Quote from: RedFoxIsn't this solved already when the players tell you what group they're making and what they want to be doing in the game?

That would be nice if I could assume that was the case.

IME, it appears what some players "want to be doing in the game" is "obstructing it" "goofing off", etc. What I'm getting at is my answer to such a desire is "think of something different."

Make no mistake: there are plenty of "me" players out there. Some of them are curable with proper care.

Quote from: SosthenesSo none of you thinks that a player _can_ have disruptive ideas? When I'm planning a historical campaign set in the Medici's era and Bob comes up with his cat girl stripper ninja character, I say no.
D20 is almost as versatile. Some stuff just isn't for every campaign. You don't actually have to use every thing out of your toolbox...

Is there a rule in your Medici era rulebooks that allow lesbian ninja stripper catgirls? If so, then I would suggest you find a new game to play for your Medici campaign.

I've already made caveat's here, this isn't an absolute 'thou shalt not design your games your way'. It's a 'if you don't like the main rule book, why the fuck are you playing this game?' sort of thing.  I HAVE seen people strip so much out of a setting/system as to leave you wondering why they even call it by the proper name.

"Ok, this is Shadowrun, but you all are going to be playing humans, no mages not adepts, and nothing heavier than a light pistol for weaponry. Oh, and no cyberware.  

Yeah, the NPC's get all that. You never will."


that sounds extreme but I have listend to a GM give me damn near that exact line.  I bowed out.    Now, if he had said

"I want to run a urban thug campaign in a slightly future setting and I want to use the Shadowrun rules." and meant it (ergo, no Troll NPC adepts to fuck us over with...) then that'd be a different story.


I have had GM's outlaw sniping in military/criminal games. I have had GM outlaw two or three classes out of the Players hand book, almost always because of pet peeves, not because they didn't have a place in the setting as written.  Sometimes those very same classes show up as villians or NPC's (paladins come to mind from a game I sat in for one session a few months back...).



Its a call to people to really think hard before they start red inking their main rule book.  Is it really broken, or do you just don't want to have to outthink players that want to use it?

Quote from: Spike"Ok, this is Shadowrun, but you all are going to be playing humans, no mages not adepts, and nothing heavier than a light pistol for weaponry. Oh, and no cyberware.  

Yeah, the NPC's get all that. You never will."

that sounds extreme but I have listend to a GM give me damn near that exact line.  I bowed out.    Now, if he had said

"I want to run a urban thug campaign in a slightly future setting and I want to use the Shadowrun rules." and meant it (ergo, no Troll NPC adepts to fuck us over with...) then that'd be a different story.

OK - I think I got it, and I'm cool now. The above explains everything. I only do the latter, never the former. Since I'm almost always the GM, I'd never even seen the former.

-clash

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat would be nice if I could assume that was the case.

IME, it appears what some players "want to be doing in the game" is "obstructing it" "goofing off", etc. What I'm getting at is my answer to such a desire is "think of something different."

Make no mistake: there are plenty of "me" players out there. Some of them are curable with proper care.

Fencing them in by cutting off options might not be the most elegant solution, however.

One could put the impetus on the players to come up with a group identity, dynamic, and activity goal (i.e. "what we want to be doing in the majority of play") first, which gives them self-imposed guidelines and moreover a clear guidepost from which to work with as the GM.

That way if someone goes off the rails and starts being disruptive, everybody knows it and can call them on it.  "Hey, Joe.  We said we were going to be knights in the King's service, righting wrongs and doing noble deeds.  What the fuck is the idea with trying to assassinate the bishop?"

Quote from: SpikeIs there a rule in your Medici era rulebooks that allow lesbian ninja stripper catgirls? If so, then I would suggest you find a new game to play for your Medici campaign.

Erm, so you're saying that each GURPS source book should have a listing of everything in the core rules that can't be used? I always got along fine with common sense...

I regard most systems and rules as the superset of possible games, I don't think there's such a thing as "We're playing D&D" or "This is a Shadowrun campaign". It's a subset thereof. Some games have different premises.

That's the theoretical part. Now what you exclude from what game is a big range. Taking some stuff out of the basic setup of a game will change the game more than other options. But even then I wouldn't generally condemn that. Yes, some specific house rules are completely arbitrary. Others are perfectly fine and ehance the gaming experience for this particular campaign.

Don't you agree?

Quote from: RedFoxFencing them in by cutting off options might not be the most elegant solution, however.

One could put the impetus on the players to come up with a group identity, dynamic, and activity goal (i.e. "what we want to be doing in the majority of play") first, which gives them self-imposed guidelines and moreover a clear guidepost from which to work with as the GM.

That way if someone goes off the rails and starts being disruptive, everybody knows it and can call them on it.  "Hey, Joe.  We said we were going to be knights in the King's service, righting wrongs and doing noble deeds.  What the fuck is the idea with trying to assassinate the bishop?"

I'm not seeing how saying all the players are going to be knights is MORE restrictive than saying "you can't be CN unless you provide me with a workable character motivation." And if the players were the sort that they would come to such a decision on their own, those aren't the sort of players I'm concerned about.

