Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: No, not really. See, the player would be leaving the game, not the GM, is the difference.
No see, the GM wouldn't be running the game, the group would find something they could agree on that would make all parties happy, is the difference. YOu are being awfully presumptuous that the whole group would leave because one player wasn't able to play a tengu in a setting where it had already been stated they don't exist. Not an exceedingly likely scenario, if you ask me. I didn't say leave. I assume a group of friends would find something everyone would want to play. That sounds like an entirely credible scenario, one that I've seen happen on multiple situations and actually done myself and had done to me.
A real group of friends would find something that would make all of them happy, and likely stop the game if people weren't having a good time or make the changes necessary so they do. I've been in about half a dozen different gaming groups all across my state and have yet to see a time where people who were reasonably friendly didn't go to whatever lengths to make it work.
The one time it didn't I had introduced a new friend to our group and he wanted to GM so we let him give it a try for his first swing. This is the infamous "infinite mind control by untouchable deity" GM I often mention and I actually did get the entire player base to get up and walk on him, until he begged me to get them to come back. At that point I did dictate the changes he was going to make, both mechanically and storyline wise and told him if he didn't like it he was free to find another gaming group. In other words, why is it the GM who has to go to all lengths to make it work, and the player is just presumed to get what they want, and all of what they want, even if it was something specifically excluded before the game even started? That is the player being unreasonable and impacting the 'fun' by being extraordinarily inflexible.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: ANd so why wasn't it the players responsibility to not pick something specifically not in the campaign world and instead just pick one of the almost infinite choices still left? Oh, because he was being an utter twit about what we could play. Then when we picked from what he allowed he argued that because several of his choices were under this deities purview it had power over us. Because we followed his restrictions, it ended up as a particular hell for one player and unhappiness for most players for a good long time while we tried to work with him to improve his GMing.
So basically GM was a dick. ... and how is that particular example remotely relevant? That's about being a jerk, not excluding some choices from the mix.
Well if we're suggesting ideas he was a scout in the army while on rotation in the castle he had a tryst with one of the kings youngest daughters maids. While there he heard a scream and being a loyal soldier rushed to her room along with the maid who thought her charge was having a nightmare where they found her torn remains and a werewolf standing over her. It smacked him aside and ripped the maids throat out leapt out the window picking himself up he followed. Meanwhile other guards arriving saw the blood covered scout escaping from the scene of a gizzly double murder. Firing after him they hit him in the knee with an arrow. Dazed, injured and feaverish he eventually collapse and trnasitioned to a full lycanthrope. Eventually awakening he found he'd been declared a highly dangerous traitor to be killed on sight. Now he adventures to find ...
1) A cure or way to control his curse.
2) Evidence of who was behind the death of the princess and who the lycanthrope was.
RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: ANd so why wasn't it the players responsibility to not pick something specifically not in the campaign world and instead just pick one of the almost infinite choices still left? Oh, because he was being an utter twit about what we could play. Then when we picked from what he allowed he argued that because several of his choices were under this deities purview it had power over us. Because we followed his restrictions, it ended up as a particular hell for one player and unhappiness for most players for a good long time while we tried to work with him to improve his GMing.
So basically GM was a dick. ... and how is that particular example remotely relevant? That's about being a jerk, not excluding some choices from the mix. A GM was using restrictions to justify storeline excessive railroading. Basically, if your gm is telling you that you have to be such and such, you have the right to know why, because it rarely leads anywhere good.
They are the ones doing something excessive and arbitrary. Not you. You have a right to know why they are going well beyond normal bounds.
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: ANd so why wasn't it the players responsibility to not pick something specifically not in the campaign world and instead just pick one of the almost infinite choices still left? Oh, because he was being an utter twit about what we could play. Then when we picked from what he allowed he argued that because several of his choices were under this deities purview it had power over us. Because we followed his restrictions, it ended up as a particular hell for one player and unhappiness for most players for a good long time while we tried to work with him to improve his GMing.
So basically GM was a dick. ... and how is that particular example remotely relevant? That's about being a jerk, not excluding some choices from the mix. A GM was using restrictions to justify storeline excessive railroading. Basically, if your gm is telling you that you have to be such and such, you have the right to know why, because it rarely leads anywhere good.
They are the ones doing something excessive and arbitrary. Not you. You have a right to know why they are going well beyond normal bounds.
You kinda have to admit that excluding some options from what you can be is an entirely and completely different thing from telling you what you are. And Storyline railroading and having some restrictions in choices at the beginning of the campaign have no significant relationship.
I guess what I got out of this (other than to insight another debate, which was kind of the point lol) is that the player should play by the GM's rulings unless he's uncomfortable with that, in which case he should decline (respectfully) to play. The GM should also be wary of fetishes and quirks of his/her that turns a player off in a game, and try to be as inclusive as possible. Only rarely does the system break down such as a PC wanting a banned class, race, spell, etc or a GM making a ruling that a player dislikes so much that his only recourse is to leave the game. I've left games before, I've also kicked players, I've even had my players kick another because they couldn't get along.
