I try my best at being an isolationist. But I keep getting sucked in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem arises with table chemistry.
One may have the most amazing character concept. The kind that folks slap their foreheads and go 'Why didn't *I* think of that?'
But if it is disruptive to the table for any of a number of reasons (we're not talking base concept/background, we're talking 'in play'), then fellow players and GMs need to step up and let the player in question know *why* the character is disruptive to the flow of play.
If a player is uncomfortable with some of the themes presented, it can change an evening of fun role-play into a tooth-grinding, nerve-wracking experience.
There's a natural inclination to fall back on 'what one knows' and 'what one has seen work'.
If one looked at the home Rise of the Runelords campaign I'm playing in currently, one would shake their head and run for the hills, because the concepts have mutated upon exposure to the environment, and it's been... an interesting adventure path.
Chemistry of the table is as important as the individual players, characters, and GM at the table.
Be cool to each other, and everything should work out just fine.
If a character concept meets all the prerequisites, then why should it be denied?
I can think of several reasons.
One is that although it wasn't specifically disallowed, the general concept of the campaign makes it not fit. For example, if I'm running a European themed game, I might disallow an Asian or Native American based concept even though I hadn't specifically forbidden it. Often not everything is specifically spelled out as being forbidden.
Similarly, if I am running a gritty themed game, a comedic concept might not be approved even though it was perfectly legal as far as character creation rules. If the player doesn't want to make a character that fits in with the world and story I want to run, that is fine, but they won't be playing in that particular game.
And of course some concepts might just be offensive, whether in general or to specific people. For example, while it might be ok to play a gar person it might not be ok to play a gay person that was basically a caricature and mocking homosexuality. There might not be a stated rule in my character creation guidelines to not do such a thing, but it certainly is expected nonetheless.
And, while it might fit within the rules of the game, it doesn't fit with how I want my particular world to be. Once again, all the possibilities might not be stated in advance, but it is still perfectly valid to explain to a player that it isn't how I want the world to work. If I think that all paladins should be pious in demeanor (at least in this particular world) it is fine for me to explain that to a player even though it isn't part of the rules. Ideally of course all of this should be explained in advance, but failing to mention something doesn't mean you have to allow it.
Lastly, anything that I think will detract from the game. A 'concept' that includes betraying your team for example. Or just being a jerk.
As a player to player less of those apply, as I'm not in control of the world, but any concept that I find personally offensive or detracts from my enjoyment of the game by not fitting the theme (joke character in a gritty world for example) or behaviorally, the classic jerk PC, I'm certainly going to comment on and, if extreme enough the concept will be abandoned or I won't be a part of that game.
However, the question of whether we allow Dave to have a certain concept because we trust him not to abuse it
This mistake has been made more than once.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely sure what you're saying, but policing concepts strikes me as a fairly essential skill for a GM.
Under house rules, if I as a GM take exception to your Svirfneblin Gunslinger that's not an invitation to debate it's viability, or thematic appropriateness - it means write-up up something else, please. No further discussion necessary. Don't like it? Find another table.
Under PFS the rules are developed and administered by Paizo. Either your concept follows the mechanical rules or it doesn't. PFS characters can't be evil so "evil" concepts aren't allowed which clears up alot of uncomfortable thematic issues with character concepts.
I find this second statement needlessly stifling. It sounds like you're not willing to communicate with your players, where this could be a chance to work with them to help reaching a design goal that you both are satisfied with. Don't like GS due to guns? Offer bolt ace. Really a GM should lay out a ban list of things ahead of time, but if a player wants to play something banned, a GM should try to work with them to help reach a compromise with their concept either thematically or mechanically.
Just thinking about the whole 'no comedic characters in a grim setting', I myself like the idea of playing a character who laughs and smiles a lot due to being at the breaking point of their sanity, a pretty common trope that I think could get a lot of mileage in that sort of game. Again, talking to the GM could help to see just how much 'humor' this character can attempt to include so as to not dilute the mood, but at the same time there's a lot of chances for some good RP in there.
