| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I'm in the minority, in that I see unusual PCs as an opportunity rather than a hassle.
For me, it really depends on the PC, the player themselves, and what the "unusual PC" is. If I am not used to the player -- or worse I am used to them and know what horror I am about to witness -- then I am more reluctant to give them a blank check to run wild.
For those I am cool with, I don't mind giving them the latitude to be creative within the frame work we've set up. That said, sometimes that wildness can be a problem or become the spotlight of the game rather than a seasoning to what is going on, which leads to people being upset about spotlight hogs or the more derogative "special snowflake".
I've always been at the opinion that an attention whore is an attention whore, no matter what they play.
I've seen people make fusses about their weapon, even if not magical ... one player didn't just have a double-sword, he had an awesome double-sword and insisted it be referred to as such. "So, take your weapon ..." "you mean 'take your awesome double-sword'."
Elves who continually drone on about their longevity, dwarves who drone on about their toughness ... or just the guy who's loud and sticks his nose in everybody's business and dominates the group by never shutting up and bossing everybody around.
While I'm not denying an unusual PC may be something of an enabler, the problem is with the player, not the races. If the player wants to hog the spotlight, he'll find a way.
I've always been at the opinion that an attention whore is an attention whore, no matter what they play.
I've seen people make fusses about their weapon, even if not magical ... one player didn't just have a double-sword, he had an awesome double-sword and insisted it be referred to as such. "So, take your weapon ..." "you mean 'take your awesome double-sword'."
Elves who continually drone on about their longevity, dwarves who drone on about their toughness ... or just the guy who's loud and sticks his nose in everybody's business and dominates the group by never shutting up and bossing everybody around.
While I'm not denying an unusual PC may be something of an enabler, the problem is with the player, not the races. If the player wants to hog the spotlight, he'll find a way.
Oh no doubt of that, it is definitely the player. And when I can identify those people, I move to eliminate the variables in the problems they'll cause -- less options available means one less means for them to be problematic/spotlight hogs/etc.
Oh no doubt of that, it is definitely the player. And when I can identify those people, I move to eliminate the variables in the problems they'll cause -- less options available means one less means for them to be problematic/spotlight hogs/etc.I've always been at the opinion that an attention whore is an attention whore, no matter what they play.
I've seen people make fusses about their weapon, even if not magical ... one player didn't just have a double-sword, he had an awesome double-sword and insisted it be referred to as such. "So, take your weapon ..." "you mean 'take your awesome double-sword'."
Elves who continually drone on about their longevity, dwarves who drone on about their toughness ... or just the guy who's loud and sticks his nose in everybody's business and dominates the group by never shutting up and bossing everybody around.
While I'm not denying an unusual PC may be something of an enabler, the problem is with the player, not the races. If the player wants to hog the spotlight, he'll find a way.
I look at that as treating the symptoms, not the disease. If the player is the problem, you deal with the player.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone clever once said they design campaigns by drawing the lines, and the players had free reign to colour between them.
Example:
If I am keen to run a game set in the Fablewood, beggining in the city of Aesop, a campaign world with all animal-headed humanoids (tengu, catfolk, vanara, ratfolk etc) inspired by Mouse Guard, Redwall etc I'd put together a brief outline of what the world is like (Maybe a page max).
I'd put a list of playable races and I'd specifically tell the players: No humans, elfs, halflings, dwarfs.
If a player approached me and said: "I'd really like to play a badgerman, but there's no badgerman stats, can I just use the Dwarf stats instead?"
I'd probably say yes.
If a player approached me and said: "I don't want to play a furry in your campaign setting."
I'd probably tell them that this probably isn't the game for them.
Alternatively:
If someone says they are running a game heavily based on classic fantasy authors like Tolkien and Raymond E. Feist, and said that they only want CRB races I'd try to find a hook to make an interesting character with those those restrictions.
To me, restriction breeds creativity, what you leave out is as important as what you put in.
BUT
If a GM is running a melting pot world, (like Golarion or Eberron), where everything goes and a player wants to take advantage of the opportunity to play something off the wall (a tiefling, a kobold or what-have-you) and the GM says No it can feel arbitrary.
