| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know this whole player vs GM thing is silly right?
The GM sets the house rules and setting... true but remember he is doing so with the intent to make a fun experience for the players. Some players NEED corralling while some don't. That is a play group issue; not really solvable on the internet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, despite a bunch of people posting here about there accommodating GMs. Despite some players, like me, saying they're fine with restrictions. Despite many talking about how they would usually compromise, but on somethings it just won't work. Despite me personally having seen more games collapse due to the GM not enforcing his initial strictures than the reverse.Yes, despite all those things.
You think the solution is 10 years of players getting whatever they want and GM's changing whatever they had in mind to the player's slightest whim?Not whatever they want. I just want 10 years of the DM bending first. Bending; not breaking. I won't get that, of course, but I think it would be good for the hobby.
I don't know. Maybe I'm weird. I never come to a table wedded to a particular character concept, much less a particular build. I'm usually looking to the GMs description of the setting and campaign for clues as to what will fit into the game.That's not weird, just like coming to the table excited to play a new character concept and then being disappointed when the DM shoots it down over an easily changed setting concern isn't weird.
I think that part of the reason that portions of the gaming community see DMs banning easily-accommodated character concepts as normal is that we've been acclimated over decades to the idea that the DM "deserves" to have his way and that player concerns come second.
I believe (with no real evidence to back it) that a lot of this player entitlement/gm entitlement is internet exaggeration.
The GM doesn't "deserve" to have their way. The player doesn't "deserve" to have their way. When I say compromise, I actually mean that.
I'm likely to ruffle a few feathers here by suggesting that there are too many stories on these boards of "X didn't let me play Y and it made me sad." Too many stories of "Players said boo to me and it made me sad." If it is happening that much to you (whomever you may be), then you might want to try other people, other games, or perhaps look to see if you are the common problem in each of the conversations.
Me? I've been playing for thirty-five years or more. Probably more. That isn't a brag, it's a matter of being alive and little else. In that time, I've had very few problems like this. Most of them were in online games I'd administrate where people fought to be "unique" in whatever theme they played in. Multiple personality juggalos in Shadowrun. Anne Rice/WoD vampires in Shadowrun. Mutant biker star fleet officers. That sort of thing.
In face to face? I've had it happen less times than the fingers on a really bad shop teacher.
What I'd like to see is 10 years of refraining from bringing up old problems from someone else's game that happened before and trying to work with the people you are at the table with. If the GM hates cat girls, YOU run a game with cat girls to try to show them why they are cool. If you're a GM and have had trouble with cat girls, try to suck it up for a game as see if it was THAT GUY that was a problem or the actual race.
You can come to the table being as excited as you'd like to be about a new character idea modeled after whatever video game/movie/tv show/book/guy on the street that you saw last night.
But. And it's a big butt.
You should also turn your ears on and listen if the GM has laid out what the world is like. Many GMs on this very thread have mentioned that they give out player documentation illustrating what sort of game they are serving up, what is and isn't allowed, and so on.
If you are uber excited about playing a merman pirate queen and find out that you are playing on Dune, you may want to put that idea on hold and try something else rather than holding your breath hoping the GM will create an inland sea for you.
Similarly, if you as a GM come to the table excited about a pirate game after watching Pirates of the Caribbean on a loop and your players would rather eat broken glass, you should have a back up plan.
People that are unhappy do not play well, where ever they sit at the table.
I've been bending for years. I bend a lot. But I don't bend over. If a player or players wants to go that far, I'm happy to yield the screen and play. I'm happy for them to sell me on their ideas and worlds. The sad part is, I seldom have people willing to step up. The few that have balked at a world or gotten upset about a concept would rather be mad than step up and do the work -- and yes, it's a game, and it's work, and if you think it isn't you are deluding yourself -- because they want their way.
Those people? I don't play with those people. There is no compromise, there is just anger because "that guy" didn't let them play Whatever Idea #53235. That Gm that is mad because someone dared to suggest that they'd like to play something on the border of what is allowed -- not out of bounds, but one of the GM's hidden pet peeves that drives them crazy.
