So is it cool for a GM to mess with a player's concept of what they want to play? Is it ok for a GM to start undermining the player's agency about how they interact with the world?
Let's give an example: random background generators (I hate them btw); the player makes a character, a LG Rogue (for some reason), he never wanted to be part of some thieves guild but maybe a scout for the king's army or something. He rolls a criminal history, and guess what that crime is? Treason.
Might as well make a new character.
The game IMO was made with the character being able to create and play what he wishes to, but the GM has final ruling on what a player can choose; so who should budge? Is the player wrong for having a concept of what he wished to play before discussing with the GM? Or did the GM make a mistake by making a system everyone wasn't comfortable playing?
On the flip side, is it ok for players to feel put out when a GM says he doesn't wish for X to be in his game? The GM did all the work making a world and then the PC comes in with something that he doesn't like. Did the GM make a mistake by not playing a more inclusive game? Especially considering the investment people make by playing this game, shouldn't they be able to do "legal" things in the game? If you guys in your group decide Pathfinder is the game, is it reasonable to assume that Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing? Is the only option as a player to sit down at the GM's table? Let me know what your take is?
random character generators have three uses
1. I want to play a trope character, but need details in a hurry. In other words I want to play a Dwarf Fighter. I don't really care about his biography.
2. I have played so many characters I have writer's block and want some ideas to get me started
3. I am a DM.
4. I am a hack-and slash player in a heavy RP game, and the GM wants back story, and I don't care, but thought it would be fun to try.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I am a fan of Traveller and Aces and Eights random background generators dont bug me that much. Soemtimes though you dont want random and I dont begrudge players that. When it comes to PF my players make good use of the players guides for the APs. We tend to make up our own concepts that fit within the campaign of course.
I dont ever start a long term campaign until I have had a discussion with the group involved. If a GM wants to put some restrictions on the campaign becuase they have something particular in mind I am usually cool with that. I really like a GM that gives me something to work with. On the other hand if the game is too restrictive or in a direction I dont care for, I always reserve the right to say no thanks. I also feel I can say no thanks without any hard feelings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's the eternal caveat for random background/dungeon/whatever generators: if it doesn't make sense, change it.
But say Bob Peesee comes in at first level with his rightful heir to the throne character. Well, that's a pretty big deal and just won't fit in some campaign worlds - that role might already be filled, or might be empty as a plot point, or might not even exist.
If I come in wanting to play a Rogue who is a professional dungeoneer (like, licensed and everything) and the GM goes "nope" without giving any good reason, I'd be pretty mad. There's not really any good reason that I can think of to disallow such a concept.
Basically, if it's something that there is a very limited supply of, such as heirs to the throne, founding members of a secret society, etc, the GM is completely within his rights telling the PC to come up with something else. PCs come in as a basically blank slate - it's the adventure they're about have that defines them.
Obviously, starting at a higher level could change all this. I'd totally let a 10th level wizard have founded a secret society - or already be part of one if he was only 5th.
Finally, it is important for the players to have at least a vague idea of what they're getting in to. You don't want someone writing up a paladin for your Evil campaign, or whatever. Pre-character-creation communication is a must.
I like how nobody noticed the subject of the thread because it is completely unrelated to the example given in the OP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends
"I need you to change this part and this part to make it fit with the campaign I'll be running" I see that as fair
likewise adding stuff in as the campaign progresses like the Black Knight you've been fighting for 3 adventures turns out to be the father you thought was dead, also fair as it's called story development.
Taking your character history throwing it out, writing up an new one and giving it to you saying "No I don't like what you came up with, Here is your character's history instead"
Not Fair and said DM just earned himself a middle finger.
As for random background generators. I only make a player use those if he doesn't give me a character background in the first place. Even a line or two is enough but if you just show up with a character sheet and no background of any kind I might pull out the charts just to spark your imagination. Although I'm typically more along the lines of "pick something or roll on the chart until you get something that interests you"
Background Charts are supposed to help come up with an idea not be a straight jacket.
I like how nobody noticed the subject of the thread because it is completely unrelated to the example given in the OP.
I refer you to my example of a professional dungeoneer rogue - which is now something I kinda wanna play (yes I know rogues bad blah blah blah). Like a tour guide who's forte is being prepared for literally everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a lot of questions. I think I'll just tackle the main idea of a DM/GM messing with a PC's character concept.