GM: "I don't like catfolk."
Player: "But I was really looking forward to playing one. I know they're rare in Varisia, but I had an idea that maybe his family joined a Varisian caravan after being shipwrecked years ago."
GM: "Yeah, but you're getting your furry in my traditional fantasy."
Player: "Rick's playing a Tiefling. With cat eyes and tiger stripes."
GM: "..."
Work together with the players to determine where the lines are, but try to be accepting of the colours they use. Restriction might breed creativity, but arbitrary restriction just feels mean.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at that as treating the symptoms, not the disease. If the player is the problem, you deal with the player.Oh no doubt of that, it is definitely the player. And when I can identify those people, I move to eliminate the variables in the problems they'll cause -- less options available means one less means for them to be problematic/spotlight hogs/etc.I've always been at the opinion that an attention whore is an attention whore, no matter what they play.
I've seen people make fusses about their weapon, even if not magical ... one player didn't just have a double-sword, he had an awesome double-sword and insisted it be referred to as such. "So, take your weapon ..." "you mean 'take your awesome double-sword'."
Elves who continually drone on about their longevity, dwarves who drone on about their toughness ... or just the guy who's loud and sticks his nose in everybody's business and dominates the group by never shutting up and bossing everybody around.
While I'm not denying an unusual PC may be something of an enabler, the problem is with the player, not the races. If the player wants to hog the spotlight, he'll find a way.
And whenever possible that is what I do; this is why my home games are with people that I am familiar with and don't have to worry about. It's more of an issue with pick up games or those outside the home. In which case I treat things as I can rather than toss someone from the game entirely for being a problem. Most of the time, in fact, I've been able to set guidelines and have a brief conversation with someone and iron out things before they get too far out of hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Makes sense. I've not gamed outside my regular group for literally years, so things like pickup games usually don't occur to me.
If you have magic, you can explain anything.If your world is Living Silly that's absolutely true. If however your world has a consistent theme, it' because there are boundaries that define the limits of the ranch, because you've made the conscious decision that most good GM's will make... that there are limits... even to magic.
That's why Ars Magica's Mythic Europe was so good at delivering a mystic version of midieval Europe. Because even the most accomplished magi have limits.
And its set in the "real" world so if I played in that I'd expect to play a human, same as pathfinder society (since the other standard races don't appeal to me). However if I'm playing in Golarion home campaign then I'd expect to play a Kitsune as they're there even if there a minority. If the gm tells me no because of what I feel is a genuine reason I.e. better than "I dont like furry freaks" (which is a warning sign I'd be better off leaving that group then I'll try to work round that. If they feel its overpowered for example I'd offer to use different stats (pick a core race or work out new ones with the gm as long as certain things stay in e.g. shapeshifting so I'm not losing a major part of what makes that race what it is) .
Happened in a first ed game GM allowed it but said no wizards so I made her a Kensei and had a lot of fun (and humiliated a party ranger who kept getting the group almost killed because he'd do his own thing e.g. everyone would agree to let the person who'd met the hermit deal with the hermit rather than a crowd barging in on him and this guy ran off and tried to follow them to see where the hermit.was because he didn't agree to that. Led an entire group of trolls back to the party).
And if the reason the GM does not want the race is because of the shapeshifting then what?
And if the reason the GM does not want the race is because of the shapeshifting then what?If you have magic, you can explain anything.If your world is Living Silly that's absolutely true. If however your world has a consistent theme, it' because there are boundaries that define the limits of the ranch, because you've made the conscious decision that most good GM's will make... that there are limits... even to magic.
That's why Ars Magica's Mythic Europe was so good at delivering a mystic version of midieval Europe. Because even the most accomplished magi have limits.
And its set in the "real" world so if I played in that I'd expect to play a human, same as pathfinder society (since the other standard races don't appeal to me). However if I'm playing in Golarion home campaign then I'd expect to play a Kitsune as they're there even if there a minority. If the gm tells me no because of what I feel is a genuine reason I.e. better than "I dont like furry freaks" (which is a warning sign I'd be better off leaving that group then I'll try to work round that. If they feel its overpowered for example I'd offer to use different stats (pick a core race or work out new ones with the gm as long as certain things stay in e.g. shapeshifting so I'm not losing a major part of what makes that race what it is) .