If you haven't gotten your way to play your idea, I'm sorry. If you are a GM and no one lets you use that Really Cool World without modifications, I'm sorry. But for the love of all nine gods, get past it and talk to the people you are playing with or get another group and stop chewing old soup about it. You will be happier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah...this age old argument as to whether a GM should accommodate players' Character concept by changing his campaign world...or even the campaign themes.
I am still on the side of Kirth Gersen, TriOmegaZero, and Scott Betts. But than again the because my experience as a GM has lead me to the simple fact that a campaign functions better when the players get to play what they want...and my experience as the player side of things that when GM do adapt and compromise the game is just 100% better.
I'm on the side that says the players should make an attempt to fit the world the GM has outlined and the type of game being played, and the GM should make an attempt to figure out ways to fit things the players want into the setting. For example, I'm preparing a game where PCs are part of a military police unit that serves as monster hunters, and the setting is a magitech setting . For this to work, players need to be willing to write characters that fit into this setup. A daring pirate character concept just isn't going to work well. At the same time, as GM I should make an effort to give the players choices in character. I do this. Western European and East Asian people are both very common, and this is a country that is noted for being particularly diverse on a continent where most people are descended from immigrants or are immigrants. The player who really wants to roll up an Arabic Cavalier can fit into the game, even though Arabic people aren't common here, because uncommon isn't unheard of, especially in a famously diverse nation. Immigrants join the military all the time (job security, pay is just about passable, often gains an individual a modicum of social acceptance among those somewhat wary of immigrants, not that hard to get in), and skilled people rise in the ranks, so immigrants can end up in more prestigious units like the military police. That aforementioned daring pirate that just doesn't work? A daring sailor could work. I can throw in some sea monster encounters to get that sailor in his best environment, too. I think that's somewhat reasonable.
As a GM, I'm not adverse to working with the players. I just expect the same in turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the group people...
Some PLAYERS like firm guidelines because they don't have to worry about what their fellow players are going to show up with. Some players like loose or no guidelines so they have the freedom to talk their GM into nearly anything. Trust me this has little to do with a tyrant GM or entitlement players. I noticed that each group has players in a varying range of preferences but that the group settles into it's own way of doing things. A sort of social contract between everyone.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that a certain group of individuals seem to have a complete inability to understand the word compromise. They make post after post about how the players and GM should compromise, and then they give their examples....examples where the players receive 100% of what they want, and don't give up anything. Examples where GM Bob has to re-write his entire campaign from scratch on the fly, because Player Luke can't possibly conceive of any other character concept other than the one that GM Bob asked nobody to use.
I also find it amusing that these examples always have the players 100% backing Player Luke. They never seem to offer an example where Player Fred says "Goddamn it Luke, all Bob asked is that nobody play a humanoid rabbit. Everybody else rolled up humans and elves and dwarves, why the hell do you have to be a goddamn rabbitfolk?"
Apparently these posters have a pretty low opinion of players as well, since they assume they're all just a hive-mind with no distinct personalities or opinions of their own. :P
|
|
Player: "I want to play a Gworf."
DM: "You can't play a Gworf. Gworfs don't go adventuring. That's just a reality of the setting."
Player: "Why is it a reality of the setting?"
DM: "Because I said so."
Player: "But can't you just say otherwise, right now? Maybe this Gworf is different."
DM: "No. Stop acting so entitled. Am I going to need to remove you from this game?"
Replace Gworf with Halfling and you have the premise for The Hobbit.
Hobbits don't adventure. Except that weirdo Bilbo Baggins.
Actually, didn't LotR call out some of the Tooks as having been adventurers? At least compared to non-Baggins hobbits.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the grarr about defined rules vs GM fiat . All the attacks on earlier versions as "Mother May I". "rulings not rules"
I do find it both hilarious and frustrating how some posters seem to think that if an RPG's core rulebook doesn't have a page count that makes it's spine self-destruct, then it obviously doesn't have ANY rules, and it just a game of "magic story time".
My most recent encounter with this was when I explained to someone that in 5E, you don't need a feat to use your DEX modifier instead of your STR modifier for both attack and damage with finesse weapons. They immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a "magic story time" rule....I guess because 3.X has ingrained into them that nothing is possible without a feat to enable it.
