TheRPGSite

Coming from threads like this one rpg.net about players shafting a GM's campaign (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=6523631), or this other one about players coming up with character concepts which don't fit in with the campaign (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=294907).

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 :D). ;)

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

Quote from: flyingmiceNot 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.

I've tried it, too. But what do you actually gain from it? Let's say you played a fighter during the last campaign, which lasted for 2 years and now the roll points to another fighter? That way leads to Dex 9 thieves stumbling around...

Quote from: SosthenesI've tried it, too. But what do you actually gain from it? Let's say you played a fighter during the last campaign, which lasted for 2 years and now the roll points to another fighter? That way leads to Dex 9 thieves stumbling around...

It becomes less heroic and more down to earth. Some view that as a good thing, some don't. Obviously, you belong to the latter group. I played and ran plenty of Dexterity 9 thieves, and it can be fun.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditI 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!! ").

I just have to say that that is the funniest thing I've read all morning.

Quote from: flyingmiceIt becomes less heroic and more down to earth. Some view that as a good thing, some don't. Obviously, you belong to the latter group. I played and ran plenty of Dexterity 9 thieves, and it can be fun.

I'm really more the low-power guy. But let's say you've got Str 18, Dex 9. You already played a fighter before and now want to do something different. That _includes_ not being the big, strong guy. You'd be perfectly happy to let the dice determine some things about you, but would like to have some kind of influence on the general style.
A 2-for-1 attribute tradeoff or a best-out-of-three random roll generation would work fine enough, no need to get point-based or being able to distrubte the scores (or the wimpy 3 out of 4 dice method)

That's my comfort zone, random generation with a modicum of influence by the player. WFRP is one of the best examples for this kind of style, IMHO.

Quote from: RPGPunditI 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!! ").

Wait...whole group of Andrea Dworkins...and she's dead...that means...that means that you've just created the greatest modern horror RPG campaign in history!

Quote from: SosthenesI'm really more the low-power guy. But let's say you've got Str 18, Dex 9. You already played a fighter before and now want to do something different. That _includes_ not being the big, strong guy. You'd be perfectly happy to let the dice determine some things about you, but would like to have some kind of influence on the general style.
A 2-for-1 attribute tradeoff or a best-out-of-three random roll generation would work fine enough, no need to get point-based or being able to distrubte the scores (or the wimpy 3 out of 4 dice method)

That's my comfort zone, random generation with a modicum of influence by the player. WFRP is one of the best examples for this kind of style, IMHO.

My point isn't that it's optimal, but that it's perfectly playable as is. Pure Random Generation was the defacto standard in those days, whereas now Player Determined Generation - however this is accomplished, point allocation or otherwise - is standard, and Random Generation is a bit old-fashioned and wierd.

My personal sweet spot is random with considerable player choice, like yours, but my two most recent games have gone from a choice between Random and Directed to all Player Directed due to the near uniform hue and cry from reviewers, and silence from the customers on the subject. Reviewers seem to be extremely biased against any kind of random chargen outside of retro-inspired games appealing to nostalgia, which seem to be protected by a sort of grandfather clause.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditGo 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.

So #1 and #2 are really "GMs who've had a bad experience with a player"?  So go ahead and tell me where Jong touches you when nobody is looking..... :pundit:

Quote from: SosthenesI'm really more the low-power guy. But let's say you've got Str 18, Dex 9. You already played a fighter before and now want to do something different. That _includes_ not being the big, strong guy. You'd be perfectly happy to let the dice determine some things about you, but would like to have some kind of influence on the general style.

Also, to reply more directly, it can be interesting and fun to play against type - the big strong Magic User, or thief who lives more by smarts than by deftness. I ran games with a lot of contrarians, who enjoyed this sort of challenge immensely.