Happened in a first ed game GM allowed it but said no wizards so I made her a Kensei and had a lot of fun (and humiliated a party ranger who kept getting the group almost killed because he'd do his own thing e.g. everyone would agree to let the person who'd met the hermit deal with the hermit rather than a crowd barging in on him and this guy ran off and tried to follow them to see where the hermit.was because he didn't agree to that. Led an entire group of trolls back to the party).
"Because of the shapeshifting" isn't a very clear issue. What about the shapeshifting? If they had a problem with it, because it gave the character the ability to have a free disguise, I'd just make a gentlemanly agreement that it'd be used for flavor only, and not to sneak past the guard who's looking for a vulpine, for example. Honestly, I can't think of another reason (besides using 'shapeshifting' as a cover for other reasons) that 'shapeshifting' would be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Because of the shapeshifting" isn't a very clear issue. What about the shapeshifting? If they had a problem...And if the reason the GM does not want the race is because of the shapeshifting then what?If you have magic, you can explain anything.If your world is Living Silly that's absolutely true. If however your world has a consistent theme, it' because there are boundaries that define the limits of the ranch, because you've made the conscious decision that most good GM's will make... that there are limits... even to magic.
That's why Ars Magica's Mythic Europe was so good at delivering a mystic version of midieval Europe. Because even the most accomplished magi have limits.
And its set in the "real" world so if I played in that I'd expect to play a human, same as pathfinder society (since the other standard races don't appeal to me). However if I'm playing in Golarion home campaign then I'd expect to play a Kitsune as they're there even if there a minority. If the gm tells me no because of what I feel is a genuine reason I.e. better than "I dont like furry freaks" (which is a warning sign I'd be better off leaving that group then I'll try to work round that. If they feel its overpowered for example I'd offer to use different stats (pick a core race or work out new ones with the gm as long as certain things stay in e.g. shapeshifting so I'm not losing a major part of what makes that race what it is) .
Happened in a first ed game GM allowed it but said no wizards so I made her a Kensei and had a lot of fun (and humiliated a party ranger who kept getting the group almost killed because he'd do his own thing e.g. everyone would agree to let the person who'd met the hermit deal with the hermit rather than a crowd barging in on him and this guy ran off and tried to follow them to see where the hermit.was because he didn't agree to that. Led an entire group of trolls back to the party).
My experiences have shown that "gentelmans agreements" are honored more in their breach...
And a GM really does not need a reason beyond "I do not want it in my campaign."He is not required to explain his reasons... they may be story related and the reason may reveal more than the player needs know at this time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look at that as treating the symptoms, not the disease. If the player is the problem, you deal with the player.
Have to agree on that point: people who like to hog all the attention at the table will do so even if they're restricted to playing a human with core-only classes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is not required to explain his reasons...
Of course she isn't "required", we don't have a thought police that'll beat you up for bad communication.
That something isn't "required" doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea though, nor that neglecting to do it won't negatively affect the game.
Yes, sometimes you want to keep something secret from the players as it's part of a story arc. Then tell them that specifically; "Sorry, I'd rather you not play a dwarf because the dwarves of this world have gone almost extinct and if you played a dwarf that would interfer with the plotline". Having such a small spoiler isn't worse than seeing the cover art of any adventure path.
Yet one should try to say yes to players, especially when it comes to concepts rather than mechanics. If someone really wants to play a dwarf, it's often better to let them and then slightly change the plotline, swapping dwarves for some other species that fit nearly as well.
He is not required to explain his reasons...Of course she isn't "required", we don't have a thought police that'll beat you up for bad communication.
That something isn't "required" doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea though, nor that neglecting to do it won't negatively affect the game.
Yes, sometimes you want to keep something secret from the players as it's part of a story arc. Then tell them that specifically; "Sorry, I'd rather you not play a dwarf because the dwarves of this world have gone almost extinct and if you played a dwarf that would interfer with the plotline". Having such a small spoiler isn't worse than seeing the cover art of any adventure path.
