| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly the Player is never required to bend on their stance... I wonder why that is?
The "DM Always Gets His Way" people are the only ones saying this... I wonder why that is?
| 1 person 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.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?)
From what I read of the conversation, it seems fairly unanimous that when the majority of players agree with the GM, then that player who wants something else does indeed have to be the one to compromise.
From what I read of the conversation, it seems fairly unanimous that when the majority of players agree with the GM, then that player who wants something else does indeed have to be the one to compromise.
Exactly so, but several of the posters refuse to acknowledge this, no matter how many times it's pointed out.
|
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.
No where in Kthulhu's post did he say that it was a thankless job, he just said he is putting in more work/effort into the campaign. Which is true for most gaming groups.
I think the DM should have the right to try to run the game world he wants to run - if it's gritty, no elves (or humans for that matter) or whatever. The consensus he must make is with the players - if they want to play it, but he should run what he wants to run. Hopefully the players will want to play in it - that only happens after a gaming group has been together for at least a little while.
IMO it comes down to two things:
- do the players trust the DM to and his motivations for placing restrictions (theme and mood, campaign plot point concerning a certain race/class)
- and are the players still having fun with those restrictions?
Like I said before - I place very tight controls on my D&D game - not just for the players but for me as a DM. If I want to run a "classic" style Pathfinder game - a living tribute to basic and 1s ed AD&D not only am I going to restrict certain races, I am going to restrict certain classes, but I will ALSO restrict certain monster threat choices (most anything from Wotc MM III-V) that are nothing more than a set of stats + mechanic. Because all of these things factor into the type of game I - as the DM, want to run.
Do these restrictions hinder or benefit my players - since most of them are old school gamers and they trust me and my intent they don't see the restrictions as a negative if it helps me, as a DM, attain the goal (game feel) I am trying to achieve.
So again - if you trust your DM and he has the group's interests in mind (as a good GM should) then I think restrictions are a non-issue. If you have a revolving door gaming group, with a menagerie of players coming in from everywhere, then yeah - the trust isn't there so a DM who restricts things may be perceived as a red flag. Just like a new player who can't keep a regular group could be perceived as a red flag to the DM and the other players in his group.
I am lucky to have the group I have, I know that if I was out there in the gaming wilderness I would have to be a bit more open minded in what I let into my game - and again, I am grateful that I have a team of players who trust me and who thank me for having run some memorable games. I think most people are in this category of gamer - the regular long term gaming group.
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 is an individual player – he also sets up the game world/campaign and runs that game world/campaign - that is his interface and enjoyment point of the game.
If a player choice (race/class/etc) conflicts with what he intends to run – this can be mechanically, thematically, plot or even just personal taste – then there is a problem. If he doesn’t want to run X and player wants to run X then I would side with the DM in question unless the player has a very good reason as to why they need or want to run X and they make a compelling argument against whatever reason the DM has for not wanting it in the game.Since the DM is running the game he calls the shots on what is in his game – make your argument as a player and move on as a group or find another DM if it bothers you that much. If there are repeat personal conflicts between a DM and player on theme, feel, player options then the player needs to find another group or the DM needs to re-evaluate the type of game he is running and if it's the type of game the rest of the group wants to play.
The best thing is if everyone sitting at the table has the same objective, that there is trust in the GM and that the GMs decision on how he is going to try to set the mood and feel of the game is what everyone wants or enjoys. That trust may also included the GMs choices on restrictions, houserules, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I read of the conversation, it seems fairly unanimous that when the majority of players agree with the GM, then that player who wants something else does indeed have to be the one to compromise.Exactly so, but several of the posters refuse to acknowledge this, no matter how many times it's pointed out.
I'd also imagine that if a GM is running a game with any aspects that more than half the players are unhappy with, there's probably going to be more trouble down the line than whether or not someone got to play a certain race. I don't think I'd want to be at this particular hypothetical table as there's bound to be more problems sooner or later.
Now, I'm not advocating a GM should run a game they personally are unhappy with (I don't think anyone here is saying that), but they do have the option of finding something different to run that the majority are happy with, letting someone else be the GM, or just leaving and finding a group closer to their own tastes.
So again - if you trust your DM and he has the group's interests in mind (as a good GM should) then I think restrictions are a non-issue.
