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.
This may be a bit off-topic, but...why? Treason is actually very well-suited to an army scout. Maybe he was framed, and he wants to find the real traitor. Maybe he did it because the army was about to do something unconscionable, like burn down Orphanville. Or maybe he betrayed another nation to join this one, but he's not really trusted by anyone as a result and the other nation is sending out bounty hunters.
I mean, it sounds like the backstory challenges your PC, but it doesn't really get in the way of your concept. If anything, it supplements it.
Or if, for example, you say "I'm running a pathfinder campaign in my Burning Lands setting, here is the blurb and class and race restrictions, and applicable house rules."
Then reading it, coming ... And brining something totally outside that blurb and those guidelines, or rather something that violates them and giving your reason as "well, its in the book!" Is a bit untoward at the least.
I think most people are fine with restrictions on some character creation options, as long as they're clearly spelled out and available at the start of the process. Where the problem comes up is when restrictions are sprung at the last minute.
There's a huge difference between telling someone "No X allowed" before they even sign up for the campaign, and saying it when they show up with a filled out character sheet and accompanying background info.
Oh, and by the way, in answer to your question--yes. A GM is allowed to request backstories be built a certain way. That is how a campaign works. Chengar basically sums up my view: If you were told this was how character creation would work when things got started, it's fine.
|
Well everyone probably has an opinion, and i doubt I am going to add something that hasn't been said up screen.
In my opinion, when someone decides to run a game, to GM, they get to set the parameters of the game.
Of course it is best to discuss things with your players, what your ideas are, and to find out what sort of campaign they enjoy playing.
Hypothetically, If I wanted to run a campaign set on Akiton, which was inspired by Edgar Rice Burroughs John Carter Of Mars series of books, I might want set out certain parameters for the game.
I might decide that I am going to use Dream Scarred Press's Psionics system, and to dissallow Arcane and Devine Magic. I might decide to allow gunslingers....and have flying machines.
I might decide...no elves halfings or gnomes, but allow half orcs, dwarves and humans.
Now if i have laid this idea out, and my players have expressed interest in trying this campaign, If someone shows up with an elven wizard, I feel as the GM, i can say no you can't play an elven wizard. If you want to play a character with supernatural abilities why not try the Psion or Wilder?
Anyways, I think the GM while he would be wise to take his players desires into consideration, has the final say on what he wants in his (or her) game.
Well I guess that is my opinion. I am sure there are many other opinions out there and many other ways to play this game.
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?
I don't know. Is it? Sounds like you don't like it, which answers the question for you.
I personally would love if everybody at the table had a character ready to go with a big backstory and a whole concept with no conflict with each other, but that can't always happen.
In my experience, players run the gamut from uber-control over every aspect of their character, which they guard jealously against any tampering from the GM, to needing help with every little aspect, to everything in-between.
Sometimes, a GM needs to sit down with a player to ask them or guide them into tweaking a character a little or into taking on some role that is otherwise absent from the party. My players are usually amenable to this, as they tend to be team players.
Is that wrong? Where do you draw the line?
There are as many answers to this as there are players and GMs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem IMO comes when the GM and/or the player let their original ideas or even the rules of the game create bad blood between them.
Because you CANNOT have fun in a RPG if there is bad blood within the group.
If bad blood starts appearing, it is time to take a deep breath, step back, check your ego at the door and come back to the table willing to build together a creative solution that will make everyone happy (or at least will cleanse the bad blood). And this goes for both GM and players.
I agree with Kobold Cleaver, I think Jack should have given the game the old "college try". Play the game a few sessions, and then if you really disliked the experience, quit gracefully.
I played a game where I rolled a background, and got "palace eunuch". I grumbled, but accepted it. The thought of not having junk was awful, but like a professional I RPed it well, and my group was well entertained.
|
|
So I haven't read the other replies, I'm just going to dig into the original post with my opinions, be warned. :)
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?
Yes and yes.
It's the GM's world and the GM's table. He creates the world and enforce which rules are going to be used/followed. This is a time old thing.
Let's look at two examples...
