Quote from: DavetheLost;1010237Of course in Star Wars the PCs are usually expected to be Rebels.  

I'll get my hat...

I thought that's what Pundit was talking about rather than rebels without a cause kind of rebels. I find them less than interesting.

Quote from: Dumarest;1010291This reflects my experience.

I think they expect D&D to be a power fantasy where they get to have fun doing stuff they can't in real life. And then they get jailed.

Davethelost was joking.

I think there's definitely room for a Robin-Hood or Fafhrd and Grey Mouser like 'rebel' or rogue but some players try to play a meta-dowhateverthefuckIfeellikeatthemoment character.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1010329I think they expect D&D to be a power fantasy where they get to have fun doing stuff they can't in real life. And then they get jailed.

I wasn't talking about D&D, but sure, you could play it that way if you wanted to, just like any other game. Just turn law enforcement into Keystone Kops.

Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010351Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.

That's fine to a point, but still, the GM gets to define his setting, and if there aren't samurai with kewl katanas that slice through any armor known to man, because hey that's kewl, he gets to say so.

Some people mistake "sandbox" for "players get what they want and go f* the GM."

Also, if the GM doesn't want to play out sex scenes, or rape, or torture, or anything else like that, he get's to say so.

But players get the ultimate veto. If they don't like what the GM is offering, they can go find or start a different game. And maybe Joe the GM will even play in it...

Frank

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010206Do you have problems with players that insist on playing a PC that is centrally defined as one that breaks all the rules? The loner type, or the total boor, or the guy who tells off authority figures, etc...

Loner type? No. I just find them more suited to 1 on 1 games without a large party.

Total boors? No, but they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Guy who tells off authority figures? No, but the old saying, "The nail that stands the tallest gets hammered first." does indeed still apply. Authority figures tend to be a bit gruff when it comes to defiance of their authority.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010351Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.

Do you prefer a collaborative style where the group creates the game/genre/setting together? Or do you mean an old school approach where the GM defines the setting but the PCs are free to do whatever they want within it? In the latter case the GM is still in charge of setting the parameters but those are "here is a sandbox, do what (adventurous stuff) you want" rather than "Here is your Quest".

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010351Why should it bug me? Players should have their characters do what they want. The DM has a different role from the players in most games, but I hate the idea that the tone and flow of the campaign are the DM's birth right and the players need to play along with whatever he or she expects. Everyone should do what they want, roll with the punches, and when something bad happens to you take the consequences without being a baby.

OK, how much work do you as a player, or your players if you are the GM, put into designing and running the campaign world?  If The GM has a greater share of world building and design than any individual player, or as usually, all the players combined, then guess what? You're damned sure the GM is expect to set the bulk of the tone and flow of the campaign. The GM is expected to do all the work setting up the world, designing and running adventures.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1010219Not as long as the player doesn't mind his character being marginalized, ignored or subject to "Take this insolent varlet down to the Pit of Misery and teach him some manners!"

My longstanding POV, mind, is that these free-spirit types are almost invariably shocked, dismayed and ultimately angered if they're actually subjected to the consequences of being rulesbreakers.

Not necessarily; there are those who are happy for the attention-grabbing derail of the entire game that escalating consequences against further disruption brings.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010406OK, how much work do you as a player, or your players if you are the GM, put into designing and running the campaign world?  If The GM has a greater share of world building and design than any individual player, or as usually, all the players combined, then guess what? You're damned sure the GM is expect to set the bulk of the tone and flow of the campaign. The GM is expected to do all the work setting up the world, designing and running adventures.

I disagree. There is a natural asymmetry between the GM and players, but I think if that turns into GM power over the player's decisions and actions it makes a game not worth playing. In some respects it isn't even a game any more. Yes, the GM does more preparatory work. If that feels un fun or un fair, don't do it.

Quote from: ffilz;1010366That's fine to a point, but still, the GM gets to define his setting, and if there aren't samurai with kewl katanas that slice through any armor known to man, because hey that's kewl, he gets to say so.

Some people mistake "sandbox" for "players get what they want and go f* the GM."

Also, if the GM doesn't want to play out sex scenes, or rape, or torture, or anything else like that, he get's to say so.