I've been DMing for about 14 years now, for a lot of different groups and playstyles, and character concepts can either be the most important part of the game or have absolutely no bearing when it gets to action time. For character concepts, I've seen the same archetypes thrown around over and over again, and after the twentieth dual-wielding, panther-having ranger or grumpy Scottish dwarf axe-fighter, it can get a bit stale. By no means does that mean these concepts aren't viable or valuable or wrong or bad or anything like that, but for some DMs they want to see new ideas or new takes on characters.
To answer your question, I'd have to say yes and no: yes, if we can take "messing with" to mean "becoming involved in the creative process" and: no, if "messing with" means "becoming the creative process." Sometimes players just get stuck, and haven't put much thought into what they want to play outside of mechanics. Sometimes players just need a little nudge to go off in a direction that's more satisfying than what they originally had thought up. But if the player really has their heart set on playing a certain character, or if a different concept just isn't working for them then they should be able to say that.
Now, I think it's fine for DMs to say that things aren't allowed for campaign reasons; there might not be Warforged in your universe, after all, or catfolk or drow or whatever. But if the player really wants to play the half-naked princess of the nymphomaniacs, then as much as it might pain the DM that's what'll make the player happy, so long as it doesn't ruin everyone else's fun.
I've been using the Complete Campaign background info stuff to help players get started on a concept, or try to twist something they hadn't considered to make a particular detail about their past more compelling or more varied. I don't use it as a hard-set table roll, where what they get is what they're playing. Your example of a LG rogue is actually interesting, and there are ways you can take that concept. Alignment doesn't necessarily have to be an indicator of what your character does, just the code under which your character is trying to operate. A LG rogue at level 1 may be someone who's just starting out as LG, just barely practicing following the law, but may find themselves slipping back into greed and lawlessness. A LG rogue with the crime of treason may have a different idea or different perception of what the law is, and may be disillusioned with the policies of their homeland that could very well have a LE or NE alignment.
Sometimes you have to toy with it a bit, but in the end I'd say the DM shouldn't impose such restrictions on a player that they can't play the character they want to play, so long as that character won't disrupt the game for the rest of the table.
Since I am a fan of Traveller and Aces and Eights random background generators dont bug me that much. Soemtimes though you dont want random and I dont begrudge players that. When it comes to PF my players make good use of the players guides for the APs. We tend to make up our own concepts that fit within the campaign of course.
I dont ever start a long term campaign until I have had a discussion with the group involved. If a GM wants to put some restrictions on the campaign becuase they have something particular in mind I am usually cool with that. I really like a GM that gives me something to work with. On the other hand if the game is too restrictive or in a direction I dont care for, I always reserve the right to say no thanks. I also feel I can say no thanks without any hard feelings.
Same here, my group has several games that I don't play in; and no hard feelings. As a GM I always brainstorm what the players want to do and play and then take a month to come up with something that works for all of us; then again my players usually try to make PC's work within the game and do a really good job with that. In my RotRL:AE game they came in with concepts so good I couldn't ask for better; one unknowingly made himself related to a villain even. I was more asking on principle and because I recently bowed out of a game due to random backgrounds.
|
|
Same here, my group has several games that I don't play in; and no hard feelings. As a GM I always brainstorm what the players want to do and play and then take a month to come up with something that works for all of us; then again my players usually try to make PC's work within the game and do a really good job with that. In my RotRL:AE game they came in with concepts so good I couldn't ask for better; one unknowingly made himself related to a villain even. I was more asking on principle and because I recently bowed out of a game due to random backgrounds.Since I am a fan of Traveller and Aces and Eights random background generators dont bug me that much. Soemtimes though you dont want random and I dont begrudge players that. When it comes to PF my players make good use of the players guides for the APs. We tend to make up our own concepts that fit within the campaign of course.
I dont ever start a long term campaign until I have had a discussion with the group involved. If a GM wants to put some restrictions on the campaign becuase they have something particular in mind I am usually cool with that. I really like a GM that gives me something to work with. On the other hand if the game is too restrictive or in a direction I dont care for, I always reserve the right to say no thanks. I also feel I can say no thanks without any hard feelings.
The mere mention of random backgrounds or because you got screwed by one?
I like how nobody noticed the subject of the thread because it is completely unrelated to the example given in the OP.
Sorry you're right, I gave a bad example; creating a red herring in my own OP.