I think you are being deliberately disingenous citing GURPS, Sos.  

But I'll play along. The kind of stuff I'd say would apply to what I'm talking about would be a GURPS Medici campaign where the GM disallowed the 'acute senses' advantage, because being able to see people sneaking around with poisoned daggers 'ruined his game'.   Or disallowing someone from having the sailing skill, because it 'doesn't fit the Medici era'.

In who's mind?



For the record: I used to always play Chaotic Neutral (hey, I've said it before, I'm an anarchist at heart...), but I never had a GM tell me I was disruptive.  CN, to me, just meant I didn't HAVE to be constrained by laws or 'good guy' stuff. Not that I had a license to play merry hob with everyone else's fun.  then again, I hate the alignment system with the passion of a thousand firey suns, so I may be the wrong person to comment there....

Perhaps you're right and I've split the hairs so finely I don't know what I'm talking about anymore.  

In any case, my protestation isn't about a universal truth.  I'm all for making games fit their theme and tossing what doesn't work and all that.

I just protest that people's games are so restrictive.  I, personally, want to play some options I hardly ever get to because the first things people chuck out are the things I'm interested in.  No evil D&D games means I can't try out the dread necromancer class I've been hankering to play.  And almost nobody runs D&D games that allow evil characters, even if they play well in the group dynamic.  Just no, no discussion involved, come up with something else.

And it's not just alignment.  When I start getting inarguable nerfs and dictates before going into chargen, I get less enthusiastic about the game, almost regardless of what they are.  Particularly when they seem to have little to do with actual campaign direction.  I've often had a GM say, "No weird characters."  Umm, okay.  What?  I like playing weird characters.  Moreover, how the hell do I know his litmus for what's weird and what's not?  And what's the problem with weird characters in Deadlands: The Weird West?  o.o;

Quote from: SpikeI think you are being deliberately disingenous citing GURPS, Sos.  

Erm, nope, it's just one system that I have experience with and where I often used 'subtractive GMing' to focus the players on the campaign. In addition, it makes a nice corner case, as the options are near infinite and you can have some very, very specific campaigns with it.

I was just arguing to move the discussion a bit away from the general condemnation of rule and setting subsets and to more specific, egregious examples. I wasn't sure whether we're talking about especially bad GM fuckwad decisions or some kind of flowery "don't say no" bullshit.

Quote from: SpikeBut I'll play along. The kind of stuff I'd say would apply to what I'm talking about would be a GURPS Medici campaign where the GM disallowed the 'acute senses' advantage, because being able to see people sneaking around with poisoned daggers 'ruined his game'.   Or disallowing someone from having the sailing skill, because it 'doesn't fit the Medici era'.

See, we _are_ talking about fuckwad decisions. I'm happy again

On the other hand, I have to admit that I've been guilty of those a few times. There was a time, when I was aiming for a specific mood and didn't ask the players whether they wanted that, too or didn't even justify my decisions. We all live and learn...

Seemingly arbitrary decisions are bad for the game, though. Let's take your specific example. If I went to the players and told them that I wanted the campaign to focus on basically good-natured and naive characters drawn into the machinations of the overlords of intrigue, we might come to a decision that yes, empathy might not be too good. Well, probably not in GURPS, although I could imagine a system where this would lead to automatic successes. If it's something I can easily fix by having enemies with one or two points more in the opposing skills, I'd rather use that.

I'm not a big fan of house rules for that kinda stuff, most of the time a good discussion should fix that. It works out once all the players are old enough

I still have a player who disagrees with my usage of prestige classes, but well, you can't have everything. In his games, he can (and does) handle it differently.

Quote from: RedFoxPerhaps you're right and I've split the hairs so finely I don't know what I'm talking about anymore.  

:shrug:

QuoteI just protest that people's games are so restrictive.  I, personally, want to play some options I hardly ever get to because the first things people chuck out are the things I'm interested in.  No evil D&D games means I can't try out the dread necromancer class I've been hankering to play.  And almost nobody runs D&D games that allow evil characters, even if they play well in the group dynamic.  Just no, no discussion involved, come up with something else.

In my particular case, I forsee that an evil character is likely to be a problem. I am totally not about the sort of campaign where players revel in bloodshed and larceny... it's just not something I want to emulate or preside over. I hate movie where evil wins, I won't run a game that way, and the upshot is that I will do my best to ensure that evil (i.e., the PCs) loses. And that's not what I'm after in an RPG.

Now there are situations where I could see an evil character... one with motivations that are in line with the protagonists in the campaign. Such a set up can be the catalyst of an intriguing campaign. But I want to make sure that it is going to work in the present party and the present campaign, which is why I make it an "explicit permission only" sort of thing.

