|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RDM42 wrote: Scott Betts wrote: RDM42 wrote: Nine times out of ten the player can either get their concept or something so close as to make little difference, so long as they aren't for some reason specifically seeking to break through the limits that were already in place for the campaign when it was selected. And the number of character concepts that are absolutely desperately reliant upon being a specific race and only a specific race are vanishingly small. Most of them can be fulfilled thematically in other ways. Usually, nine out of ten, race isn't so crucial to the concept that if you don't get that race you have to start over. Similarly, nine of of ten times (actually, probably far more often than that) adding a race to a campaign setting isn't so massive a change that the whole setting has to be thrown out for being overly generic.
But none of this is the point.
We're not talking about the nine times out of ten where the character's concept works just fine and there is no conflict. We're talking about the one time out of ten where the character's concept and the DM's setting are not in harmonious agreement, and what happens next. If it's something that wasn't included or excluded, might be. Although that still isn't necessarily true. But if it's specifically excluded there is usually a reason for that.
The reason is that too many decisions about the setting were made before talking to the players about what they wanted to play.
BigDTBone wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: Just want to point out that "players play what they want" =/= "generic kitchen sink." You can play a very highly-restrictive campaign, and still have players with free choice in their characters. All you need to do is match the restrictions to the group preference.
If you had a "no dwarves!" campaign theme in mind, and two of the three players indicate they want to play dwarves (BTW, this has actually happened to me on two separate occasions), then that restriction isn't really a good one for that particular group -- but any number of others might be. If I end up with two dwarven fighters, an elf wizard, and a human cleric, the players and I can still agree to restrict the campaign to "no Small races, no Furries, no evil characters, no rogues or bards, no gunslingers, etc., etc., etc."
I couldn't agree more. When I started talking to my players about our current game I had some rough ideas in mind. I knew:
1) the city where most of the game takes place has been under recent occupation by a Demi-human army.
2) a hidden portal between planes would be discovered and would lead to contact with a new race.
3) weak post-occupation government would be heavily directed by factions within the city.
So I asked my players what they wanted to play and said that I would like one person to volunteer to play a "lost soul" type character who would be the only one of their kind.
I got a human fighter/bard who is the captain of a relief force from another city.
A human zen archer who is the son of the quarry master, one of the only city inhabitants to prosper under the occupation so he is seen with distrust (collaborator) but is also a major player in the quarryman's guild.
An elf time oracle who was from the same city as the captain, except 200 years in the past. Long before the occupation or the war. His new wife was pregnant when the explosion caused him to be pulled into the future.
An elf wizard who is an apprentice at the only remaining institution of magic in the... And if you are making a new world, a non persistent world, that can work. Because at that point it is still Schrödinger's world. But not every campaign is set in one of those.
BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: Scott Betts wrote: RDM42 wrote: Nine times out of ten the player can either get their concept or something so close as to make little difference, so long as they aren't for some reason specifically seeking to break through the limits that were already in place for the campaign when it was selected. And the number of character concepts that are absolutely desperately reliant upon being a specific race and only a specific race are vanishingly small. Most of them can be fulfilled thematically in other ways. Usually, nine out of ten, race isn't so crucial to the concept that if you don't get that race you have to start over. Similarly, nine of of ten times (actually, probably far more often than that) adding a race to a campaign setting isn't so massive a change that the whole setting has to be thrown out for being overly generic.
But none of this is the point.
We're not talking about the nine times out of ten where the character's concept works just fine and there is no conflict. We're talking about the one time out of ten where the character's concept and the DM's setting are not in harmonious agreement, and what happens next. If it's something that wasn't included or excluded, might be. Although that still isn't necessarily true. But if it's specifically excluded there is usually a reason for that.
The reason is that too many decisions about the setting were made before talking to the players about what they wanted to play. Since the players select from among the scenarios presented with said setting limitations listed, no. Sorry.
And you always say "the players" as if it's a scenario where everyone wants to desperately play something which is excluded.
RDM42 wrote:
And if you are making a new world, a non persistent world, that can work. Because at that point it is still Schrödinger's world. But not every campaign is set in one of those.
And when we play this campaign world next time all the players will be able to choose what they want to play. Some will build off the experiences and history we create in this game and some will chose to go a new route. It's a multiverse, it's always Schrödinger's world.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage.
