Quote from: PakaAnd yes, I absolutely would say that it was leaving me cold, let's tinker with it.  I've done it before and have worked with a player until they vomitted out a shit-hot kicker.

Well, I'm not sure I like the "I don't like what you're doing but won't give you any ideas on what to change about it" mode of refinement (and I'm not sure that's what you're doing--but if you don't add anything to 'I don't like that' I become pretty unwilling to keep trying to please someone when they aren't bringing anything to the table themselves).

On the other hand, if it works, it works--so long as enough ideas don't get shot down, I guess it's okay.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoFinally, there's an issue of vision. When I say I am interested in the GM's story when I come to play, people (of a certain theory-informed bent) often assume (un-generously, IMO) that I want a railroaded game. I don't--but I do expect the GM to, as with an author I care to read, present a vison I will find interesting.

I find the issue of vision comes up most overtly when homebrews settings or systems are discussed amongst our group. To a lesser extent with published game settings/systems there is a starting base where we can all work off from.But even then with all the tampering done, there are bound to be occasions where one party feels that the spirit of the game is being compromised.

Do you guys think, that somemes the GM's vision should not be compromised?I mean there is room to manoeuver, but ultimately there are some points that can't be negotiated. This merely means that anyone who does not like the game walks away from the table and joins the group for another game where compromise can be reached.

I ask this because, because i roughly equate vision with systems, in that there are some systems which are really not for you and hence you don't really like using them, the same goes for vision - sometimes it has no appeal at all, or it does with some modifications and the gm really does not want to make said changes.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RDo you guys think, that somemes the GM's vision should not be compromised?I mean there is room to manoeuver, but ultimately there are some points that can't be negotiated.

Of course there are.

And if the player doesn't walk on his own with some of these, I'll offer the mild suggestion that he take a hike.

In my terms, I think the "GM's vision" is basically stuff about the world and stuff about the situation. I don't, for example, like the structure where the villain is introduced early on but, contrary to the game-system, cannot be killed for dramatic reasons.

If that's the "GM's vision" then it's *not* what I'm coming for.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI don't, for example, like the structure where the villain is introduced early on but, contrary to the game-system, cannot be killed for dramatic reasons.

If that's the "GM's vision" then it's *not* what I'm coming for.

For reference given my answer above, It took it to mean something else completely.

However I could imagine a GM who thinks is the coolest thing in the world. And I could see him refusing to change it- and I could see myself walking on his game.

I would think such a GM sucks eggs, but he's certainly within his rights to run his game that way and find players who agree with him.

Oh, I agree. If the GM wants to do that and people are fine with it, I wouldn't like revile him forever or anything. In fact: if I otherwise dig a game I'll put up with a certain amount of stuff I don't like (for example: in Sorcerer, the fact that I realized early on we weren't going to meet was something I didn't really like but I could see the game had other merrits).

But mostly, when I think of vision, I am thinking of the creative and intellectual input that goes into situation (I also expect competent craft--that is a different axis, IMO). The GM who shows me something insightful about politics or science or metaphysics in the game is the GM (or author) that I want to listen to.

-Marco

Quote from: gleichmanFor reference given my answer above, It took it to mean something else completely.

Yeah, by vision i meant stuff like theme and atmosphere. How specific cultures in the setting interacted with one another (for example). The kind of game rules which would be used to reflect the kind of atmosphere i wanted to generate.

For instance in a game like Jorune, all pcs begin trying to get citizenship. Now i not saying that this is the only beginning goal in the game - but this would  definately be the premise i would want all the players to start with. i'm using Jorune as an example - one own's game world may have different starting constraints - if there is any off course.

Now i am not saying that players would have no option to influence the themes of the game in question - although truth be told i dig it when they do it in character - but there is a general framework they would have to work within.

Regards,
David R

I think ya'all think about the game too much.

:eyecrazy:

I tend to find that if the game is meant to follow a story that the GM has in mind, I want to know that that is the intent.  Provided that I know that I'm in for a railroad, there really isn't a problem because I'm playing to see the story that they've created for me to explore.

Now if I enter a game without knowing that this is the case, I'll get frustrated and typically leave.  Honestly, to me it's a matter of preference and knowing the intent of the game that you're entering.

Quote from: David RFor instance in a game like Jorune, all pcs begin trying to get citizenship. Now i not saying that this is the only beginning goal in the game - but this would  definately be the premise i would want all the players to start with. i'm using Jorune as an example - one own's game world may have different starting constraints - if there is any off course.