Yet one should try to say yes to players, especially when it comes to concepts rather than mechanics. If someone really wants to play a dwarf, it's often better to let them and then slightly change the plotline, swapping dwarves for some other species that fit nearly as well.
You know what?...
I see a lot of folks spouting the "the GM should say yes to players" an awful lot.I have had cause to re-read the CRB recently and one phrase is repeated over and over through out it... "The GMs word is Law."
So there we have it in CRB no less...
The GM is the Final word on what is and is not permissible...
not the players.
not the setting books.
not the ARG.
The GM.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what?...
I see a lot of folks spouting the "the GM should say yes to players" an awful lot.
I have had cause to re-read the CRB recently and one phrase is repeated over and over through out it... "The GMs word is Law."
So there we have it in CRB no less...
The GM is the Final word on what is and is not permissible...
not the players.
not the setting books.
not the ARG.
The GM.
Well, first it'd be nice with a page reference, as the PRD doesn't seem to contain that quote anywhere at all.
Secondly, that the GM CAN ban or alter things where never in question. No-one is holding a gun to her head saying she must GM, she could always just leave.
However, that doesn't mean acting like that is GOOD GMING.
Just like a writer could write a story using only words that start with the letter "j" - it's well within the writers "rights". That doesn't mean the story wouldn't be better if it incorporated other letters too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, sometimes restrictions can improve things.
Absolutely. We never play games without restrictions; that's one of the main tools of creating a theme or flavor. But if I'm looking for a group and the GM's like "THE GMS WORD IS THE LAAAAAW!!!" then I'll continue to look.
That said, if I had a player I knew really like Kitsune (or whatever other race), I'd try to work them in. That doesn't mean that every race in the rules would be available in every campaign. More that they'd become part of the standard "core" for that group.
Exactly.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what?...
I see a lot of folks spouting the "the GM should say yes to players" an awful lot.
I have had cause to re-read the CRB recently and one phrase is repeated over and over through out it... "The GMs word is Law."
So there we have it in CRB no less...
The GM is the Final word on what is and is not permissible...
not the players.
not the setting books.
not the ARG.
The GM.
This is absolutely and indisputably true.
However, just because the GM can do something does not mean they should do that thing. A GM can have a Great Wyrm Red Dragon murder the (1st level) party in the first five minutes of game say "You all suck." and walk out...this does not imply that this is correct or reasonable behavior.
The Worst GM thread in "Gamer Talk" has examples of GMs doing all kinds of awful things (from in-world racism reflecting their real world racism, to blatant favoritism, to just being a dick to a particular player). Now, technically speaking, the GM has every right to do any or all of these things.
Y'know what the players have a right to do? Leave.
Now, most GMs want (and should want) to keep their players happy so as to avoid the players doing that, and also because this is a game, and supposed to be fun, which should foster a certain amount of give and take in the Player/GM relationship...which generally involves the GM explaining his or her decisions, especially ones the Player dislikes.
Basically, telling players the reason they can't use Option X is "I said so." as your first option is a dick move. You aren't obligated not to be a dick as a GM...but you probably should try to avoid it, generally speaking. Especially if you want to keep your players.
Now, if you explain yourself and they just keep arguing, you can certainly lay down the law, but doing so probably shouldn't be your first response to any contradiction. That's, as mentioned, a dick move.
On the thread's actual topic: I'm generally cool with 'weird' races, as long as they're, y'know, justified. Verisimilitude is a thing I care about. This usually means most stuff goes (Golarion makes justifying stuff pretty easy)...though I might cap how many 'weird race' characters there can be in a group (with 'weird' being relative to the area they're in).
My currently planned game is in a home-brewed world and is actually quite a bit more restricted due to the PCs needing to be natives of a particular area (or immediately adjacent areas)...but even there I made sure to make room for all the core races and orcs, and did also allow one 'weird race' character of almost any other race (I wound up with a Tiefling).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evidently I have not been at all clear, across dozens of these threads, because people are still calling me out by name as advocating a "kitchen sink" game in which anything goes, all the time.