QuoteAnd it's not just alignment.  When I start getting inarguable nerfs and dictates before going into chargen, I get less enthusiastic about the game, almost regardless of what they are.  Particularly when they seem to have little to do with actual campaign direction.  I've often had a GM say, "No weird characters."  Umm, okay.  What?  I like playing weird characters.  Moreover, how the hell do I know his litmus for what's weird and what's not?  And what's the problem with weird characters in Deadlands: The Weird West?  o.o;

Well, I'm not against you here. I see many PbP announcements. The first way to turn me off is the tiresome "core rules only" caveat. I like playing with new things, things I haven't experienced. I personally am not the sort of DM to allow EVERYTHING, but give the players a pretty wide berth. I'll try to make the list of books and options more specific if I am going for something specific; if I wasn't already going for a "fantasy menagerie" feel (like my River of Worlds campaign), I'll limit the options somewhat.

I'm more likely to balk at off the wall options if the campaign is more specific rather than something like "core D&D fantasy" that the players and myself have experienced many times. The list of options for the "D20 Mars" game I am brewing in my head will be quite a bit more limited. Because it's already different and I want players to buy into the definition of the game and get a feel for it before they try something out-of-line.

Spike you're gonna hate me, man. I'm a subtractive GM. I open a rule book with the assumption I gonna, rip out stuff...but all the stuff I take out my players are aware off because the players design their characters together.

If I aiming for a specific tone/mood the players have the opportunity to contribute. Sometimes it's just a matter of putting back stuff from the book(s) which I had removed. The fact is, no rulebook is going to determine how we run/play games. I'm a big believer that the stuff in rule books* are really guidelines...

*I love Unknown Armies but you wouldn't think I'm playing an UA game if you observed how we play. The same goes for Hunter, Feng Shui, Over The Edge, Cyberpunk 2020...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThe fact is, no rulebook is going to determine how we run/play games. I'm a big believer that the stuff in rule books* are really guidelines...

That's what it says in the introductions to most rpg books. "These rules are only guidelines, the game is yours."

Or as I like to put it,

I am the Game Master. I master the game, the game does not master me.

If you don't like what I've subtracted from the game, you can subtract yourself from the game! Roleplaying groups operate on a competitive free market principle.

Quote from: SosthenesErm, nope, it's just one system that I have experience with and where I often used 'subtractive GMing' to focus the players on the campaign. In addition, it makes a nice corner case, as the options are near infinite and you can have some very, very specific campaigns with it.

 Thats not "Subtractive GM-ing" - thats just running GURPS close to the way its supposed to be run.  Even tghe game's designers and authors say you should trim the options so they're appropriate to setting or campaign world.

 I'm runing GURPS version of the TRAVELLER universe, just because there is a GURPS book with the magic spell of "Create Ice" doesn't mean I am going to let player have that.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad:shrug:



In my particular case, I forsee that an evil character is likely to be a problem. I am totally not about the sort of campaign where players revel in bloodshed and larceny... it's just not something I want to emulate or preside over. I hate movie where evil wins, I won't run a game that way, and the upshot is that I will do my best to ensure that evil (i.e., the PCs) loses. And that's not what I'm after in an RPG.

Now there are situations where I could see an evil character... one with motivations that are in line with the protagonists in the campaign. Such a set up can be the catalyst of an intriguing campaign. But I want to make sure that it is going to work in the present party and the present campaign, which is why I make it an "explicit permission only" sort of thing.

Sadly, many (most?) GMs feel this way.  Yet I operate on a fairly strict moral basis in real life, so when I roleplay I like to loosen that up quite a bit and indulge in baser impulses.  Yet this is an anathema desire to most.  It's not all that I'm interested in playing, of course.  But sadly that playstyle is relegated to a fringe that's seldom indulged and often (ironically) vilified as "Darth Stupid" gamers.  Or worse yet, allowed to play the way they wish, then punished for it as some sort of moral lesson.  ("You should have known going in that evil always loses.  Suckers.")

There really is no equal opportunity for such play, even if half the alignment spectrum is made up of it.  

But this is just bitterness talking.  There's nothing to be done about GMs who find such play distasteful.

QuoteWell, I'm not against you here. I see many PbP announcements. The first way to turn me off is the tiresome "core rules only" caveat. I like playing with new things, things I haven't experienced. I personally am not the sort of DM to allow EVERYTHING, but give the players a pretty wide berth. I'll try to make the list of books and options more specific if I am going for something specific; if I wasn't already going for a "fantasy menagerie" feel (like my River of Worlds campaign), I'll limit the options somewhat.

I'm more likely to balk at off the wall options if the campaign is more specific rather than something like "core D&D fantasy" that the players and myself have experienced many times. The list of options for the "D20 Mars" game I am brewing in my head will be quite a bit more limited. Because it's already different and I want players to buy into the definition of the game and get a feel for it before they try something out-of-line.

Certainly.  I generally enjoy player creativity, which is one reason I love "kitchen sink" game settings (the other being that they gives freer reign for GM creativity as well).

But if I have something very specific in mind, the options will be significantly narrowed.

Quote from: JimBobOzOr as I like to put it,

I am the Game Master. I master the game, the game does not master me.

Or as I like to put it,

[Sylvester Stallone] I AM THE LAW!!! [/Sylvester Stallone]