Same here, my group has several games that I don't play in; and no hard feelings. As a GM I always brainstorm what the players want to do and play and then take a month to come up with something that works for all of us; then again my players usually try to make PC's work within the game and do a really good job with that. In my RotRL:AE game they came in with concepts so good I couldn't ask for better; one unknowingly made himself related to a villain even. I was more asking on principle and because I recently bowed out of a game due to random backgrounds.Since I am a fan of Traveller and Aces and Eights random background generators dont bug me that much. Soemtimes though you dont want random and I dont begrudge players that. When it comes to PF my players make good use of the players guides for the APs. We tend to make up our own concepts that fit within the campaign of course.
I dont ever start a long term campaign until I have had a discussion with the group involved. If a GM wants to put some restrictions on the campaign becuase they have something particular in mind I am usually cool with that. I really like a GM that gives me something to work with. On the other hand if the game is too restrictive or in a direction I dont care for, I always reserve the right to say no thanks. I also feel I can say no thanks without any hard feelings.
I got screwed; wound up as a treasonous LG lycanthrope who was somehow made in a magical tube. I just wanted a LG rogue from Mendev; oh and he also has a debilitating injury, I think it was a knee. The funny thing was is I had dodge and mobility to play a "fast" rogue lol.
The mere mention of random backgrounds or because you got screwed by one?
I got screwed; wound up as a treasonous LG lycanthrope who was somehow made in a magical tube. I just wanted a LG rogue from Mendev; oh and he also has a debilitating injury, I think it was a knee. The funny thing was is I had dodge and mobility to play a "fast" rogue lol.
On the flip side, is it ok for players to feel put out when a GM says he doesn't wish for X to be in his game? The GM did all the work making a world and then the PC comes in with something that he doesn't like. Did the GM make a mistake by not playing a more inclusive game? Especially considering the investment people make by playing this game, shouldn't they be able to do "legal" things in the game? If you guys in your group decide Pathfinder is the game, is it reasonable to assume that Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing? Is the only option as a player to sit down at the GM's table? Let me know what your take is?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying/asking here. What "legal" things is it that they should be able to do?
What does "Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing" mean?
On the flip side, is it ok for players to feel put out when a GM says he doesn't wish for X to be in his game? The GM did all the work making a world and then the PC comes in with something that he doesn't like. Did the GM make a mistake by not playing a more inclusive game? Especially considering the investment people make by playing this game, shouldn't they be able to do "legal" things in the game? If you guys in your group decide Pathfinder is the game, is it reasonable to assume that Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing? Is the only option as a player to sit down at the GM's table? Let me know what your take is?I'm not sure I understand what you are saying/asking here. What "legal" things is it that they should be able to do?
What does "Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing" mean?
Legal as in straight out of the rulebooks.
Pathfinder stuff as in the game of Pathfinder, the races, classes, builds, I meant as opposed to asking for 3.5,4e, 3rd party stuff. I was trying to be general by meaning if it was made by Paizo for the Pathfinder game.
If he wants to change something mechanical, he should give the player a chance to rebuild.
If he wants to change the character's history, it should only be because it would conflict with pre-established setting elements (guns existing, the pantheon) or give the player some sort of super-edge, such as being the doted-on son of Elminster and the goddess of magic. Obviously, anything the GM bans pre-session is also out.
If you come in with a finished character that's created properly and not using like a monstrous race or something, and the GM just throws out the class altogether, well, then you have a right to be rustled.
I even asked if I could retcon the whole thing, my concept and the randomly generated one; the answer: "dems the dice."
On the flip side, is it ok for players to feel put out when a GM says he doesn't wish for X to be in his game? The GM did all the work making a world and then the PC comes in with something that he doesn't like. Did the GM make a mistake by not playing a more inclusive game? Especially considering the investment people make by playing this game, shouldn't they be able to do "legal" things in the game? If you guys in your group decide Pathfinder is the game, is it reasonable to assume that Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing? Is the only option as a player to sit down at the GM's table? Let me know what your take is?I'm not sure I understand what you are saying/asking here. What "legal" things is it that they should be able to do?
What does "Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing" mean?
Legal as in straight out of the rulebooks.
Pathfinder stuff as in the game of Pathfinder, the races, classes, builds, I meant as opposed to asking for 3.5,4e, 3rd party stuff. I was trying to be general by meaning if it was made by Paizo for the Pathfinder game.Why do you think it should be assumed that everyone is obligated to use everything coming out of paizo?
