| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be happy with less frequent releases of higher quality...
Finding out Occult Adventures is going to be a Gencon release was sad and sobering. Paizo doesn't do well with Gencon releases containing lots of crunch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boy this GM vs. player segment is starting to feel longer than the LOTR trilogy! Better make a run to the store for more snackage!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finding out Occult Adventures is going to be a Gencon release was sad and sobering. Paizo doesn't do well with Gencon releases containing lots of crunch.
As long as they do a proper and better job editing the book. They can't hide behind Gencon again if the book is anything but a second time. I like new material. Yet dread getting another reskinned Vancian casting system. Yes I know their maybe a few non-vancian items in the book. Except I wish they would try some mew mechanics.
I think it's not so much of problem of quality. So much as a unwilligness to find the proper middle ground between fluff and crunch. Either a class/feat/trait/ability is really good. Sometimes too good. Or simply either too situational or not powerful enough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To get things back on topic, most of us are not saying the GM has to allow what the players want. Many of us are saying that the GM should explain why X is not allowed. We are not even saying the player has to agree with the GM's reason. I have never been in a game where I agreed with every GM the decision has made, and I am sure players have disagreed with some things I have done, even when they never questioned me on it.
More on the GM explaining subtopic:
This has nothing to do with the "GM" owing a "player" an explanation. To me it has to do with people(forget the "player" and "GM" titles) being in an interactive enviroment that works better when communication is fluid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The easiest way, at the start of the game, lay out what CAN be played that you are ready to incorporate into the world. Some players may balk, but the players you want are the people who stay and play.
My homebrew dates back to when I first played AD&D as a newbie GM on OpenRPG, and every game I ran, a lot of them one-offs, went into cobbling together something bigger. One of the legacies of this is a small continent, and restricted race availability due to how I had built the world and just how big a newbie I was at the time.
I've had to loosen the nuts in adapting from 2E to 3.X (which was a lot more diverse), and I'm doing it again in the latest evolutions into PF. 10 years of sporadic development, but it's still the same game world, and all the old territories, npc's, and unfinished campaign devices exist.
It's not a world built from PF RAW, but one that's been adapted to it, so there's going a lot that doesn't line up. This is different than, say, Golarion, which was designed from the ground up around the the unmitigated orgy of everyone-having-babies-with-everyone to allow everyone to jump in with whatever, and the buffet of rapidly released mechanics that didn't even exist conceptually back when I started world building. It's put pressure on me to incorporate many of them somehow, as either evolutions of the game world or having simply been there the whole time. In some cases, some content just doesn't exist or have room to. In others, it filled gaps I needed.
In my case, I can take the gaps between incomplete campaign attempts (historically seperate, but canon in some fashion) and make the world flex with new content, but I still have to say 'No' to a lot of things that may contradict precedent or larger narratives, and I am up front about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM - You guys can pick any race except catfolk. They went extinct 400 years ago in my setting.
Player1 - Waaa! Yer a tyrant! I wanna play a catfolk!
GM - OK, fine, you can be the last catfolk of the one family that escaped the catfolk Holocaust.
Players 2-6 - How come Jim gets to play a catfolk, but we can't?!? We ALL want to be catfolks!
GM - Fine. Whatever. All the catfolk in the setting are dead, except there are apparently enough left that six of them can randomly meet in a tavert. F@~+ it, not gonna bother putting any more effort into the setting from now on.
If I were a GM that had that golden, golden plot-hook, I'd not have them meet randomly in a tavern: they'd know each other. Heck, they'd probably be related! Literally the last of a dying species! PLOT CENTRAL, BABY! This is players just giving me material to work with! It's like free inspiration! :D
Yeah, it's a golden plot hook, but it's one for some other campaign than the one you wanted to run.
Yes and no - depends on the plot. Some plots that require catfolk to be gone simply require them to be gone. Some plots that used to require catfolk to be gone can be altered (in either subtle or major ways) to allow a singular band of catfolk.
Yeah, yeah, that's the GM being tyrannical and forcing his story down the player's throats, I know.
I am pretty sure that I have never said this, or even implied it.
But isn't it really the players forcing the GM to accommodate them?
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno? It's me, as a GM, excited by the opportunity and plot ability that all of my players wanted to play an (otherwise) "extinct" race in the campaign.
Sometimes you're just not interested in a game about the last catfolk. Maybe somebody else can run that game.
