Well on Super Mario Kart, you can't play a Goomba (IIRC), but you can play a Koopa. I assume when most players are using the Koopa character, they aren't sitting there thinking, "Alright, now I am a BAD guy!"
I liked the koopa.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. It's important to remember that at the end of the day you aren't gming for the sake of gming; you are gming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your campaign to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your character to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
Everyone keeps putting it all on either the Player or the GM's shoulders, when the GM and Players should be meeting and talking to each other to find an acceptable compromise they can both enjoy, and agreeing not to play in the same game if they cannot.
I'd never, ever force a friend to play in a game they couldn't find an acceptable way to fit into, and I'd never force a friend to accept a character they objected to.
Also, don't assume everyone is GMing to have fun with friends. I don't usually even know half of my players until we begin, so there's no real incentive to make sweeping changes to accommodate them. I'm usually okay with making adjustments to the world to fit in a race I haven't thought about, but not the campaign theme. If I've intentionally picked to run a serious-themed game, then comedy characters aren't welcome, and vice-versa.
My incentive comes from wanting to play out a certain type of story with a group of players. Telling me to change the story theme is telling me to stop enjoying the game. That story theme could be "ultra-serious fantasy set during a drow/human war", or "gritty sci-fi aboard a commercial space liner in the near future", or even "Modern-day superhero comedy." I care more whether the player is willing to play to that theme than what character they bring, because if they're not there's little point in them participating.
Good point on intent and motivation Matt, and it may just illustrate the conceptual divide that has generated here about some players special snowflakes and GM's special snowscapes.
Some GM's are expressing a story, some players are expressing a story. If the two stories don't align thematically/meld/synergise, then there is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even with the drow being "mostly evil" or "overwhelmingly evil", for the purposes of this thread, needing to come up with a convoluted reason why you aren't a totally evil demon worshiping member of this race tends to put the character concept into the special snowflake category.I think most GMs and players would agree that humans by and large are Neutrally aligned. Thus any human paladin is a snowflake. PCs are exotic members of the races, whatever their races. Saying a PC doesn't match the norm for its race is like saying rain falls from the sky. Basically I'm saying this is a pretty weak reason.
Neutral? Hah! Evil is the default Human alignment, always has been.
Neutral? Hah! Evil is the default Human alignment, always has been.Even with the drow being "mostly evil" or "overwhelmingly evil", for the purposes of this thread, needing to come up with a convoluted reason why you aren't a totally evil demon worshiping member of this race tends to put the character concept into the special snowflake category.I think most GMs and players would agree that humans by and large are Neutrally aligned. Thus any human paladin is a snowflake. PCs are exotic members of the races, whatever their races. Saying a PC doesn't match the norm for its race is like saying rain falls from the sky. Basically I'm saying this is a pretty weak reason.
Looking at the world today, I have to agree :(
|
A straw snowflake IS the one who must ONLY play that ONE character, the game be damned. Straw because I don't believe real snowflakes (who are very creative people) would limit themselves to just ONE character option. And only BAD snowflakes would limit themselves by NOT working with others the GM especially.
Knew a guy who would only ever play one specific character regardless of the game. Even when we asked him to play something different, it was still the same character in disguise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wh is the onus on the gm to change the already created setting rather than the player to change the not yet created character?
Yes. The DM has the authority so the onus of making changes is on them. It's like what Spiderman's dead uncle said: with great power comes great responsibility.
Now, of course, the DM doesn't actually have to change anything. They can be as inflexible as they want and there's not really anyone who can force them to do otherwise. If you do this as a DM, you'll probably still get players. I know I personally have played with DMs who have, to put it gently, been less than stellar. I'd rather play a flawed game with my friends than refuse to play because of problems with the game.
However, it doesn't have to be that way. I do think it's possible to run a game where everyone can have what they want. I can run the campaign I want with the setting details I want while each player can play the character they want. I prefer this. The game is more fun if everyone is playing the character they want and no one feels like their ideas were shot down.
This isn't even hard to do. I earnestly think that someone playing a character I don't like will not ruin the game for me. Confer two paragraphs above: a less than perfect game is better than no game. The only other things left to do are to be parsimonious with restrictions in the setting and to be willing to work with the ideas of others. For example, I don't say "all elves are tree-hugging hippies" I say "most of these elves in this area are tree-hugging hippies".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't say "all elves are tree-hugging hippies" I say "most of these elves in this area are tree-hugging hippies".