I'd like to think there's a third option, besides either blind trust or noncompliance. Like, maybe, clear two-way communication:
DM: "I know you guys are all about the old-skool feel, how about a campaign where only AD&D-legal stuff appears, but using PF rules?"
Players: (Ask clarifying questions, etc.)
vs.
DM: "Either trust me and abide by all my restrictions, or leave."
Player: "What are the restrictions?"
DM: "Just trust me, or don't."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of straw men in this thread.
The reality at most games is that so long as everyone sitting at the table is a reasonable human being then these problems aren't significant.
Only by hoisting up extremes (the aforementioned straw men) are these debates able to continue so endlessly without resolution.
The reason why I think that a single player's interest in playing a certain race should -generally- weigh heavier than a single GM's wish to have the setting exclude that race, is because players have so much fewer options and decisions than the GM. I'm saying this as a GM; can't even remember when I played last.
I as a GM gets to have main say in geography, history, flora and fauna, plotline, and 99.9% of the characters in the world.
A player just gets one single character.
If they really want to play an elf - and to many, species is a major part of the character - I'll try to work that in. Because I decide on whether dozens of different races will be included; I can let that player have that one choice of race of choice.
Previously, we've used the table rule that "for any new setting, we do three rounds in the group; each round, each person gets to decide one fact about the setting.".
It made world creation a minigame in itself, really helped me as a GM because I had a framework to build upon, and let the players be part of the creation process.
This was some years ago and since then I've changed group (and now lost it again) so we haven't used it, but if I get a new group I'll probably suggest that again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ilja's actually a bit more permissive than I am. If one player wanted his elf and the others were all OK with it -- then, yes, I'd try to fit it in. But if one player wanted his elf and the others all groaned and begged him not to -- well, it would be a dick move to push for the elf, and a dick move for me to back it.
There's a lot of straw men in this thread.
On the other hand, there are examples of things posted that could only be read as ridiculous strawmen, and we had people lining up agreeing with them as being "perfectly reasonable," so sometimes it's hard to say.
|
|
So again - if you trust your DM and he has the group's interests in mind (as a good GM should) then I think restrictions are a non-issue.I'd like to think there's a third option, besides either blind trust or noncompliance. Like, maybe, clear two-way communication:
DM: "I know you guys are all about the old-skool feel, how about a campaign where only AD&D-legal stuff appears, but using PF rules?"
Players: (Ask clarifying questions, etc.)vs.
DM: "Either trust me and abide by all my restrictions, or leave."
Player: "What are the restrictions?"
DM: "Just trust me, or don't."
You are spinning it Kirth and it's getting ugly and unreasonable.
now it went from
Trust in DM = Blind Trust
Player wants to play X, X isn't allowed for any reason = noncompliance (totally ignoring the part about my post stating that the player and DM should discuss it).
You are better and smarter than this, please stop.
And here's a nice one to throw back at you - you are running your heavily houseruled game and a player comes at you saying "well, I designed my man, but I am going to be using WotC rules for this part of the character and then the more optimal rules for that part of the character, cool?" "Yeah, I don't agree with your rules so for my guy let me just use all the published rules, even if it gives me some mechancial advantage or creates a problem with your rule changes".
And then? You still let them run it? Or does Kirth go DM draconian and smashes that player down with the Iron Gauntlet?
Everyone has their stop point, DMs included. That's why you worked so hard on making your game one that you like and one that you think other players and DMs may like. Those rules are codified and don't change on a whim but after some thought. Those are restrictions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using myself as an example here:
I have two weekly groups. One is a group of players I've played with for ages, the other is a group I put together and then disband afterwards in order to run a particular campaign, we'll call them groups A and B, and they tend to run quite differently to one another.
Group A, the permanent group. We rotate GMs between campaigns.
We've got two important things going here - we know each other, and we trust each other. None of us is likely to announce a game that we know there'll be objections to and we know if someone says something objectionable, to trust them because they have our best interests at heart and we haven't yet run into any huge issues.
In this group, I know that if I announce that we're playing Barbie: the RPG, two things are going to happen. One, that everyone in this group will play anything* for a one-off session because that's the sort of group we are. Two, that if I drag it out over three months, they're going to hang me from a lamppost. That trust remains, because I don't drag the players through things they're not interested in playing. They're happy to let me throw a rust monster at them and eat half their equipment, because they trust me to put things right later - and I do, they'll end up with plenty of extra opportunities to replace any lost equipment.