-clash

Quote from: SosthenesI'm really more the low-power guy. But let's say you've got Str 18, Dex 9. You already played a fighter before and now want to do something different. That _includes_ not being the big, strong guy. You'd be perfectly happy to let the dice determine some things about you, but would like to have some kind of influence on the general style.
A 2-for-1 attribute tradeoff or a best-out-of-three random roll generation would work fine enough, no need to get point-based or being able to distrubte the scores (or the wimpy 3 out of 4 dice method)

Moldvay Basic had a point swap option to raise prime requisites.

On topic, I've been both victim and villain with regard to this particular gaming crime.  In the former situation, I just stopped gaming with those people.  In the latter, I was roundly smacked down and those people stopped gaming with me.  Lessons learned in all cases.

Seriously, there has to be compromise at the table.  GMs need to balance their desire to run a specific type of game with the wishes of their players.  Players need to balance their desire to run certain sorts of characters with the concept/genre/power level/etc. of the game that they've agreed to play in.  The UA example in the first linked thread is ass.

I find it funny that that example is being defended on the original thread as a "parable" re: GM flexibility.  If it is a parable, it's a damned poor one, as it's obviously not getting its lesson across.

Quote from: flyingmiceAlso, to reply more directly, it can be interesting and fun to play against type - the big strong Magic User, or thief who lives more by smarts than by deftness. I ran games with a lot of contrarians, who enjoyed this sort of challenge immensely.

It can be fun. But do you have to force the player? That's the point I'm talking about. As a player I'd probably accept the rolls and try to have fun with it. But I wouldn't force my personal opinion on the players. I'm gonna do enough of that once we actually start playing ;)

Quote from: flyingmiceAlso, to reply more directly, it can be interesting and fun to play against type - the big strong Magic User, or thief who lives more by smarts than by deftness. I ran games with a lot of contrarians, who enjoyed this sort of challenge immensely.

Which of course doesn't need a random roll to happen. So forcing the player one way or another in a random roll is often (but not always) counterproductive.

I'm trying to recall exactly, but were there any "You must be this tall to take this class" type of limits in AD&D? Or just those silly 10% XP bonuses?

I do agree using totally random stats was somewhat more feasible with AD&D than 3e since the elder had those large bands of near meaningless change in Attributes.

Quote from: Divine HammerWait...whole group of Andrea Dworkins...and she's dead...that means...that means that you've just created the greatest modern horror RPG campaign in history!

Dear 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

Quote from: SosthenesIt can be fun. But do you have to force the player? That's the point I'm talking about. As a player I'd probably accept the rolls and try to have fun with it. But I wouldn't force my personal opinion on the players. I'm gonna do enough of that once we actually start playing ;)

Of course you don't have to force the player! That's what directed and semi-directed chargen is all about! I'm not trying to champion pure random chargen! I'm just trying to explain how it could be percieved as fun back in the bad old days when we didn't know any better!  

I could care less what chargen people prefer! Whatever floats your boat! SHEEESH!

-clash

Quote from: SosthenesIt can be fun. But do you have to force the player? That's the point I'm talking about. As a player I'd probably accept the rolls and try to have fun with it. But I wouldn't force my personal opinion on the players. I'm gonna do enough of that once we actually start playing ;)

I think it should be a group choice.

In my group, currently everyone uses random or random with a bit of choice, but I have made it quite clear that if anyone would prefer to use points based that's fine.

Now, in practice there would probably be a degree of social pressure to do as the others did, but anyone worth their salt can resist that.

For me, we use random because we like it, if someone joined the group and didn't like it they'd use points while everyone else used random.

The point is to get a fun character, it's not a religion.

Quote from: blakkieWhich of course doesn't need a random roll to happen. So forcing the player one way or another in a random roll is often (but not always) counterproductive.

I'm trying to recall exactly, but were there any "You must be this tall to take this class" type of limits in AD&D? Or just those silly 10% XP bonuses?

I do agree using totally random stats was somewhat more feasible with AD&D than 3e since the elder had those large bands of near meaningless change in Attributes.

Whatever! Way cool and rock on, dude! I couldn't care less! My only point when I launched into this stupid mess was that it isn't a freaking disaster to use pure random chargen! That it could be fun in games that were designed around it! You all seem to be thinking I give a rat's left testicle!

