First 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.

And now, another tale from the same FLGS d20 Star Wars group which had a PC smother a grenade. This is an example of Player ideas that just don't fit in with the group. Although, this one was self-correcting.

Different Player than the grenade smotherer. We had chatted during character creation and the Players wanted to play Rebels during the Rebellion Era, so we all started rolling up some Rebels. One Player tells me that his character was a former TIE Fighter ace pilot who used to fly with Soontir Fel's 181st TIE Fighter Squadron and was a staunch Imperial loyalist. I asked him then why he was joining a group of Rebels who hated the Empire?

In a loud voice the Player answered that, "He wanted to join the Rebels so that he could capture all of them and turn them into the Empire for the reward." He said this so loud that the rest of the Players in the FLGS heard him and took his statement at face value.

Within ten minutes of actual play beginning, the PC who intended to betray the Rebels was reduced to a smouldering skeleton like Uncle Owen or Aunt Beru from the original Star Wars. The rest of the party decided to be proactive and blasted the douchebag before he could cause any problems in game.

Yes, it was metagaming by everyone. I found no problem with that since it kept a Twink douchebag from shitting all over everyone else's fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;361441One Player tells me that his character was a former TIE Fighter ace pilot who used to fly with Soontir Fel's 181st TIE Fighter Squadron and was a staunch Imperial loyalist. I asked him then why he was joining a group of Rebels who hated the Empire?

In a loud voice the Player answered that, "He wanted to join the Rebels so that he could capture all of them and turn them into the Empire for the reward." He said this so loud that the rest of the Players in the FLGS heard him and took his statement at face value.

Within ten minutes of actual play beginning, the PC who intended to betray the Rebels was reduced to a smouldering skeleton like Uncle Owen or Aunt Beru from the original Star Wars. The rest of the party decided to be proactive and blasted the douchebag before he could cause any problems in game.

I don't know the players in question, obviously, and maybe he really was a twink douchebag, I don't know. I'm willing to take your word for it. But with the games and people I've been playing with the past few years, this would be an awesome player motivation. We would want it to be player knowledge so that we could all set up our characters to play off it in fun and dramatic ways. It could be fuel for amazing games. The players who insisted on immediately turning around and killing the treacherous character would be the ones shitting on everyone's fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;361441It 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.

That's exactly what I was talking about. So, one year into our current 3.5 campaign, the monk player and I realize that it would really help better assess what his character code requires of him if we actually wrote it down. ( You know, actually nail down fully spelled out thoughts as opposed to groping a bit here and there.) But I'm fine for him to write that down. What I wouldn't be fine with is for him to make it up mid-way through the session as a convenient response to an in-game situation.

I mention that because him and I wanting to have a codex for his monk came up when the party looted a long dead corpse. He wasn't sure this is fine for his monk. Could we have made up a ruling there and then? Sure. But it's more coherently thought through pre- or post-session. Also, more cooperation between the player and the GM.

In direct response to Windjammer's post


One man's meat... because for me, that sense of watching a story come together in play is the most thrilling part playing an rpg. The actual story that comes out of play is disposable. The experience of making it is awesome. Finding the connections & conflicts between characters, building toward dramatic moments, watching a sketch of a character fill in by means of difficult decisions and on-the-spot creations--it's great. Doing that collaboratively with a group of players who are each doing the same thing? Awesome. Add dice into the mix? It's on fire! I love Burning Wheel precisely for this reason, and don't find moving in and out of perspectives at all jarring.

Quote from: two_fishes;361444I don't know the players in question, obviously, and maybe he really was a twink douchebag, I don't know. I'm willing to take your word for it. But with the games and people I've been playing with the past few years, this would be an awesome player motivation. We would want it to be player knowledge so that we could all set up our characters to play off it in fun and dramatic ways. It could be fuel for amazing games.

In 28 years of gaming I have never encountered a group that would have had a positive reaction to the antagonistic purpose and intention of a Player and his PC towards their own party, except on the Internet.

 

Quote from: two_fishes;361444The players who insisted on immediately turning around and killing the treacherous character would be the ones shitting on everyone's fun.

Considering that the Players involved consisted of everyone else in the group with the exception of the treacherous character, I wouldn't call it shitting on everyone's fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;361457In 28 years of gaming I have never encountered a group that would have had a positive reaction to the antagonistic purpose and intention of a Player and his PC towards their own party, except on the Internet.

:idunno:You choose who you play with and what kinds of games you play, I guess. The example you gave was extreme, but player characters whose beliefs and goals cause conflict with other player characters is a great source of drama. So long as you're with other players who also enjoy that and know that character conflict doesn't extend into player conflict, it's a huge amount of fun.

Quote from: two_fishes;361458The example you gave was extreme, but player characters whose beliefs and goals cause conflict with other player characters is a great source of drama. So long as you're with other players who also enjoy that and know that character conflict doesn't extend into player conflict, it's a huge amount of fun.

Which, clearly, was not the case in his example.  If everyone is up front and on board with it, then it's fine.  When one person makes this decision for the whole group, then it's not fine.

It's incredibly important to remember that for every player who might think PCvPC conflict is interesting and dramatic, there may be a player who absolutely hate that in their games.  Some players can't even stand in-game arguments, much less anything worse.

Me, I think it can be good when done right.  My Rifts campaign had a PC knowingly sell his soul to a demon in exchange for not dying and slowly became more and more evil as a result while the rest of the PCs kept ignoring the warning signs.  Ultimately, he became a NPC villain that they killed.  Some of us saw this as a crowning moment of awesome in the game.  A couple of players really hated it and thought it violated an implicit social contract.

