|
As to the 2nd question, I (we) rarely create a new world, but we often want to explore sections of the world.
And when we are there, most of the time we want to actually be there. As in be characters from this place.
Sure, you mix in things from time to time, but as I said, fish out of water is a tired trope for most of us.
I think we are starting to hear the underlying reason for the difference. Some folks believe it is perfectly okay to tell another player that the character can't be played because they personally don't like the character. Not that it doesn't fit the setting/theme or wouldn't be within character creation guidelines by race/class/level/etc, but merely because they don't like it. Some other folks believe that if you want to hinder another player's character design, you should probably have a better reason than the totally subjective you just don't personally like it reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are starting to hear the underlying reason for the difference. Some folks believe it is perfectly okay to tell another player that the character can't be played because they personally don't like the character.
This isn't underlying.
This is stated. Has been stated.
It is ok to say "I don't want to play in the setting you want to run"
And it is ok to say "I don't want to run the concept you want to play."
No amount of communication is going to get me to enjoy brussell sprouts, so if that is what you are serving I'll take a pass and let the people who actually enjoy brussell sprouts enjoy the brussell sprouts.
The GM does not exist to serve the players.
The players do not exist to serve the GM.
If either party doesn't like what is being served, neither is required to partake.
Requiring everyone to do so isn't friendship. It's co-dependence.
Well, this is very much a how many angels can dance on the head of pin type question, but is there a definable difference between a character you don't like but don't mind running a game for or having in your party, and one that would just drive you from the table no matter what? Let me say, if someone wants to play a druid who spends all their time in wildshape, I really don't care, but if one my players shows up with the Ponyfinder 3PP (yeah, it's out there) he and I are probably going to have a talk that doesn't end with us playing RPGs together.
I'm reminded of a thread where a GM brought his girlfriend into his playgroup as a good drow outcast type, and the players in his group killed her character claiming that their characters had plenty of in game reasons to kill drow on sight. On the one hand, if the GM's girlfriend comes to her first session playing a noble outcast from drow society with tears of loneliness running down s/her androgynous cheekbones, that has so many GM favoritism red flags on it that I think the snark in my description is warranted. On the other hand, killing someone's character during their first play session isn't a crappy thing for one player's character to do another player's character, it's a crappy thing one one person seated at the game table to do another person seated across the table. I'd be very surprised if that GM's relationship, playgroup, or both, didn't split up before too long.
That example doesn't have anything to do with you, Cire; I guess I'm just saying that sometimes everyone makes what they feel is a perfectly reasonable decision, and it all adds up to an unworkable situation. But in those situations, everyone really means everyone, not just "everyone I disagree with."
|
|
I'm never going to love every concept a player brings me. But I shouldn't have to play with one I don't like any more than a player shouldn't have to play in a setting they don't like.
And if I say upfront this is going to be a theme setting, rather than a generic world setting, and you don't like the theme that is fine. But saying I have to include something that doesn't fit the theme I described to you as the setting is basically saying "I'm not interested in your setting, but run my character in it anyway."
And that isn't cool.
That GM messed up by not talking to the group before bringing anyone in. And the group punished him...dickishly.
There were major communications issues, obviously.
But if I can never tell you "No, I don't like that can you pick something else?" isn't that in and of itself a communication problem?
I have to say, ciretose, I could totally see a ninja fitting into a Pirate-themed game.
It could be pretty amazing, actually.
Of course, though, I'd be more than willing to make accommodations... but that's just me.
And, of course, it would heavily depend on the world, and the "flavor" of the ninja in question.
Incidentally, I had a dream a while back of a Fish Out of Water scenario. Really weird. Literally a fish out of the water. He was all swimming around in the air, and people were all, "Whoa! You're a fish! Out of water!" And the fish was really confused, too. Can't recall how it ends.
...
So, yeah, that was a random. Back to your previously scheduled conversation...
I'm never going to love every concept a player brings me. But I shouldn't have to play with one I don't like any more than a player shouldn't have to play in a setting they don't like.