I am not. Yes, I personally can usually find a way to work things in, and I enjoy the game more if that happens. But there are also times when you need to say "no." I am all in favor of limits, and I agree that part of the DM's job is to enforce those limits. If the group sets limits, and one player refuses to abide by them, then that player is being a dick.
With that hopefully having been made clear, I also strongly urge that the DM curb his impulse to unilaterally set those limits without regard to what the players are interested in. I am NOT in favor of these screeds of "This is MY campaign world and MY game only and I really don't give a crap what any of you want to play, or where you want to explore, or what kind of story you want. Because only I know what's best for everyone, and you should just go away if you don't like being told what's what, you worthless self-entitled pricks. Only I am indispensable and the rest of you are unimportant, empty faces that I can replace at will -- you're very lucky I'm allowing you to participate, because that's how awesome I am and how unimportant you are."
And if you think that's an exaggeration, look at all the people who then earnestly reply, "Yes, that's exactly how things should be."
What I DO advocate: Set limits based on the kind of game the group wants to play (not solely based on what you want to play), and then stick to those limits. I advocate this not to be a dick or to pick on people, but because, if you don't, sooner or later one of the players says, "Ya know, you all want a pirate campaign and Bob here insists that we have to be desert nomads. I wouldn't mind running a pirate campaign. Anyone in?"
To cut off the usual BS about "Well only one player ever disagrees with me, so obviously he is just a problem player so there!" -- I'm not talking about one player bucking the agreement. I'm talking about what the group as a whole wants.
If the group sets limits, and one player refuses to abide by them, then that player is being a dick.
If the group sets limits, and the DM blatantly overrides them and sets his own instead, that DM is being a dick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly...I consider myself pretty easy going and I have enough character concepts that I wouldn't mind being in a restricted campaign. But to me, warning signs go off when a rule or restriction is in place with the only explanation being "I said so", because to me that suggests I am playing more with a dictator than anything else, and if that is all the explanation he needs to ban/rule on something, who is to say how the rest of the campaign will go.
Please note that I said "no reason"; If the GM explains that the absence of this race is tied into the plot in some way, or they think that particular race is unbalanced/doesn't work with home rules/contrasts to much with the flavor of the campaign, that is probably sufficient for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps because while you say that in the abstract, whenever any specific examples come up, you seem to universally roll a specific direction.'throw it in'
It should go without saying that the fact that I, personally, can find ways to make stuff work doesn't in any way imply that everyone should.
However, the fact that, in general, a DM will retain more players if he/she/it don't unilaterally make all decisions for them -- i.e., if open to their input instead of dismissive -- is something that cannot be stressed enough, given some of the Mussolini-wannabes strutting about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's one thing for a pre-established, well detailed setting, like Middle Earth, or a setting built on certain defining core assumptions (like, a world where Dwarves are thought to be extinct) it's more ok to limit the players' choices, but otherwise, if you have no reason built into the fundamentals of the setting, why a race should be excluded, I fail to see why you should limit player options.
For example, a while back I was running a game where Humans and Halflings arrived on a new continent following a massive calamity on their old one, and the new continent was home to dwarves, elves, orcs, ect, which up to this point had been completely alien to the arrivals (who likewise were rather alien to the people of the new continent). Later on in the game, one of the characters died, and the player wanted to play a Drow, next; I hadn't even established the existence of Drow, but the player wanted to play one, so instead of banning them, I worked with him to establish the Drow society as a Xenophobic (but not evil) society that the dwarves, when tunneling deep into their mountain capital, discovered centuries ago, and the two had been somewhat guarded trading partners since then. The player, then, served as one of the only emissaries to the world outside.
Now, obviously drow, while more exotic than the core races, aren't the most exotic of races, but had the player come to me, wanting to play a Catfolk, or a Kitsune or a planetouched race, I don't think my response would have been any different. Even though I had already largely established the politics of my game world didn't mean they were completely set in stone, when a player wanted to branch out from what was already established, and I feel like that's probably the case for most homebrew settings. I've found very few homebrew settings where it'd be impossible to introduce an exotic race into without drastically screwing with the setting. It's one of the great strengths of Homebrew; you only have to set in stone as much as the party interacts with, meaning you have room to expand as needed.