Who was right?  We all were.  It never occurred to either side that the other side would be surprised by their reactions.

So, from now on, the social contract of PC behavior towards PC behavior is explicitly set before the campaign begins and before character creation.  For example, in my current D&D game, I explicitly defined the parameters of the game that the PCs must like and trust each other and are forbidden from acting against each other, because I'm going for more of a black and white fantasy feel.  However, if I ever did, say, a Dark Heresy campaign, that would have a very different explicit social contract.

I guess my point is that "don't make ninjas for this wild west campaign" isn't the only sort of PC restrictions GMs should think about when planning a game.  It may be wise to explicitly work out how the PC act towards each other as well.

Quote from: two_fishes;361458... but player characters whose beliefs and goals cause conflict with other player characters is a great source of drama. So long as you're with other players who also enjoy that and know that character conflict doesn't extend into player conflict, it's a huge amount of fun.

Very true but it also presents a problem to the GM who sometimes has to mediate between these characters in game. I've run many player conflict games and the one thing I've noticed is, that is does make the role of the GM harder. Most often there's an escalation of conflict(s) and you (as the GM) have to decide if such conflicts become the focus of the campaign or talk to players and see if they want to follow whatever you have got planned.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Windjammer;361408Correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't mean this as a rhetorical gesture), but this is the first time that what's here called "Incidental Reference" is brought to a core rulebook in D&D. Point the first. Point the second: I'm not sure I've ever seen that technique in any D&D gaming group I've frequented, ever. I surely lack the many years that others have on this site playing D&D, but playing D&D and incidental reference are antithetical to me, and that's even before I try to rationalize it.

I find miniatures to be a holdover from wargaming days (some D&Ders stopped using them altogether when they abandoned the Chainmail rules in favor of the optional D&D combat matrices we (well most) all know and love, including Gygax), and I know for a fact that they pull me out of FPP and throw me into TPP, but it doesn't bother me that the suggestion to use them is there in many RPG corebooks, including ones that don't explicitly require the use of minis.

There are a lot of meta-"tools" people use to enhance their game, and some work better for others.  I think shared narrative control can be a useful tool for some groups, but obviously just like I have a very strong dislike for miniatures, a lot of people have a strong dislike for passing the narrative torch from the GM to a player.  It's a different way to do things that definitely won't work for everyone, but I don't think suggesting it is going to turn D&D into a "Forgie" game or anything, no more than 4e's requirement of minis has turned it into a "boardgame."  

Hey, at least it's an optional suggestion that won't really affect your group's playstyle if you don't want it to.  I didn't get so lucky when they decided to require the use of a battle-grid -- my playstyle got chucked out the window.

Quote from: David R;361482I've run many player conflict games and the one thing I've noticed is, that is does make the role of the GM harder. Most often there's an escalation of conflict(s) and you (as the GM) have to decide if such conflicts become the focus of the campaign or talk to players and see if they want to follow whatever you have got planned.

Also, you suddenly have to adjudicate player on player action. Personally, I don't give a whit about monsters or NPCs - they exist to be dealt with, become pawns, et al.. And so if something comes up that needs adjudicating, I have no problem erring on the side of the players, if it comes down to that. With PvP action, that's impossible.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361346So Champions of Honor is silly, but Dwarven Bouncers is divine?

Seanchai

Yes? No? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Did I say Champions of Honor was silly? Did I say "Dwarven Bouncers" wasn't? Shut up.

Quote from: Seanchai;361371Yeah. I'm just...amused by the folks who snicker at Champion of Honor and then produce ridiculous contributions themselves. That's the trouble with pointing and laughing at someone else's ideas - you'd better be damn sure you can do better.

Seanchai

You really are a miserable prick. Not just a miserable prick, a miserable prick who either can't read or is too stupid to read before flying off at the typing fingers about shit that exists only in your undeservedly self-righteous head. Plus, you don't even posses the ability to make your irrelevant regurgitations entertaining.

Quote from: Peregrin;361489I find miniatures to be a holdover from wargaming days (some D&Ders stopped using them altogether when they abandoned the Chainmail rules in favor of the optional D&D combat matrices we (well most) all know and love, including Gygax), and I know for a fact that they pull me out of FPP and throw me into TPP

I anticipated this point and didn't want to work it in the post you're commenting on. For the record, I totally agree with your assessment, and, if anything, would like to add that I think it pertains to DMing as much.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a difference between assuming the third person's point of view when that third person is the grand narrator, and assuming that POV when the third person in question is the grand tactician. They are akin, but you engage in different thought processes.

You are obviously right though, that at a basic level both pull you out of playing your character (or the monsters) from their first personal point of view.

Quote from: two_fishes;361448In direct response to Windjammer's post


One man's meat... because for me, that sense of watching a story come together in play is the most thrilling part playing an rpg. The actual story that comes out of play is disposable. The experience of making it is awesome. Finding the connections & conflicts between characters, building toward dramatic moments, watching a sketch of a character fill in by means of difficult decisions and on-the-spot creations--it's great. Doing that collaboratively with a group of players who are each doing the same thing? Awesome. Add dice into the mix? It's on fire! I love Burning Wheel precisely for this reason, and don't find moving in and out of perspectives at all jarring.

Forget to say so straight away... but thanks for that post! Very concise and well written summary of what you find enjoyable about this play style. It's not for everyone but I'm not denying that some people are all in for that.

Great post, thanks.