"Most of the elves in this area were tree-hugging hippies"
"Now most of the elves in this area are being worn by the Orcs."Sorry. Just had to :)
Another hypothetical:
GM is running a game and is completely flexible, to the point that anything a player wants is acceptable. Want to play an intelligent stalk of poison ivy? Done. Want to play a sentient mud geyser? No problem.
Now, the GM sets up the campaign and all the players agree to play by the (lack of) restrictions and they all bring their characters to the table.
But the sentient mud geyser player is filling the role of battlefield control and another player has chosen to play a hive mind swarm of mayflies that is ALSO in the role of battlefield controller. Not wanting to overbalance the party, the mayfly hive mind player demands that the sentient mud geyser player adopt the role of healer or they won't play.
Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?
Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?
I wouldn't say it is. Players shouldn't force other players to play certain roles imo, especially not as a demand. I'd find it more acceptable if it was a politely worded suggestion. They could at least try and say "Hey, I feel like we're stepping on toes" or "Hmm... Are we sure this is going to work?" and see how the party reacts. I'm also not a big fan of ultimatums such as "Do this or I go!". Those rarely end well in my experience. Its also something that's turned into something just between those two players even though it affects everyone at the table.
I don't have a problem with character roles overlapping some, especially as it's possible for a character to fulfill multiple roles. Healer is an especially easy role to (mostly) cover. The mayfly hive mind could fulfill most of the role of healer by having wands of CLW and Lesser Restoration.
Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?
Not acceptable. It's not okay for the sentient mud geyser player to demand that other players change their characters. A better solution would be for the party to work out together how to cover the areas they are weak. Maybe they buy some items, maybe someone picks up a couple spells they wouldn't otherwise. Either way, it's a group responsibility, not something that should get pushed to one player. It's not fun to be told to throw away your character to build a healbot.
Further, the DM can and should adjust challenges to fit the party. For example, if no one in the party has access to teleportation, then it's mean to set up challenges that require a lot of teleportation.
Another hypothetical:
GM is running a game and is completely flexible, to the point that anything a player wants is acceptable. Want to play an intelligent stalk of poison ivy? Done. Want to play a sentient mud geyser? No problem.
Now, the GM sets up the campaign and all the players agree to play by the (lack of) restrictions and they all bring their characters to the table.
But the sentient mud geyser player is filling the role of battlefield control and another player has chosen to play a hive mind swarm of mayflies that is ALSO in the role of battlefield controller. Not wanting to overbalance the party, the mayfly hive mind player demands that the sentient mud geyser player adopt the role of healer or they won't play.
Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?
If done in the way specified (concede to my demand or I refuse to play.) then I'd be happier playing without them, as they sound like they bring far too much stress to the table.
I'd also place some of the blame at the GM's door for having such an open attitude when their players weren't able to handle it responsibly. I'd have talked expectations over with them in advance and made sure it was a workable mix, or at the very least that they were all happy running with an unworkable one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not asking if the players could work better together, I'm asking if it is acceptable for one player to demand that another player change their own play preferences in order to accommodate the "special snowflake" player.
And if the answer is "no" then I have to wonder why it is OK for the special snowflake to demand that the GM change their play preferences to accommodate them.
After all, isn't the GM a player too?
Oh, and I thought the "sentient mud geyser" and the "hive mind mayfly swarm" were utterly cool concepts.
I totally want to play them now.
Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?Nope. Character roles are not that important. Adjust tactics and move on.
But the mayfly swarm hive mind player thinks they are Tri, and refuses to accept your assertion that roles aren't that important.
Wanting to do something isn't the same sort of thing as wanting everyone else to not do something. If I like playing clerics, that's fine. If I demand that everyone who plays in a game with me not play a cleric because I hate the class, I'm being an unreasonable ass.
Terquem, so am I correct in understanding your position that it is OK for a player to demand another player change their character concept so long as they are polite about it?
I'm not asking if the players could work better together, I'm asking if it is acceptable for one player to demand that another player change their own play preferences in order to accommodate the "special snowflake" player.
And if the answer is "no" then I have to wonder why it is OK for the special snowflake to demand that the GM change their play preferences to accommodate them.
After all, isn't the GM a player too?