And if I say upfront this is going to be a theme setting, rather than a generic world setting, and you don't like the theme that is fine. But saying I have to include something that doesn't fit the theme I described to you as the setting is basically saying "I'm not interested in your setting, but run my character in it anyway."
And that isn't cool.
That GM messed up by not talking to the group before bringing anyone in. And the group punished him...dickishly.
There were major communications issues, obviously.
But if I can never tell you "No, I don't like that can you pick something else?" isn't that in and of itself a communication problem?
Oh that's totally, in and of itself, a communication problem. Or maybe a personality problem, but yeah, some sort of problem. Of course, it's worth considering (and I'm sure you're aware, 'cause you wrote it) that that can be said by a GM to a player, or by a player to a GM.
Hug it out, b#~!$es!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps what we need is a person whose reaction to a character or a race or a setting or a theme they didn't like was like Commander Data when he got his emotion chip tasting alchohol.
Data: 'That's revolting!'
Guinan: 'More?'
Data: 'PLEASE!'
And, this is a more general question, but how many people here (well, virtually present, I guess) create a new world for each campaign, and how many set their new campaigns in the same world time after time? (I myself do the latter.)
Worlds, not so often. I'll either use published settings, or one of a couple I've designed. Sometimes a brand new (or so ancient nobody can remember it) game or setting just to mix things up.
Different campaign themes (often with their own requirements of character concepts that can fit in with that theme), all the time.
I think I may have had a little breakthrough epiphany on this that might help add some clarity in both directions.
|
Perhaps what we need is a person whose reaction to a character or a race or a setting or a theme they didn't like was like Commander Data when he got his emotion chip tasting alchohol.
Data: 'That's revolting!'
Guinan: 'More?'
Data: 'PLEASE!'
Says the person who is willing to break a GM's campaign world for his, and I quote: "own amusement". ;-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only "miscommunication" we are actually getting is when those certain players aren't getting the answer they were expecting from DM's other than their own.
If that's the way you view it its already doomed to failure unfortunately. A bias like that tends to eat away at communication, which in turn hurts your relationship and ability to problem solve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I may have had a little breakthrough epiphany on this that might help add some clarity in both directions.
It is a good and interesting post that encapsulates how a good many people, both players and GMs, like to feel. Everyone wants to have a neat moment when they play where they feel useful or that they've done something interesting, a "wow" moment where the players are awestruck by how a fellow player or GM does something.
That said, I am not in total agreement that it is the GMs One Job. Certainly it is part of their job in sculpting the world and reacting to the player to allow them the opportunity to shine. But it is partially the player's responsibility as well to look for a chance to use their skills or powers and find those moments where they can get that special moment, to help shape the narrative.
Your follow up post about GMs .. well. I am not in agreement on that one, not entirely. I think you may be on the right track, but that part of the problem is less about getting a moment of awesome for the GM and more about feeling a disconnect with the players where things are not firing on all cylinders. For myself, at least, it isn't a matter of being in control but rather making sure we are all on the same page and all having fun doing whatever it is we are doing, be it shopping in town, slaying a dragon, delving in a dungeon, or wondering why the random encounter dice are so cruel.
I'm not sold that GMs are thinking that the players are ungrateful or unwilling, but more a frustration that they cannot communicate with the person that is causing whatever the "problem" is. Keep in mind problem doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, but rather that there is a disconnect involved and the two sides aren't getting through to each other; that said, one or more of the parties involved may also be going out of their way to be troublesome. That's an entirely different deal.
|
|
I think I may have had a little breakthrough epiphany on this that might help add some clarity in both directions.
Not really.
As I said in the thread, you describe a guy wanting a thing for himself and seemed to say "It is the GM's job to give it to him"
I view that as a Guy not thinking about the rest of the group or what other people want, and so why reward that behavior and therefore encourage more of it.
Not to say you should punish him, but what I want to do as a GM is to have the party become a party, caring about each others characters as much as they care about their own. Caring about the world and what happens even more than the specific character they are playing.
