Coming from threads like this one rpg.net about players shafting a GM's campaign, or this other one about players coming up with character concepts which don't fit in with the campaign.

What's up with these players who think the GM is there to oppress them? I've met plenty of them, but of course meet more online (they're online because no-one will GM them). One guy who used to be in my group was a classic example of it.

"So, I thought that for our next campaign, we could play in the Conan game world."
"Cool."
"Alright, I'll prepare material for that, then. I'll present some stuff then we can spend the first session making characters for it."
(next week)
"Here is the ninja I made."
"..."

"Okay so this is Transhuman Space, a hard sci-fi game."
"Can I have psionics?"
"No, that's not very hard science."
"What? I really want it, wah wah wah."
"Okay, here are the guidelines. There's a psi corps, so either you're with them, and have a duty to them, or you're a secret psi, and will have to keep it quiet. Here are some packages of abilities."
"Damn, I can't afford the top level of abilities."
"Well just take the middle level, that's a good package."
"No, don't tell me to take that one."
"Why not?"
"Because if you tell me to do it, then I can't do it. I must make my own decisions."
"It was just a suggestion. Do what you want."
"No."
"..."

We see these guys a lot online. Some of them go on to write rpgs with no GMs. What's their story? Did a GM tie them up and force them to play games they didn't like?

I can understand not trusting the GM to do a good job, plenty fuck it up. But why would you not trust the GM to want to do a good job? Why would you think the GM is there to ruin your fun?

I, uh, don't get it.

My first response is to ask "Did the GM not actually sell them on the game, or something?"  But I gather from what you're saying that there are people that don't actually listen to the GM selling the game; they're too busy doing something else in their own heads, like, half a sentence in.

I don't think I've ever met such a player.  Or, maybe I just didn't realize it.  Or something.

Those words of Moochava's that you quoted JimBobOz, in the 'Proud to be Stupid!' thread are totally hysterical! Cackling like a mad thing as I type. Good links man! :win:

On the game concept issue from the thread I had it real easy with my current campaign:
'Would you like to come round and play WFRP?'
'OK.'
'Righto, here's how to roll up characters, and I've got these adventrues that I bought.'

Still rolling 27 sessions later (and yesterday's was pretty good really ).

Quote from: JMcL63Those words of Moochava's that you quoted JimBobOz, in the 'Proud to be Stupid!' thread are totally hysterical! Cackling like a mad thing as I type. Good links man! :win:

As I read Moochava's words, I couldn't help but think about how awesome Rick James would be as a GM.  He wouldn't even need a viking hat, 'cause he's Rick James, bitch!

There's really two seperate issues here:

1. Players who boneheadedly want to play/run something that is out of type for the campaign being proposed (ie. the Ninja in conan game)

2. Players who simply distrust the GMs or constantly engage in power struggles with them (ie. if a player is convinced that you're "screwing him over" or the likes).

A consequence of number 2 is often eventually a gamer who starts arguing heavily for games that "control" the GM.

Number 1's consequence is usually just players who straighten up and fly right, or ex players.

I have to think that most of the number 2s are guys who at some point or another had a very bad experience with glory-hound, rail-roading, domineering, or just plain crappy GMs, and haven't been able to get past it, to the point that they think that all GMs are that way; or in some cases where they think that they need to change gaming in some fundamental way to take out the GM's role.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut I gather from what you're saying that there are people that don't actually listen to the GM selling the game; they're too busy doing something else in their own heads, like, half a sentence in.

That's possibly it. I think that basically you have players who see roleplaying as a group activity like a football team, and players who see it as an individual activity, which unfortunately must involve other people, like a high school group project.

I've met dozens of players like that. In every game and every setting there's a guy who wants to be a werewolf, or another guy who wants to be a psionic, or another who wants to be uber-martial artists, or another who wants to be a guy with amazing social skills. As well as "group" vs "individual" approaches, I think there's the question of "to do" vs "to be."

The munchkin-tyes who want to be ninjas in the Conan world, they just want to be awesome. They'll happily take high levels in abilities you tell them they'll never get a chance to use. These guys are quite individualistic, and tend to be paranoid about the GM, spend a lot of time looking up rules, etc.

The others want to do awesome things, won't care whether those awesome doings come from "right place at right time", from high skill, from "Hero Points" being spent, or whatever. I find these guys are more accomodating of what the group as a whole is aiming at, and are more trusting of the GM.

That's my experience, anyway, with the obvious disclaimers that people are individuals and not so easy to categorise, etc.

Quote from: RPGPunditI have to think that most of the number 2s are guys who at some point or another had a very bad experience with glory-hound, rail-roading, domineering, or just plain crappy GMs, and haven't been able to get past it, to the point that they think that all GMs are that way; or in some cases where they think that they need to change gaming in some fundamental way to take out the GM's role.

I knew you'd like this thread

I thought that about the players, too, the Wild-Eyed Individualists, that they'd been bitchslapped by too many GMs. But if that were so, surely they'd recover in time. My examples are of one player I know, and this guy has played over 50 sessions with me as GM, and about 15 of those sessions it was a one-on-one game, so he should have been able to tell I had no interest in oppressing him...

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's possibly it. I think that basically you have players who see roleplaying as a group activity like a football team, and players who see it as an individual activity, which unfortunately must involve other people, like a high school group project.

Gotcha.

