane existences and said "Me me me me! But.. what should we play?"
And a great cacophony picked up as many, many ideas were announced simultaneously.
Some people clustered together for protection from the noise, formed groups, and made their way to side rooms to decide together, as a group, what to play, with one of their number sprouting a GM hat.
Others wandered around sprouting their own GM hats and shouting out ideas, while others gathered to those with the idea they liked the sound of. These too made their way into side rooms to play games.
And everyone was happy for a while, and neither style was bad, as people found the one that suited them best.
Then along came Steve, who approached one of the shouting GMs, and told him his idea was bad, and he should change it because he had a better idea.
The GM picked up Steve and threw him across the void for being such a jerk.
Steve then tried joining one of the groups without a game, and lay in wait for them to decide what to play before announcing it was a bad idea, and they should change it because he had a better idea.
The group together picked up Steve and threw him across the void for being such a jerk.
After a while, players started to detach from their groups and returned to the void, some forming new groups in the same manners as they had before, while others drifted off into the side rooms to see if there were any spaces available.
And everyone was happy.
Except for Steve.
But quite honestly, he was a jerk, so who cares?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Matt - Steve may find a pony loving group and be happy. I wish Steve well and Steve's wish to play a pony isn't wrong bad fun.
Now if Steve feels entitled to tell others they must play his pony and says people are jerks for not letting him play his pony in their game, that is when Steve is a jerk.
I'm married with a kid. I want to do lots of things. I want to stay happily married more.
I have a group. There are lots of things I would like to run and to play. But I like my group, I have fun, so I compromise and as a result my group likes me and lets me stay a part of it.
If Steve finds a magical pony group, good for Steve.
If Steve tries to wreck a happy group by demanding they include his pony against their will...Steve can bite me.
GOOD Special Snowflake: "many compelling and interesting protagonists have these kinds of traits. There's something compelling about a character who is bucking the social norms or defying his entire race. If nothing else, a great deal of angst can be milked from it."
BAD Special Snowflake: "Of course, some people may want to play as something weird solely for the mechanical benefits, mixing traits and templates with no concern for how such a being would fit into the setting (or is physically possible, for that matter). The wise game master is advised not to allow such a monstrosity unless the power gamer can explain exactly how a half-vampire, half-dragon Warforged came into being. Others will do it just to be disruptive or to refuse to play along with the campaign's genre because it doesn't interest them."
Know your players!
@Matt - Steve may find a pony loving group and be happy. I wish Steve well and Steve's wish to play a pony isn't wrong bad fun.
Now if Steve feels entitled to tell others they must play his pony and says people are jerks for not letting him play his pony in their game, that is when Steve is a jerk.
My intention was to illustrate that Steve is the 1% of bad apples who is there to make trouble intentionally. So yeah, he's the latter :)
Steve isn't the person that just wanted to play something different, that person found their group by looking elsewhere for it, or who compromised in order to play with the group they could find.
Steve is the one who, no matter what anyone else says, is 100% right 100% of the time and everyone else has to change to fit them because only their way is the One True Way[tm]. He's unhappy with people who think differently, he's even unhappy if they end up leaving the group because it's his right to keep them there doing what they don't want to do and they're wrong for thinking otherwise because dammit it's ruining his fun.
I've never met a Steve in a game, although I think I've met plenty on various message boards over the years :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the crux of the argument is if all the players want to play ill-fitted characters, they should. But if – and I’m not saying a decent DM shouldn’t adjust some things for the players to make for an enjoyable game – the DM made clear the type of game that would be being played, and the players didn’t pull out, then whatever handicaps they chose (whatever they may be) is just that – their choice.But, again, why is it the DM who is deciding what type of game it will be, and the players being forced into a position of reacting to that decision? Sure, the DM shouldn't be forced to run a game he doesn't want to run, but neither should the players be put into a position where their only option is to play in a game they don't want to play. There should be enough flexibility on both sides that the players and DM can find a style of game agreeable to everyone.
Because the GM devotes as much time to the game as the rest of the players combined? I know i do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have the expression, “special snowflake” to represent a unique character build that is often unaccepted or taxing to the rest of the group, but is there a similar expression for a setting or adventure put forth by a Dungeon Master that is, for similar reasons (so unique and overly complicated to the point of being burdensome to the players)is difficult to agree upon as an acceptable setting?
I'd say the term can be applied in either direction. It can be a special snowflake character or a special snowflake setting.
I'd also like to think neither is a special snowflake until it reaches the point someone is attempting to force it onto an unwilling group.
Because the GM devotes as much time to the game as the rest of the players combined? I know i do.
I look at that this way: If, as DM, I put 15 hours into the game so far, and the player has put in 15 minutes, and we take 5 minutes to reach an accommodation... that's an additional investment of 33% on the part of the player, and only one-half of 1% on mine. Can I not spare 25% of the players 0.5% of my game time?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have the expression, “special snowflake” to represent a unique character build that is often unaccepted or taxing to the rest of the group, but is there a similar expression for a setting or adventure put forth by a Dungeon Master that is, for similar reasons (so unique and overly complicated to the point of being burdensome to the players)is difficult to agree upon as an acceptable setting?
Yeah, it goes both ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crikey, these threads are getting to me. I just agreed with Scott Betts on something?!Does that make you question your position :)
Seriously, I don't think you are far off from everyone else, you just have a bigger fear of the mean GM bullying players around while my experience is the GM begging people to choose his campaign rather than someone else's to play this week.
This, and several other threads on the same general topic, tend to make me believe people are still experiencing the problems with their GM telling them No in the past and they are still upset about it, and some GMs being upset that some players were disruptive in the past.
It happened, and it colours our reaction to people doing it again, so much so that we say that the bad players are trying to be special snowflakes and the bad GMs are dictatorial meanieheads who won't let us have any fun. Both are spawned from the same sort of defensive position as having a girl/boyfriend dump you, a boss come down on you and so forth.
Yeah. It is upsetting to be told no sometimes, but dwelling on it after the fact and allowing it to influence things to the point where you refuse to see any new relationship in a better light just seems counter-productive.
I've told people No in the past in games. I've worked with people in the past with concepts. In 35 or so years, I can count on one hand the number of people that walked angrily away because they didn't get their way, and the number of times I stormed off because I didn't get mine.
If the people you are playing with, on either side of the screen, start freaking when they are told no or refuse to compromise, the problem isn't with the game.