Actually, didn't LotR call out some of the Tooks as having been adventurers? At least compared to non-Baggins hobbits.
Player: "I want to play a Gworf."
DM: "You can't play a Gworf. Gworfs don't go adventuring. That's just a reality of the setting."
Player: "Why is it a reality of the setting?"
DM: "Because I said so."
Player: "But can't you just say otherwise, right now? Maybe this Gworf is different."
DM: "No. Stop acting so entitled. Am I going to need to remove you from this game?"
Replace Gworf with Halfling and you have the premise for The Hobbit.
Hobbits don't adventure. Except that weirdo Bilbo Baggins.
The Tooks were the oddballs of the Hobbits. At least those in the Shire. Remember, Bilbo is half Took. So the Tooks are the more likely to go on adventures.
|
|
Awww... I wanted to see this group in action. If you do do something online maybe you can leave me a spectator link?It's a little harder to drive to Kirth's now, but maybe we can do something online.I'd like that. JAM412 has been begging me to start a Savage Tide campaign; maybe we can do one PBP - invitation-only. I'd save you a spot.
Alternatively, I'm still hoping you'll do that Shackled City one we were set for a few years back...
I'll see what can be done.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, didn't LotR call out some of the Tooks as having been adventurers? At least compared to non-Baggins hobbits.
Player: "I want to play a Gworf."
DM: "You can't play a Gworf. Gworfs don't go adventuring. That's just a reality of the setting."
Player: "Why is it a reality of the setting?"
DM: "Because I said so."
Player: "But can't you just say otherwise, right now? Maybe this Gworf is different."
DM: "No. Stop acting so entitled. Am I going to need to remove you from this game?"
Replace Gworf with Halfling and you have the premise for The Hobbit.
Hobbits don't adventure. Except that weirdo Bilbo Baggins.
This analogy is wonky anyway. Hobbits exist in Middle Earth. I think a better example would be a GM wanting to run a Middle Earth campaign and a player showing up with a half dragon/minotaur Samurai/Gunslinger/Ninja or some stuff. With a firkin' laser.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
a better example would be a GM wanting to run a Middle Earth campaign and a player showing up with a half dragon/minotaur Samurai/Gunslinger/Ninja or some stuff. With a firkin' laser.
But HD, don't you realize that it's just lazy DMing if you don't find a way to make that character concept fit within Middle Earth? I mean, after all, nothing is concrete in fantasy! :-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, no one likes RIFTS anyway. :P
Everyone loves the RIFTS setting. It's the rules most people have problems with. ;)
1) Isn't that essentially what 15 years of 3.x/PF taking power from the GM and pushing it towards the player have already done? Aren't we actually at the start of a wave back in the other direction, with the old school revival and even 5E?What in the rules for 3.x/PF/4E gave you that impression? If there was any shift in that period, it was in the culture, not the game.
And Old School Revival is about many things. Far more about going back to a simpler, less bloated rule system than the GM/PC relationship.
All the grarr about defined rules vs GM fiat . All the attacks on earlier versions as "Mother May I". "rulings not rules"
In my view, "rulings not rules" is about only creating rules as needed for a campaign. But when situations outside of the scope of the ulres come up in my game, I ask the group how they want to handle it. Then that becomes a ruling for our game. I'm running Dungeon Crawl Classics, which is very Old School in feel, if not quite as retro as Swords and Wizardry. So it isn't GM makes all the rulings.
But I'm definitely more of a hybrid GM.
I will admit I can see the case for setting integrity when the group has decided to run in a well known shared universe. Star Wars or something. But if you are going to pick a game system, you should at least re-theme the existing options for the players.
And setting restrictions are fine if everyone at the table buys into them. But if a player really wants to play something, maybe a restrictive setting isn't a good match for that group.
1) Isn't that essentially what 15 years of 3.x/PF taking power from the GM and pushing it towards the player have already done?
Not quite. 3.5 et al were big on creating well-defined rules for a wide range of conceivable situations, which meant that the rules for resolving specific types of conflict were suddenly known to both players and DMs (where, previously, the DM would be expected to adjudicate on the fly, making it impossible for the players to be aware of the underlying logic unless the DM chose to explain it).
