Quote from: jeff37923;362601Get off your fucking cross. Not everything is "OMFG! GM Opressorz!".

I agree with Two Fishes, actually. If a DM performs such a dick-move in-game and manages to be patronizing out of it as well, then he sure isn't the smartest pea in the pod, so to speak.

I for one welcome that kind of stuff at the game table. I just roll with it, and in the end, it makes for a better game play. I don't think anybody's talking about a player modifying the adventure as it unfolds, here, but rather fleshing out his/her character background as he goes, and that's a very good thing, IMO. That makes it relevant to the events at hand, rather than writing some 15-page bio out of the game, with little-to-no chance of it ever being relevant to the adventure the character goes through.

Quote from: Benoist;362605I agree with Two Fishes, actually. If a DM performs such a dick-move in-game and manages to be patronizing out of it as well, then he sure isn't the smartest pea in the pod, so to speak.

I for one welcome that kind of stuff at the game table. I just roll with it, and in the end, it makes for a better game play. I don't think anybody's talking about a player modifying the adventure as it unfolds, here, but rather fleshing out his/her character background as he goes, and that's a very good thing, IMO. That makes it relevant to the events at hand, rather than writing some 15-page bio out of the game, with little-to-no chance of it ever being relevant to the adventure the character goes through.

Sorry to do some copypasta, but I addressed this on page 4 (and quoted below). Typically I find a lot more gamers willing to be Players than GMs, so when someone does volunteer to take the time and effort to GM games, that should be respected by the Players in that game.

(Cue wails and cries of GM Oppression...)

Quote from: jeff37923;361441First off, there is nothing wrong with saying "No" to your Players if you are GM.

I don't mind Player input for a campaign as long as it is A) Not an attempt to gain a special advantage over other Players, B) Not an attempt to game the system, C) Run by me as GM for my approval, and D) The input fits in with the campaign setting genre and base idea. It also helps to talk to the GM about these additions before the game starts and not just drop them into the middle of the game while in session.

The reason for A) and B) is because there are Munchkins and Twinks out there that will show up in your game and try to dominate the group, which tends to drive other Players away from the group.

The reason for C) and D) is because as GM running a game in a setting that is your own since you are running it means that you have ownership over that setting during that campaign. Too many cooks spoil the soup and having non-genre conventions show up mid-campaign (like magic in a Traveller game) or powerful associations not accounted for (like a Player proclaiming that his character in a group of ragamuffins is actually the God-King) can really fuck up whatever the GM has had planned or was running for the campaign. The Players do not know what the GM has planned, and shouldn't if they want to fully enjoy the campaign, thus they do not know how the added material will affect the campaign.

I'm no advocate of wails against "GM Oppression" Jeff, you know that.

Now, that said, I think the crux of the issue has more to do with your points C and D above.

I guess it once again comes down to the sort of synergy there is between the players and GM, to me. If I don't know the guys I'm playing with, I'll be more than wary to allow them to come up with all sorts of set elements, this group or that relationship, adding to their characters background without them running their ideas through me before-hand. If, however, I know the guys I'm playing with and know we're on the same page (via pre-game sessions, for instance), then I'll be totally okay with them coming up with stuff like this in-game, so long as it doesn't impact the actual events of the game directly. I'll then run with it, incorporate it to the game as it unfolds, and, if constructive, might allow this or that background element to impact the game itself down the road.

QuoteTypically I find a lot more gamers willing to be Players than GMs, so when someone does volunteer to take the time and effort to GM games, that should be respected by the Players in that game.

Unless, of course, you make it clear that your game will be endorsing some forms of group creativity, using the group as the final authority rather than solely the GM on more minor matters.

I usually find the best GMs, when running for a new group, always give a little spiel like "Hey, this is how I run things, this is what I expect.  Is this understood and cool with everyone before we begin, and do you have any suggestions?"  Those types of GMs understand why authority is distributed the way it is for a given game and respect the position and the responsibility it entails, rather than just using the position as an excuse for being able to make decisions on a whim because they feel like it.