-clash

Quote from: blakkieWhich of course doesn't need a random roll to happen. So forcing the player one way or another in a random roll is often (but not always) counterproductive.

How about: sometimes random roll forces you out of your comfort zone as a player, and maybe suggests a type of character that you wouldn't have thought up on your own.

I mean, I have one player who is excellent, very well-rounded.  He role-plays well, and he also makes a point of being familiar with rules.  But he also tends to play one of two personalities (Jack Nicholson syndrome), no matter the game or genre.

In our Classic Trav game (starting this week...I hope!), we're using straight random roll (death in generation and all).  The characters that this particular player rolled up don't fit his comfort zone at all.  Instead of moping about and complaining about the dehumanizing machinery of character creation, he rose to the challenge and created two wonderful personalities for his PCs.  The random numbers forced him to stretch his boundaries a little, and I think he's a better player for it.  As a matter of fact, he's told me that he's stoked to play his dopey, spoiled noble flirting with space piracy (in a yacht!) because those random rolls forced him to come up with a new approach to playing his characters.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I don't think I can relate to any of these.

In our games, we generally talk about what we want to do (gameworld/genre/character types) and then everyone makes a character while the GM develops the intro.  That establishes character desires, setting, genre, gameworld in one fell swoop.  

If I ever joined a game that was already running, or was running a game where someone wanted to join, we clearly defined the setting/genre/gameworld/character types and the player created something to fit.

Where does all this angst between players and GMs come from?  In nearly 30 years of gaming, I've never (personally) encountered it.

Quote from: flyingmiceOf course you don't have to force the player! That's what directed and semi-directed chargen is all about! I'm not trying to champion pure random chargen! I'm just trying to explain how it could be percieved as fun back in the bad old days when we didn't know any better!  

I could care less what chargen people prefer! Whatever floats your boat! SHEEESH!

No need to get upset. I assumed we were talking about random character generation in the context of this thread, where it was postulated that this method could solve the problems introduced in the original post. All I'm saying is that it might bring up other problems, especially with players (and/or DM) who had the original problems.

In this context, _forcing_ the players to do something is what it's all about, i.e. creating a situation where someone complaining about his character choice because of the campaign just doesn't work. You do this by creating a situation where the choice of character is forced upon him by the rules (more or less). Which (IMHO) isn't a good solution for this particular kind of player-DM conflict.

Discussing the merits of random generation in general would be the material for another thread. And as the lucky few who were able to see my day-to-day choice of underwear and socks can confirm, I'm all about randomness.

Quote from: KenHRHow about: sometimes random roll forces you out of your comfort zone as a player, and maybe suggests a type of character that you wouldn't have thought up on your own.

I think that's where "random with considerable player choice" comes in. But there are other ways of getting people out and about. Why didn't you challenge that player previously to branch out?

QuoteWhatever! Way cool and rock on, dude! I couldn't care less! My only point when I launched into this stupid mess was that it isn't a freaking disaster to use pure random chargen! That it could be fun in games that were designed around it!

I think you missed where I was going. :P That "designing a game for random" largely means toning down the longterm influence of the the individual random rolls. Unless I suppose the entire game is about instilling a feeling of a futile struggle to escape misery, like WFRPG. ;)  ((which incidentally the character generation of which seems to have gotten decent reviews))

QuoteYou all seem to be thinking I give a rat's left testicle!

Yes, your continued posting on the subject had left me with tha misconception. :mischief:

Quote from: VellorianIn our games, we generally talk about what we want to do (gameworld/genre/character types) and then everyone makes a character while the GM develops the intro.  That establishes character desires, setting, genre, gameworld in one fell swoop.  

If I ever joined a game that was already running, or was running a game where someone wanted to join, we clearly defined the setting/genre/gameworld/character types and the player created something to fit.

Wisdom.

Ned

Quote from: blakkieI think that's where "random with considerable player choice" comes in. But there are other ways of getting people out and about. Why didn't you challenge that player previously to branch out?