It is a group activity. My best memories of gaming are never what I did in a given encounter, but when we, as a party did something awesome.
Sure, we all smack talk about when we did a specific cool thing, but honestly I am just as happy swapping stories of other people doing cool things in games I was in.
This is what bothers me. If everyone makes it about getting what they want, I think the game suffers.
And the GM, above everyone else, shouldn't be encouraging people to make the game about themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically if its about getting what everyone else wants but some people are more lenient than others, only the most selfish person really wins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically if its about getting what everyone else wants but some people are more lenient than others, only the most selfish person really wins.This is kind of my point.
Until people get tired of dealing with the selfish player and forget to call them and tell them about the next game.
In theory. Of course social relationships have a number of variables involved, such as whether you want to play with them, how much you like them, biases. It can also be hard to notice your the one being selfish. There's also a variance in how lenient people are to jerk behavior. Again, the guy who's most selfish gets to be the winner once the game gets started. It was made for him after all.
Also, don't just forget to call someone. Worst way to handle things if you still want to remain friends.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically if its about getting what everyone else wants but some people are more lenient than others, only the most selfish person really wins.This is kind of my point.
Until people get tired of dealing with the selfish player and forget to call them and tell them about the next game.
In theory. Of course social relationships have a number of variables involved, such as whether you want to play with them, how much you like them, biases. It can also be hard to notice your the one being selfish. There's also a variance in how lenient people are to jerk behavior. Again, the guy who's most selfish gets to be the winner once the game gets started. It was made for him after all.
Also, don't just forget to call someone. Worst way to handle things if you still want to remain friends.
I generally don't want to remain friends with someone that is selfish. I end up losing out in the end.
On the few occasions I did, the selfish person actually laughed about it, because it is totally what they would have done. Which is kind of why I wanted to stay friends with them, because they were upfront about it and amusing.
Generally speaking if 5 people would like to continue playing with each other, but not a specific person...it's probably the specific person.
And if you are having the concerns communicated to you and your response is to not change your behavior but to blame them for being unhappy about it...also not generally a great sign the relationship has a future, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong".
Unless you are married and it is just one of those pissing matches that happen from time to time because forever is a very, very, long time :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, ciretose, I could totally see a ninja fitting into a Pirate-themed game.
It could. It was just the "Pirates vs Ninja" example that popped into my head because there is a paintball thing on that theme I was thinking of when I typed it.
But if that isn't what the GM is interested in running, you shouldn't try to make them in the same way the GM should make a player run a specific type of character if they aren't interested.
You can encourage, but you can't order and you shouldn't badger either or be pushy toward either.
I certainly agree about the badgering and being pushy.
It's just that when I personally think of a pirate campaign, the things I think of (equatorial seafaring adventures, sailing ships, tricorn hats, flintlock pistols) have a lot more to do with the setting and encounters than anything that would limit race and class options.
Full disclosure, my gaming group meets about once a month at this point, so I'm much more likely to come up with a pirate scenario than a pirate campaign. When I'm working on a scenario, I can design for my play group's existing characters rather than having to worry about character creation at all.
|
|
I certainly agree about the badgering and being pushy.
It's just that when I personally think of a pirate campaign, the things I think of (equatorial seafaring adventures, sailing ships, tricorn hats, flintlock pistols) have a lot more to do with the setting and encounters than anything that would limit race and class options.
Full disclosure, my gaming group meets about once a month at this point, so I'm much more likely to come up with a pirate scenario than a pirate campaign. When I'm working on a scenario, I can design for my play group's existing characters rather than having to worry about character creation at all.
We are arguing on specifics at this point, as we largely agree it seems, but my point is that because that is what you envision it that way doesn't mean you can make want to envision it that way.
And if you don't like the GM's vision, and you can't come to agreement, it isn't always communication. Sometimes it is just different tastes and preferences.
I didn't think we were arguing, even on specifics, at this point. I was describing my experience and/or GM-ing style and wondering how it compared to yours.