Group B, the temporary group. This is where I get to indulge my weird ideas. I come up with a campaign idea, and then try to find people that are interested in playing it. This one I feel is important to have, in that if I play with my regular players, some ideas are going to be off the table. Certain niche ideas may never happen in a preexisting group because of the need to find something everyone is interested in playing, so the only fair way to ensure this happens is to tell people "I have this game, it's about X, would you like to play?" Once the campaign is over, it's over, I go find a new idea, and I put a brand new group together.
Group B tends to start with little trust. They don't know me. I can't go doing the rust monster thing on day one, or they could get up and leave thinking I'm out to get them - which couldn't be further from the truth, but they don't know that. I have to build that trust. (Actually, by now there's been more than a few repeat players, so the trust thing is less of an issue than it was with the early games, but the concept still applies.)
One way of doing that is that I'm never dismissive of their ideas. I know they're mostly on the same page as me because they agreed to this campaign knowing what it would be about and the kind of restrictions in place. If I tell them during recruitment that it's a campaign about a group of elven rangers, and they say "cool, count me in!" then I can be pretty sure nobody is going to ask to play an Orc. On the other hand, if one of them says "hey, I kinda like the idea of being a human that has grown up in the elven lands and is accepted into their community", that sounds like it'll work and I'll go with it. If they said "what about a gnome?", and for whatever reason I didn't really think the Gnome would work, then my reply would be closer to "That's probably not going to fit with the campaign, but talk to me - what's cool about Gnomes?" so between us we can figure out something that player can enjoy playing.
* - yes, seriously, probably even Rolemaster.
tl;dr:
So, the point of this lengthy ramble?
Two things:
One, different groups have different ways of doing things.
Two, no matter what way you do things, a GM still needs the group to be happy with how they run the game, or they're not going to have a group. Listening to the players and finding ways they can enjoy the game more is pretty universal, no matter how the group is organized.
Ilja's actually a bit more permissive than I am. If one player wanted his elf and the others were all OK with it -- then, yes, I'd try to fit it in. But if one player wanted his elf and the others all groaned and begged him not to -- well, it would be a dick move to push for the elf, and a dick move for me to back it.
Yeah, I agree with this. It just hasn't come up for me so I haven't had to deal with it.
And here's a nice one to throw back at you - you are running your heavily houseruled game and a player comes at you saying "well, I designed my man, but I am going to be using WotC rules for this part of the character and then the more optimal rules for that part of the character, cool?" "Yeah, I don't agree with your rules so for my guy let me just use all the published rules, even if it gives me some mechancial advantage or creates a problem with your rule changes".
And then? You still let them run it? Or does Kirth go DM draconian and smashes that player down with the Iron Gauntlet?
In my home game, while we were making up those houserules, ALL houserules were subject to vote, with me abstaining except in the case of a tie. So in the event you're talking about, that guy would be bucking the other players, not me. Which we all agree isn't cool.
On the other hand, I know of other groups who, by consensus, have reverted back or otherwise changed a lot of what I wrote. I have unfailingly supported their right to do so, for their groups.
I am currently working on a game setting that will have some fairly radical, racial and class restrictions, but also allow for some very inclusive and expanded options as well.
Players will decide as a group which of the 3 backgrounds they want their party as a whole will be from.
And that will unlock what races and class options are available.
There will be no firearms in the setting, fairly magic low, with a emphasis on communities and survival, raise dead, resurrection and other bring them back to life spells, are a no-go.
Most the classes are allowed but the setting has a decidedly western flavor to it, but some eastern classes may be able to be re-skinned to adapt to it, or permitted to some of the many races allowed.
Once the party has decided on its background I will work with each player to create their character and get a feel for what they want to achieve within the settings framework, and how they will fit into it as well.
Now while I place plenty of restrictions, I also open up other doors, as long as the players are willing to function within this framework, and create something they are happy with and will enjoy playing then great, but if the above setting specific rules are to restrictive for their character concept, then we will likely have to part ways.