I never said otherwise? All I did - seriously, the only thing in the post you responded to - was to post my reaction to the scenario as-described (which was very different from the GM's in the scenario).
But look: some GMs simply cannot handle changing their plots by that degree. Were it me, and I had a bunch of players who wanted to play an extinct race, I'd probably first talk to them about why, try to work with their character concepts, then explain that I've really have to rebuild how I was going to approach the campaign. Is this a problem? Not at all. It will take time, however, because I have to redesign how they know each other, when and how they meet, what their purpose in the game is (what hooks drive them - which is something I'd have to ask about), and so on.
This may well be more than enough to convince the players not to play catfolk or it might make them more excited to play catfolk. We could do the character-building session as a round-table experiment. "So who are you, to him? What is your relationship to her?" and so on with that sort of thing.
The real problem is that the scenario Kthulu drew above is what is known as a "Straw" scenario: his excessive (and exclusive) use of the "Wah~!" is just silly, and he knows it, and I know it. It's an exaggerated parody of what would happen, not something (barring a group full of young teens, and even then) that would actually happen.
So, instead of engaging in the whole "the GM and players are really terrible people" side of the post (which, frankly, they are, due to it being a parody), I chose to address the general situation: that I had a group who wanted to play an extinct race.
Are there times that a GM isn't creative enough to allow for the ideas of players? Yes, absolutely.
There have been plenty of times where I, as a GM, simply could not handle something my players came up with. It happens. Perhaps I'm too tired. Too distracted. Too uninspired by an alternate idea. Too emotionally invested in my original idea to be adaptive (this is the only bad one, so far, but it's understandable). Too something. It happens. I wasn't creative enough to allow for the idea the players took.
In which case, I'll talk to the players, explain the situation to them, and see how they want to proceed. I'll go, "Okay, all, here's the deal: I... can't. I'm trying, I really am, but this is all I've got, and it's not really happening. I seriously can't envision how it goes next. Sorry. I've hit my limit. In this case, we can continue with <C> and call the game off, decide anything like <D-N> and keep going without a hitch, or choose something more like <O> all the way through <X>, take a break, and let me re-figure stuff. What do you guys want to do?"
But the situation where my entire group wants to play catfolk in a world where I'd envisioned no catfolk? That's just inspiring. To me. Personally. Hence, posting what I would do. Not what hypothetical GMs 'round the world would do. But me. Hence mentioning nobody's reactions, but mine!
I say all of this in an attempt to be perfectly clear.
I can totally understand that GMs cannot or will not change for me. I'm accepting of it. I'm not always able to participate in a game because of it. This is not a bad thing - it's just human nature. Similarly, as a GM, I'm disappointed when someone can't use the rules that I've laid out to make their character, but I like working with their character idea and trying to develop something they can enjoy within that framework. If it doesn't work: okay! It doesn't work. That's a shame, but there you go. If it does: okay! It does! Yay!
This is the thing with people: you - yes, you, whoever you are - need to be adaptive. Who are you? Doesn't matter. Be adaptive and responsive to the needs, wants, and inspirations of everyone else in the group. Can you always? No. You cannot. That's okay. Sometimes it's better to walk apart - at least for a little while - or to choose a different path altogether. That's fine.
Ultimately, I can't know what's best for you (as I barely know you; probably not at all, outside of these forums!), so I can't give specific advice without a specific circumstance. But the correct advice is always, "Insomuch as you can, be adaptive." regardless of who that advice is given to.
Also,
To get things back on topic,
... er, uh...
ANYBODY STARTING TO HAVE TROUBLE RECOGNIZING THEIR GAME?
... I... don't... think... you did what you set out to do, I'm afraid. I still think you're awesome, though!
EDIT: code fix
Tactics ... <snip stuff>
See, okay, I'm pretty sure you're not reading what I actually wrote, but instead are reading into what I actually wrote to place me in a "side" that I haven't actually taken (by implication, if not intent).
You are actively arguing about something I never said or suggested.
Let me write this again:
I can totally understand that GMs cannot or will not change for me. I'm accepting of it. I'm not always able to participate in a game because of it. This is not a bad thing - it's just human nature. Similarly, as a GM, I'm disappointed when someone can't use the rules that I've laid out to make their character, but I like working with their character idea and trying to develop something they can enjoy within that framework. If it doesn't work: okay! It doesn't work. That's a shame, but there you go. If it does: okay! It does! Yay!