I've also left games for a variety of reasons: GM wasn't familiar with the rules, boring plot, obnoxious players, GMPC's railroading PC's. I've also quit running games for groups that wouldn't pay attention, went all munchkin PvP, reduced my fun playing. It happens, but usually it's rare to the point of being obscure.
RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: ANd so why wasn't it the players responsibility to not pick something specifically not in the campaign world and instead just pick one of the almost infinite choices still left? Oh, because he was being an utter twit about what we could play. Then when we picked from what he allowed he argued that because several of his choices were under this deities purview it had power over us. Because we followed his restrictions, it ended up as a particular hell for one player and unhappiness for most players for a good long time while we tried to work with him to improve his GMing.
So basically GM was a dick. ... and how is that particular example remotely relevant? That's about being a jerk, not excluding some choices from the mix. A GM was using restrictions to justify storeline excessive railroading. Basically, if your gm is telling you that you have to be such and such, you have the right to know why, because it rarely leads anywhere good.
They are the ones doing something excessive and arbitrary. Not you. You have a right to know why they are going well beyond normal bounds.
You kinda have to admit that excluding some options from what you can be is an entirely and completely different thing from telling you what you are. And Storyline railroading and having some restrictions in choices at the beginning of the campaign have no significant relationship.
And if you had read what I said you would see I said they had the right to place restrictions a full page ago, if not 2 at this point.
And I'm sorry, I'm not entirely convinced they aren't. They may not be practically, but they tend to go hand in hand for the gm's involved.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jack Assery wrote: 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. Heh. I think tengu are quite interesting, mythologically, culturally and in a gaming context.
I just don't see any of 'em wandering around Palestine 3,000 years ago in a period-specific setting. ;)
Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: Thomas Long 175 wrote: RDM42 wrote: ANd so why wasn't it the players responsibility to not pick something specifically not in the campaign world and instead just pick one of the almost infinite choices still left? Oh, because he was being an utter twit about what we could play. Then when we picked from what he allowed he argued that because several of his choices were under this deities purview it had power over us. Because we followed his restrictions, it ended up as a particular hell for one player and unhappiness for most players for a good long time while we tried to work with him to improve his GMing.
So basically GM was a dick. ... and how is that particular example remotely relevant? That's about being a jerk, not excluding some choices from the mix. A GM was using restrictions to justify storeline excessive railroading. Basically, if your gm is telling you that you have to be such and such, you have the right to know why, because it rarely leads anywhere good.
They are the ones doing something excessive and arbitrary. Not you. You have a right to know why they are going well beyond normal bounds.
You kinda have to admit that excluding some options from what you can be is an entirely and completely different thing from telling you what you are. And Storyline railroading and having some restrictions in choices at the beginning of the campaign have no significant relationship.
And if you had read what I said you would see I said they had the right to place restrictions a full page ago, if not 2 at this point.
And I'm sorry, I'm not entirely convinced they aren't. They may not be practically, but they tend to go hand in hand for the gm's involved. Not even remotely my experience.
Jaelithe wrote: Jack Assery wrote: 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. Heh. I think tengu are quite interesting, mythologically, culturally and in a gaming context.
I just don't see any of 'em wandering around Palestine 3,000 years ago in a period-specific setting. ;) And my character wants to know what happened to them.
Obviously I'm joking; it'd be kind of cruel to throw a game off track like that, what with the GM already most probably having a different story to play than "where are all the Tengu's? What did Solomon DO to them?" It would be hilarious to see the look on his face though; I'm keeping that in mind for the next time I play a game where a race "disappears", just to see the GM's reaction lol.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jack Assery wrote: 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?
Yes, then no.
Work with the player to fit their char into the setting, do not undermine agency or prevent them from trying to make an action, for that is the path of pissing players off.
Inclusiveness is subject to taste.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jack Assery wrote: 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.
Alas framed! Thus begins the long road to redemption. Or perhaps lofty ideals of this rogue could not survive the harsh realities that the world placed upon him, such that he chose a darker path of vengeance. Or perhaps this rogue seeks a new honest life elsewhere to escape his past. Lastly, the rogue may take a more nihilist approach and choose to lose him/herself in killing goblins with 3-5 other random people.
Heaven forbid you have character development, hardships, and a colorful backstory before you ever come to the table!
Part of the magic of tabletops is that everything doesn't go your way. The GM creates a sphere that you bring yourself to. Both you and GM cause chaos to the elements you bring to the table. As both of you deal with these eddies, you will notice that the swirl they cause is a story that neither of you could have made yourself. And this story was not just a tale for telling but one that you experienced.
It is his game that he has final say over. This isn't to say its his group. The group can mutiny and say he isn't DMing for them anymore. If its his house the players can leave.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jack Assery wrote: Jaelithe wrote: Jack Assery wrote: 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. Heh. I think tengu are quite interesting, mythologically, culturally and in a gaming context.