Pretty much why everyone should be prepared to work together as a group, so they're not all pulling in different directions.
It's never acceptable to try to force anyone to change their play preferences to accommodate you. Asking is fine. Discussing is fine. Demanding (especially with "or I leave" attached) is asking to be ejected from the group, IMHO.
I'm not asking if the players could work better together, I'm asking if it is acceptable for one player to demand that another player change their own play preferences in order to accommodate the "special snowflake" player.
And if the answer is "no" then I have to wonder why it is OK for the special snowflake to demand that the GM change their play preferences to accommodate them.
After all, isn't the GM a player too?
Wait... Who was the special snowflake here? Was it their Medusa, the mayfly, the geyser, or the seemingly normal human?
Wanting to do something isn't the same sort of thing as wanting everyone else to not do something. If I like playing clerics, that's fine. If I demand that everyone who plays in a game with me not play a cleric because I hate the class, I'm being an unreasonable ass.
But for the sentient mud geyser player, it is exactly the same thing Vivianne. She just wants to play a battlefield controller with her sentient mud geyser, but the mayfly swarm hive mind player is saying "You can't play that because it conflicts with my own character concept."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another hypothetical:
GM is running a game and is completely flexible, to the point that anything a player wants is acceptable. Want to play an intelligent stalk of poison ivy? Done. Want to play a sentient mud geyser? No problem.
Now, the GM sets up the campaign and all the players agree to play by the (lack of) restrictions and they all bring their characters to the table.
But the sentient mud geyser player is filling the role of battlefield control and another player has chosen to play a hive mind swarm of mayflies that is ALSO in the role of battlefield controller. Not wanting to overbalance the party, the mayfly hive mind player demands that the sentient mud geyser player adopt the role of healer or they won't play.
Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?
No, simply because you used the word "demand".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the mayfly swarm hive mind player thinks they are Tri, and refuses to accept your assertion that roles aren't that important.Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?Nope. Character roles are not that important. Adjust tactics and move on.
Then we obviously have incompatible playstyles.
But for the sentient mud geyser player, it is exactly the same thing Vivianne. She just wants to play a battlefield controller with her sentient mud geyser, but the mayfly swarm hive mind player is saying "You can't play that because it conflicts with my own character concept."
The concepts don't conflict. There's nothing conflicting about having two battlefield controllers in one party. From experience, I can tell you it can actually be really effective. The mud geyser player is being unreasonable by demanding that other players change their characters. I would find it unreasonable for someone playing a drow character to demand everyone else not play drow so that they can be the only drow in the party.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, we should all act like adults.
However, I've been reading this thread, including the dozens of deleted comments, and it has been repeatedly stated or implied that for a GM to have a game preference that conflicts with a player's desire is not acceptable, the GM is EXPECTED to figure out how to accommodate the "special snowflake" player.
What I attempted to do in these last few posts is demonstrate that this is not a player vs GM issue, as so many people want to make it (and then put the onus in the GM). It is a player vs player issue, and in some cases one of the players just happens to be the GM..
My problem is the fundamental assertion I have seen here over and over that the GM has some special "responsibility" to accommodate special snowflakes.
I don't think they do. Sure it is always best to behave like adults (but if that were the case we wouldn't be having the "special snowflake" discussion in the first place) but sometimes people don't.
I just don't agree with the assertion that GMs are EXPECTED to accommodate whatever their players want, any more than the sentient mud geyser player should be expected to abandon their concept because the hive mind mayfly swarm player wants them to.
But for the sentient mud geyser player, it is exactly the same thing Vivianne. She just wants to play a battlefield controller with her sentient mud geyser, but the mayfly swarm hive mind player is saying "You can't play that because it conflicts with my own character concept."The concepts don't conflict. There's nothing conflicting about having two battlefield controllers in one party. From experience, I can tell you it can actually be really effective. The mud geyser player is being unreasonable by demanding that other players change their characters. I would find it unreasonable for someone playing a drow character to demand everyone else not play drow so that they can be the only drow in the party.
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?
|
But what if I wanted to play a good Goomba? (Cue someone who isn't at work posting that video of the Goomba growing up to join the army and fight the "evil" Mario.FYI, Mario as a villain was first explored in Donkey Kong Jr., the second game ever released in the Mario franchise, released in 1982, three years before Bowser or goombas were introduced.