This is the thing with people: you - yes, you, whoever you are - need to be adaptive. Who are you? Doesn't matter. Be adaptive and responsive to the needs, wants, and inspirations of everyone else in the group. Can you always? No. You cannot. That's okay. Sometimes it's better to walk apart - at least for a little while - or to choose a different path altogether. That's fine.
Ultimately, I can't know what's best for you (as I barely know you; probably not at all, outside of these forums!), so I can't give specific advice without a specific circumstance. But the correct advice is always, "Insomuch as you can, be adaptive." regardless of who that advice is given to.
Who does that pertain to? Everyone! Voila.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you suggest, say, the players adapt?
Find out what sort of campaign world the GM is running and invent a character who fits into that world. Then play that character the best you can. (Or, if you're like me, and have a dozen character ideas you'd like to play, pick one that's suitable and adapt it to the campaign.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However the only example is of the gm adapting. How would you suggest, say, the players adapt?
Now I know you either didn't read it, didn't pay attention to what you were reading, or didn't understand what I wrote.
I can totally understand that GMs cannot or will not change for me. I'm accepting of it. I'm not always able to participate in a game because of it. This is not a bad thing - it's just human nature. Similarly, as a GM, I'm disappointed when someone can't use the rules that I've laid out to make their character, but I like working with their character idea and trying to develop something they can enjoy within that framework. If it doesn't work: okay! It doesn't work. That's a shame, but there you go. If it does: okay! It does! Yay!
This is the thing with people: you - yes, you, whoever you are - need to be adaptive. Who are you? Doesn't matter. Be adaptive and responsive to the needs, wants, and inspirations of everyone else in the group. Can you always? No. You cannot. That's okay. Sometimes it's better to walk apart - at least for a little while - or to choose a different path altogether. That's fine.
Ultimately, I can't know what's best for you (as I barely know you; probably not at all, outside of these forums!), so I can't give specific advice without a specific circumstance. But the correct advice is always, "Insomuch as you can, be adaptive." regardless of who that advice is given to.
Read that bold part. That's the definition of a player adapting to the setting with already set definitions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However the only example is of the gm adapting. How would you suggest, say, the players adapt?
The GM mostly has all of the control so he will mostly be the one adapting, even if it is allowing the smallest of changes.
That is not to say the player can not adapt, but how he does so is more situational. As an example does the player want the mechanical benefits of ___ or just the concept?
If he just wants the concept, but the mechanics are less important, then finding a way to get the concept without the GM having to lift ban Y is how a player can adapt.
If the player wants mechanical affect ____, but the GM does not like mechanical affect ____, then maybe the GM and player can work to homebrew something that is acceptable to both parties, but once again the GM is bending, at least a little.
Another situational example is a player wanting ____, but _____ in the GM's opinion is not really too powerful, but it might come to early in the game. If ____ can be split up and/or given out as segmental power increases over various levels that might work, but once again it is situational.
The best general advice for a player adapting is to work within what the GM wants to allow. I tend to look at the rules that are given and work within that frame, not build whatever I want and ask the GM to make exceptions against things that are specifically banned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see Matthew and TacticLion basically said the same thing that I did. I knew those two were awesome people.<----I will only claim this to be true until they disagree with me on something. Then I will claim someone hacked my account. :)
And now, intentionally or not, you are suggesting the GM should not need to compromise at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see Matthew and TacticLion basically said the same thing that I did. I knew those two were awesome people.<----I will only claim this to be true until they disagree with me on something. Then I will claim someone hacked my account. :)
Maybe we'll both be taken over by brainslugs with opposing sides at the same time. :D
So, there's always all this talk about "the setting." Oh, that concept doesn't fit "the setting." That doesn't exist in "the setting." Has anyone but me been in a game where the PCs make their characters first and the GM makes the setting after? It would certainly get around all these problems involving "the setting."
It certainly can happen, but it's far less common.
Effectively games need a GM who has a source of inspiration that works to create enough excitement for that GM to run a game based off of <X>.
Many people find it harder to create inspiration to do all the work of GMing out of other people's <X>, whatever it is (in this case, character ideas). Things that inspire many GMs include pre-published settings; themes the GM is attached to; aesthetics of a certain thing; or some sort of driving concept. If the binding concept (whatever it is) is lacking, it's very difficult for a GM to create anything beyond "generic fantasy land" which can be very boring for a GM and players alike.
Far more common, the GM has an idea, will build it up, then pitch it to the players, who come up with characters, and then the idea is refined so that these things work together.