But players get the ultimate veto. If they don't like what the GM is offering, they can go find or start a different game. And maybe Joe the GM will even play in it...

Frank

The 'kewl powerzz' thing is a totally different issue. The GM is free to define what mechanics are in play (though I would say this should be done within reason and with consent of the players). If a player wants to buy a katana and act like it has magic powers, that's his or her right. It is the GM's right to enforce rules that make it perform just like any other sword. That isn't even a conflict; it's just a player having a character imagine something that isn't quite true.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010421The 'kewl powerzz' thing is a totally different issue. The GM is free to define what mechanics are in play (though I would say this should be done within reason and with consent of the players). If a player wants to buy a katana and act like it has magic powers, that's his or her right. It is the GM's right to enforce rules that make it perform just like any other sword. That isn't even a conflict; it's just a player having a character imagine something that isn't quite true.

Sure, color and mechanics are separate, but the GM still gets to say "I'm running a game set in a fantasy version of medieval Europe" and request players name their characters reasonably, and not describe their equipment as samurai armor and katana.

QuoteI disagree. There is a natural asymmetry between the GM and players, but I think if that turns into GM power over the player's decisions and actions it makes a game not worth playing. In some respects it isn't even a game any more. Yes, the GM does more preparatory work. If that feels un fun or un fair, don't do it.

The GM still has a say in tone and direction of the campaign. He can say "No, I'm not going to run a game where the PCs rape an pillage through the towns I set up scenarios in."

The GM gets to present the game he wants to run. The players get to negotiate, and then decide if they want to play in it.

No one gets to force their play style on anyone. Everyone, GM and players alike, get to decide what they are signing up for and walk if what is presented is not what they want to play. Hopefully people generally able to put together a reasonable group of players and GM that can agree generally on what they want to play. THEN the players get to make decisions however they like within that framework, even push its boundaries, but they don't get to, after agreeing to parameters (from mechanical to color to tone), turn the apple cart over without expecting a response from the GM or other players. Nor can the GM turn the apple cart over on the players.

Frank

Definitely have had players who wanted to be able to tweaks the noses of the nobility and get away with it, even if it was inappropriate to the setting/context.

Also had a player who always wanted to play things on "hard mode" - making things harder for himself and the rest of the group with his antics: in our TOR game, he min-maxed the best warrior in the group...who was an ardent pacifist. In our B/X game, his character had an overwhelming sense of curiosity that led him to wander off and find danger at the most inopportune times, etc.

In both cases, the other players let them know that wasn't welcome. Work with your group or find another one.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010419I disagree. There is a natural asymmetry between the GM and players, but I think if that turns into GM power over the player's decisions and actions it makes a game not worth playing. In some respects it isn't even a game any more. Yes, the GM does more preparatory work. If that feels un fun or un fair, don't do it.

Yeah, this is roughly my view. In general, I like to find something that is fun for both GM and players - and usually there is some choice where this is true. If the players feel cool and awesome, I think that's generally a good thing. As Ravenswing put it in another thread, about Conan -

Quote from: Ravenswing;1010299Oh aye. An amusing aspect that just came to mind is the number of times in such matters that Conan comes up: the sterling example of the ultimate free spirit, who takes no guff from no one ...

... and in how many Conan stories did the tale start with him being either in prison or on the run from the authorities after having mouthed off to the wrong person or ignored a law he thought was silly?

Yeah, players often enjoy feeling like they're Conan, or Corwin (from Amber), or Han Solo, or the X-Men. As long as they feel like they are cool in this way, then they don't mind being chased by storm troopers or sentinel robots or similar, and other problems.

If I am GM, and the players want to be rebels, then I'll suggest things where they can be cool rebels like the above. Even if it's in a more restrictive social setting, there are choices for giving latitude for rebels. For example, in my Vinland game, a player wanted to play a fighting woman in a largely sexist society. I worked out with her a background where she was from a noble family, and her parents were unfairly exiled so she was motivated to righteous vengeance. The Vinlander society respected righteous vengeance, and gave her latitude out of respect for her parents and because she had unfairly grown up in exile.

Unfortunately, in a number of groups, I've seen it turn into the GM trying to put the players in their place, and fighting against them, rather than trying to find a way for everyone to have a good time.