I asked if it was fair to assume; you know, since we're playing Pathfinder.
@RDM42: I agree that that would be a good process of going about allowing a character to rebuild. Definitely explain why they can't do something mechanical, such as pointing out that you can't be a cleric of Pharasma in ancient Greece or whatever.
I think that if someone says to you, "I'm running a Pathfinder game on Friday. See you there!" and gives no other explanation, you should be able to show up with anything that's legal (though not hopeless cheese) according to Pathfinder and that character should be accepted into the game.
If, on the other hand, she informs you, "I've come up with what I think is an amazing concept, but am not allowing any character class that cannot reasonably, without the use of magic, disguise themselves as human; and in addition am for reasons that will become clear later forbidding paladins, clerics, oracles and inquisitors, but allowing druids and rangers," well ... you have parameters. Your reasonable choices are two: Conform cheerfully; or say, "Not interested, but thank you for the offer."
Showing up to such a game with a scaly-skinned, horned tiefling inquisitor is not only out of bounds, it's out of line.
Totally agree with you.
True, and my experience matters little over the implications of player (not PC) agency in the game. It's easy to see examples where one side or the other has crossed a line; but where exactly is the line? Is it a relative line (I'd hate that as I'm not a relativist), is it a line that is clearly there but not often crossed?
Yeah it really wasn't a big deal, but I analyze implications and thought it would be fun to share my thoughts on it. I hear the game is going great (although they're down a rogue now) and the GM even happily plays in my game; they just have a randomness fetish I guess. I just figured it would be fun to make a topic about this with my personal things as an aside. I actually feel a little bad because she made the game specifically for me because I'm always the GM on my game night, and since I quit that game got relegated to a different night so I can play one I enjoy.
Now, see, I know I sound like Torquemada at times, but ... to me, when a player is just so unhappy that he's not gonna enjoy the game, it's time for us to see if we can find a way for him to find his happy place again. This guy doesn't seem interested in doing that for you, JA. You may have to take action.
I love helping players create a character if they want the help. If they don't, I try to stand aside and subtly guide them if they stray into "that's not going to work in this game" territory.
I really love suggesting - and usually players go along on this - "the session" which is basically sitting down with the player over pizza or something and just shooting back and forth:
Me: "ok, what sort of thing were you thinking you might want to play?"
Then: "I wanted an x who ys, who is also a z ..."
Me; well, the best places to fit that are here and here, and here are some possible hooks that would weave you into the campaign well. Do any of them interest you?"Etcetera, and keep going back and forth until there is a fleshed out character created from the players concepts which is woven into the campaign world.
Yeah me too, although the whole group usually does this together for synergy. I usually let the players input my world also, before I have the logistics planned so I can make stuff specifically for them. As a player I'm the first to admit I can be demanding, probably from GMing too much; I fall for a concept and might not want to much input. If I follow the guidelines of the game then I feel my concept should be ok. That said, I try not to make too much backstory, as I'd like to play in the present of the game.
|
It's like I always tell my player/GM friends. Part of the rules is what's written down, and the other part is GM discretion. If I'm running an undead apocalypse, I'm clearly not going to want a cleric who can mow down the hordes en masse with channeled energy, but I may allow a paladin with a handicap on his channel energy. The player has to be willing to work with the GM, and vice versa. Only then can there be a positive gaming environment. From what I've been reading, this GM just took your concept, rejected it, and substituted his own. Not cool by any standard. Now obviously, wanting to play the son of a demon lord isn't gonna fly (Tieflings excluded), which is where there needs to be compromise.
The GM has the job of assembling a group out of the individual PCs that were emailed in.
For the good of the group, I can see making adjustments, so that the group hangs together. But that should be done before play.
And the GM also generally has some knowledge of what's coming. So, certain character concepts can and should get axed, because they won't be fun for the player or the game.
As for 'in the rules', that's a crap argument. There are now SO many options, that it makes sense to leave some out. If you want a theme for your game, that's not just about bringing some things in, it's about leaving some things out.
Which is why I often leave out things like guns and psionics in my games. It's not about the rules, which are fine. it's about the story, and you're doing something very different from the rest of us...
So is it cool for a GM to mess with a player's concept of what they want to play? Is it ok for a GM to start undermining the player's agency about how they interact with the world?
Let's give an example: random background generators (I hate them btw); the player makes a character, a LG Rogue (for some reason), he never wanted to be part of some thieves guild but maybe a scout for the king's army or something. He rolls a criminal history, and guess what that crime is? Treason.