I just don't see any of 'em wandering around Palestine 3,000 years ago in a period-specific setting. ;) And my character wants to know what happened to them.
Obviously I'm joking; it'd be kind of cruel to throw a game off track like that, what with the GM already most probably having a different story to play than "where are all the Tengu's? What did Solomon DO to them?" It would be hilarious to see the look on his face though; I'm keeping that in mind for the next time I play a game where a race "disappears", just to see the GM's reaction lol. Admittedly, a character that dreams of Golarion and believes that that is the world that he lives in could be very interesting for some campaigns.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I've never believe backstory was the sole purview of the player. Build choices (race/class/feats) are 100% the player, and the GM shouldn't force anything if the player's choices are within the agreed upon houserules.
Backstory, though, needs to be a collaboration between both.It results in a character more integrated into the world and story. Technically it's "messing" with their backstory but the result is improved.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
To OP:
"Treason" is in the eye of the *WotC-owned floating eye monster* - a Lawful Good rogue could have sabotaged the efforts of a corrupt commander.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ellis Mirari wrote: I've never believe backstory was the sole purview of the player. Build choices (race/class/feats) are 100% the player, and the GM shouldn't force anything if the player's choices are within the agreed upon houserules.
Backstory, though, needs to be a collaboration between both.It results in a character more integrated into the world and story. Technically it's "messing" with their backstory but the result is improved.
How dare you think like an adult? What the Hell do you think this is, man?! :)
Jaelithe wrote: Ellis Mirari wrote: I've never believe backstory was the sole purview of the player. Build choices (race/class/feats) are 100% the player, and the GM shouldn't force anything if the player's choices are within the agreed upon houserules.
Backstory, though, needs to be a collaboration between both.It results in a character more integrated into the world and story. Technically it's "messing" with their backstory but the result is improved.
How dare you think like an adult? What the Hell do you think this is, man?! :) IKR
Jack Assery wrote: 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?
A GM has the final say on things not fitting (hence me waiting years before anyone let me play an Ant-Paladian of asmodeus using setting rules that we talked through in our homebrew.
Also pencilling in details is a GM/player process, making the characters have somethings in common, making the character fit the setting, things like this have to be a two way street.
There is a difference between the GM wanting to make sure the player's character fits his campaign (which is perfectly justified), the PC's have a reason to work together already figured into backstory (also perfectly justified), and forcing a set of random dice rolls that not only torpedo the backstory concept, but also completely bugger the mechanical build of the character as well.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I generally hate random background generators. Except, I sometimes use them to get me started if I don't already have a background in mind. But I don't like being held to them when it kicks out something too bizarre for me to wrap my head around.
As a player I hate it when someone says anything legal. But then later says, not that. Or that. Definitely not that... That gets extremely annoying.
If the GM just says up front what he really doesn't want, I rarely have any problem with making something to fit. Even if I don't agree with his reasoning. (I once had a GM back in 2nd Ed that was convinced that the bard back then was too powerful for any normal group.)
No 3pp, don't like one trick ponies, no SoD specialists, everyone has to have some social skills, full plate armor just discovered (only royalty has it so far), no monster races, etc... No problem, I will still come up with something weird and interesting. Maybe a lore warden with the fey eldritch heritage feat chain.
As a GM I usually don't make very many restrictions on character builds. Though I will say if you pick a complex and confusing class like summoner or alchemist, you damn well better take the time to read and understand it. Post your build and intended tactics on line to make sure they are ok. I don't want to feel like I have to police your character sheet every session and constantly say you can't do that (then listen to you whine about it all night).
I will say you need to make something that fits into the campaign and can work with the other players. I am not going to spend every game session trying to find some way to cajole your anti-social, anarchist, blind, mute bug that it is a good idea to go along with the others without eating them.
The exception to that is if I am making a home brew (non-Golarion) world. A few years ago I tried a low magic campaign (especially low on permanent magic items). I told the players it would be a low magic campaign. I told them what the rule modifications would be. There were a few classes that were straight out not allowed (mystic theurge and summoner). I said I wanted to stick with mostly CRB since I had time to consider how they would work with the rule mods. If you want to run something non-core, let me know and we can work out how it would need to be modified to fit in this world (I wasn't sure what to do about magus and alchemist if someone wanted to run them). Everyone agree it was not a problem. Two out of 5 people brought concepts that were totally off target. An awakened golem cleric. And a rogue/monk/fighter thrower that was absolutely dependent on easy access to specific permanent magic items. It was very frustrating for me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What a pc is is up to the approval of both the player and dm. Can I be a gunslinger? Nah it doesn't fit my campaign.
How about your pc is from cheliax and blah blah? Nah it doesn't really fit my concept. I've given suggestions but never forced a class or backstory down a players throat. I have let them nknow how certain classes and races are likely to be treated.
Rarely is it that a dm needs very specific things for pcs to work like his campaign is written that all the pcs need to be dwarf rogues from sandpoint. If it was this was something that should've been discussed awhile before game 1.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