So yes, Mario was a villain before Bowser. Get over it.
Yes. In Donkey Kong.
Meaning things are different in different campaigns within the same game world.
Way to miss my point...
I made a post, and then deleted it. It has been pointed out to me, on more than one occasion that my understanding of this game is most likely flawed due to a type of exposure not all that common. I apologize if I have caused anyone to be offended.
No apologies necessary (to me at least, I can't speak for everyone else!). Understanding that everyone's situation isn't the same and your own values don't necessarily apply to everyone else is one of the most important things people can learn from these threads.
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?
As the GM? I tell them to act like adults and freakin' work it out among themselves (and why are you bothering me?).
(I'm serious - but since, my group are all friends, that would be the expected response.)
I agree. It's important to remember that at the end of the day you aren't gming for the sake of gming; you are gming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your campaign to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your character to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
Everyone keeps putting it all on either the Player or the GM's shoulders, when the GM and Players should be meeting and talking to each other to find an acceptable compromise they can both enjoy, and agreeing not to play in the same game if they cannot.
I'd never, ever force a friend to play in a game they couldn't find an acceptable way to fit into, and I'd never force a friend to accept a character they objected to.
Also, don't assume everyone is GMing to have fun with friends. I don't usually even know half of my players until we begin, so there's no real incentive to make sweeping changes to accommodate them. I'm usually okay with making adjustments to the world to fit in a race I haven't thought about, but not the campaign theme. If I've intentionally picked to run a serious-themed game, then comedy characters aren't welcome, and vice-versa.
My incentive comes from wanting to play out a certain type of story with a group of players. Telling me to change the story theme is telling me to stop enjoying the game. That story theme could be "ultra-serious fantasy set during a drow/human war", or "gritty sci-fi aboard a commercial space liner in the near future", or even "Modern-day superhero comedy." I care more whether the player is willing to play to that theme than what character they bring, because if they're not there's little point in them participating.
I don't put it all on the player. However, I'm pointing out that his statement applies the other direction too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
137ben,
In my opinion the GM can sometimes be the "special snowflake" themselves.
It happens. "My world is so awesomely unique and special that it would be a crime against nature for me to modify if."
Most GMs aren't like that. The situation is usually "Geez, to work that into my campaign is a ton of work and not really the direction I wanted to go with it." Which competes on even terms with "I really want to play a hive mind mayfly swarm because it's totally awesome."
The solution is to avoid special snowflakes as players and GMs.
So wh is the onus on the gm to change the already created setting rather than the player to change the not yet created character?Yes. The DM has the authority so the onus of making changes is on them. It's like what Spiderman's dead uncle said: with great power comes great responsibility.
Now, of course, the DM doesn't actually have to change anything. They can be as inflexible as they want and there's not really anyone who can force them to do otherwise. If you do this as a DM, you'll probably still get players. I know I personally have played with DMs who have, to put it gently, been less than stellar. I'd rather play a flawed game with my friends than refuse to play because of problems with the game.
However, it doesn't have to be that way. I do think it's possible to run a game where everyone can have what they want. I can run the campaign I want with the setting details I want while each player can play the character they want. I prefer this. The game is more fun if everyone is playing the character they want and no one feels like their ideas were shot down.
This isn't even hard to do. I earnestly think that someone playing a character I don't like will not ruin the game for me. Confer two paragraphs above: a less than perfect game is better than no game. The only other things left to do are to be parsimonious with restrictions in the setting and to be willing to work with the ideas of others. For example, I don't say "all elves are tree-hugging hippies" I say "most of these elves in this area are tree-hugging hippies".
If the setting has no elves and you demand to play one, then there is no way we are both getting what we want in details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't put it all on the player. However, I'm pointing out that his statement applies the other direction too.
Yep, I didn't mean it to single your post out, it was just quoted to put the other quote into context, sorry!
137ben,
In my opinion the GM can sometimes be the "special snowflake" themselves.
It happens. "My world is so awesomely unique and special that it would be a crime against nature for me to modify if."
Most GMs aren't like that. The situation is usually "Geez, to work that into my campaign is a ton of work and not really the direction I wanted to go with it." Which competes on even terms with "I really want to play a hive mind mayfly swarm because it's totally awesome."
The solution is to avoid special snowflakes as players and GMs.
I approve of this solution. I'd probably use "Avoid playing with people you can't work collaboratively with."