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott - Let's say that the group agrees to play a low-magic, E6 game set in Dark Ages Europe. All but one of the characters make appropriate characters. But one guy comes in and wants to play Optimus Prime.
Would you continue to screech "MAKE IT WORK!" ? Or would you accept that maybe the one being unreasonable here is the player, and not the GM?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Betts wrote: thejeff wrote: See that may be what the conversation looks like to you, but from the other side of the aisle it looks more like:
A: The GM should always accommodate whatever character the players want to play.
B: Well, usually I try to find a way to fit it in, but sometimes it's just to big a change to the game I was planning to run. Sometimes the other players wouldn't be happy with the change either.
A: It's always possible and you're just a railroading tyrant with control issues if you don't let Bobby play his TMNT in your LotR game. Why is your pristine vision more important than his fun?
Why does my take on the conversation reflect things that are actually being said, whereas your take on the conversation contains an absurd strawman of the position you don't like?
What do you think that says about this discussion and the people participating in it? Well, the 9 out of 10 thing had been said, but only by you, apparently with no source.
You may not have said "Always", but every example that anyone used that you responded to, you said it would be easy to change the setting/campaign. Plenty of other posters have agreed.
The TMNT/LotR thing was directly from an earlier post. "railroading tyrant with control issues" was an extrapolation, but you made some dark insinuations about possible motivations earlier and BDTBone just filled in nicely with "shove my fan fiction novels down other people's throats and disguise it as an RPG either."
I'm not sure where my absurd strawman is.
Many people posting on the pro-GM side have talked about compromising as well, including me in that post, but you've pretty much dismissed that as so rare as to not be worth bothering with.
As I said, radically different assumptions. Probably based on our personal experiences and gaming styles. That's cool. I'm sure yours are fun. And I'm sure mine are just a way to "shove my fan fiction novels down other people's throats and disguise it as an RPG."
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage. the restrictions are a harbinger of player agency. If a DM is unwilling to let a character be a race or class or even idea (pirate, magic-user) then do we really expect that DM is going to let the players shape the world? No way. That DM will always have the circle of baby-sitters of 8 be 10-12 levels higher than you can ever be. That DM will never let you ride in politics in a major city. That DM will retire your character by murder, campaign ending or alignment change (ie, that one act caused you to become NE, hand over your c-sheet) to remove player agency. Well .. if the player is completely incapable of bending and working in the campaign, I am not sure I want them changing the world. But then, it usually doesn't become a problem if you talk it out.
I still hold that there is either a great deal of exaggeration or a lot of resentment against "that GM" who wouldn't give in, or "that player" who wouldn't stop badgering.
Erick Wilson wrote: I hope that I have misunderstood the spirit of your last post. Please tell me if I have. You have. I hadn't read my original post in days, and forgot I'd used the word "abhorrent." I found your post a worthy contribution, and see nothing wrong with your use of the word in response to my own. I was speaking a bit hyperbolically, as I assume you were.
Quote: I don't think it's fair minded of you to characterize all criticism of different methodologies as some kind of pathology. Many criticisms here are valid and worth considering. Others are delivered with disdain and far less so. It's not just what you say.
Quote: In arguments of that sort reasonable people can, as they say, disagree. I agree. I just don't find some of the scorn heaped on certain of these positions to be reasonable.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage. the restrictions are a harbinger of player agency. If a DM is unwilling to let a character be a race or class or even idea (pirate, magic-user) then do we really expect that DM is going to let the players shape the world? No way. That DM will always have the circle of baby-sitters of 8 be 10-12 levels higher than you can ever be. That DM will never let you ride in politics in a major city. That DM will retire your character by murder, campaign ending or alignment change (ie, that one act caused you to become NE, hand over your c-sheet) to remove player agency. Not in my experience at all. Either as a player or GM. I've been horribly railroaded in games with completely free choice of character build and I've had character driven games with serious class or race limits. No correlation at all, much less causation.
Admittedly we often retire characters by the campaign ending, but I'm not sure that's removing player agency. Game has to end sometime.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A bit about storytelling and player agency -- players can be just as much stuck in storytelling mode as a GM. I've played in a game where a player refused to allow anything to happen to his character that he didn't like. He had a story in mind and if the actions around him were to the contrary, he'd just not engage, or pout, or otherwise derail things until the badness went away.
Secondly, I'll say yes, I am telling a story. All the bits are filled in yet, that's what the players are here for. What is going to happen? Good question, I'm interested to find out as well.
But yeah, GMs aren't the only aspiring writers out there. The cool part is when everyone worked to make a braided story instead of a glop of mess.
BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage. the restrictions are a harbinger of player agency. If a DM is unwilling to let a character be a race or class or even idea (pirate, magic-user) then do we really expect that DM is going to let the players shape the world? No way. That DM will always have the circle of baby-sitters of 8 be 10-12 levels higher than you can ever be. That DM will never let you ride in politics in a major city. That DM will retire your character by murder, campaign ending or alignment change (ie, that one act caused you to become NE, hand over your c-sheet) to remove player agency. Sorry, not true,
Because once you are playing, you are playing with the elements that are in the world ... But you can do whatever the h*** with them that you want.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage. the restrictions are a harbinger of player agency. If a DM is unwilling to let a character be a race or class or even idea (pirate, magic-user) then do we really expect that DM is going to let the players shape the world? No way. That DM will always have the circle of baby-sitters of 8 be 10-12 levels higher than you can ever be. That DM will never let you ride in politics in a major city. That DM will retire your character by murder, campaign ending or alignment change (ie, that one act caused you to become NE, hand over your c-sheet) to remove player agency. Can you demonstrate any of these assertions as logically following setting restrictions?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: Fan fiction novels? And you are trying to masquerade as the reasonable one here? Interesting. I'm just calling the balls and strikes man. It's on the pitcher if it's out of the zone. More like you are the pitcher and throwing a rather large wild pitch.
"We are doing a free form role play set in Victorian England." Has many, many restrictions inherent in its beginning. But from that beginning the players can do a rather LARGE number of things and it's not a "fan fiction novel" If your plan as a DM is to run a game in Victorian England then you really shouldn't advertise a pathfinder game. The restrictions are so sweeping that calling you a liar would be the nicest way to describe how you tricked players out of their time and gas to indulge your precious ideal setting. Unless you tell the players beforehand what you are running. Granted, I am a PbP type, but if I were running in person I'd communicate what the game is about and what the setting is before the first place to face meeting.
And Pathfinder can do Victoriana. I don't run straight up Victorian England, but I borrow a ton from the period. Magitech is my style, not standard medieval. Yeah, I kind of missed that at first. Is the assumption here that he would just say "Hey, wanna play Pathfinder" and only when people showed up hit them with the Victorian England restrictions? If so, that would lousy behavior.
OTOH, I assumed from the "free form role play set in Victorian England" that it wouldn't even be Pathfinder and that the Victorian England part was part of the pitch.
I'll reiterate again, any game I'm talking about, restricted or not, the basic set up, including any restrictions, was presented when talking about what to play next. No surprises. Indeed. I was specifically making the example system agnostic to try to avoid the exact argument that subsequently got used anyway.
BigDTBone wrote: RDM42 wrote: The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage. the restrictions are a harbinger of player agency. If a DM is unwilling to let a character be a race or class or even idea (pirate, magic-user) then do we really expect that DM is going to let the players shape the world? No way. That DM will always have the circle of baby-sitters of 8 be 10-12 levels higher than you can ever be. That DM will never let you ride in politics in a major city. That DM will retire your character by murder, campaign ending or alignment change (ie, that one act caused you to become NE, hand over your c-sheet) to remove player agency. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MissingStepsPlan?from=Main.Under pantsGambit
I fail to see how some of the things on the OP's list qualify as "sins." Some of them sound like good GMing to me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's interesting how players are made to be complete unreasonable jerks in this thread. In my many years of gaming almost never have I had a player say "you must allow option xyz in the game. After all you must compromise as a DM." More often than not I mention I'm the Dm and the players throw ideas about characters at me. I do mention before that I'm free to allow and disallow what I want in my game. In a respectful polite manner. None of that "NOO! I'm the DM bs that some try to pass as acting like a adult. I have had bad Dms occasional tyrant DMs yet again rarely as bad as they are made to be in this thread. Either I have been very lucky. As well as gaming with people who act like adults. Yell into my face as a dm when one can say no it politely. I walk. Game held at my place the dm walks. Same thing with the "I am the DM my world is law" types. Either I walk or the dm walks.
One thing I will say is a sin. Guaranteed to annoy or anger player is the DM guilt trip. While I respect all the hard work that a DM does. They take on the burden of doing the work when becoming a DM. Telling me or the others that a dm deserves special consideration for: running the game, buying the books or spending hours writing up a game world. Well no one asked you to. The rules can be found on the SRD if one does not want to spend buying books. If the stress of running a game is taking it's toll or one does not like doing it. Then don't. Not iunless a gun is pointed at ones head. Same thing with homebrew designed worlds. I respect the work and dedication. Just don't make me feel like crap with a guilt trip. As again unless we ask a DM to create a new world no one is forcing anyone to spend hours crafting one.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote: Scott - Let's say that the group agrees to play a low-magic, E6 game set in Dark Ages Europe. All but one of the characters make appropriate characters. But one guy comes in and wants to play Optimus Prime.
Would you continue to screech "MAKE IT WORK!" ? Or would you accept that maybe the one being unreasonable here is the player, and not the GM?
Has anyone actually seen this happen? As in, a group got together, decided on a campaign, and then one of those people goes ahead and does something completely out of the box?
Because that sounds like a ridiculous strawman to me.
Even so, it sounds to me like it would be time to go back to the drawing board and get everyone on the same page. If a player really wants to be Optimus Prime, then low-magic E6 isn't the right setting for that particular group.
If you force someone to comply to a game they aren't really interested in, it'll drag the whole campaign down.
deinol wrote: Kthulhu wrote: Scott - Let's say that the group agrees to play a low-magic, E6 game set in Dark Ages Europe. All but one of the characters make appropriate characters. But one guy comes in and wants to play Optimus Prime.
Would you continue to screech "MAKE IT WORK!" ? Or would you accept that maybe the one being unreasonable here is the player, and not the GM?
Has anyone actually seen this happen? As in, a group got together, decided on a campaign, and then one of those people goes ahead and does something completely out of the box?
Because that sounds like a ridiculous strawman to me.
Even so, it sounds to me like it would be time to go back to the drawing board and get everyone on the same page. If a player really wants to be Optimus Prime, then low-magic E6 isn't the right setting for that particular group.
If you force someone to comply to a game they aren't really interested in, it'll drag the whole campaign down. If the player wasnt interested in the campaign, that was discussed brfore hand, why didnt he/she say something at that time instead of just showing up with character totally not suited for the campaign and wanting it to be fit into the game?
Personally I've never seen this. I usually get campaign parameters and info from the other players about their possible character choices before making a character.
deinol wrote: Kthulhu wrote: Scott - Let's say that the group agrees to play a low-magic, E6 game set in Dark Ages Europe. All but one of the characters make appropriate characters. But one guy comes in and wants to play Optimus Prime.
Would you continue to screech "MAKE IT WORK!" ? Or would you accept that maybe the one being unreasonable here is the player, and not the GM?
Has anyone actually seen this happen? As in, a group got together, decided on a campaign, and then one of those people goes ahead and does something completely out of the box?
Because that sounds like a ridiculous strawman to me.
Even so, it sounds to me like it would be time to go back to the drawing board and get everyone on the same page. If a player really wants to be Optimus Prime, then low-magic E6 isn't the right setting for that particular group.
If you force someone to comply to a game they aren't really interested in, it'll drag the whole campaign down. Save that is exactly the theoretical being discussed. And you have people arguing that if a player wants to throw in Optimus prime, you should add giant transforming robots to the world to let them. So to speak.
And you have seriously never had someone show up with a completely oddball off the wall character before?
Also ... why does that one guy get to show up and veto everyone else? And forcing the gm to comply to a game that they don't want to gm will REALLY drag the whole campaign down.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In the interests of total disclosure, here are my positions on each of those I originally listed:
Quote: Occasionally fudging die rolls, and reserving the right to roll behind a screen while requiring players to roll openly I fudge to help players if they have done well only to have random chance ruin their cleverly-laid plans/fun; rarely I'll do so to allow a prominent NPC to escape, but never to achieve a victory he or she has not claimed more rightfully. I roll behind a screen since players need to know the results of certain rolls but not the actual numbers, because it encourages meta-gaming.
Quote: Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs If they're not stealing the spotlight, but instead share it appropriately, these can be invaluable in creating verisimilitude.
Quote: Disallowing (or even placing restrictions of any kind on) full casters Never disallowed them, but find certain restrictions to be necessary in many circumstances, especially when attempting to establish a certain tone.
Quote: Enforcing alignment in clear and definitive fashion If I'm using alignment, then to the extent that any change mandating a penalty, such as a paladin's loss of powers, occurs, it is enforced.
I'm also not averse to dispensing with alignment if it's proven a detriment in certain instances.
Quote: Imposing an objective morality on paladins, such as disallowing prevarication for selfish gain, torture, baby- (including baby monster) killing and casual sex as inherently evil and/or chaotic Always have, and always will.
Quote: Not providing the "required"/desired magical paraphernalia on schedule I prefer unique magic items (to the point where I have not used something out of a published book in decades), and that such be uncommon for PCs and exceedingly rare for the hoi polloi.
Quote: Believing the DM's role is benevolent autocrat rather than either gleeful tyrant or impotent fantasy tour guide Wouldn't be likely to DM if I had to relinquish authority, and would never concede one iota over a campaign world I myself had created. Ain't gonna happen, and totally unmoved/unimpressed by the arguments in opposition listed here.
Quote: Refusal to permit evil (or even chaotic neutral) PCs I have on occasion allowed exceedingly well-played lawful evil PCs. Anything more ain't worth the aggravation that invariably develops.
Quote: Disallowing classes that violate the campaign's established and specific tone Yeah. I have to say that this whole, "Allow the players any character race and class they desire" simply isn't for me. To each their own, but ... nah. On the other hand, if someone comes up with a great concept that doesn't involve, "A gate opens, and ..." I'm more than willing to entertain it.
Quote: Laying the smack down, hard, on abusive meta-gaming Always have, always will, Part Two.
Quote: Requiring immersive role-play rather than simple recitation of mechanics I encourage rather than require it.
Quote: Taking control of PCs who refuse to role-play honestly when charmed, dominated, etc. Yep. Absolutely necessary and completely justified.
Quote: Retaining control over magical weapons, cohorts, mounts, animal companions, eidolons, etc. If whatever it is possesses its own ego structure, then it deserves a voice and actions of its own. Many if not most players cannot play such objectively, with its own interests at heart; they instead employ these subjects and objects as at best pawns and at worst adjuncts of their own personality and purpose. Not acceptable.
memorax wrote: It's interesting how players are made to be complete unreasonable jerks in this thread. In my many years of gaming almost never have I had a player say "you must allow option xyz in the game. After all you must compromise as a DM." More often than not I mention I'm the Dm and the players throw ideas about characters at me. I do mention before that I'm free to allow and disallow what I want in my game. In a respectful polite manner. None of that "NOO! I'm the DM bs that some try to pass as acting like a adult. I have had bad Dms occasional tyrant DMs yet again rarely as bad as they are made to be in this thread. Either I have been very lucky. As well as gaming with people who act like adults. Yell into my face as a dm when one can say no it politely. I walk. Game held at my place the dm walks. Same thing with the "I am the DM my world is law" types. Either I walk or the dm walks.
One thing I will say is a sin. Guaranteed to annoy or anger player is the DM guilt trip. While I respect all the hard work that a DM does. They take on the burden of doing the work when becoming a DM. Telling me or the others that a dm deserves special consideration for: running the game, buying the books or spending hours writing up a game world. Well no one asked you to. The rules can be found on the SRD if one does not want to spend buying books. If the stress of running a game is taking it's toll or one does not like doing it. Then don't. Not iunless a gun is pointed at ones head. Same thing with homebrew designed worlds. I respect the work and dedication. Just don't make me feel like crap with a guilt trip. As again unless we ask a DM to create a new world no one is forcing anyone to spend hours crafting one.
Are we reading the same thread? The examples we have been getting are of things like "GMs forcing their fanfic down people's throats" and "murdering people's characters", and 'being unwilling to accept any change to their precious pure settings' and so on.
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think there is a very simple solution. If a GM wants to run a certain kind of game, and the players don't, they're welcome to GM instead.
|