That's what I thought you meant with Vision.

Some of this is fixed with the game choice, if you're playing Shadowrun the likely expected default for the GM is that you're going to be playing Shadowrunners. If Champions, superheroes, etc.

Individual GMs will take those rather wide starting parts and narrower it. For example the Shadowrun game I have in mind specifics an overarching goal for the PCs and puts them under the influence of the primary NPC for that goal in the campaign.

I make all this sort of stuff known up front. If enough people buy into it, we play the game. I may have one or two members of the group opt out and they just don't come on the nights we're playing that campaign.

The thing that struck me about this at first however is not the campaigns starting vision, but rather the tendency of players to bring an unacceptable vision to the campaign. Vision may be the wrong word for it as that implies thought and it's more often just a question of style.

This includes power-gamers and (for use) other trouble makers.

Those generally get removed from the game as such characteristics indicate that they are unacceptable no matter the specific campaign.

Generally only an issue with people new to the group.

Quote from: gleichmanThe thing that struck me about this at first however is not the campaigns starting vision, but rather the tendency of players to bring an unacceptable vision to the campaign. Vision may be the wrong word for it as that implies thought and it's more often just a question of style.

Yes, style is an element (and by style I assume play style-right?). But I also think the question of taste comes into play. There are times when the whole idea of what the campaign is about is unappealing to the player in question.Dare I say it-sometimes for ideological/philosophical reasons. So they want to have some input to make the game more compatible with their taste.

Furthermore there may be opposition to how you as the gm molds the published setting(for example)to fit your idea as to what the game should/could be about.In contrast to how the game/setting is generally perceived. To some players(old or new) this is exceptable, to others, not so.Do you get what I'm trying to say?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RDo you get what I'm trying to say?

Yep. I think that covers it well.

This is generally handled (or should be handled) by the social contract, i.e. the group agreement of what the campaign will be about, it's tone, and anything else important to the group.

It would seem logical that anyone who insists on breaking the social contract should find another group.

Speaking of GM visions and possible conflicts, I just couldn't resist this example:

-----

GM: Hi Joe, welcome to our gaming group. As you know we're starting a new campaign based on the X-Men, and it's going to be a complete reboot starting over with issue 1 so the PCs are going to be teenagers. Prof X is just starting his school for mutants.

You have a lot of freedom with the characters and can even make up new ones if you like...

Joe: Great! Ok, here's what I want to do. I want to be mutant killing machine, with claws- make those claws able to cut anything. I'll need defenses, unbreakable bones and the ability to heal anything would be nice.

GM: well, we could work something up based on that I guess...

Joe: Oh, and I've been around. I fought in Desert Storm, hell I may have fought in WWII.

GM: But I said up front that this was to be about teenage mutants...

Joe:  I'm a mutant. That counts. I know! I'm only joining the group to assassinate their mentor, that Prof X guy.

GM: This isn't what I was thinking of when...

Joe: And while I'm here, I think I get me some jailbait. That redhead over there looks to be the cutest and the most powerful to boot. That's hot!

Jean Player: Wait a sec...

Joe: Sorry girl, my seduction skill is just too high for you.

Oh, and I'm one mean assed dude. If she has a boyfriend or takes a liking to someone else, I'll try and murder him.

GM: I see a lot of inter-group problems here. They may want to get rid of you for even trying some of these stunts...

Joe: Oh it's no big deal, I'm too cool to get rid of. I make this game ROCK! So they all have to forgive me and let me stay.

GM: ?

Joe: Oh, and I get more spotlight time than any of the other characters because I'm cool. You're doing a Hulk game next week right? I want to run this guy there too.




That's a player vision that the GM (and other players) either have to embrace, or walk away from (saving themselves $3 a issue at that

Quote from: gleichmanSpeaking of GM visions and possible conflicts, I just couldn't resist this example:

-----Joe: And while I'm here, I think I get me some jailbait. That redhead over there looks to be the cutest and the most powerful to boot. That's hot!

This is about the only part I could have accomadated. You would not believe how many times this character (character, mind you) contribution has come up. :hmm:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThis is about the only part I could have accomadated. You would not believe how many times this character (character, mind you) contribution has come up. :hmm:

I bet you were joking but even so, there's places I won't let a game go no matter what I or anyone else thinks about a character. And that's certainly one of them.