A group is playing in the Eberron. A player wants to be a Red Mantis assassin, the DM says ok to the player taking that prestige class but informs the player that they won't be using the city of Ilizmagorti or the guild because neither exist in Eberron. Did the player want a Red Mantis because he wanted the class or because he liked the lore. Pretty silly of the player to assume that lore would be integrated into a different setting made by a different company.
A group is playing D&D. The DM casually enforces encumbrance to keep the players from hauling around everything including the kitchen sink but otherwise ignores it.
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.
Or a failure to communicate.
Why are we using a random background generator? (Rhetorical question btw.) Is it because there are players who aren't creative and just like to roll dice. If that's the reason it's being used, then said GM/DM should have NO issue with a player using their own background... assuming it's not ridiculous, like... LG Rogue that's a scout for the king's army... yet traveling with a group of adventurers. I'm sure we can come up with a reason why the scout would be assigned to the group, but since we're playing the what-if game, let's what-if the group isn't starting near the king or his army, thus ridiculous.
Maybe it's not lazy roleplaying, maybe the group the player is joining likes being out of their element by playing the unexpected. That's unfortunate for the new player and is a pretty big failure of communication but something the player should be able to get over.
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?
No one budges. GMs have house rules. Players should know them. Communication is key to avoiding surprise situations like the Random Background Generator. It falls on both the player and the GM to make sure they're well informed.
But, why not meet in the middle? (Rhetorical.) The LG Rogue that WAS a scout for the king's army was wrongfully ACCUSED of treason. Now he's on the run trying to prove his innocence. That sounds way more interesting to me, hell I want to play this character now.
Let's remember that backgrounds are used for the THEN not the NOW. They tell us where the character is from and MIGHT provide hooks for where the character might be going but that doesn't mean the GM is under any obligation to use those hooks.
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?
Again, comes down to communication. Forget Pathfinder for a second, let's look at AD&D or even 3.5. There are so many optional/splat books that are poorly balanced or introduce new rules to the game that a GM has every right to say no. How about Psionics? Depending on the edition/system, having a true Psionic character at the table adds things to the game that aren't part of the core system and effect character even if they're not Psionic characters. This creates work for everyone else not to mention creates inconsistencies with "classic" monsters that are Psionic but don't actually ever follow Psionic rules.
Now let's go back to Pathfinder... just because the table is playing Pathfinder, it doesn't mean the campaign setting is going to be Golarion. Let's face it, there's a lot of Campaign Setting material out there. Let's go back to the Red Mantis from the beginning. A Red Mantis Assassin in the Campaign Setting is a Crimson Assassin in the OGL. That does't mean a GM wants anything to do with Red Mantis Assassins but he's willing to let a player have their abilities.
-------
Now to a completely different point..
If a player has a great concept for a character, that player should open up word/excel and make the character or crack open a binder and fill out a blank character sheet. There will always be another adventure, another table, or another opportunity to use that character. I'll be honest with you, most of my characters end up being NPCs because I come up with more concepts then I could possibly play.
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.This may be a bit off-topic, but...why? Treason is actually very well-suited to an army scout. Maybe he was framed, and he wants to find the real traitor. Maybe he did it because the army was about to do something unconscionable, like burn down Orphanville. Or maybe he betrayed another nation to join this one, but he's not really trusted by anyone as a result and the other nation is sending out bounty hunters.
I mean, it sounds like the backstory challenges your PC, but it doesn't really get in the way of your concept. If anything, it supplements it.
I forgot to add that he was a lycan and had a debilitating injury (to the knee I think); it was a hot mess; although I will admit some fault for not playing the good soldier and taking it on the chin. Players get fussy over people doing stuff to their character, people have a comfort zone. I remember a game long ago I quit because we were captured by orcs and... you get the point. I just have a level of mess with my character up til this point til I quit a game. I agree that parts of it would've worked, I wasn't happy with the treason thing but oh well, the injury though... and the lycanthrope thing was just not my bag; if played right, he would've been CE after a few moons. I totally agree that I should've at least tried it, but "dems the dice" put me off PF for a week or two. I didn't mean for the story to be specifically about my character though, and probably should've omitted the story and just left it in the hypothetical.
Messing with a PC's history is a minefield. You gotta know where to put your feet before you lose one.
