|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part of the argument in this thread that really makes me shake my head is the one that goes like this:
Player: "I want to play a XXX character!
GM: "I don't want to include a XXX character in my world."
Player: "My want is more important than your don't want."I literally cannot fathom the mental machinations behind that logical construct. It is literally saying the player's desire is more important than the GM's.
Worse, you must facilitate making what I want happen, even if you don't want it to happen, or you are being selfish.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of argument, I'm going to do a hypothetical here. And it will be a very realistic one.
I have a 35 year old campaign world. I have included lots of new content, including races and classes since I started it. I modified it to Pathfinder about three years ago. But I have not added EVERY race or class to it yet. For example, I do not yet have any catfolk nor are there any gunslingers.
So, let's say a player wanted to play a catfolk gunslinger. What does that mean for my world?
Well, there are two seriously impactful consequences. 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 to help me work out how they fit into my world, and even then that can only happen if I have the time to invest in the effort. Otherwise, no, you can't play one. Not yet anyway."
Totally off topic, but does anyone know how a Gunslinger works using crossbows instead of guns? Actually, that is what I might ask to do if I was on a world where Guns are off kilter, but I want that Gunslinger feel.
I've thought about a modified crossbow concept to allow gunslingers. Just haven't had anyone ask to play one yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I'm surprised this hasn't been an archetype yet.
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.
How could it be? Crossbows don't work like that. They would have to make a pretty big change to the game to make this work. Perfectly fine in a home game, but they already have a line of products in which crossbows work like they always have, it would be complicated to change that now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part of the argument in this thread that really makes me shake my head is the one that goes like this:
Player: "I want to play a XXX character!
GM: "I don't want to include a XXX character in my world."
Player: "My want is more important than your don't want."I literally cannot fathom the mental machinations behind that logical construct. It is literally saying the player's desire is more important than the GM's.
What if the last statement was more "My want is no less important than your don't want."
|
|
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.
Because archetypes never add things...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the last statement was more "My want is no less important than your don't want."The part of the argument in this thread that really makes me shake my head is the one that goes like this:
Player: "I want to play a XXX character!
GM: "I don't want to include a XXX character in my world."
Player: "My want is more important than your don't want."I literally cannot fathom the mental machinations behind that logical construct. It is literally saying the player's desire is more important than the GM's.
Correct me if I am wrong.
There are roughly 3 viable outcomes.
1. The player gets the character and the GM does not enjoy the game very much, because they are having to write for a concept they don't like.
2. The player picks another character that they both like and they both enjoy the game.
3. The player is unable to come up with a character they both like, so they shouldn't be at the same table.
What do you disagree with that I just said? And if you don't disagree, why would option 1 be the correct option?
|
Correct me if I am wrong.
There are roughly 3 viable outcomes.
1. The player gets the character and the GM does not enjoy the game very much, because they are having to write for a concept they don't like.
2. The player picks another character that they both like and they both enjoy the game.
3. The player is unable to come up with a character they both like, so they shouldn't be at the same table.
What do you disagree with that I just said? And if you don't disagree, why would option 1 be the correct option?
4. The player gets the character and the GM is pleasantly surprised by how much he enjoys the game.
5. The player picks another character that they both like and doesn't enjoy the game.
6. The player picks another character that they don't like and enjoys the game.
7. The player picks another character that they don't like and doesn't enjoy the game.
Probably some others.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct me if I am wrong.
There are roughly 3 viable outcomes.
1. The player gets the character and the GM does not enjoy the game very much, because they are having to write for a concept they don't like.
2. The player picks another character that they both like and they both enjoy the game.
3. The player is unable to come up with a character they both like, so they shouldn't be at the same table.
What do you disagree with that I just said? And if you don't disagree, why would option 1 be the correct option?
4. The player gets the character and the GM is pleasantly surprised by how much he enjoys the game.
5. The player picks another character that they both like and doesn't enjoy the game.
6. The player picks another character that they don't like and enjoys the game.
7. The player picks another character that they don't like and doesn't enjoy the game.
Probably some others.
4.Possible, but not probable. If it is a one off I don't care. If we will be having this character at the table every week for the next few years...yeah, I kinda do.
5. Less likely than option 2, since presumably the player is picking another option they could like, and are capable of doing so (if not...meh...)