Sometimes the GM has an ironclad setting with ironclad rules.
Occasionally the player has ironclad characters with ironclad designs.
Such is life and people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, there's always all this talk about "the setting." Oh, that concept doesn't fit "the setting." That doesn't exist in "the setting." Has anyone but me been in a game where the PCs make their characters first and the GM makes the setting after? It would certainly get around all these problems involving "the setting."
No Neurophage your not the only one. Even though apparently even that is going to be seen as a weakness on the part of the DM. Or somehow twisted into player entitlement.
Trying to get back on topic. Being able to use or not use new material is simply that. There are many things I don't like in terms of material in 3.5/PF. I never asked or demanded that Wotc then Paizo stop publishing it. In case others liked what I dislike. It's making a big thing out of nothing really. I used to collect a lot more comics then I do now. Characters I disliked reading I stopped buying. I was not telling Marvel or DC to stop publishing them simply because I dislike them.
|
|
What?
What are you confused about now. (rolls eyes)
You know as well as I that someone is going to come along. Take what Tacticslion wrote and twist it around. That any attempt on a DM to compromise is a sign of weakness and player entitlement. With strange analogies such a "yes a player should have access to a full cartoon of eggs to make a omelette. He still can make a decent one if he only has 8-10 instead of a dozen eggs". Or something along those lines,
Circling back to something related to the original topic, since most of the "tyrant GM/entitled player" doesn't really relate. The part that does comes from the claim that you shouldn't complain about bloat since you can always just not use it.
Does some variant of that qualify as sufficient justification?
I think it does, myself. As memorax noted...
Trying to get back on topic. Being able to use or not use new material is simply that. There are many things I don't like in terms of material in 3.5/PF. I never asked or demanded that Wotc then Paizo stop publishing it. In case others liked what I dislike. It's making a big thing out of nothing really. I used to collect a lot more comics then I do now. Characters I disliked reading I stopped buying. I was not telling Marvel or DC to stop publishing them simply because I dislike them.
... but I think it's not necessarily so easy as it sounds.
For example, when I was into comics I was really into comics. I loved myself some Summers-family stuff, and collected all I could. I loved Spiderman and even enjoyed the dreaded Clone Saga! I just couldn't get enough of Nate Grey (and have every issue of his series except the last, to this day, due to Marvel's cancellation of my Subscription, 'cause... it was the last issue, so they didn't send it to me >:/).
But then, due to life pressure, I just kind of fell away from it.
And now I hear things about how Scott Summers is the greatest jerk any of the X-Men have seen. I read how he and Jean separated, after he cheated on her with Frost. I've read that Spidey made a deal with the devil and sacrificed his marriage to... bring his extremely aged aunt back to life? (And not even youth, at that: just the same old aged and pained form she'd had before! What a jerk!) Nate Grey even has come back from the dead!
How Any you know what? That's not emotionally fun. Being so very invested into something makes it difficult to allow decisions about it to pass by, even when I'm not investing in that thing anymore. If I don't like the decisions made by the thing that I've loved, it's frustrating and disheartening, even as I've moved away from it.
But the thing is, I'm not using it. Other people have enjoyed the comics (well, okay, maybe not One More Day which is, to my knowledge, practically universally panned), and the characters, and the development they've been through, and I wouldn't take that away from them, just because I've got a "view" of the "best" way to handle things. Instead, I'll just enjoy the things I've loved, and allow others to enjoy the things they've loved.
I may mention that I don't like something - which is my right, by the way - but I'll respect those that feel differently (even as I disagree with them). It's an emotional reaction, and a rational one.
The difference is that games are current - they are expressed in a "here is how things are happening now" kind of way. Many people feel compelled to know, have, and understand all of the game things. It's like comics: I didn't follow the Avengers, Captain America, or Thor when I was really into comics. Why? I didn't care about them as much. But they certainly "impacted" the comics I did follow, albeit often in relatively minor ways. And I didn't mind that. I allowed people to enjoy their stories that would occasionally cross over into mine. Some people, on the other hand, had to have (and read) everything, and spent enormous loads of money to do it. More power to them!
That doesn't mean they have the right to dictate what other people like or dislike, or how a company conducts their business. They can express their opinion (which is good!), but not demand changes for their preferences (which is bad!).
Instead, it should be seen as the comic company doing what they are, for the purpose of making an enjoyable product to many, while simultaneously making enough financial success to live (both as a company and as individuals).