If your player's the kind to have eight pages of backstory, he deserves every niggling little detail you can twist. I mean seriously, if that guy's still level one, he shouldn't read like he just finished three campaigns! Too bad that's exactly the type that'll take "issue" with what you feel like doing eh?
Some things are almost universally accepted, perhaps even appreciated. If the player never bothered saying what his character's parents do for a living, and you decide upon a visit home that they're the local smithy or own a thousand bushels of delicious lambs, there's probably no complaint. Probably cheers by the rest of the group as they start poking their partymember for a friendly discount or one of his three sisters.
Some stuff is just plain bad. Suddenly deciding a character is some sort of nobility or royalty's a common one (some of us do entertain young relatives by letting them run a game on occasion after all but those cases of the barbarian, druid, paladin AND the beardy old wizard also being a princess too can specifically be excused) but is not necessarily appreciated in the least by the guy who wrote some regular run of the mill militia-turned-adventurer. Nor will finding out his wife and kids he was sending all those silver pieces (not the gold or gems though...) back to were secretly liches all along. I mean, really? Liches?
At least try to keep it to things that won't level-drain a Lv1 to death on contact!
Agreed. Admittedly I am the player that doesn't like "editing" in my backstory, and that hasn't changed; although I make my backgrounds for games a lot less story now and more just background stuff. I heard that if it can't be summed up in a paragraph then it's too complicated, so I quit doing that. Also in any AP I always take campaign specific things, and pour over the gazeteer to find some angle, I put effort into integrating so as not to draw any GM intervention. If they say no Tengu's, no gun powder then I won't show up with a Tengu Gunslinger for sure.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I run a game the first session is about creating characters. No one brings a character, no one should even have a character concept in mind yet.
The first session does all of that. Character creation becomes a group exercise, and as GM I direct where the players are going, but let them run wild within the framework I set up.
At the end of the session, every player has a character and a history. Every character has a link to the other characters. The party has formed and we are now ready to "begin" the adventure.
BTW I like random background generators. People tend to pick the same background over and over, varying the flavor only by the smallest amounts. Go to one PFS game and find an elven ranger (almost certainly named Legollas); ask his background; go to another session and find another elven ranger (almost certainly named Legollas); yeah his background is almost the same as that other guy's. A random generator makes the player figure out a character based upon things he would not have normally chosen.
|
|
Agreed. Admittedly I am the player that doesn't like "editing" in my backstory, and that hasn't changed; although I make my backgrounds for games a lot less story now and more just background stuff. I heard that if it can't be summed up in a paragraph then it's too complicated, so I quit doing that. Also in any AP I always take campaign specific things, and pour over the gazeteer to find some angle, I put effort into integrating so as not to...
Every character can be reduced to a paragraph description, but to get to that paragraph there are volumes of interest still available, even if to yourself if no one else. In my opinion, a background should cover the basic reporter's questions: Who, where, when, what, and why. They can be as short or as elaborate as you want.
At a recent game session the GM turned to a new player and asked him where his character was from. The player responded "I am an elf." The GM responded "Okay, I did not ask WHAT you were, I asked where you are from. So where does your elf come from?" The player's eyes literally bulged (I swear they did) and he looked like a deer staring at headlights. I grabbed a map and pointed to a few likely places and the GM and I decided where he was from, and why he had gone from his homeland to the Land of the Linnorn Kings. Now the GM knew WHO he was, WHERE he came from and WHY he left, and was able to enter him into the game. We knew WHAT he was (a gunslinger). The only question left was WHEN, which I assume is young adult (sort of the default starting age)- his age answers When because it gives us a starting point in history and everything can be answered within the range of his age.
Anyway, short and sweet or long and narrative, that is what I look for in a background; Who, When, Where, What and Why. BTW usually I am not interested in How... but if you can make it interesting then sure.
I do that too, and the only time I have a concept in mind is when I ask the GM AND party first about the concept and then join in the brain-storming phase. I just hate the randomness of the generation process; I'm the type of guy who as a GM has never ran a random encounter. I just would rather opt out of random backgrounds if possible, or use the ones from the Ultimate Campaign if necessary because those backgrounds aren't any concept killers. That's why I started the thread, because it could totally be me. I never had this problem as a GM, as I make a rough skeleton of a game and then get the PC's input on what they'd like to see, including their background stuff like contacts and rivals; later I take that and make a game.
