What do you think of reality-sim players?

[Iron Sky]

When I have players who add to my game world as they're playing - often by making up background details about their character/country/customs/whatever on the fly while roleplaying - usually I roll with it because, hey, they're doing some of my work for me , fleshing out their characters and my world.

That said, if they start to redefine something I already have in place or come up with something that doesn't click with my world, I just interrupt them, correct them on that detail, then let them loose again.

 

[Mark]

Well, sort of: when I said "The Raven Clan have burned Fort Brathis!" it didn't inspire any fear or consternation, which it might have if my original vision had been enforced.

Did the PC group know of any specific NPCs (and their families) who were in the fort or any who live in the area protected by the fort?

 

[tomBitonti]

So ... is the issue the focus on "sim", or is it on the particular story that the GM is telling and the player wants told? Or on the style of play (e.g., delve verses social)?

In any case, the player and GM have to find a common ground so that both have fun ... with flexibility from both the player and the GM. The player should see about finding a way to tell their story in the GM's world, and, the GM should find a way to accommodate the player.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The FR canon lawyers thread got me thinking of a good player/GM who often plays in my games. She loves the details of the campaign setting - including the details of my homebrew game world - and she loves to add to it, drawing heavily on real world history and especially anthropology, in particular with regard to non-European cultures such as Amerindian, Arabic and Japahese. She does the same in her own GMing.

At worst, it can feel a bit like what I want may be taken away from me. An example would be: I had a barbaric people based on RE Howard's savage,menacing Picts. With added detail from her, they became rather 'Dances with Wolves' real-world Amerindians. Have you experienced anything like this? What do you think about it? Any advice?

I've been that guy in some ways, but not often.

A player like that- really, any player with superior knowledge of some kind of wrinkle- this can be a boon or a curse.

The first thing to remember is that you as a GM have the right and duty to say "No" if something isn't right for the campaign. If you want Potawatami in your game, she should be your go-to source.

OTOH, you let her morph your Picts into Potawatami by not reining her in.

But when you guys are in synch, it should make the gaming experience rewarding for all those around you.

 

[S'mon]

Did the PC group know of any specific NPCs (and their families) who were in the fort or any who live in the area protected by the fort?

They had met a couple of named-NPC soldiers from the fort garrison.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Well, sort of: when I said "The Raven Clan have burned Fort Brathis!" it didn't inspire any fear or consternation, which it might have if my original vision had been enforced.

This might be stretching it. You have no clue if there would've been any difference had your original vision been enforced, and getting mad at the player about it seems really far off.

 

[Jack7]

Have you experienced anything like this? What do you think about it? Any advice?

I tend to like em for the most part, since that is my way of thinking, playing, and DMing.

Although I do scream Richard Gere nooooo!!!, also.

I'll definitely second, third, and fourth that one.

An example would be: I had a barbaric people based on RE Howard's savage,menacing Picts. With added detail from her, they became rather 'Dances with Wolves' real-world Amerindians.

I don't see though why your girl didn't recognize the Picts for who they were and just play it out that way. The Picts were not the Lakota. Me personally, if I saw somebody interjecting an analogue to the Picts in the game I'd really enjoy that, I wouldn't then try to transform them into somebody else. But that's just me.

Maybe the problem is not realism/simulation, but the desire to transform the game elements into what she wants them to be and her visions of what the game should concentrate upon.

Maybe the solution is just to talk to her and day, "Hey, if you recognize the Picts then don't try to make them into the frontiers Indians of the 19th century." So I'm with those who say "read what ya got in the game and work with that, and don't try to necessarily transform it into what it ain't."

I find this discussion interesting. I'm the sort who likes both playing with psychology/anthropology/theology/etc andenjoys the more pulpy colorful vibe.

I'm with ya on this one. I like both realism and fantasy mixed in a fantasy game. I think the interplay makes both of the other elements more interesting. I guess I'm sorta X-Filey when it comes to fantasy games in this sense, I like and enjoy reality, but I also like reality to be bent by surrealism and the bizarre from time to time. Sort of like seeing cracks at the edges of reality where a different reality intrudes or disturbs what you know to expect.

If this is something she finds engaging perhaps ask her to focus it on certain aspects of the setting. So instead of thinking about the Picts, she is thinking about and fleshing out a city-state somewhere. It could actually help in relieving some of the work-load.

I also agree with those who are basically suggesting this type of approach. Put her to work on her own stuff in background.
Maybe even co-write an adventure or scenario, but don't let her re-write your stuff on the fly.

But I think you can have both if you ask me. I mean that if I were in a really small party of explorers or adventures, cut off form resupply or besieged in the wilderness, and ran into a large enough tribe of Picts (the real ones or Howard's version) on the warpath it would sure scare the hell outta me (course it depends on era as to how they behaved), precisely because I know what they could do. That is to say knowing what I know about them would give me some real incentive about having that sense of danger and unease you find in some of the fictional Conan stories.

To me realism of that kind always makes for the best fantasy about what's really dangerous. Few fantasy peoples, or even monsters, are ever anywhere near as scary as real people have been.

 

[S'mon]

So ... is the issue the focus on "sim", or is it on the particular story that the GM is telling and the player wants told? Or on the style of play (e.g., delve verses social)?

Well I don't think in terms of "I am telling story X"

One issue is that I can end up afraid of using stuff in the campaign because I am afraid of 'doing it wrong' and violating player-established canon! On a lighter note, I often jest about all the unpronounceable, real-world names she comes up with, like Pakwatanami instead of Raven Clan. Or real Arabic instead of cod-Stygian.

 

[S'mon]

The first thing to remember is that you as a GM have the right and duty to say "No" if something isn't right for the campaign. If you want Potawatami in your game, she should be your go-to source.

OTOH, you let her morph your Picts into Potawatami by not reining her in.

Yes... but I am weak...

I have non trouble smashing down munchkins. When a player is not powergaming, and is actively adding detail to the milieu, it's much harder. Plus she works with what I give her - "These guys are a bit like Amerindians, they're based on REH's Picts..." - I guess she just hears the bit about the real-world influence, not the literary influence.

I guess one solution in D&D is to say "OK, these guys are Evil." That kinda prevents too much anthropological introgression, because hardly any real-world culture sees themselves as Evil (possible partial exception for the Aztecs).

 

[S'mon]

This might be stretching it. You have no clue if there would've been any difference had your original vision been enforced, and getting mad at the player about it seems really far off.

You're right, if I had got mad at the player, I would have been a real jerk. I didn't though. I had to really stretch to come up with something in response to the request, above.