That's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about agency - how much say the players have versus how much say the DM has when it comes to the game world. Should players have the ability to (with the DM's guidance) carve out tiny pieces of the game world to accommodate their character concepts? Should DMs have total control over the game world, and require that players find a concept that already exists in that setting?
2) Do people really get excited about new character concepts and then go to the table to find out what the setting/campaign is going to be?
Yes.
This is completely foreign to me.
Does this have something to do with the play format you are accustomed to? There are many different types of player. One of those types is the sort that falls in lust with a character concept, and seeks opportunities to play that concept in a fantasy game.
If you need some perspective on this, I'd say it's about as frequent a desire as the DM who is enchanted with the idea of seeing his personal setting concept used in a game, and is less concerned about what players are at the table.
You really come up with characters completely without GM input or any idea where the campaign's going to be set or what it's going to be like?
Me, personally? Yes. Not all the time, but it happens - if I read a sourcebook and something strikes my fancy, for instance. Or if I read or watch some piece of fiction and think it would be interesting to play that out.
Edit: And I fully agree btw that anything that's easily changed or accommodated should be. I suspect though that we have differences in how we define easily, which may partly be due to differences in GM style. From other posts, I suspect you consider "easily" to cover pretty much anything.
I do. Experience has taught me that an honest attempt to pinpoint an interesting way of enabling a character concept in a given setting is nearly always successful - oftentimes the first "niche" I come across requires some superficial reskinning of the character concept, but I've never had a player so "No" to those kinds of minor changes.
You know this whole player vs GM thing is silly right?
The GM sets the house rules and setting... true but remember he is doing so with the intent to make a fun experience for the players.
That's merely an ideal.
Some DMs have that intent, but make poor choices in practice.
Other DMs are missing that intent entirely.
By the way, it might appear to those reading that deinol is agreeing with some of what I (and a few others) are saying.
That isn't quite correct.
deinol is responsible for running a number of long-lived games that I played in for years, and his DMing style certainly rubbed off on me more than a little.
It would be much more accurate to say that, where we agree, it's simply me nodding my head at what he's been practicing ably for ages now.
I'll see what can be done.Awww... I wanted to see this group in action. If you do do something online maybe you can leave me a spectator link?It's a little harder to drive to Kirth's now, but maybe we can do something online.I'd like that. JAM412 has been begging me to start a Savage Tide campaign; maybe we can do one PBP - invitation-only. I'd save you a spot.
Alternatively, I'm still hoping you'll do that Shackled City one we were set for a few years back...
Thanks!
Dude, no one likes RIFTS anyway. :PEveryone loves the RIFTS setting. It's the rules most people have problems with. ;)
I will second this. Even the game designer himself is quoted as saying his rules suck. But the world needed a setting where anything goes and Rifts is amazing at doing just that. Just don't expect game balance ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know this whole player vs GM thing is silly right?
The GM sets the house rules and setting... true but remember he is doing so with the intent to make a fun experience for the players.That's merely an ideal.
Some DMs have that intent, but make poor choices in practice.
Other DMs are missing that intent entirely.
Oh the cemetery for dead campaigns is littered with the efforts of GMs who made poor choices. We all don't pick up an RPG and suddenly know how to expertly GM it. It takes a group to make that GM better; to give her feedback and advice; to encourage her and put up with her errors so that she can get better.
But I disagree about one line "Other DMs are missing that intent entirely" There is NO OTHER REASON to GM a game than to create a fun experience for your group. The only real danger here lay with GMs who don't consider ALL the players as part of his group, relegating them to temps or extras who exist simply to fill in the roster. But this seems to be common ONLY online. But even then these GMs have a core set of players they DO try to make a fun game for.
By the way, it might appear to those reading that deinol is agreeing with some of what I (and a few others) are saying.
That isn't quite correct.
deinol is responsible for running a number of long-lived games that I played in for years, and his DMing style certainly rubbed off on me more than a little.
It would be much more accurate to say that, where we agree, it's simply me nodding my head at what he's been practicing ably for ages now.
