Quote from: blakkieSure. I picked the word "challenge" very specifically, as opposed to "forced". As in "Hey, you've played a bruiser thug type for the last 6 games. I'm getting a bit bored with it, and I think you've got something else to show us.  You want to try something different this time? Like a sneaky type or an academic or something? Anything I can do to help get that sort of character to work for you?" Which is why I'm not big on totally random character generators. Often you end up just hassling people to go through the backflips of subverting and overriding what they roll up, and generally annoying them in the places where they can't. *shrug*

And this is why choice matters, in my group the players made a positive choice to use mostly random chargen.  In that scenario, to not use random would be to deprotagonise my players and frustrate their chosen creative agenda.

So there.



Oh, by the way, if the player likes playing bruisers I don't really see it as my business to discourage them.  To use yet more jargon, I tend to think the game is about having fun and if that means playing bruisers every week then so be it.

Wait.  I think I've got it.

Why do some players think the GM wants to oppress them?

We've all got our kinks, baby.

*ahem*

Sorry.

I used to enjoy, as a GM, pushing my characters through "morality plays."  I tried to be careful to keep the morality to that which they had expressed for their character.

During one such gaming event, one of the players was having a personal issue with me.  Not a player/GM issue, not a character/game issue, it was a full-on me-vs-him issue.  

He was using the game to work out his personal issues with me.  In the course of the game, he acted completely out of character, deliberately did things to make it harder for me as a GM, and generally screwed himself and the others at the table out of a fun evening.

When it was over, I sat him down and asked him some very pointed questions about his (quite beloved) character.  Through those questions, he realized how badly he had messed up his hopes, dreams and aspirations for that particular character.  Then I asked him if he wanted to talk about the issue between us.  At first he tried to deny it, but I said, "Dude, you are far too good of a roleplayer to have screwed up your character that badly unless there was something going on between us."

From that point on, he was able to open up.  His feathers had been smoothed and he explained his issue with me.  Oddly enough, his issue was that he felt that I was trying to take the "limelight" away from him, being the GM.  I smiled happily at that and said, "No problem, Dude.  You can GM from now on..."  He started to complain until I pointed out that his character was screwed anyway, he might as well run the rest of the campaign and let me jump in as a new character.

I briefed him on the campaign details, created a character and for the next six months, he was the GM of the campaign.  

QuoteOh, by the way, if the player likes playing bruisers I don't really see it as my business to discourage them. To use yet more jargon, I tend to think the game is about having fun and if that means playing bruisers every week then so be it.

Which is why I didn't say "discourage".  If you are bored with something someone else is doing just say it, and let it lie at that. If you can't say something as innocuous as that then I suggest something is busted and any "group" decisions are likely disfunctional illusions.

Quote from: BalbinusOh, by the way, if the player likes playing bruisers I don't really see it as my business to discourage them.  To use yet more jargon, I tend to think the game is about having fun and if that means playing bruisers every week then so be it.

That's precisely my answer to blakkie's question.

Quote from: RPGPunditDear God: "Undead Army of Andrea Dworkins"

"Barely able to move under their own power, the Dworkin gaze attack is nevertheless sufficiently repulsive to drive most normal human beings utterly and permanently mad... if this fails, she can begin to pronounce her Unholy Screech, as she declares that not only are all men inherently rapists, but all men want to specifically rape her.  Hearing this requires that the victim roll a Will save DC 30 to avoid his head exploding; if he succeeds he must roll a Fort Save DC30 to avoid his stomach crawling out of his esophagus and strangling him; and should he survive that he must make a Reflex Save DC30 to avoid dying of laughter at the thought that any living thing of any sort would want to have sex with Andrea Dworkin..."

RPGPundit

But she also attracted a following.  Either she can create additional undead minions, or there's some kind of mind-control power.

Quote from: blakkieWhich is why I didn't say "discourage".  If you are bored with something someone else is doing just say it, and let it lie at that. If you can't say something as innocuous as that then I suggest something is busted and any "group" decisions are likely disfunctional illusions.

I never said I was bored with his characters, only that he tended to play two personality types.  He's good at them.  Much in the same way certain actors are good at playing one type of character.

He's, like, the Jack Nicholson of my group.  Or maybe the Edward G. Robinson....

Quote from: KenHRThat's precisely my answer to blakkie's question.

...which was basically answered by my last post to you, but if you'd like the finer details see:

QuoteWhich is why I didn't say "discourage". If you are bored with something someone else is doing just say it, and let it lie at that. If you can't say something as innocuous as that then I suggest something is busted and any "group" decisions are likely disfunctional illusions.

Because I do see it as part of my job as a GM to challenge players. To engage them. To have exciting entertaining shit happen!

Quote from: JimBobOzI 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?

Some people are scarred by fucktard GMs who are all about seeing their vision on the table and could care less about their players' fun.

Some players are jackasses and frankly I am indifferent as to what pathetic rationalisations they make for their idiocy.

Generally I think the answer falls in either one of those, or simple miscommunication.

For miscommunication, a quick chat should sort it out, though I understand there are those who think several weeks of online reading and a special vocabulary will be more effective.

Quote from: blakkie...which was basically answered by my last post to you, but if you'd like the finer details see:

Because I do see it as part of my job as a GM to challenge players. To engage them. To have exciting entertaining shit happen!

But I never said I was bored with his characters, or that I was harboring some deep resentment of the fact that he wouldn't break type.

And plenty of exciting entertaining shit happened in those games, anyway.

Quote from: KenHRI never said I was bored with his characters, only that he tended to play two personality types.  He's good at them.  Much in the same way certain actors are good at playing one type of character.

I was giving an example. So what is the good part of the random generator then? What was/is your reason for thinking it was good for him to change what he played? Then plug that into a sentence and replace the "bored" one.

Quote from: blakkieWhich is what underlies "player empowerment". At least the type that hasn't caught a flight to Uraguay, hunted down RPGPundit, and killed his dog.

No, this is just the establishment of a social contract between the gaming group; player empowerment has nothing to do with anything that happens BEFORE the actual game starts, unless they've kidnapped someone to GM for them; or the GM is holding them hostage and forcing them to play.

"player empowerment" comes in (or doesn't) when conflicts arise between the player's whims and the GM's authority IN THE GAME.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Divine HammerBut she also attracted a following.  Either she can create additional undead minions, or there's some kind of mind-control power.

She can summon 3D6 other hideously ugly women with repressed inverted rape fetishes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, this is just the establishment of a social contract between the gaming group; player empowerment has nothing to do with anything that happens BEFORE the actual game starts, unless they've kidnapped someone to GM for them; or the GM is holding them hostage and forcing them to play.

Understanding and agreement beforehand underlies agreement during the game.

Quote"player empowerment" comes in (or doesn't) when conflicts arise between the player's whims and the GM's authority IN THE GAME.

Sure a lot of the fruit happens during play. But character creation of is a critical part of it because if the characters are created crosswise to the world then the conflict is just waiting to manifest.  For example a player that makes a Lesbian Catgirl Pirate Ninja Stripper for a historical Napoleon-era campaign? :rolleyes:  Character creation is part of the game too.

Quote from: blakkieI was giving an example. So what is the good part of the random generator then? What was/is your reason for thinking it was good for him to change what he played? Then plug that into a sentence and replace the "bored" one.

It was good because he was stoked to be playing someone different.  I was stoked because he was stoked.

As for why random chargen...because that's the way it is in the book.  We haven't played CT before, so we're trying to stick to the book as closely as possible to start in order to see what works for us and what needs changing.

The breaking type on my player's part was just a happy result from our experiment.