A nicely thought out setting with PCs that smoothly fit within it, played by players that have all used and created their characters by the same guidelines and flavor, has been how I have always strived to maintain.
Its not for everyone..but hey what is. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are spinning it Kirth and it's getting ugly and unreasonable.
BTW, I'm not trying to spin anything; if by "just trust me" you're implicitly including a component of "discuss and compromise," then I misunderstood. I'd welcome your clarifications so that I can understand more clearly what you're advocating.
Please understand I respect you, and your opinions, enough not to try and spin them. I might not agree, but I won't wilfully misrepresent them.
|
|
You are spinning it Kirth and it's getting ugly and unreasonable.BTW, I'm not trying to spin anything; if by "just trust me" you're implicitly including a component of "discuss and compromise," then I misunderstood. I'd welcome your clarifications so that I can understand more clearly what you're advocating.
Since I am coming from a long term gaming group perspective I thought that it was implied that the DM had already earned the trust of his group and he did of his players (to not abuse the rules). If I wasn't clear on that then I will apologize right now.
So I'm not talking about joining a new group, and then assuming the DM knows what he's doing and that he's doing it for the right reason. RE: the "trust me or else" situation.
My players trust me because I have produced results. That is the bottom line.
This trust was earned over years of gaming, making mistakes as a GM and producing excellent gaming experiences for both my players and myself - and not overnight. So if I say "we are running a humans only campaign and you are all starting out as brothers" my players will be expecting some damn good reason as to why I went this route and some fantastic play results - if not, then that's probably the last time I get to pull that trick. It's really very simple.
I cannot speak to high traffic gaming groups - trust is a different issue when you are gaming with people you do not know very well. I haven't had to deal with those problems for around 17 years.
My support for yielding even to a majority of the players depends at times. For example, I usually give out player information on the game we'll be doing a week or so ahead of time, with contact information for questions and the like. In this information is also any restrictions/permissions for the game.
Now, if we're (to drag this back towards races) playing in a world where the core races exist but drow do not because the event that split them from elves didn't happen and the majority of the players show up game day with drow, we're going to have a talk about that -- and about the concept of contacting me before the game.
The same goes for a whole party of Evil characters, or whatever else.
At these points, it becomes apparent that the majority has something else in mind to play than what we've spoken about. And that is great! But, it isn't something I am interested in GMing, and I'll let them know that, and someone else is welcome to GM.
To some that comes across as "I am the GM and you will play my game or nothing!" And perhaps it is. But as we've spoken about earlier, I am a participant in this as well, and if the players aren't interested in what I'm producing, I have only myself to blame for going into it unhappy and sulky. I don't have the right to force them to play the game I have in mind, and they don't have the right to force me to run their "We are EEeeevil" game.
Other than that, if a player or players have an idea that is outside the scope of the player document -- be it a race or whatever -- then I want them to get ahold of me BEFORE we start and see if we can work it in. Sometimes -- even more than sometimes -- we can. Often, however, it doesn't work out and I expect them to be mature enough to understand that and have more than one idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players trust me because I have produced results. That is the bottom line.
This trust was earned over years of gaming, making mistakes as a GM and producing excellent gaming experiences for both my players and myself - and not overnight. So if I say "we are running a humans only campaign and you are all starting out as brothers" my players will be expecting some damn good reason as to why I went this route and some fantastic play results - if not, then that's probably the last time I get to pull that trick. It's really very simple.
I think that's fair enough - you're choosing something you already know they're going to like. While it sounds dictatorial, it's the benevolent dictator that's just announced "no more taxes", and is in power because the people like what he's doing and so haven't revolted ;) The end result is the players are playing something they want to play, and that's what matters.
The issue of you adding a restriction the majority are unhappy with just doesn't occur - because you know what they'd be unhappy with and don't add those restrictions. Fair assessment?
Now, if we're (to drag this back towards races) playing in a world where the core races exist but drow do not because the event that split them from elves didn't happen and the majority of the players show up game day with drow, we're going to have a talk about that -- and about the concept of contacting me before the game.
To clarify: presumably the "no drow" clause would have been mentioned before they rolled up characters?
|
|
I cannot speak to high traffic gaming groups - trust is a different issue when you are gaming with people you do not know very well. I haven't had to deal with those problems for around 17 years.Such an ideal seems so far away from me. At least with online tabletops is seems just a bit closer.
TBH a part of me misses the crazyness of the huge/revolving door gaming group. A small part of me.
A DM can learn things from new players coming from other groups as much as he could from running his game. That's why I come here - even though these nightmare scenarios don't apply, I like to think that I could learn something from other players and DMs here.
I just wish we could all (myself included) tone down the game style waring nonsense. I can see Kirth's concern about controlling DMs, restriction and player authority, but I think that concern my be a little misplaced since I get the impression (and I could be wrong) that he is assuming that most DMs don't know what they are doing or that they are doing it wrong when they place restrictions on their games.
Are there captive (limited DM choice/tyrant DM) gaming groups out there, sure there are. There have been since day one. But in these days if a player doesn't like his DM he doesn't need to keep playing with that DM since nowadays there are 5 million gaming related (online or otherwise) types of distractions. This isn't 1985, where gaming related hobbies were wargaming, table top rpgs or LARPing.
DMs need to be good at what they do (good being defined by the players) or this is a DEAD hobby.
1. Since I don't spring out campaign start ideas at the start of a session where it becomes "play this or nothing", but in advance, no one comes to the table to be hit with an unexpected surprise.
2. Everyone has the option say yes or no on the initial proposal. If it doesn't fly than it' back to the drawing board for the group.
Honestly, I'm not seeing a problem with your 2-step process here. You're clearing restictions with the group in advance, which is what I'd been advocating. In short, you're doing what I recommended. Especially noteworthy is your step 2, which the (other) people I've been arguing against do not include.
Now, if we're (to drag this back towards races) playing in a world where the core races exist but drow do not because the event that split them from elves didn't happen and the majority of the players show up game day with drow, we're going to have a talk about that -- and about the concept of contacting me before the game.To clarify: presumably the "no drow" clause would have been mentioned before they rolled up characters?
Yes. The documentation that I give out usually spans several pages and has things like classes, races, feats and so on that are allowed/restricted along with any house rules and useful information for starting your character.
Yes. The documentation that I give out usually spans several pages and has things like classes, races, feats and so on that are allowed/restricted along with any house rules and useful information for starting your character.
So far, it sounds good to me -- it seems pretty clear you're asking them their opinions, by handing out all that stuff and then asking if they're OK with it. I'd even give you super-duper bonus points if someone said, "I don't see anything about element X, how would you feel about it if I reskinned it in Q manner so that it fits nicely with all that stuff on page 3?" and your response was "Sounds like there's potential there... let's talk about it" instead of going to the usual "But you agreed! And now you're trying to play something that's banned!"
|
I can take the exact same premise and frame it with a completely opposite spin. "I've got this campaign I've been looking to try out set in this fishing village where you start out as locals. Are you interested in exploring this after we finish tieing things up with this campaign?"I don't really see much of a problem here. Yes it's a little more restricted than I'd prefer to see (isolating the players to having grown up in a certain local) but 'the locals' as I see it doesn't necessitate being an actual citizen of said village or a human at all.
Hell, I even have a character or two who fits right in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DMs need to be good at what they do (good being defined by the players) or this is a DEAD hobby.
Ultimately, this is what I'm angling at.
My confusion with your posts stems from the fact that it's been a long time since I've seen a situation in which one DM has all the trust from a large pool of long-term players -- I'm kind of envious. In Houston, almost all of the players DMed their own games on other nights, and if you didn't catch and keep people's interest immediately, there were always plenty of other places for them to go. Here in Pittsburgh, it's so hard to get anywhere because of the horrid roads and weather that you're pretty much only playing regularly if there happen to be people very nearby -- otherwise (as in my case now) it's rarely if at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(stuff)You seem to be stuck on perceiving this as an endless struggle between player entitlement vs. gm dictatorship.
I can take the exact same premise and frame it with a completely opposite spin. "I've got this campaign I've been looking to try out set in this fishing village where you start out as locals. Are you interested in exploring this after... (snip)
There's more than a little miscommunication going on in both directions in this thread. Not saying that explains every disagreement here, but a lot of it is becoming clear.
GM: I just tell them what we're going to play.
When what they mean is:
GM: I just tell them what we're going to play (because I know them well enough by now to know what they'll enjoy, and can't remember the last time any of my players were unhappy with a decision. Obviously if there's anyone unhappy I'm more than willing to talk with them about how to make the game work for them).
Player: I'm not taking "no" for an answer.
When what they mean is:
Player: I'm not taking (just) "no" for an answer (from a new GM I hardly know, especially if they haven't given me any advance warning before I spent two hours coming up with this concept. I'd like a little more communication, please, can we at least discuss some options?)
I do have to say that the one argument that has been presented elsethread (not sure if in this thread) about playing non-core races that sticks in my craw is the one that begins "My other GMs/games never ever let me play a X and .." which then continues in that manner, basically saying that it is hard to find a game that allows non-standard races and often implies that the GM has poor skills and/or imagination.
To be honest, there are going to be a lot of games where some concepts don't fit in. Instead of cursing everyone for not finding your particular taste appealing, show them what it is like. If you are a big fan of kitsune and your current group is less than interested, pick up the GM screen and run a one off or so game where that particular race shines. Run something where there are no Core Races to prove to the naysayers that it can be done.
In short, light a candle instead of moping in the darkness. It isn't anyone's responsibility to give you want you want just because someone else didn't give it to you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's fair enough - you're choosing something you already know they're going to like. While it sounds dictatorial, it's the benevolent dictator that's just announced "no more taxes", and is in power because the people like what he's doing and so haven't revolted ;) The end result is the players are playing something they want to play, and that's what matters.
The issue of you adding a restriction the majority are unhappy with just doesn't occur - because you know what they'd be unhappy with and don't add those restrictions. Fair assessment?
100% spot on assesment.
I couldn't do those things if I didn't know my players or as Kirth had mentioned, if the communication wasn't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When what they mean is:
GM: I just tell them what we're going to play (because I know them well enough by now to know what they'll enjoy, and can't remember the last time any of my players were unhappy with a decision. Obviously if there's anyone unhappy I'm more than willing to talk with them about how to make the game work for them).
I think this is true for many people. However, a few previous statements make me wonder. For example:
He is not required to explain his reasons... I have had cause to re-read the CRB recently and one phrase is repeated over and over throughout it... "The GMs word is Law."
Kthulhu has made similar boasts. These are strong statements that communication on the DM's part is considered unnecessary by some people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When what they mean is:
GM: I just tell them what we're going to play (because I know them well enough by now to know what they'll enjoy, and can't remember the last time any of my players were unhappy with a decision. Obviously if there's anyone unhappy I'm more than willing to talk with them about how to make the game work for them).
I think this is true for many people. However, a few previous statements make me wonder. For example:
He is not required to explain his reasons... I have had cause to re-read the CRB recently and one phrase is repeated over and over throughout it... "The GMs word is Law."Kthulhu has made similar boasts. These are strong statements that communication on the DM's part is considered unnecessary by some people.
To be fair, laying down the law is communicating. It's just not ideal communication for most.
|
The question is- do players play non-core races for their bonuses, or do they play them for their uniqueness?
That begs another question- if the PCs and GM is ok with any of it, who cares?
Observation: If the one of the priorities of the GM is game balance, then the non-core races will likely upset this as I believe the devs create encounters with balance in mind.
The GM's word is law, sure. And while the law may be absolute, it is not immutable. In the words of Commander Riker, "When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?"
You should be willing to talk to your players and work with them. Maybe it's just me, but I cannot imagine a game world or plotline that can be completely thrown off by one non-standard character. If there's a reasonable way to make it work, you should give it a try.
My next game world will have no prepared casting classes, but if someone REAAALLLLLY wants to play one, we'll work together and see how we can make it work. He may be the only one out there, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The question is- do players play non-core races for their bonuses, or do they play them for their uniqueness?
That begs another question- if the PCs and GM is ok with any of it, who cares?
Observation: If the one of the priorities of the GM is game balance, then the non-core races will likely upset this as I believe the devs create encounters with balance in mind.
Balance is not a particularly high priority in PF, and as stated many times in this thread, Humans and Dwarves are more powerful than the vast majority of the non-core races.
Powergamers in PF play humans.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually for this campaign it would generally be humans only with the possible exception for dwarves, haflings, or a half-elf. Main reason is that would be a horror themed campaign with the main threat on the theme of Lovecraftian Deep Ones (who long ago eliminated the nearby aquatic elf colony). Think of say "The Fog". to preserve the horror element of the sea, it's kind of necessary that no one thinks of it as "home".
I can't tell my players why no aquatic elves. They'll just have to trust me when I say I have a reason for saying no.
You could easily say "There are no aquatic elves nearby, and I don't want to deal with aquatic PC races in this game anyway. I have other reasons, too, but you'll just have to trust me on those."
All true, all legitimate reasons, no plot reveals. Phrasing usually allows stuff like this if used properly.
|
Kthulhu has made similar boasts. These are strong statements that communication on the DM's part is considered unnecessary by some people.
I'm not sure why you feel.the.need to use the word boast.
My big thing with this thread is.players feeling entitled.to more of.an explaination for why.a.GM.excludes something than the simple "I don't like it". If he doesntlike it, why do you feel you need MORE on an explaination?
Sorry for the formatting, the perils of postingfrom acell.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kthulhu has made similar boasts. These are strong statements that communication on the DM's part is considered unnecessary by some people.
I'm not sure why you feel.the.need to use the word boast.
My big thing with this thread is.players feeling entitled.to more of.an explaination for why.a.GM.excludes something than the simple "I don't like it". If he doesntlike it, why do you feel you need MORE on an explaination?
Sorry for the formatting, the perils of postingfrom acell.
Because the player DOES like the thing, and is under the belief that it's their game to because this is a game of collaborative storytelling. The GM giving a weaksauce answer like: "I don't like it", means that the player's contribution to the setting is devalued.
As an example:
I hate cats. I don't understand why anyone likes cats. They are the worst. Catfolk are to me, are just the dumbest. Due in part to my prejudice against cats (which I would like to see disappear from the face of the Earth).
If I'm running an Egyptian themed campaign (such as the upcoming Mummy's Mask) and a player wants to play a Catfolk, as a GM I could say: "No I don't like catfolk."
Great, I've just hurt my player's feelings and diminished the enthusiasm for the game.
Or I could say: "No, because the setting is actually going to be 1920's egypt, so the only playable race is humans."
That's a valid reason for excluding catfolk.
Or I could say: "Okay, since this is Golarion, the region could be somewhere catfolk roam, let's see if we can work it into the campaign. Cats were a big deal in Egypt after all. Let's make some lore."
I would never play a catfolk if I was given any other choice, but my choices are not the player's choices.
You do owe the player a better explanation than: "I just don't like it."
Because it's the player's game too.
And in my experience, if the real reason is because you don't want X in the game, it's better to state that up front, along with reasons if they wouldn't hurt the campaign, than to make up setting reasons that aren't the real reason. That just leads to people making reasonable setting based arguments and you looking unreasonable for denying them.
On this point, I agree with you. There's nothing more lame than using "But my perfect snowscape!" as an excuse for "I hate that stuff for no reason and I hate it so much that my raging fireball of hatred actually eclipses my ability to run a game." (This actually happened to me once, by the way, so I can sympathize.)
|
|
But then you'll get people arguing "But there's no reason there shouldn't be aquatic elves (or whatever) nearby. Why are you being so arbitrarily restrictive? Can't you make this one little change?"
We've seen it right here on this thread.
You might. You might not. If you do, you can lay down the law, if you don't you've solved the problem. Does it always work? No, nothing does. Is it worth giving a shot? Yes.
At some point it comes down to the GM putting his foot down and the players trusting he has a good reason, even if he doesn't/can't share it.
Not if people accept the explanations given, which is a thing that happens. Heck it's the usual thing to happen IME.
And in my experience, if the real reason is because you don't want X in the game, it's better to state that up front, along with reasons if they wouldn't hurt the campaign, than to make up setting reasons that aren't the real reason. That just leads to people making reasonable setting based arguments and you looking unreasonable for denying them.
Uh...who said anything about making stuff up? The setting based reasons were already there, I just suggested noting them. And noting other reasons as well.
I'm all for being open about your reasons if you can and never said otherwise, I was making a specific answer to the situation presented, which involved some of those reasons amounting to spoilers. And even then I suggested noting there were others...but people, all people, are more likely to listen to reasons than flat denials.