I also don't understand this allusion to campaign-changing edits by players mid-adventure.  Most games do not distribute that type of narrative authority unless they have a type of world-gen before hand, in which case everything is constructed so that it makes logical sense and to prevent contradictions/oddities.  Every other game I know of that allows ad-hoc narrative power to players severely limits the type of changes that can be made (BW, for instance, allows the GM "secret notes" which are important aspects of the world that cannot be altered by the players).

Quote from: Peregrin;362625I usually find the best GMs, when running for a new group, always give a little spiel like "Hey, this is how I run things, this is what I expect.  Is this understood and cool with everyone before we begin, and do you have any suggestions?"  Those types of GMs understand why authority is distributed the way it is for a given game and respect the position and the responsibility it entails, rather than just using the position as an excuse for being able to make decisions on a whim because they feel like it.

I'll one-up on this. It's actually a requirement for an excellent game, in my opinion. You have to have that kind of communication going on prior to, during, and after the game to makes sure that everyone's on the same page. When you do that, you create a group dynamic that can only participate to the game's awesomeness, in the end.

I don't care whether the name Champions of Honor is lame or not, and I certainly don't worry about my authori-tah.  For me, it's just pure and simple Immersion.

In the official, WotC example, they start off with a player creating what his character's shield looks like.  The player then goes on to create out of whole cloth an organization that has defended the citizens of the town for a hundred years and anointed his character as a member of that group.  That's quite a retcon.  What's next, reminding the gate guard of the ancient contract that allows a Champion of Honor to partake freely of the local maidens?  As Peregrin stated, that level of Narrative Control on the fly isn't even present in Narrative games.

OTOH, you have a perfectly reasonable example given here in this board where a player ties together a established aspect of his character background, and an established aspect of the GM's setting.  Unfortunately WotC didn't go with that example.

Later WotC adds in this little tidbit.

Quote from: 4E DMG2, Page 18Descriptive Control

When you grant partial descriptive control to your players, you allow them to specify what they see and hear in a scene.

DMs might prefer to make [combat] encounters off limits for descriptive control. Allowing players to add obstacles and features might unbalance carefully planned combats. A daring DM might let the PCs play in his sandbox if he or she feels confident enough to countermand advantages that players try to sneak into the situation.

First I'll just comment on the language.  Apparently Descriptive Control is only for "daring" GM's who are "confident".  Sheesh.

But then look at the core reason why you have to be a GM-god in order to allow this daring method: Players may try to sneak unbalancing advantages into their description.  In other words: your players will spend more time thinking about the metagame of narrative description than actually playing their characters.

Original 4e is a Tactical RPG, but here's the DMG2, where we give you advice as to how to morph it into a Narrative RPG. Bleah

Maybe in DMG3 we'll actually hear about Immersion.  I doubt it though.  Edwards and other Forge-ites never did seem to quite grok why a Simulationist was a Simulationist.  Pretty sure it was the obvious weakness of GNS theory regarding the S that caused Ron to give up on the whole thing altogether.  The 4e design philosophy more and more does seem to be influenced by Forge theory.  Too bad it's apparently being implemented by people who don't understand the concepts they're using.

Quote from: CRKrueger;362639Maybe in DMG3 we'll actually hear about Immersion.

Now that'd be interesting...

Quote from: Benoist;362624I'm no advocate of wails against "GM Oppression" Jeff, you know that.

I know, that comment was for others.

Quote from: Benoist;362624Now, that said, I think the crux of the issue has more to do with your points C and D above.

I guess it once again comes down to the sort of synergy there is between the players and GM, to me. If I don't know the guys I'm playing with, I'll be more than wary to allow them to come up with all sorts of set elements, this group or that relationship, adding to their characters background without them running their ideas through me before-hand. If, however, I know the guys I'm playing with and know we're on the same page (via pre-game sessions, for instance), then I'll be totally okay with them coming up with stuff like this in-game, so long as it doesn't impact the actual events of the game directly. I'll then run with it, incorporate it to the game as it unfolds, and, if constructive, might allow this or that background element to impact the game itself down the road.