...
Totally good reasons, I wouldn't mind playing some of that stuff out either; but it was other stuff too; granted I could've made a character with all of that stuff and tried to have it make sense, I just wasn't interested in playing it after my background was done. A LG lycanthrope rogue with dodge, mobility, and a vicious knee wound that left him hobbled just was a mess to me. Sure I could've made it work, but it left me drained at what was left of what I wanted.
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.
Or, you can make it work. Just because he was accused and convicted of treason doesn't mean he actually DID it. Bang, instant plot hook and motivation - clearing your name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very little to add except personal experiences and opinions:
- For APs and campaigns where you are going to be gaming together for the next 2-3 years of real time, it is an incredibly valuable investment for every player to meet with the GM 1-on-1 up front and come up with a character concept they are both happy with. One of our groups just finished Carrion Crown; the other just finished Rise of the Runelords. We are NOT diving right in to another campaign this weekend -- we plan on spending our sessions for most of March coming up with character concepts and backgrounds that EVERYONE likes, and that we feel we can play together for the next couple of years.
If you're going to be investing hundreds of hours in a PC over a long-term campaign, isn't it worth 5-10 hours working with everyone else to get that PC "right"?
- For one-offs, we either use pregens provided by the GM, or play a game that isn't dependent on numbers. If we only have 4-6 hours, we'd rather play than argue. Usually the GM provides about a dozen pregens. If you can't find something you're willing to play ONCE, for ONE DAY, in that, then perhaps your expectations are too high, and you should sit out that particular one-off. It's only a day, after all.
(And though we haven't had it happen, I suspect if someone showed up at the table an hour early and said, "I have this really neat character concept I've been itching to play. Do you think this guy could fit in today?", I doubt any of our one-off GMs would say, "No," without good cause.)
Since those are our two extremes (no short 8-session campaigns for us), those are my only examples.
But notice that both involve investment and agreement by both the GM and the player. It is just as wrong for the GM to say, "We're playing a full AP, and this is your character's background," as it is for a player to say, "This character is Paizo-legal and therefore you must accept it."
=====
Requisite horror story as to what happens when this doesn't work:
I made the mistake of running Kingmaker without demanding strong backgrounds from all my players, so two players kept sending me weekly "updates" as to their backgrounds. One player absolutely insisted on being intimately associated with the nobility of the River Kingdoms. I said, "Absolutely not. Part of this AP relies on your political dealings with the River Kingdoms. You may NOT be associated with them."
He wouldn't budge. He was willing to be the estranged son, but he HAD to be River Kingdom nobility. I dug in my heels and absolutely refused, incensed at his stubbornness.
At the end of it all, because I couldn't kick him from the group for social reasons, and my mandate that he not be from the River Kingdoms fell on deaf ears, I simply stopped running Kingmaker at all.
Not my proudest moment.
So character backgrounds CAN kill a campaign. That's why it's so important to agree before the campaign even starts. If we'd had the blow-up before I'd even run the first session, we wouldn't have wasted a dozen sessions playing before finding out the campaign wasn't working for us.
|
|
A GM who won't listen shouldn't have the job. A player who won't listen shouldn't have a seat at the table.
Communication is almost always better than digging in your heels.
This sums up my view. As for a solution, I always give myself a week or so to get everybody set up, have them construct characters, backstories, etc., then we spend the rest of the time leading up to the first session meeting up individually to check base and make sure everything will work out. Saves me a heckuva lot of trouble, and everybody's happy by the first session, no surprises.
To the OP: Is it OK? Within bounds it is, imo.
I have a random background generator for my campaign designed to produce a character / adventurer typical of that setting. You can roll on it or choose off of it, your call. Special stuff needs to be discussed with me.