He was having fun.

Quote from: VellorianIn our games, we generally talk about what we want to do (gameworld/genre/character types) and then everyone makes a character while the GM develops the intro.  That establishes character desires, setting, genre, gameworld in one fell swoop.

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

Quote from: SosthenesNo need to get upset. I assumed we were talking about random character generation in the context of this thread, where it was postulated that this method could solve the problems introduced in the original post. All I'm saying is that it might bring up other problems, especially with players (and/or DM) who had the original problems.

In this context, _forcing_ the players to do something is what it's all about, i.e. creating a situation where someone complaining about his character choice because of the campaign just doesn't work. You do this by creating a situation where the choice of character is forced upon him by the rules (more or less). Which (IMHO) isn't a good solution for this particular kind of player-DM conflict.

Discussing the merits of random generation in general would be the material for another thread. And as the lucky few who were able to see my day-to-day choice of underwear and socks can confirm, I'm all about randomness.

OK - apparently I wasn't following the thread that closely. As you sa, any design choice has plusses and minuses. You always trade off for what package of benefits vs drawbacks you prefer, or you compromise in between and create your own package. If you are designing an airplane, you choose aluminum over steel because weight is more important than strength. If you are designing tanks, your choice would be very different.

In the case of using pure Random Chargen as a tool to limit player character appropriateness, the player's choice is made once - at the buy-in. The player then chooses to limit himself to the method of chargen presented. If the player can't abide that, the valid choice is to leave, not agree and attempt to undermine it.

-clash

Quote from: KenHRHe was having fun.

...aaaand...you think he wouldn't if he got out of his comfort zone?  Think about that. How is it okay for for totally random character generation to take away someone's "fun" (potentially replacing it with something else) when you don't feel it is appropriate to just straight up encourage him to choose something different?

Quote from: JimBobOzWe 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?

This may not be true in every case, but let me throw this out here:

Some players have already played the game in their heads.  To them, the experience that they want to get out of the game is very clear and precise, and everything...  rules, GM, other players are there to facilitate that experience.

Anything else brooks disappointment.

Sometimes vehement disappointment.  ANGRY disappointment.  "OMG that GM totally didn't run game X right!" disappointment.

They build up a number of disappointing experiences under their belt and eventually they burn out, get bitter, whatever.  The game in their heads is simply not going to match up to what they encounter at the table, and compromise is difficult if not impossible.

It's a hell of a nasty spiral to start floating your way down.  I know because I've been there.  And I blame it pretty squarely on games that sell you a particular experience and (more importantly) have a dissonance between that and what actual play they facilitate.

In ye olden dayes, I got excited about roleplaying with AD&D, which had what I'd call "situational" play.  There was no discussion of theme or mood or other jibber-jabber.  There were the rules, the classes, the races, the monsters, and the loot.  What you did with it as GM and players was your own business.  It could be Expedition to the Barrier Peaks gooniness with spacemen or it could be Lord of the Rings: Steve's Saga, with all the pathos and gritty realism you could muster.  Only with stuff like Ravenloft did specific "playstyle" advice start creeping in.

Well, I came back into roleplaying with the World of Darkness, and let me tell you...  nothing will shatter illusions faster than being sold on a game of "dark, brooding, personal horror" and playing a game with gothic superheroes and sex puppets.

If there's a victim mentality, I think that often it's bred from broken expectations.  From all sides.

Note that many of these weird-ass indie games are about creating a very specific experience.

Sorry if that was rambling and...  oh, hi.  I'm new.  :p

Although I want to come down on Must Play A Ninja Lad for being an unimaginative tool, I'd also like to note that some GMs are too in love with their own vision of their campaign.

Quote from: RedFoxSorry if that was rambling and...  oh, hi.  I'm new.  :p

Not to me! Hi Red! :D

-clash

Quote from: jrientsAlthough I want to come down on Must Play A Ninja Lad for being an unimaginative tool, I'd also like to note that some GMs are too in love with their own vision of their campaign.