6. Why would the player pick something they don't like.
7. See above.
Several of these assume a player who seeks to make themselves unhappy...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Option 2 is a compromise.
Option 1 and 3 are the inability to compromise.
Option 2 is one possible compromise. Not necessarily the only one.
Option 4 includes case-specific compromises.
Option 5 is another alternative when both options 2 and 4 fail, which I consider better than options 1 and 3.
Your claim that only those three specific possibilities you listed could exist is patently absurd.
Option 4 is option 2. Either the player adjusts the concept to make it something that won't make the game less fun for other, or they don't. That is the compromise. Compromise is not "I want this, so you need to compromise to give it to me"
Option 5 is what you did when you all decided what setting you were running and who was going to be the GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect all those things would apply, though I do believe there a hierarchy or 'degrees' of importance that gets a different amount of visceral rejection.
Races are a biggie, because it generally requires the introduction of a brand new culture and some sort of integration into existing societies and realms... something that some time-strapped DMs have little desire to bother doing. (Or, alternately, allowing the weird race and then simply treated it entirely in all aspects as a human and/or generally ignoring it.)
Classes less so, then archtypes, feats, etc. Anything that might have a cultural impact I would say is probably bigger than non-cultural impacts (ignoring broken mechanics, of course, which usually tops the list above all else - but I don't think anyone argued otherwise, so we can ignore that for the purposes of this thread).
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.)
Lots of good things here (and in the rest I snipped out). My post was more to see if the same sort of reaction was given to removing something like a class or rule as their was to removing drow or kitty-people or ooze creatures.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of argument, I'm going to do a hypothetical here. And it will be a very realistic one.
I have a 35 year old campaign world. I have included lots of new content, including races and classes since I started it. I modified it to Pathfinder about three years ago. But I have not added EVERY race or class to it yet. For example, I do not yet have any catfolk nor are there any gunslingers.
<<tons of good stuff follows>>
Everything said here and in Terquem's follow up post resound very strongly with me, which is why when I see posts that compare the player's concept and the GM's work (the last often said with an air of derision) as if the two are somehow equal as troubling. The posts, and I may just be misreading, seem to suggest that "just stuff this in any ol' where" is the answer to the majority of the concept wants and that the "sanctity of the setting" should be set aside in order for someone to get their idea in.
The idea of a compromise should start with communication, the first of which is "did you read the documentation I gave you/told you about the game and the world?" If the player says "yes but I still want to shove this idea in anyway", that's where I start to have issues.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, at least for me, if they say "yes I did read it, and here's how I think it can fit in". And they give an answer that shows they care about the answer and about the answer fitting in rather than just throwing together an excuse ... I'm going to seriously think about it.
Right, if they read it and come to me before the game starts with ideas, I'll at least listen. If they wait until the last minute or otherwise don't seem inclined to work with me then we start to have issues.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point of the "compromise" approach is that the player and the GM have to first accept that neither's "want" trumps the other.
If they can't get that far, they may as well part ways and move on with different games.
If they can recognize that neither one's desires are more important than the other's, at least they have a chance of reaching some sort of solution. That solution could be of an almost infinite variety of solutions ranging on the one extreme from the GM deciding "You know, I think I can work that in after all," to the player deciding "There's a lot of other concepts I would love to play that fit in your game just fine," or anything in between. And the discussion should definitely factor in the difficulty, time and/or expense of one or both players to accommodate the other.
But that would be the adult way of handling things. So good luck with that. At least I can say I've been blessed that it has worked at my table.
You talk about wiggle room from both sides but the fact is you aren't always going to get it and if I am running the game then I hold the most cards. If I don't want to budge in my restrictions then its up to you to convince everyone else to side with you.
All I have to do is pitch my idea and wait for everyone to vote.
Well, yes obviously you can make it a battle of wills. My point is that many GMs (and perhaps you are one of them) do so over what are really trivial issues, and that is unfortunate. Many times the game would not actually have suffered from the inclusion of the thing the player wanted, and might even have benefited. In the case where the GM simply will not work with him then, yes, he is forced to choose between sucking it up and playing entirely the GM's way, or just opting out. But if the player's requests or desires were actually reasonable, then that kind of rigidity is ultimately a petty move on the GM's part.