That is the crux. The relationship between the Players and the GM can make or break this kind of campaign setting additional interaction. If you can trust your Players not to break the campaign, then that is a godsend. I have done quite a bit of FLGS public play and have had to deal with Twinks and Munchkins in those environments who were more than willing to break the campaign for their own advantage.

I really liked the farm animal subversion, myself.

Now I, as DM, would have just had the guard say he never heard of the CoH and make the PC roll a bluff check, since obviously the PC is lying because there is no CoH group in my campaign world (which is pretty much how I would say it at the table).

Quote from: jgants;362660Now I, as DM, would have just had the guard say he never heard of the CoH and make the PC roll a bluff check, since obviously the PC is lying because there is no CoH group in my campaign world (which is pretty much how I would say it at the table).

Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?

Quote from: Shazbot79;362379"The Stonecutters"

I'm not seeing where this inherently "cooler" than anything else.

Quote from: jgants;362660I really liked the farm animal subversion, myself.

Now I, as DM, would have just had the guard say he never heard of the CoH and make the PC roll a bluff check, since obviously the PC is lying because there is no CoH group in my campaign world (which is pretty much how I would say it at the table).

And which is what I mentioned at the earlier stages of the thread.

Quote from: raeth;362495(QUOTE)
"I bang vigorously on my shield, showing them the emblem of my warrior order."
Ed has never before referenced and emblem on his shield, but since it's his character, he can introduce it without any adjustment by you [the DM].
"Do you recognize this symbol?" Ed exclaims, in his deep Erekam voice. "It identifies me as a member of the Champions of Honor!" Do you not know us?"
You [the DM] have never heard of the Champions of Honor. You reach for your notepad, ready to scrawl the necessary notation.
In character as the indiffierent guard, you scratch your head and say, "We don't receive visitors hereabouts, stranger."
"Why, for a hundred years the Champpions of Honor have protected the good folk of this region, driving off orcs and bandits alike!"
(QUOTE)

DM in character: Guard: "oh yeah I remember now, your the group that was disbanded by the king for ritual acts of fornication with farm animals. How sad."

DM out of character: "Ed, if you want to run a game yourself I'm their, if not at least run background info by me BEFORE this damn game."

Quote from: two_fishes;362555this is the sort of patronizing attitude that i mentioned bothered me upthread. your response is to completely pervert the player's contribution to the fiction and you don't seem to have any reason beyond, "i'm the dm and it's my game, so i'm the only one who's allowed to create elements of the fictional game world on the fly." if you do have a reason, like that mentioned upthread, where someone said that sort of play ruins his sense of immersion, that's something i can accept. but objecting to it because... why? it intrudes on your authori-TEH? that strikes me  as childish, especially given the insulting way you suggest subverting the contribution.

Quote from: two_fishes;362675Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?

I could turn the question around and ask why such thorough ownership of the fictional setting is so distasteful to you. Lets leave aside the OOC explanation, which is certainly valid in at least some circumstances wherein said DM might have an in-game reason for not wanting to allow such a group and becoming annoyed that the player is introducing such details without consulting the DM first, although I might go about saying it differently. After all, my reading of raeth's post is that the DM didn't initially object to the detail being introduced, or the existence of the group the player was claiming membership in on behalf of his character. What seemed to jump the shark was making the group so locally prominent and prestigious, possibly circumventing a challenge that the DM had planned for this encounter, or even allowing room for further "benefits" being called upon later on. What makes it ok for the player to introduce such a detail, unbidden, into the campaign world, but not ok for the DM to expand upon that fictional detail. Perhaps the group being out of favor actually plays into the DMs goals for the long-term game.

Edit: Folks can tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that while many of us don't have a problem with details being injected into a campaign by players, the example given to illustrate that concept is not a very good one.

Quote from: two_fishes;362675Why is such thorough ownership of the fictional setting so important to you? If a player wants to make a contribution like this, that ties his character into the setting, and gives his character a context he enjoys, why not allow it?

If you just take it for granted that people favor immersion and exploration of the fictional world, then all your bemused objections melt away.

Elliot's got the right of it, twofishes.

I'm surprised at the way how you phrased your question. "Ownership of the fictional setting" seems needlessly adversarial. It hardly describes the dynamic in most groups.

Regards,
David R