Being "too in love with my own campaign" - now, that, I've done.  Not for years, but I can remember it.

Also, "failing to pitch the game well and clearly"?  Done that, too.

Quote from: blakkie...aaaand...you think he wouldn't if he got out of his comfort zone?  Think about that. How is it okay for for totally random character generation to take away someone's "fun" (potentially replacing it with something else) when you don't feel it is appropriate to just straight up encourage him to choose something different?

I think it's up to him to decide when he's good and ready to break type.  Hell, he's shoehorned his standard personalities into random guys before, so I figured nothing would stop him this time around.  But he felt ready to make the switch.  If he didn't feel ready, I'd have still said, "Rock on."

Random chargen doesn't take away anyone's fun.  I let them roll up six characters apiece (CT takes 10 minutes to gen up a new guy) and choose who they wanted, with an eye toward making a complete and well-rounded crew.  They had to make some hard choices with the latter requirement, but no one came out with something they didn't like.

Quote from: KenHRI think it's up to him to decide when he's good and ready to break type.

Sure. 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*

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.

:p

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.  :D

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.  :D

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.

Quote from: KenHRIt was good because he was stoked to be playing someone different.  I was stoked because he was stoked.

He wasn't stoked before playing the other characters?

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

Is it happier than when he played one of those other two character types?

Quote from: blakkieHe wasn't stoked before playing the other characters?

Is it happier than when he played one of those other two character types?

He's always stoked.  He was just especially stoked this time.

As for happier?  I suppose it is, in a way, because he's sort of found his own way to "grow" his gaming.  And I didn't have to challenge his ideas to make it so.

But that's not to say he wasn't happy before this change.  He explored all facets of his standard personalities to his satisfaction, and now feels it's time to move on.  He's like that, though; he likes to think about how person X would react in a full spectrum of situations.

Quote from: KenHRHe's always stoked.  He was just especially stoked this time.

As for happier?  I suppose it is, in a way, because he's sort of found his own way to "grow" his gaming.  And I didn't have to challenge his ideas to make it so.

I didn't say challenge his ideas. Challenge the player. Hopefully you have some insight into what he might like to move on to? Then plant that in in his ear as motivation to get moving. EDIT: Even if he doesn't go in that particular direction.

QuoteBut that's not to say he wasn't happy before this change.  He explored all facets of his standard personalities to his satisfaction, and now feels it's time to move on.  He's like that, though; he likes to think about how person X would react in a full spectrum of situations.

What if he hadn't been ready to move on though?  There is the rub.

Quote from: blakkieWhat if he hadn't been ready to move on though?  There is the rub.

He would have played the same guy.  He would have had fun.  I would have had fun.

Quote from: KenHRHe would have played the same guy.

What? The same guy he usually does instead of the one he rolled?

Quote from: blakkieWhat? The same guy he usually does instead of the one he rolled?

Oops...I was unclear.

Yeah, he probably would have played one of his usual guys.  And probably would have contributed to the group's fun.

(btw, I sincerely apologize for de-railing this thread.)

Quote from: RPGPunditShe can summon 3D6 other hideously ugly women with repressed inverted rape fetishes.

RPGPundit

Okay, maybe this belongs in the Actual Play forum, so the mods can move this if appropriate.

GM: Okay, you guys were able to climb out the car windows and run away as the zombies flipped your car on its top.  There's a diner just up the street, and the high school is a few hundred yards to the north.

Bob:  I say he head for the high school.  The diner's too close.  We'd just get surrounded.  Let's head for the school and see if we can out-maneuver them.

Steve:  Yeah, okay.  You said the zombies were all female, right?  Were they all wearing "Delta Gamma" sweatshirts or something?

GM: No, this group is about as far away from a bunch of sorority girls as any depraved necromancer could imagine.  Roll a Notice check, DC 15.

Steve:  19.

GM:  Now that you think about it, they all seemed to be the same woman, if that's what you want to call it.  And every one of them preternaturally hideous.

Bob:  Pretty badly decomposed, eh?