Which is funny, I learned how to GM from Warhammer Fantasy's Enemy Within Campaign, which is fairly old school by today's standards.
I'll be honest, my most frequent disagreement with some of the Old School movement (although not everyone projects this) is the revisionist notion that there was a one true way it used to be done, instead of simply one style of many which lost and gained favor over the years. As soon as there was a GM beyond Gygax, there were different styles of campaign.
Although in truly old school terms I was a second wave gamer, starting in the mid 80s instead of the 70s.
I have been fortunate enough to game with lots of good GMs over the years, but back in the beginning I learned from pre-written modules. B1-9 In Search of the Unknown!
I think the most important thing for a group to do is have a consensus for the type of game they want to play/run. Things like Fear the Boot's Group Template or The Same Page Tool are great for making certain everyone in the game, players and GMs, know what to expect from a campaign.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, my most frequent disagreement with some of the Old School movement (although not everyone projects this) is the revisionist notion that there was a one true way it used to be done, instead of simply one style of many which lost and gained favor over the years.
Which is both ironic and funny considering the number of posters in this thread saying that unless the players get 100% of what they want (re-skinned or not) the GM is doing it wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, my most frequent disagreement with some of the Old School movement (although not everyone projects this) is the revisionist notion that there was a one true way it used to be done, instead of simply one style of many which lost and gained favor over the years.Which is both ironic and funny considering the number of posters in this thread saying that unless the players get 100% of what they want (re-skinned or not) the GM is doing it wrong.
That's not exactly what people are saying. We're saying players have so little control over things in the game, the courteous thing to do is at least give them control over character creation. Work with your players to find a way to make what they want to work. "Yes, and..." or "Yes, but..." are always more interesting options than "No."
I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an all Elf or all Dwarf campaign, as long as everyone at the table is actually interested in that kind of game. If not, work together to find a campaign that does fit everyone's needs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh the cemetery for dead campaigns is littered with the efforts of GMs who made poor choices. We all don't pick up an RPG and suddenly know how to expertly GM it. It takes a group to make that GM better; to give her feedback and advice; to encourage her and put up with her errors so that she can get better.
That brings to mind the other bit of "logic" that I find simultaneously amusing and maddening. That players should be happy when the GM is vaguely suspected of having made some sort of mistake in the past, because they now never have to play under that GM again. Apparently either a GM is perfect or they are unworthy of GMing a game. Which makes me wonder how any group ever plays together more than once. And if GMs are allowed to fire players for having the temerity to not be perfect as well.
I think some of the more extreme "pro-player / anti-GM" crowd would prefer to forgo having a human GM at all. They seem like they would happily trade creativity and the ability to improvise on the fly for unyielding consistancy, unwavering adhereance to pure RAW, utter impartiality.
I hear Dr Hank Pym has been working on a pretty advanced AI. Maybe we can harness it to be a Game Master.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if just one player is uninterested while the rest are very excited? Which is what usually happens.
I'll quote Kirth, as he has already covered that.
More importantly, it's a bad sign. It's one player saying "I don't care what you've proposed for the campaign." To which the simple response would be "Why do you want to play in it then?" Maybe the answer is kick that player out. Maybe it's ditch the campaign...If the players all agreed "no catpeople" in advance, and one guy rolls one up anyway, yeah, he's being a jerk. By all means kick him out.
What if just one player is uninterested while the rest are very excited? Which is what usually happens.
That depends a lot on how the group is forming.
If this is at an RPG club, where a bunch of GMs are pitching games and the players have other options to choose from, then the enthusiastic group can go start their game.
If this is a small group of friends, and playing the one enthusiastic game means the last friend either plays a game they don't really like or doesn't game at all, that's a terrible choice. So work together to find a game that everyone likes, and save the other idea for a future time.
It's not like there aren't literally thousands of different campaigns the group could play instead. At least some of them should suit everyone in the group.
I always come with at least three campaign suggestions when I'm starting a game. My last campaign I pitched:
1) Megadungeon by Monte Cook
2) Kingmaker AP
3) Some idea I've forgotten (this was two years ago)
The group said, we like 1 and 2, can we do both? I said yes, let's do this.