GMs should be in control of what they allow into their games, I won't argue that. But there should also be some give and take from GMs and players to try and help both of them meet their design goals to make a better game for everyone.
|
|
Yes, the language is strong but I firmly believe the ultimate resolution falls to the GM if its his home-brewed campaign. The weight of the GM's authority is often backed by how much time he has invested in the plots and themes of his campaign, and if he doesn't want to risk it on trying to fit guns into a low fantasy games, or making a svirfneblin work in a land where a single regular gnome would be a mystical rarity, then I think a firm no and tabled discussion probably moves the group closer to starting off on an entertaining journey.
But as to your example, if I said no and the player said "what about a regular Gnome Bolt Ace"? I would probably just respond sure as simply as the prior concept was denied.
I can agree that final adjudication should fall to the GM, but as stated before, it's a cooperative game. Finding a middle ground is best for everyone, and in that respect, I think a GM should lay out what they don't want in a game.
For example; no summoners, races made using the race builder, guns.
This is just an example, but if a PC came to me wanting to make something banned on that list, I'd find out if there was anything that could possibly work for their concept. Maybe a conjuration focused mage, a race that had comparable racials, or bolt ace. As an aside, bolt ace is better than EVERY gunslinger archetype, it's not even funny.
There's plenty of 'bad concepts' like Dave listed above that are mechanically fine but are either thematically disruptive or just normally disruptive due to insensitivity towards others. PFS's "Don't be a jerk" clause is nice for things like this, but any character who's making a purposefully disruptive concept deserves to be shut down. It's up to both the GM and the other players to determine this and falls to the GM to make any executive calls on such a matter.
I'd have more problem with concept policing if I hadn't played in so many campaigns where people's high brow concepts didn't either trample over other pc's shine, or otherwise end up disrupting the campaign. I.E. I won't play in campaigns where people play kender, kenderlike halflings, or exotic races that make it hard for the party to manage basic interactions with peasantry.
In fairness my policing is of the type where i ask "please dont" and if that gets ignored simply not playing in that game. I would absolutely rather just not play than be in a group with another good aligned drow.
|
|
In order for a character concept to be valid it has to follow the rules, fit the established canon of the game world, and meet the requirements agreed upon by the DM and the table (no evil PCs, no non-core races, or whatever other limitations have been set).
1) That isn't what your blog says. You added a rather important "fit the established canon of the game world" above that was NOT in your blog.
2) Even with that, I somewhat disagree. As a player, it is most certainly not only my right but my obligation to say "I'm sorry, but I the player am not willing to play with that character" or "I'm sorry, but my character can't play with that character" for whatever reason. Better to discuss it up front than to have it blow up at the table.
So, for example, if somebody brings a twinked out monstrosity to the home campaign I play in where the power gaming is pretty low I certainly can and will say "Please tone this character down, its too powerful" (note, I'm more experienced than the GM and have a better eye for optimization)
Or if you bring a character that tweaks somebodies buttons (eg, you bring a character who kills kittens for fun to a game I'm in).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kender are never O.K.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Concept Policing" sounds like some cockamamie catch phrase.
I'll have none of that, thank you.
I think my favourite solution is to take levels of enough different classes that people have a problem combining their preconceived notions, so while they're trying to figure it out you can explain before they come up with a preconceived notion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... fit the established canon of the game world
I agree with most of what you said except this little bit of wisdom. There have been great characters at my table who were played against the expectations set up by the game world canon. And as long as it can be agreed on by all game participants, I have learned to embrace such characters (with the caveat, that the player must be able and willing to live with the consequences of his choice. You cannot expect to face no problems, if your good-aligned drow ranger enters a world which has learned to fear and hate drow).
In my own homebrew, I fiddle around with the race-class relationship (generally, only rock gnomes can take levels in the gunslinger class, just to stay with the example from above). Does that mean that a svirfneblin can never become a gunslinger? No, but it does mean, that the player wanting to play a svirfneblin gunslinger should creat an according background to explain how this curiosity came to pass.