GM:  That's not what I said.  Just hideous.  Anyway, you've reached the door to the high school, with the shambling host far behind but straining toward you relentlessly.  The door is locked.

Bob:  That's why God make crowbars.

GM:  Roll it.  DC 10

Bob:  Booyah!  23!  And that's why I'm captain of the football team, baby!

GM:  So, was that said in character?

Bob:  What, the football captain thing?  Er, I guess so.  I guess I wouldn't have named my character Chad Worthington if I wanted him to be humble.  Sure.  And I repeat: Captain of the football team, baby!

GM:  You notice that the zombie horde suddenly seems a little more animated, it's shouting and movements more urgent.

Steve: Nice work, "Chad."  Anyway, let's get into the school.  If we head to the science labs, Dexter might find something useful against the zombies.

GM: As you move through the school, you can hear the screeching a moaning outside.

Bob: Yeah, yeah, I know: Brains!  Brains!

GM:  Both of you roll a Notice check--DC 15.

Bob:  18

Steve:  16

GM:  It hits you both at once.  It sounded like "brains" before--I mean, what else it could it be?  They're zombies, right.  But now that you've had time to collect yourself, you can hear that they're actually saying, "rape...rape..."

Steve:  Let's forget about the science labs.  I just want to see where they're going and go somewhere else.

Bob:  Yeah, no kidding.  Dude, I don't know what you have in mind, but this rape zombie thing is just wrong.  The town can save itself.  We're out of here.

Quote from: KenHROops...I was unclear.

Yeah, he probably would have played one of his usual guys.  And probably would have contributed to the group's fun.

So he would have ignored, subverted, or generally perverted the results of the rolls to effectively meaninglessness? That sounds decidely like NOT random character generation. :D

Quote(btw, I sincerely apologize for de-railing this thread.)

You've had help. :o

Quote from: blakkieSo he would have ignored, subverted, or generally perverted the results of the rolls to effectively meaninglessness? That sounds decidely like NOT random character generation. :D

Touche!

Nah, he would have made it work with the rolls as best he could; he'd just interpret the rolls in his own fashion.  He's absolutely not a problem player in that sense.

Quote from: KenHRTouche!

Nah, he would have made it work with the rolls as best he could; he'd just interpret the rolls in his own fashion.  He's absolutely not a problem player in that sense.

I wouldn't consider him a "problem" player even if he did, because I wouldn't consider the problem lying within the player. I'd just ask him if he wanted to reroll the character, helping him subvert the random character generator :mischief: ....and then when he was pissed at what he got from the second rolling I'd ask him WTH he wanted to play and tell him to just pick it off the list and quit wasting my time. :)

Because REALLY STOKED about your character is the only way to play.

P.S. Having some sort of random option to fall back, and then just ignore the results of anyway, can be good for an idea generator. Because a common problem is too many choices. People generally deal better with shorter lists.

Quote from: blakkieI wouldn't consider him a "problem" player even if he did, because I wouldn't consider the problem lying within the player. I'd just ask him if he wanted to reroll the character, helping him subvert the random character generator :mischief: ....and then when he was pissed at what he got from the second rolling I'd ask him WTH he wanted to play and tell him to just pick it off the list and quit wasting my time. :)

Because REALLY STOKED about your character is the only way to play.

P.S. Having some sort of random option to fall back, and then just ignore the results of anyway, can be good for an idea generator. Because a common problem is too many choices. People generally deal better with shorter lists.

Really stoked just describes him at all times, really.  He's my favorite player for that reason.  I suppose this time around he's really, really stoked.

Agreed re: random generators vs. too many choices.

Well, blakkie, I have a feeling we'd not be the best candidates for one anothers' games (though who really knows?), but I can at least say this discussion has given me some food for thought and maybe some little ways I can throw out a suggestion or something to push my players along.  I've had problems with folks who won't come out of their shell during a session...not really "problems," as they say they're having a good time, but maybe prodding them in the way you suggest would help them be a bit more active in play.

Most players are insane.
Oppression is good for them.
amen