You see, here is an issue: saying certain things don't exist in the world is in an entirely different universe from "unilaterally making all decisions for them."
Not all their decisions yet, but you just made that decision for them. And having done that, then you make then next one and the next... and so it goes, in my experience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's one thing for a pre-established, well detailed setting, like Middle Earth, or a setting built on certain defining core assumptions (like, a world where Dwarves are thought to be extinct) it's more ok to limit the players' choices, but otherwise, if you have no reason built into the fundamentals of the setting, why a race should be excluded, I fail to see why you should limit player options.
There are many reasons to limit player options. Some of them even enhance the enjoyment of the game for the players. Working from the basic assumption that a DM limits options out of malice seems to be fallacious.
I've engendered enough trust with my regular players that I can dictate virtually any set of restrictions and starting conditions for a campaign and they will be happy to oblige. They know that I will deliver something enjoyable when all is said and done.
In more public games, such as volunteering to run a game for strangers at the FLGS, I will send out a document with the rules and limits for character creation. People can accept this and join in or they can decide that my game isn't for them.
In both cases, the DM dictating restrictions for the players works out well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's one thing for a pre-established, well detailed setting, like Middle Earth, or a setting built on certain defining core assumptions (like, a world where Dwarves are thought to be extinct) it's more ok to limit the players' choices, but otherwise, if you have no reason built into the fundamentals of the setting, why a race should be excluded, I fail to see why you should limit player options.There are many reasons to limit player options. Some of them even enhance the enjoyment of the game for the players. Working from the basic assumption that a DM limits options out of malice seems to be fallacious.
I've engendered enough trust with my regular players that I can dictate virtually any set of restrictions and starting conditions for a campaign and they will be happy to oblige. They know that I will deliver something enjoyable when all is said and done.
In more public games, such as volunteering to run a game for strangers at the FLGS, I will send out a document with the rules and limits for character creation. People can accept this and join in or they can decide that my game isn't for them.
In both cases, the DM dictating restrictions for the players works out well.
I have found very few instances where limiting player options in this regard works out well for the game. The game may not collapse because of it, but it's usually a net negative. Rather, I see the 'I'm limiting your options, for your own good' to be laughably presumptuous. I've already listed the places where I think the game benefits from it, but those are rare occurrences, relative to other games, be they homebrew which are open to minor alterations, or more 'kitchen sink' worlds such as Golarion.
As for player trust, I've engendered a good deal myself, but I don't see it as a currency that I can use to limit options in the future, because I think the game would be better that way. And as for running with strangers, I've found you lose plenty of good potential players by limiting options like that, and you don't get rid of potential problem players. A munchkin will munchkin the core races, even if you ban the exotic ones; A Drama Queen will turn the Elf into a special snowflake if the Aasimar is banned, ect. The problems come down to the players, not the races.
As I mentioned, there are perfectly reasonable places for restrictions, but otherwise, I can see no reason a game would be improved by a "DM knows best" stance on this sort of thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing some options from the field of things to ch[o]ose from isn't even remotely similar to making decisions for someone.
That is exactly making a decsion for them. Instead of asking, "You guys OK with no elves?," for example, you just told them, "No elves, and I don't care if you don't like it."
That's taking it upon yourself to make a decision that affects the entire group. In that instance, you peremptorily overrided the agency of all of the players... and are apparently so accustomed to doing so that you aren't even aware of it any more.
Let me hasten to add that it's your right as DM to make a lot of decisions without input. "This cave is inhabited by 4 ogres" is completely the DM's call, and player input is neither required nor useful. You decide what's in the cave; they decide what to do about it.
On the other hand, bigger decisions, like "This world has no elves or dwarves, and I don't care that three out of the four of you wanted to play dwarves," is a decision that I wouldn't presume to make for my friends without even bothering to consult them.
Also contrast the following: "I demand that all PCs are humans from fishing village X, so suck it up or leave," vs. "I had in mind that we'd all start in a small human-dominated fishing village and the plot would develop from there, you guys OK with that?" In the latter case, the onus is on the player to justify any exceptions, and work with you to see if they can be accommodated. The onus is on you to actually listen, instead of just waiting for them to talk so you can say "No, it's not my idea, so it can't possibly work."
If you are playing in the Burning Lands campaign it has a certain history and inertia that MAKES it the burning lands campaign and world.
That's fine.
Remember, I'm fine with restrictions, as long as everyone agrees to them. If you say, "How about a straight Burning Lands campaign -- here's the setting book," and they come back in a week and say, "Awesome, we're in!" -- then you have duly asked them about restrictions, and they have agreed to those restrictions as a group. You've done pretty much everything I've been advocating, at that point.
It's when you say, "Oh, by the way, we're playing a Burning Lands campaign, and I won't run anything else, so suck it up or leave" that I start to wonder. I mean, yeah, you can probably get away with that and make it stick -- for awhile. But sooner or later someone will want to try something else -- ANYTHING else! -- and there goes your game. I've found that being too rigid in what you are capable of accepting usually does not work out in the DM's favor.
RE: resetting my homebrew campaign, I've personally found that, when I get to the point where a setting matters more to me than the people I'm playing with, that it's maybe time to find a new setting for general use, and keep the "precious" one for my own use where no one else will "mess it up."
You seem to be all about restrictions piled on the gm, but none whatsoever on the players behavior.
Then you haven't read what I've been typing.
If the entire group wants to play a no-elf game, except that Player X insists on playing an elf, then Player X needs to conform or take a hike. There's no argument there. No one disagrees. And that's not what I've been talking about. I could write long, passionate posts about how much we all agree on that point, but that would serve very little purpose, so let's consider that one agreed and look at other possible cases for a second, OK?
Now imagine the entire group wants to play elves, and you just don't want to let them -- and this IS what I've been talking about -- the DM can either budge on his precious no-elf world, or else he can have no game, sooner or later*. Presumably that's not your goal, though.
In any event, I believe it cuts both ways, and that's where we differ.
*
|
What I frequently get from these threads is that a lot of you consider an individual player to have far more of a right to have fun in the game than the GM does. For me, the GM saying "There are no X in my campaign world, because I do not like X" is more than a sufficient reason for his campaign world not to have X. He doesn't need to explain WHY he doesn't like X. He's putting far more effort into the campaign than all of the players combined...why not give him the leeway of not trying to force him to include elements he doesn't want to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's putting far more effort into the campaign than all of the players combined...why not give him the leeway of not trying to force him to include elements he doesn't want to?
If it's all so much thankless work for him, why is he even doing it? I enjoy DMing. I enjoy it even when I don't insist on getting my way on every single minute detail. I personally dislike dwarves, but I still love my PBP, even though 2/5 of the PCs are dwarves.
Also, I don't think anyone says that one individual player can overrule the group. I've been very careful to state that the DM should listen to the entire group, not a single outlier player.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I frequently get from these threads is that a lot of you consider an individual player to have far more of a right to have fun in the game than the GM does.
The GM is an individual player. So to me you consider the GM to have far more of a right to have fun in the game than everyone else.
What I frequently get from these threads is that a lot of you consider an individual player to have far more of a right to have fun in the game than the GM does.The GM is an individual player. So to me you consider the GM to have far more of a right to have fun in the game than everyone else.
he has as much right as do the Players.
Yet all to often in these kinds of conversations who is it that must acquiesce when a conflict arises? Why the GM must learn to "compromise" with the player. (Oddly the Player is never required to bend on their stance... I wonder why that is?)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he has as much right as do the Players.
Yes! He has exactly as much right -- not less, and not more. Definitely I feel he doesn't have more right than all of the other players put together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he has as much right as do the Players.Yes! He has exactly as much right -- not less, and not more. Definitely I feel he doesn't have more right than all of the other players put together.
The DM is first among equals. The problem is, too often people try to emphasize the "first" rather than the "equals"