So I've been reading about Rome and Roman Culture for the last few days. I'm not an expert at all, but I'm getting a decent picture - one good enough to set a game towards the end of the Republic.

It isn't going to be a real historical game. Rome in this world is called, "Sane," but it is basically the same kind of thing.

The idea is the one of the players is a rich equestrian that own about two dozen farms on the edge of the empire. He also owns a villa on the outskirts of Sane and a Domus in the city... not a great one, but it comes with the money.

The story is about hardship, the game starts with a cut scene basically. The players farms are pillaged by barbarians that are preparing to make war on the city. A group of them come through, kill a number of his plebs and make off with a majority of the harvest.

Without the harvest, he isn't going to make any money in the fall. When his money runs out, he won't be able to afford his standard of living. This will give him, according to an old 2e book I have, a negative reaction adjustment with the nobility.

This brings up the cause for the noble to start adventuring. He has to make some fast money and improve his reputation before his life goes to shit.

He can join the legion, with rank, due to his upbringing... travel to stay with rich friends, or involve himself in the local intrique I'm coming up with.

The other player characters will be tied to him somehow, as clients or whatnot.

I told this story to one of my players, and, though it shouldn't surprise me, he was all pissed that I would have a cut scene to start it off and could only talk about buying caltrops to bother the horses and fighting with his plebs and blah blah blah.

Anyone ever have this problem?

I'm not a rail roading GM generally, but I like to have games with a good background.

I think that if the premise is based on using some kind of a disaster to justify the setup for the entire game's plot, there's nothing wrong with doing that. Its not like the idea was just to piss off the player. The player is being very unreasonable here.

Maybe you could've said he wasn't anywhere near his domus when all this happened?
You could also tell him that it could be totally in character for him to now dedicate himself to going out and seeking revenge against the perpetrators.

RPGPundit

I think I can see why your players was not thrilled.

Personally I'd be okay with the premise "You are a Roman nobleman facing financial ruin because of barabarian raids - what do you do?" I'd also be okay with "You are Roman nobleman out adventuring, with the understanding that it is up to me the player to decide why."

Setting both is too much. By telling me how my character reacts to a very specifc situation crossing the line between GM territory and encroahing into the player's.
 
The thing is this, if the GM sells me on the notion that the campaign is about my character trying to solve his financial problems, that is what I'd be thinking about. I'm no expert on Ancient Rome, but i am pretty sure there must better ways young nobleman to raise some capital - marriage for one thing. Bear in mind he still owns land - there just won't be a crop this year.

Now if the GM tells me that the campaign is about going out adventuring, that is cool, but he should probably leave it to me to decide my character's motivations.

Quote from: Soylent Green;322172I think I can see why your players was not thrilled.

Personally I'd be okay with the premise "You are a Roman nobleman facing financial ruin because of barabarian raids - what do you do?" I'd also be okay with "You are Roman nobleman out adventuring, with the understanding that it is up to me the player to decide why."

Setting both is too much. By telling me how my character reacts to a very specifc situation crossing the line between GM territory and encroahing into the player's.
 
The thing is this, if the GM sells me on the notion that the campaign is about my character trying to solve his financial problems, that is what I'd be thinking about. I'm no expert on Ancient Rome, but i am pretty sure there must better ways young nobleman to raise some capital - marriage for one thing. Bear in mind he still owns land - there just won't be a crop this year.

Now if the GM tells me that the campaign is about going out adventuring, that is cool, but he should probably leave it to me to decide my character's motivations.

I disagree. The GM should be able to set the premise. The GM has to be adaptable to a group of people week after week. It should at least be a game that sparks his creativity instead of whatever strange or random bullshit someone else makes up.

Quote from: RPGPundit;322151I think that if the premise is based on using some kind of a disaster to justify the setup for the entire game's plot, there's nothing wrong with doing that. Its not like the idea was just to piss off the player. The player is being very unreasonable here.

Maybe you could've said he wasn't anywhere near his domus when all this happened?
You could also tell him that it could be totally in character for him to now dedicate himself to going out and seeking revenge against the perpetrators.

RPGPundit

Some players are just bitchy I guess. You can give certain types of people three choices, all of them things they normally like, and they will still want something different, just to be difficult.

Quote from: Cranewings;322235I disagree. The GM should be able to set the premise. The GM has to be adaptable to a group of people week after week. It should at least be a game that sparks his creativity instead of whatever strange or random bullshit someone else makes up.

Fair enough. That said, simply telling your player that he is wrong to feel pissed off isn't going to make him any less pissed off.

Quote from: Soylent Green;322241Fair enough. That said, simply telling your player that he is wrong to feel pissed off isn't going to make him any less pissed off.

I didn't tell him that. I just tried to explain it, and he was still salty, so I'm probably just not going to bother waisting a good idea running it for him. I'll just run something text book like heroes, or play it with my other group.

Yes, obviously, in the end if any player doesn't accept the premise of a campaign, then it really doesn't matter; you can't run that campaign for him.

RPGPundit