The background generator is keyed to class and race (which you have already chosen after you generated your characteristics). Note it is designed to produce a background for a typical adventurer in the setting, not a typical character. Based on that, it gives a nationality, social background, and family information (parents, siblings, your birth order, if you're legitimate or not, whether they are living or deceased and if you have step parents / siblings or half siblings). Your relationship with said family is up to you. You can pick / choose or roll on any part. It's designed to help with the background and still give a character who is "grounded", if you will, in the setting. There aren't huge life shaping things on it, the choice to be an adventurer is pretty much the first of those. There aren't any atypical "special" backgrounds included - those would need to be discussed with me.
I think it gives structured choices which are right for the setting. It allows those players who know what they want to choose - within limits for the game world, those who aren't sure can use it for inspiration, and those who don't care can just let the dice fly. It's worked for the last 30+ years (I came up with it in the early 80s when 1E was the game we played) with some modification for editions, and race / class changes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I even asked if I could retcon the whole thing, my concept and the randomly generated one; the answer: "dems the dice."
That is why my group has NO ROLLS to create a character. Point buy stats, set hp, you design the background. Sure you can roll on the background table for ideas but you decide what you play entirely.
Short answer? Yes, it is ok for a DM to mess with a players character concept.
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?
I'm going to answer this the same way I do many questions of this type.
It depends on the people in question, and the situation they're in. There isn't some overarching "rule of right and wrong" that can be applied to these things.
A GM that doesn't let players know these things in advance is in the wrong for not doing so.
A player that doesn't check these things in advance is equally wrong.
Random background generators: It's okay for the GM to want to use them. It's okay for the Player not to. This one should certainly be mentioned before game night to ensure the player doesn't go making a complex background story that gets messed up.
The two (or the group as a whole) should have sat down pre-game and worked all of this stuff out, and either settled on something they can agree on, or agreed not to play together in this game.
Not everyone automatically assumes "Pathfinder" means "Pathfinder, exactly as the rulebook says, in a setting that fits the standard options in the game." - although for the GM not to mention any major derivations is a bit off, and it's probably safe to assume there aren't any if none have been mentioned (the GM could at least have said "Pathfinder with a twist" to alert them to the fact there were things they may want to ask.)
The player still has the options of objecting (although doing so on game night isn't really cool) and simply stating they're walking away because these things were not made clear. Again, had they sat down and talked properly earlier, none of this would have been an issue.
The only time anyone did something wrong in the examples above is if they said one thing, but did the opposite later. Mostly, these things are almost always a matter of not having communicated expectations on both sides, with both sides being to blame for not ensuring that communication happened. If both entered the game with assumptions the other would be okay with whatever happened, that's really their own fault.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, people only get upset when they feel something unfair was done to them. The thing is that each player has different assumptions of what playing pathfinder means. If you don't tell them anything in advance, they will assume that the game will equal their standard roleplaying game assumptions. When you pull something out that goes against that, then it may feel unfair to the player, in which case they will get upset.
So, its perfectly fine for the GM to make whatever changes, house rules, limits to players characters, make people roll on random tables, whatever. It's wrong, and the players have every right to complain, when the GM ambushes them with new rules the player never agreed to. As long as you tell the players ahead of time it's fair. If the players don't want to do play with your weird rules, they won't come to the game. If they come, they already know what's up and have agreed to play your way.
As for this, it's never been a part of the DM-Player relationship that the DM tells the player exactly how is character should be. He lets the player know what is or isn't in his setting or what he may have to change, but I've never come across a DM say "You need to make your Con a 12 and be a thief". The DM sets parameters and the Player works within those parameters.
About the closest I've seen is some GMs enforcing/strongly suggesting party roles if there's an obvious gap like the group having nobody who can heal.
I even asked if I could retcon the whole thing, my concept and the randomly generated one; the answer: "dems the dice."
Dick move, IMO. I use random systems sometimes, but not THAT random. Not being able to play exactly what you want is one thing. Being forced to play something you DON'T want is quite another.
In the last three days I seen enough Tengu hate for me to wonder if this will devolve into a movement against Tengus. I do notice that some GM's have devised an insidious "final solution" type plot about wiping the entirety of the poor race off the planet. Were I in such a game; I'd want to find out what horrible fate the Tengus suffered; and try to find some evidence of this atrocity in order to bring it to light.
GM: Bam! your PC dies...