You have it backwards, though:
In the first situation discussed in the thread, one player (the GM) is demanding that another player abandon their character idea just because the GM wants them to.
Or, one player (the player) is demanding that the GM change their campaign idea just because the player wants them to.
Neither of them should be demanding anything. Why can't they work together and find a compromise that makes the game fun for both?
My problem is the fundamental assertion I have seen here over and over that the GM has some special "responsibility" to accommodate special snowflakes...
I just don't agree with the assertion that GMs are EXPECTED to accommodate whatever their players want, any more than the sentient mud geyser player should be expected to abandon their concept because the hive mind mayfly swarm wants them to.
The goal is for everyone to have fun. Each player being able to play the character they want contributes to that. The DM running the game they want to run contributes to that. The kicker is that, outside of really extreme cases, it's possible for everyone to get what they want at the same time.
I think the problem is that people overstate what they want. I doubt that what sentient geyser player really wants is to play the only battlefield controller. I doubt that when thinking up their character, foremost on their mind was "I want everyone else to not play a battlefield controller". Rather, they want to play a battlefield controller and they want the party to competently mesh together and cover all necessary roles. The demand that mayfly hive mind player change their character grew out of this combination of wants, but it's not the only way for sentient geyser player to get what they want. It's possible to have two characters in a party who do battlefield control and still have a competent party which covers all roles.
Similarly, using the example of "all drow in the setting are evil" from above, I doubt that what the DM really wants is for 100% of all drow without exception to be evil. More likely, when thinking up the setting, their thoughts on drow were something like "I don't like that it seems most drow are CG. I want my players to be afraid when they run into a group of drow and know that they are evil and dangerous." It's possible for this DM to have what they want in the setting and for a player to play a good drow: drow society is evil and most drow are evil, but there are exceptions. In some ways, the drow in the party makes it easier to play up the viciousness of drow in general, since it gives an easy point of reference.
As for why the DM is the person with the responsibility here, it's because they are the one with the authority. The mud geyser player doesn't have the authority to force other players to do what they want (and really, the DM is probably going to be involved in adjudicating this conflict). The DM does have that authority. If a player comes to the DM and says "I want to play X", the DM is the person who decides how the setting at large would react to the presence of X. Of course they have responsibility here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'd totally allow sentient mud geysers and hive mind mayfly swarms in my world. In fact I'm going to go do it now.
So this thread is a total win for me. Two cool new races for my world! Woohoo!
Vivienne, my understanding of your argument here is that I see your position as essentially assuming that in any dispute between player and GM, the GM is being the "special snowflake".
I'm saying that is true sometimes, but sometimes it's the player, sometimes it's both and sometimes it's neither, and it's just a situation where two equally responsible players don't agree.
It happens.
As for why the DM is the person with the responsibility here, it's because they are the one with the authority. The mud geyser player doesn't have the authority to force other players to do what they want (and really, the DM is probably going to be involved in adjudicating this conflict). The DM does have that authority. If a player comes to the DM and says "I want to play X", the DM is the person who decides how the setting at large would react to the presence of X. Of course they have responsibility here.
Someone's going to say it, so it may as well be me.
If the GM is the one with the authority, they also have the authority to say "You know, this is going to be so much easier to do if I just find another player that doesn't want to play a Drow." Not that I think that's a good idea, it's just that they were just given the authority to run the game and responsibility to make it work for all their players. When that person isn't their player any more, they've solved it with the minimum of effort.
Now, I'd rather think of it as everyone having shared authority and responsibility. The GM doesn't really have any authority except for what occurs in the game world (well, unless it's also their house you're playing in, but I'd rather not bring that into it and assume everyone at the table is equals). Outside of that, it's everyone's responsibility to get along together as a group and cooperate rather than demand.
The other side of the coin is, if this is a group that regularly rotates GMs, and a player makes my life difficult by wanting a character I think I'll have problems fitting into the story, then I'm probably warranted to do the exact same back to them when it's their turn as GM. I'd feel a lot better if we both decided to play characters that fit in so as not to annoy each other too much.
Honestly, I'd totally allow sentient mud geysers and hive mind mayfly swarms in my world. In fact I'm going to go do it now.
So this thread is a total win for me. Two cool new races for my world! Woohoo!
Post the stats when you do, I wanna see :D