And yes, that may mean, that we have to discuss a bit to reach a compromise, but that's integral part of a GM's job. And if "my" home-brewed setting has to change a bit to reach such a compromise, I'd rather change the setting than change the group of participants. Because no matter how much time and effort I've invested in the game world, I'm doing it for my AND my players' fun.
Just thinking about the whole 'no comedic characters in a grim setting', I myself like the idea of playing a character who laughs and smiles a lot due to being at the breaking point of their sanity, a pretty common trope that I think could get a lot of mileage in that sort of game. Again, talking to the GM could help to see just how much 'humor' this character can attempt to include so as to not dilute the mood, but at the same time there's a lot of chances for some good RP in there.
One of the grittiest, bloodiest, grimmest settings I played in - 1st Edition WFRP was full of comedy, puns, farcical situations. It made it all the more horrifying when Baron Willhelm von Saponatheim sentanced you to be hanged for eating one of his boar. I particlarly like gallows humour.
So, a DM does not have the right to deny character concepts because he doesn't want to deal with shenanigans, even if the concept otherwise meets criteria listed prior?
You realize the DM is allowed to have fun too, right?
If you are playing in a small group of regular long time players who have seen what works and doesnt work it is much easier to self-regulate.
If you are playing with larger groups with people swapping in and out then I would imagine this becomes much harder.
I was surprised today to hear from a group of friends that play elsewhere that groups dont necessarily agree race and class for each PC before everyone makes a final decision. It is easy to take these things for granted.
My baseline answer on threads like this is that nothing is automatically denied. That said, nothing is automatically allowed either.
I ask to look over characters before I GM, and I expect that GMs will look over mine on the rare occasions the universe aligns and I get to play. I let it be know what is generally permissible, what isn't, and what I expect out of people when they sit down at the table. If people are on board with that, we'll discuss the specific character and go from there.
There are ideas and concepts that I'll most likely say no to, and not because they violate a pre-conceived notion of how the reality and game I am presenting works. I'm unlikely to let you have Glitterboy armor, no matter how well you sell it. You may not start with an AT-AT. I hate clowns, so there may be issues there.
I reserve the right at the GM and a member of the table to balk at concepts. I might even put it to a vote of the rest of the table, or offer to not GM if everyone feels adamantly about something that I am against. But no, I don't accept a blanket statement that we should avoid concept policing. It's sort of my job as a GM to make sure that everyone has fun, not just the person who thought up a "really neat idea".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you're describing isn't concept policing, Knightnday. It's how the game is supposed to work.
A DM should review concepts, and talk to players about them. That's the point I'm making. Even if a concept, on its face, might be something you feel you'll say no to, or that you don't think another player should be allowed to have, it's important to talk it through and understand it.
Again, this isn't a "everything must be allowed" argument. It's an "everything should be discussed, and reasons given" argument.
Even if a player is denied something, that denial needs to be for reasons everyone understands, even if they don't agree. And if a player is objecting to something another player is doing, that also has to be talked out and understood. It's the knee-jerk "you're doing it wrong" reaction I'm suggesting we put away, not thoughtful evaluation and criticism of characters and ideas. I'd like a lot more of that, personally.
Some of what comes across as knee jerk, at least on forums (that I've seen) comes not only from the repetitive nature of some of the concepts (good drow, for example) but also from the idea often put forth that the GM (or other players occasionally) are somehow infringing on someone's fun by preventing them from playing every idea that they run across.
A good discussion is great. Trying to force the conversation because you don't like the answer "no" is often where problems come in. There are those players that will attempt to argue every reason given for the denial on the basis that if they argue long enough they will win.
Reasons should be given, to an extent. A reason that is given but not liked is "Because I don't allow X in my games", be that good drow, drow at all, guns, evil characters, a custom zebra race someone made up last night, and so on. Part of sitting down with a table, at least in my mind, is the understanding that there may be rules that you don't like. You might not like the house rules of someone's game, or the way PFS is set up, or the fact that it is known that Bob's table doesn't allow evil characters. Character creation is the wrong time, in my mind, to try to rally the troops and campaign to change everything.
People often understand the reasons given, they just don't like them. "I don't like catgirls/guns/sci-fi/ninjas, I do not want them in my games" is a perfectly acceptable reason. It isn't one that the player with the idea likes, but it is a valid reason.