Did your character eat the flesh of dead elves?dead elves, humans, orcs, dragons, you name it
if it was living or undead
it mattered not whether it was
biped or quadreped
sentient or nonsentient
humanoid or animal
outsider or magical beast
natural or unnatural
dwarf or orc
edible meat, was edible meat, though some meats needed to be refined first by means of purification by heat/boiling/sterilizing
she was raised by humans, and most them were unaware of what an elf was
they simply called her "Moon Child." due to a combination of her pale skin, lithe frame, her enhanced photosensitivity (darkvision alternate racial) and her light but silent steps (the silent hunter alternate racial)
the civilized peoples, called her "Selene Huntress" a name she adopted, based off a bit of real world reference, where "Selene" was the goddess of the moon and the hunt, before Artemis took over.
in other words, Selene is either another name for Artemis, or the predecessor to Artemis, can't remember which.
her regional deity, was a powerful animistic spirit they called "Mother Huntress" in the common tongue. "Mother Huntress" being a reference to the Vestige in tome of magic known as "Grandmother Huntress" and to the goddess "Artemis" of Greek Mythology.
i wouldn't fit her in a game that didn't have such savages to raise her by means of at least a country or two away.
This is not meant to be an argument, but
There isn't any way I could allow this character in any game I would ever run because I would have to either
a) create a setting where all other sentient races this character interacts with are okay with the idea of eating the flesh of dead sentient beings, which I could never do
or
b) create a setting entirely revolving around this character's constant struggle to find acceptance in a world that finds the eating of the flesh of sentient beings to be abhorrent, which could be done, but would sideline any other character's role and I do not like to run games just for one character
you needn't do either
a cannabilistic tribe or few in the outskirts are fine. people don't need to be fine with cannibalism in general, just open minded enough to tolerate the customs of such a tribe
it doesn't need to be okay, just tolerated, kinda like certain recreational drugs in certain european cities.
won't get you necessarily arrested, but will draw a bit of negative attention in the form of wierd looks and wierd comments
Look, in both cases the world is reacting in a realistic way. In one situation the world is reacting to you trying to create a character of a race that doesn't exist by it continuing not to exist...
I say again: None of this exists. It is fantasy. You are making it up. So what (and this is a serious question), other than mere tradition, gives the GM so much greater authority than the player over what "exists" and what does not? You are both collaborating to tell a story which is primarily about the player characters and not about the setting. To say "the GM creates the world and the player creates the character, and never the twain shall meet" is superficial. Because the two things influence one another.
Lots of good things here (and in the rest I snipped out). My post was more to see if the same sort of reaction was given to removing something like a class or rule as their was to removing drow or kitty-people or ooze creatures.
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.
Pres man, your example of a rogue in the city for two levels suddenly wanting to take a level of barbarian while the GM feels they haven't had a chance to pick up barbarian levels is presented as a conflict between the two.
Are you willing at all to acknowledge that it might be an issue of verisimilitude and game immersion? Is it possible that the GM feels that this approach is violating his concept of how characters advance, and therefore compromising his view of how his world works?
This goes to one of the core inevitable conflicts in the game, the conflict between the GM ""owning" his world and the player "owning" his character. It's a legitimate conflict of expectations and game style. And again it is best if the two involved can at least discuss it civilly and accept that there is more going on than the GM being a jerk or the player being entitled.
The whole point of the "compromise" approach is that the player and the GM have to first accept that neither's "want" trumps the other...
If they can recognize that neither one's desires are more important than the other's...
Ah, the tables have turned! We find ourselves in agreement (or at least theoretical agreement, as I am to some degree playing devil's advocate in this thread). What I am pointing out is that your quotes above, in most GMs' minds, actually represent a radical notion of the relative power balance. Most GMs balk at the idea that there is anything like equality between their desires and those of their players. We are seeing a lot of that attitude in this thread. I am not saying that it is wrong or right, but what I AM trying to make the proponents of GM authority do is defend their position with a logical argument rather than with indignation and tradition. I realize that it has long been accepted at most D&D tables that the GM has far more authority over what is in the world than the players, and I am genuinely looking for an answer to the question of why this should be so.
The gm makes a world. The player makes a character within that world. Then, yes, the story is about the characters actions WITHIN that world...
You are saying these things as though they are inevitable and self-evident. I am suggesting that they are not.