And KingFortressHack was born. They've completed 3 of 6 Kingmaker books, and 7 of 20 dungeon levels.
Oh the cemetery for dead campaigns is littered with the efforts of GMs who made poor choices. We all don't pick up an RPG and suddenly know how to expertly GM it. It takes a group to make that GM better; to give her feedback and advice; to encourage her and put up with her errors so that she can get better.That brings to mind the other bit of "logic" that I find simultaneously amusing and maddening. That players should be happy when the GM is vaguely suspected of having made some sort of mistake in the past, because they now never have to play under that GM again. Apparently either a GM is perfect or they are unworthy of GMing a game. Which makes me wonder how any group ever plays together more than once. And if GMs are allowed to fire players for having the temerity to not be perfect as well.
I think some of the more extreme "pro-player / anti-GM" crowd would prefer to forgo having a human GM at all. They seem like they would happily trade creativity and the ability to improvise on the fly for unyielding consistancy, unwavering adhereance to pure RAW, utter impartiality.
I hear Dr Hank Pym has been working on a pretty advanced AI. Maybe we can harness it to be a Game Master.
Some people do prefer robot GMs. There's a reason millions of people play WoW.
Although I've never seen anyone happy to fire a GM. Or a player. But I pretty much only play with friends. (Edit: although many of those friends were once strangers I either ran or played with through our university gaming club many moons ago.)
|
Ah...this age old argument as to whether a GM should accommodate players' Character concept by changing his campaign world...or even the campaign themes.
I am still on the side of Kirth Gersen, TriOmegaZero, and Scott Betts. But than again the because my experience as a GM has lead me to the simple fact that a campaign functions better when the players get to play what they want...and my experience as the player side of things that when GM do adapt and compromise the game is just 100% better.
Isn't the obvious, reasonable and immediate solution to the problem simply that both the players AND the GM should compromise? do the whole negotiation thing where neither side got exactly what they wanted, but both sides are at peace with the final result?
Whenever I start a game or have a player join a game that's already running I always communicate in advance, in the broadest terms possible, what kinds of characters work well for the campaign. If a player comes up with a concept they really like but doesn't fit, me and that player sit down and talk until we find some middle ground we both find acceptable. It's this outlandish thing where the players trust me to come up with the best game I can and I trust them not to do things just to spite me, and we all see eye to eye. You know, the kind of relationships friends have?
|
|
Y'know, William just broke it down so well, I don't have anything more to argue.
In our upcoming 5E game, I actually had a concept before we even started planning. Thankfully, it's pretty bog-standard, but bugleyman has been wide open to characters from the start. So a wood elf sage has been pretty easy to work campaign and rules-wise.
Then again, Ultron as the GM for entitled players probably wouldn't work out too well for them.
Um....I don't think Ultron as a GM would not work out for any player except if the players were also robots and/or AIs.
Ands really Ultron's campaigns would all be Warforged only with the goal of wiping out all organic lifeforms.
Ah...this age old argument as to whether a GM should accommodate players' Character concept by changing his campaign world...or even the campaign themes.
I am still on the side of Kirth Gersen, TriOmegaZero, and Scott Betts. But than again the because my experience as a GM has lead me to the simple fact that a campaign functions better when the players get to play what they want...and my experience as the player side of things that when GM do adapt and compromise the game is just 100% better.
Isn't the obvious, reasonable and immediate solution to the problem simply that both the players AND the GM should compromise? do the whole negotiation thing where neither side got exactly what they wanted, but both sides are at peace with the final result?
Whenever I start a game or have a player join a game that's already running I always communicate in advance, in the broadest terms possible, what kinds of characters work well for the campaign. If a player comes up with a concept they really like but doesn't fit, me and that player sit down and talk until we find some middle ground we both find acceptable. It's this outlandish thing where the players trust me to come up with the best game I can and I trust them not to do things just to spite me, and we all see eye to eye. You know, the kind of relationships friends have?
Sure if there is a conflict compromise are the solution...
I am saying is I have never had a issue with reworking a campaign to fit my players concepts. And I am starting to think there seemingly alot of GMs out there who for whatever reason just can't do that. And I think that is a problem.
I don't want a robot GM...but than again I really don't want Robot players either.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players want to play Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNTs) in your serious Tolkien fantasy for a variety of reasons. Or catfolk gunslingers, android beuticians, deep one fremen or whatever other bizare concept the've come up with.
1. They've come up with a really cool concept / backstory that happens to be a TMNT. Let em. They've put in the time and are reasonably hyped about it so go ahead. Even in Middle Earth. Just warn them that they'll be this total fish out of water and if they're ok then you've got a rocking campaign where Donatello raps with Elrond.
2. TMNTs have uber stats and the player wants one to be the uber stat monster who can do infinity+1 damage in a single round. Let em. They're playing out their power fantasies and that's okay. If they're a good player then there will be total voids in the TMNT's abilities that coincide with the rest of the party's strengths. And if they're poor? They'll eventually MDK Elrond and then you can sic Legolas on their ass. He does infinity+1 damage in the round before you, even if you're also Legolas, he's that good.
3. The player has just watched / read all of TMNT and really wants to be one. Let em. This player typically has the attention span of a kitten with ADHD. Three sessions in he'll be begging to change his character to a dwarf, or an elf or some other disgusting alien lifeform native to your setting. After that don't let them change again. Be a meanie.
4. The player has just bought the Turtles splatbook and wants to give a TMNT a spin. Let em. Ask to read the 'including TMNTs into your campaign' section. Then be prepared for a rather baroque Middle Earth campaign in which the party must deal with the machinations of both Sauron and the Foot Clan.
5. The player falls into the looney classification and has picked a TMNT because, there is no because with these players. Let em. Walk on the Valendamned wild side for a change and have a Middle Earth with velociraptors and gouald death gliders.
6. The player always plays Donotello. He's played Donotello the elf, Donotello the kree, Donotello the gully dwarf and now he's playing Donotello the TMNT. Let em. Have everyone do what they've done in all the other games and ignore it. Just remember to compliment the player when they ask if you've noticed how their character is unique and different this time.
7.The player is an idiot. There is no salvation, no hope, they are simply a bane to gaming. Tell them to go elsewhere.
8. Say "Nifty! Dibs on Michelangelo!" Then ask what base rules the game with have as you slide your Tolkien notes aside for the evening for a night of ninja fighting. It's always good to let someone else GM, especially if they are excited about the topic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, Ultron as the GM for entitled players probably wouldn't work out too well for them.Um....I don't think Ultron as a GM would not work out for any player except if the players were also robots and/or AIs.
Ands really Ultron's campaigns would all be Warforged only with the goal of wiping out all organic lifeforms.
When you roll a natural 1, Ultron kills you (the actual player).
When your character dies, Ultron kills you.
The session begins with your 1st level character in the middle of a field, facing a dozen tarrasques.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I disagree about one line "Other DMs are missing that intent entirely" There is NO OTHER REASON to GM a game than to create a fun experience for your group.
No other valid reason.
That doesn't mean there is no other reason.
The only real danger here lay with GMs who don't consider ALL the players as part of his group, relegating them to temps or extras who exist simply to fill in the roster. But this seems to be common ONLY online. But even then these GMs have a core set of players they DO try to make a fun game for.
I think you're glossing over a couple of motivations for DMing - not particularly attractive motivations, but ones that rear their ugly heads once in a while all the same. If you've never had to deal with those situations, that's great. You're fortunate.
|
"Hi, I'm the GM. I sink hours of preparation time and planning, including running dozens of NPCs and monsters per game, keeping track of combat and in-world consequences of PC action, and organizing a grand storyline that will carry the players across continents and levels."
"Hi, I'm a player. !@#$ you."
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Players are the narcissistic scum of the earth.
|
|
"Hi, I'm a player. I never asked for you to do all that. So you don't get to lord it over me."
Not saying that a DM gets to, or even should, lord anything over the players, but isn't all of what Davor said about DMing kind of implied and even expected, regardless of whether or not that particular player asked him or her to DM? Seems it would be a pretty dull game if the DM didn't do all of that...