There are GMs and players that hold very strong convictions on what they want to allow or to play. And like opinions on religion, race, sex, Star Trek versus Star Wars and more, they may not be willing to budge.
Again, discussion is fine, and to be sought after. But it shouldn't turn into a heated debate on why the GM is saying no (or other players are unwilling to play with a concept.) The vast majority of RPers are pretty smart and know how things stand before the discussion slash argument begins. I'd rather play or GM than argue about a character concept, myself, and I'm unlikely to go more than a few iterations into "why not" before I use the dreaded "because" and ask you to move to another concept or sit this one out.
Some find this to be bulling. I consider asking "why" over and over again, or seeking out a deeper meaning of why I wouldn't allow something to be sort of the same. I don't tolerate that from my children, I certainly don't tolerate it from other adults. YMMV.
|
One big problem is that - while not inherent - people who come up with the oddball concepts often do so because of SSS (Special Snowflake Syndrome).
Because they're a kobold paladin they want to get extra spotlight time as every town is shocked at their class/race combination, and the player gets to rant about not judging a book by it's cover or some such.
There's nothing inherently wrong with many oddball concepts, but much like the CN alignment, it's a warning sign that the player/character might cause problems for the table.
I've been in one campaign where half the party had SSS
DM gave us free reign to play whatever classes and races we wanted short of 3pp (custom races allowed however). The setting was eberron.
Party ended up, from mundane to weirdest;
Human Fighter (Myself)
Human Paladin Archer (Forget what the archetype's called)
Changeling Witch (Passed for elf)
And now for the SSSS (Special Snowflake Syndrome Squad)
A custom race that could talk to plants and had the Lucky trait for all saves (Along with the trait that doubles all luck bonuses for +2 to all saves at level 1) playing as a brawler
A wyrwood bard (Could only communicate in whistles)
And a Wyvaran Sorcerer (Who could only communicate in draconian. Who was from space.)
This group was also one that wanted to diplomacize EVERYTHING in sight and refused to ever do more than nonlethal damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wei & Dave have already covered much of the bases, but to affirm: Concept policing is actually part of being a GM, and if the intent is a long running campaign, a vital part.
Don't get me wrong, I've gamed with groups I tend to think of as "The Chaos Weasels" for whom concept policing is unfathomable, plot is usually something that lasts about one session and their goal is to squeeze as much entertainment from a gimmick as they can before discarding it and finding another. With those guys, anything legal is fair game, and there are virtually no consequences for whacky concepts because the plot or theme will be discarded if it isn't working (or when people got bored with it). That said, Chaos Weasel games are fun and funny, but not something I find actually satisfying.
In long running campaigns with a cohesive story, group and roleplay, the GM must police the character concepts that get brought to the table - they may not need to actually take action against a character (depending on what people bring), but they at minimum need to look at the concepts to make sure things aren't going to get broken. Players can look past weirdness for a session or two, but if there are characters at the table whose in character behavior and beliefs are anathema to one another, the game is going to get messy and probably wind up stopping prematurely. I know GMs who actually prefer this route - they'd rather scrap an entire game early (and repeatedly) rather than tell a player they can't play something - but it's usually a lot easier and more enjoyable to just ensure that you don't have a broken mess to begin with.
I've seen the following at the table, including brought to games I was GMing.
The Creepy Kobold: Female kobold summoner whose player refluffed the act of summoning monsters to be laying eggs, as the character was obsessed with motherhood. When the group found a destroyed kobold colony, she took to carrying around a fetus from a broken egg and talking to it.
Ogre in Human Clothing: The "Chaotic Neutral" character in a mostly good-aligned party who apparently heard voices in his head that told him to do terrible things... but he wasn't really evil because it wasn't really his fault - it was the voices. As for behavior - for anyone familiar with Rise of the Runelords, he'd fit in perfectly with the Graals.
The Escapist: The speedster character whose primary goal was to avoid any plot at any cost, and the standard was to run off and try and get the rest of the party to go chasing after them. Mechanically sound, but the entire concept was "anime magical girl" and episodic romantic drama... regardless of what the GM was trying to run.