And I may be able to explain why I don't see much of this. See, I generally recruit players brand-new, or out of an existing (and quite large) LARP community.  Which means I can (and do) screen out experienced anti-team types right out the gate, though I hadn't really thought of it quite that way; I just always have more people that want to play than room in my games.

While I agree that some players just are too problematic, I'd also say that some GM's really overreact to some character creations. You have this pristine picture of your new campaign that you don't want to be sullied by the players. But it's not just the GM who wants to try new things, the players have some concepts, too. It's no use to get your panties in a bunch just because  the players aren't monstrously inspired by your campaign announcement but want to sneak some characters in that they wanted to play all along...

Some players might really do it just to annoy the DM, but that's what baseball bats are for. Most just have a cool image in their head that they want to see done sooner or later. Actually, if you get that reaction too much it might be worth listening to the players before starting a new campaign.

Having said that, what's wrong with a Ninja in Conan? I can definitely see that working. Weirder things have been done by pastiche writers...
(Khitai Thief/Soldier/Scholar)

Quote from: SosthenesWhile I agree that some players just are too problematic, I'd also say that some GM's really overreact to some character creations. You have this pristine picture of your new campaign that you don't want to be sullied by the players.

That's the #3 that RPGPundit left out.

3. GMs that don't listen, don't have the inclination or aptitude for flexibility, or just don't give a shit about what players actually want to play.

A Reader's Digest form of it might go like this:
"We're going to play in Conan in D&D, strickly as written by R.E. Howard, on the western side of Atlantis."
"Well I was hoping to play a [insert common S&S concept or archtype but that doesn't show up specifically in the Conan stories], can we make that work?"
"Nope, that doesn't fit what I want."
"I/we were hoping to play/do something like [insert idea here]."
"Nope, you can't do that. That's the wrong class/alignment/idea for the story I've already spent a 2 months planning out [without mentioning anything beforehand]."
"Well what about [another idea that's trying to fit into the GM's world]?"
"No." *silently fearing the unwashed masses of players will take any bit of flexibility as a sign of weakness that can only lead shortly to droves of Lasergun-toting Lesbian Catgirl Pirate Ninjas prancing across the GM's hallowed world*
.....

At the worst it's "I'm the GM, I'm the law, so STFU bitch." In degrees of subtext.


And sometimes it sits somewhere between numbers 1, 2, and 3. *shrug*

P.S. It takes at least two to stuggle for power.

Case #1: "Okay, where is the guy from, and how did he get to where he is now?"

Case #2: "This is not the hobby for you, I think you'd be happier as a creationist."

Is it wrong of me to see these problems as one of the deficiencies of non-random chargen?  If the dice rolls only support playing a thief, it doesn't matter what the player wanted.

Quote from: jrientsIs it wrong of me to see these problems as one of the deficiencies of non-random chargen?  If the dice rolls only support playing a thief, it doesn't matter what the player wanted.

Wouldn't work. It would be a rather abysmal role that only supported one role. And then he'd want to roll again. And honestly, any GM that plays D&D with 3d6 as they fall, no re-rolls for a complete campaign, well...

Quote from: SosthenesWouldn't work. It would be a rather abysmal role that only supported one role. And then he'd want to roll again. And honestly, any GM that plays D&D with 3d6 as they fall, no re-rolls for a complete campaign, well...

Not 3.x D&D, but it's entirely possible to do in pre-3 D&D or AD&D. I know 'cause I did it for years. It was fun, too.

-clash

Quote from: blakkieThat's the #3 that RPGPundit left out.

3. GMs that don't listen, don't have the inclination or aptitude for flexibility, or just don't give a shit about what players actually want to play.

A Reader's Digest form of it might go like this:
"We're going to play in Conan in D&D, strickly as written by R.E. Howard, on the western side of Atlantis."
"Well I was hoping to play a [insert common S&S concept or archtype but that doesn't show up specifically in the Conan stories], can we make that work?"
"Nope, that doesn't fit what I want."
"I/we were hoping to play/do something like [insert idea here]."
"Nope, you can't do that. That's the wrong class/alignment/idea for the story I've already spent a 2 months planning out [without mentioning anything beforehand]."
"Well what about [another idea that's trying to fit into the GM's world]?"
"No." *silently fearing the unwashed masses of players will take any bit of flexibility as a sign of weakness that can only lead shortly to droves of Lasergun-toting Lesbian Catgirl Pirate Ninjas prancing across the GM's hallowed world*
.....

Go ahead Blakkie, show us where the bad GM touched you...  :rolleyes:

That isn't a type, that's the "player who's had a bad experience" subset, of which I'm guessing you proudly belong.  The fact that there was a GM who at one point had a present in his pants for you doesn't mean that the GM is inherently an untrustable monster that needs to be neutered to keep under control.

I mean, fuck sakes, its like there's a whole group of Andrea Dworkins in this hobby ("All free GMing is GM abuse!! The GM is an inherent abuser!! ").

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsIs it wrong of me to see these problems as one of the deficiencies of non-random chargen?  If the dice rolls only support playing a thief, it doesn't matter what the player wanted.

Sadly that war has long since been lost as a whole. These days, players expect and insist on the ability to let the characters be their own little exercise in wish fulfillment rather than letting the dice fall where they may, with a few stalwart exceptions like WFRP (another reason why I love that game so much).

In my experience, "Player playing his own concept that he thinks is SOOOO cool" makes for lame roleplay, whereas "player challenged to roleplay a concept that is randomly presented to him" can often lead to masterpieces.

RPGPundit