Might as well make a new character.
The game IMO was made with the character being able to create and play what he wishes to, but the GM has final ruling on what a player can choose; so who should budge? Is the player wrong for having a concept of what he wished to play before discussing with the GM? Or did the GM make a mistake by making a system everyone wasn't comfortable playing?
On the flip side, is it ok for players to feel put out when a GM says he doesn't wish for X to be in his game? The GM did all the work making a world and then the PC comes in with something that he doesn't like. Did the GM make a mistake by not playing a more inclusive game? Especially considering the investment people make by playing this game, shouldn't they be able to do "legal" things in the game? If you guys in your group decide Pathfinder is the game, is it reasonable to assume that Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing? Is the only option as a player to sit down at the GM's table? Let me know what your take is?
Unless the concept somehow interferes with the plot at some point the GM needs to stay away, and in that case the GM should just say for "game reasons" you should alter your concept.
And this is someone who primarily GM's saying this<----In before I am accused of being an entitled player who has no idea of what GM's go through.
So is it cool for a GM to mess with a player's concept of what they want to play? Is it ok for a GM to start undermining the player's agency about how they interact with the world?
Let's give an example: random background generators (I hate them btw); the player makes a character, a LG Rogue (for some reason), he never wanted to be part of some thieves guild but maybe a scout for the king's army or something. He rolls a criminal history, and guess what that crime is? Treason.
Might as well make a new character.
The game IMO was made with the character being able to create and play what he wishes to, but the GM has final ruling on what a player can choose; so who should budge? Is the player wrong for having a concept of what he wished to play before discussing with the GM? Or did the GM make a mistake by making a system everyone wasn't comfortable playing?
On the flip side, is it ok for players to feel put out when a GM says he doesn't wish for X to be in his game? The GM did all the work making a world and then the PC comes in with something that he doesn't like. Did the GM make a mistake by not playing a more inclusive game? Especially considering the investment people make by playing this game, shouldn't they be able to do "legal" things in the game? If you guys in your group decide Pathfinder is the game, is it reasonable to assume that Pathfinder stuff is what you will be playing? Is the only option as a player to sit down at the GM's table? Let me know what your take is?Unless the concept somehow interferes with the plot at some point the GM needs to stay away, and in that case the GM should just say for "game reasons" you should alter your concept.
And this is someone who primarily GM's saying this<----In before I am accused of being an entitled player who has no idea of what GM's go through.
Actually it was her 2nd time making a campaign, I actuallt gave her the freaking book so I didn't have to look at it; and my heart sank when she used it.
I even asked if I could retcon the whole thing, my concept and the randomly generated one; the answer: "dems the dice."I keep getting the feeling that your not getting along with the table.
This sounds way to much like the gm might be trying to push ya from the game.
I hope not, when I said that I'd rather not play, the GM offered to change it, but I proverbially already had one foot out the door. I don't feel like people don't wish me at the table; like I said, the game got pushed to a day I don't play so I would come back to the table. We aren't just gamer friends but are all the real close friends variety; I make that distinction because I know that a lot of players aren't really friends in real life and just game together; we're all friends that happen to game together so I don't think anyone would wish me to not come. Personally I think it was just a bad call from a new GM not used to having to make decisions for the group that might turn a player off.
Disregarding the terrible first example and not reading the whole thread;
Generally, after session zero, No.
Before the first session, still no in a wiggly kind of way. Normally GMs have some sort of perameters like 'don't be evil' 'only these races' or 'not these classes/spells' and they are more than likely negotiable but negotiable to the favor of consistency of the setting and getting the entire group on board. This has varying degrees of being reasonable. For example in another thread Tengu is used as an example. Tengu are a bad example because Tengu are less reasonable to push into a setting that does not have them than say Tieflings who would reasonably exist if any evil outsider exists. In some cases I have allowed tieflings, changelings and a few other things in mid campaign because they were brought up and I didn't think about them and they fit in well enough despite them not originally being there.
Heck yes I would, they could all play ponies if they wanted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would even try to make it a MLPathfinder game, if we all agreed it'd be awesome. 20% cooler by far :)
I would even try to make it a MLPathfinder game, if we all agreed it'd be awesome. 20% cooler by far :)
Yknow Ponyfinder is a thing. There's a third party product and a bunch of stuff fans created on reedit.
Hilarious, I will look for it.