All of these are mechanically legal, but tend to obliterate the ability to maintain group cohesion or attention to the plot, due to the concept. It's conceivable that a group/game could exist where they'd work, but in my experience that is almost never the case.
They're just lessons in Learning To Say No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people will simply not allow certain things, and the more unusual things or obscure references you're pulling, the less likely you are to get that approval. Ideally, though, a DM will examine a concept, and evaluate it with as much detachment as possible. A half-orc wizard who was apprenticed to the tribe's spellcaster, and whose spellbook is the cured hide of defeated foes sounds like a cool idea, but if a DM wants to naysay it then it's important to at least admit how arbitrary "half-orcs can't be wizards" is as a ruling, assuming there's nothing in the rules, canon, etc. that blocks that sort of concept.
My advice for my players, and others if they wish to take it, is that if you have an oddball idea you should work your way into talking to the GM and the other players about it before character creation starts to make sure that you aren't going to cause problems. This heads off things like the totally law-abiding character in a party that wants to be thieves, bizarre races that could cause problems for the party and so on. It is, in my opinion, your responsibility as the player wanting whatever this is, to sell this to us. Not all the other players at the table want the headache that comes with some ideas. Others may be thrilled to see what you can do with it.
This gives time for people to explain their reasoning as well as any reaction, knee jerk or not, to the idea. I've found that it cuts down on fights at the table after the fact.
I feel like a big part of the disagreement on the issue like that is that people tend to have experiences on one side or the other. So despite me finding it to be a cop out I think the best answer is sometimes, but not always when regarding concept policing.
Because some of us have been at tables with a GM who just arbitrarily banned things on a whim and it seemed impossible to make something that wasn't horrifically banned or stymied and others of us have been at tables where someone's been allowed to play the most absurd and inane character that just ruined the whole gameplay experience for them.
So I think some degree of 'concept policing' is okay. There are characters who 'make sense' that can be extremely disruptive when put into practice and while a GM might not initially see something wrong, a player who thinks they're going to be uncomfortable with the situation should probably say something.
I was in a 4e game with a dragonborn rogue who had a connection to a clan of dragons. Set off a bunch of my nerves but it sounded like potential plot hooks and I didn't want to rock the boat so I didn't say anything as a player. A dozen sessions later and the character is completely focused on the goals of said clan and his own desires to the point where he ended up undermining the group and became more of a threat than most of the enemies we were facing. The campaign ended up dissolving when myself and the other players told the GM that we couldn't find any way to justify not imprisoning or killing this character at that point.
And of course, the flip side has GMs who tend to forget the setting and game world is about anyone other than themselves and get to the point where it almost feels like they should just make character sheets and assign them to players.
And then there's a third trick to all of it, which is how much you trust the player in question. I know players who could have played that dragonborn rogue I referred to extremely well and could have ended up being a valuable member of the party. But I also know players who get so wrapped up in their own ideas I'd really rather prefer they play something simpler so they don't get lost in their own personal story.
So like all things, I'd have to say it really depends on the situation and players and GM in question.
|
|
Anytime you take a concept that goes against the established tradition, there's push-back. Whether it's a burly wizard, a dwarf swashbuckler, or an elven barbarian. My point is that by digging deeper, and by examining why we hold our views, we can have clearer conversations and come to better understandings.
I disagree that there is always push back. I've seen variants of all 3 of those in my local PFS lodge without objection.
I disagree that all concepts should be entertained. Sure, I should tell you why I won't play with your character so maybe you can change it. But the bottom line is that there is no requirement for me to accept all your characters (and vice versa, of course).
Kender are never O.K.
Actually they are pretty good when roasted with garlic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kender are never O.K.How rude, and uncalled for. Kender can be played well, but only by a very few people.
The basic concept behind them is vaguely annoying comic relief so i dispute that.
If by well you mean vaguely annoying comic relief then yeah i suppose they can be played to that, I just dispute that a race that encourages players to start party infighting is of any particular value to the game as a whole.