This is the same thing Paizo is doing now. And that's a good thing.
Expressing our opinions: not wrong, even good.
Expecting everyone to agree with them, or demanding Paizo changes policy because of them: wrong.
Paizo is in this to create a game many can enjoy and make enough money to live. That's awesome. To do that, they have to publish more options. That's awesome.
In a way that comic fans can only dream of, tables of players (including GMs) have control over whether or not to allow things into their games. That's awesome.
Over all score: awesome.
One of the things I realized is that, because the player usually has a much smaller design space to work with, whatever detail they end up with can be really intricate. I think I just don't mind letting that intricacy be the axle around which I build the rest of the setting. Part of my fun (as a player or GM) is being surprised, and I just can't be surprised anymore by a world where I am Alpha and Omega.
That's a fair assessment. As I said, "most" instead of "all" - it really does come down to the ability of a GM to find inspiration for the energy to run a game in whatever it is. If it's the players' characters: awesome. If it's the setting first: awesome. Regardless, there has to be some theme (or themes) to drive the GM. The fact that you've gotten it down to "my players' PCs!" is really cool! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now, the two, have become one. The circle is complete. All is oneness.
|
|
Now you're confused. Or I really am.
You were responding to Neurophage, not Tacticslion.
But sure. Go with it. Wait long enough and someone will.
Just like someone will jump in accusing GMs of being tyrants and railroaders.
Your the one that wrote "what?". Without giving more clarification than that. So i'm going to assume that your the one who is confused.
But sure. Go with it. Wait long enough and someone will.
Just like someone will jump in accusing GMs of being tyrants and railroaders.
Yourself and a few others keep bringing this up. I and others have not done said anything along those lines. If you want to make the argument never end go with it.
Yeeeeeeeeessssssssssss~! Feeeeeeeed meeeeee~!
|
|
Well, you can ban asian ninjas without banning the Ninja class. That's actually part of my problem with all these threads - I'm more likely to object to a concept than a specific mechanic. I may not want black pajama clad movie ninja in my western setting. If so, I might be perfectly happy with someone using the mechanics for a more western assassin/spy concept and object to someone using the Core Rogue class to make a black pajama clad movie ninja. How am I supposed to give a complete list of everything I'd object to up front? When it's a bounded infinite subset of the infinity of possible character concepts?
As long as the DM politely and respectfully tells me that he/she does want ninjas and the reason behind it. Again I'm not saying I won't be dissapointed by the decision. Why should I be happy. I will keep it to myself and follow the DMs lead at what he or she wants in the game. Cue the players are entitled counter arguments because I wrote that I'm unhappy about a DMs decision.
As for having to buy new material. I think fellow gamers are making it out to be more of a problem then it truly it is. I'm currently unemployed. Until I find a new job. I'm not buying any rpg material. If a player in my game wants to use new material. He either lends me the book or goes without until I get more money to buy new material. I think as a society we have become so used to instant self-gratification and when faced about doing something we don't want to do. That we simply complain about it. It took me the better part of a year or more. To get my 1E core set. Mowing lawns, doing errands. Where some in my gaming cirle had theirs before me. I can tell you I was not telling TSR to not publish new material.
Combined with the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the repeated requests to update old AP's it seems like every time a whole new set of classes or a whole new version of previous classes gets introduced, it creeps my previous purchases that much closer to obsolescence, reducing their collective value.This line right here made me chuckle a little. I have everything Paizo has released for the core PF line, along with almost everything from the campaign setting and the companion books (I skip APs because I don't want to run another person's adventure.) The most used book at my table? The first Pathfinder book I bought. Core. Next most used? APG. I still value the old books as much as the new ones. I guess I just don't see new options as something that makes my old options irrelevant.
I absolutely agree with you. We have a mix of print and digital media on the table for each session. For the most part we reach for the core book first except for new spells added into classes later.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always liked seeing how diverse PCs interact with the setting...
My Council of Thieves game would have been much poorer for it if I hadn't allowed one of the PCs to play a vishkanya ninja/actress. I know it sounds really off-the-wall, but it let me start playing with Vudrani culture and how it interacted with Wiscrani culture. My Carrion Crown group includes the dreaded PC cleric of Urgathoa, and my Wrath of the Righteous group includes a race-built elf/duergar crossbreed, who has a secret backstory to make that combination function in Golarion. All of these have added to the texture of the campaign, rather than turning it into flavorless mush or stripping away the focus.
But those are just my experiences. Everyone's GMing skillset is different.
Yeah, it's a golden plot hook, but it's one for some other campaign than the one you wanted to run.
Yeah, yeah, that's the GM being tyrannical and forcing his story down the player's throats, I know.
But isn't it really the players forcing the GM to accommodate them?
Sometimes you're just not interested in a game about the last catfolk. Maybe somebody else can run that game.
I never understood this as a GM. Why is the campaign that I want to run more important than the campaign that my players want to play in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a bloat of bloat threads!
Solution to bloat:
Dont play with every supplement, rulebook and 3pp you've bought/Downloaded for 3.x ever.
My personal solution:
Any player resource in a hardcover from paizo is permitted, everything else (whether its 3.5, 3pp or even paizo softcover) is GM's discretion.
As a GM I use and allow most of Ultimate campaign, the hero point rules from APG and Dueling rules from UC, everything else is rarely used.
|
|
And I'm the one who keeps bringing up things you haven't said. "If you want to make the argument never end go with it. "
Which unfortunately happens with some players. No one saying their are no problem players. Not to the extent that you and others make it out to be. It's people on the this forum and others that seem intent on wanting to make something out of nothing. Don't want to run a campaign with the group being Catfolk don't run. If it's a majority decision then either try to come to a compromise or walk away. It's not going to make a DM less of a person. If the players and the DM don't want to play a Catfolk and one player does. If no compromise can be had the player is free to leave. With the player not being less if a person.
I and many here and other forums know that not every DM that refuses a player request is a tyrant. It's as if myself and others are simply waiting and biding our time to pounce on some helpless DM to overthrow him for simply refusing something at the table.
But hey if you want to make us all out to be unreasoning tyrant players who am I and others to stop you.
|
The real problem is that the scenario Kthulu drew above is what is known as a "Straw" scenario: his excessive (and exclusive) use of the "Wah~!" is just silly, and he knows it, and I know it. It's an exaggerated parody of what would happen, not something (barring a group full of young teens, and even then) that would actually happen. Incidentally, such examples are common in this thread.
Oh, you're g**#&*n right it is silly. However, BOTH sides are getting the overwhelming majority of their ammo for this argument from fields of grain.
The fact is that most of these arguments are messageboard-only arguments. In real life people tend to be a lot more reasonable, since they're dealing with actual people face-to-face. If I ruled that a game wasn't going to have any gunslingers, I doubt any player would really care enough to get in my face and demand that I come up with explanations until I managed to produce one they were satisfied with...they would almost certainly just move on to the next idea in their queue of character ideas. Likewise, if they came up with a compelling reason to be a gunslinger, and it didn't screw with my plans for the campaign, I'd almost certainly allow it.
But the internet is not the place for reasonable, measured arguments. And I doubt it ever will be.
My biggest pet peeve with these discussions is that some posters seem to not consider the GM's desire to have fun and run a game that they enjoy as well as being at all relevant.
|
|
The GM mostly has all of the control so he will mostly be the one adapting, even if it is allowing the smallest of changes.However the only example is of the gm adapting. How would you suggest, say, the players adapt?
I gotta say, I find this a bit amusing. The GM has all the control, so if there is ever a disagreement, HE is the one that has to adapt.
Doesn't SOUND like he has all of the control. :P
|
|
So, there's always all this talk about "the setting." Oh, that concept doesn't fit "the setting." That doesn't exist in "the setting." Has anyone but me been in a game where the PCs make their characters first and the GM makes the setting after? It would certainly get around all these problems involving "the setting."
Possible, but you're gonna need to take a pretty decent amount of time off between character creation and the actual start of the campaign.
Not to mention that quite a few GMs make use of existing settings/adventures/etc. I dont' even just mean published ones, some GMs make their own settings and run multiple campaigns therein.
|
|
So, there's always all this talk about "the setting." Oh, that concept doesn't fit "the setting." That doesn't exist in "the setting." Has anyone but me been in a game where the PCs make their characters first and the GM makes the setting after? It would certainly get around all these problems involving "the setting."No Neurophage your not the only one. Even though apparently even that is going to be seen as a weakness on the part of the DM.
Obviously the GM is no good at his job if he can't have a complete setting and campaign designed around the just-created characters moments after character creation ends. If he was a decent GM, he would have already prepared all of that for every possible permutation of characters that the group could create.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously.