Why is "I don't like it" not good enough?

[shadzar]

What I want to know is why languages like 'kobold' aren't turned over to Thieves' Guilds around the game world. Clearly kobolds are one of the under-races correct, Shadzar?


C.I.D.

Are you asking if kobolds speak undercommon?

 

[The Shaman]

Again, even if this conversation doesn't lead to the inclusion of Kobolds in the campaign (which I think is entirely up to the GM), you've shown the player some consideration AND you've each gained a greater understanding of the other's thought process. I believe that can only be to the benefit of the game going forward.

We can talk about communications and cooperation and courtesy all we want, but in the end this thread, and all the others like it I've read over the years, comes down to one thing: WHO DECIDES?

Is it the referee who creates the setting? Is it the rules of the game? Is it the players? Is it consensus? Ultimately someone, or something, is the final authority, and in my opinion these threads go 'round and 'round trying to decide who or what that is.

Different games, and different traditions among gamers, offer a variety of answers to that question, and ultimately I believe it's simply a matter of personal preference.

My own preference is that the referee is the final authority, with the understanding that if the referee wants to find and keep a group of happy players, then the players and rules must be a factor in decision about the game. I can readily understand why others might disagree with that take, and why other options developed over time, but it works for me, which tells me I must be doing something right.

 

[pemerton]

The Shaman, I don't think that there necessarily has to be a final authority - certainly not a single final authority for all these calls.

When we're talking about small group decision-making that typifies RPGing, consensus is sometimes possible. Or final authority can be distributed informally from decision-event to decision-event, just as it might be when eg choosing which cafe to go to - if it's clear that today friend X is really going to be put out if s/he doesn't get to go to his/her favourite place, then we defer - but it doesn't mean that s/he'll get to decide every time.

In more formal contexts where trust is weaker and/or time more important (eg con games, game store games) maybe this won't work. But a lot of RPGs aren't played under those conditions.

 

[pemerton]

Shadzar, one time I joined a startup 2nd ed game where a couple of the players were friends, the GM an acquaintance and some other players strangers.

I picked the Cavalier kit for my Skills and Powers cleric. I needed a backstory for my cavalier, so got a list of countries and gods from the GM and then wrote something up about being the next in line to a county where my brother was the count, but was distressingly subordinated to the drow overlords. I also made up an order of religious knights which I had run away to join and be trained by, and whose arms I now bore on my surcoat and shield.

I ran it past the GM, and he OKed it. If he wanted it changed I guess I would have, but I would also have been a bit surprised - from my point of view my backstory wasn't hurting his game, but giving him stuff to work with in hooking my PC (and me) into his game.

Is this the sort of player participation in world building that you object to?

 

[FireLance]

But that has nothing to do with a conversation around both designing the game world, just the ranger player accepting kobolds don't exist, so don't waste the mechanic writing them down.

Since Rel's orginal point, which you responded to with that statement, was about a conversation regarding what monsters are common in the game world arising from the ranger player needing to choose a favored enemy, it is about as relevant to your statement as your statement was to Rel's post.

Influence =/= design. Unless the PCs are spawning kobolds or something, it doesnt affect the design, just as you said, influences the world. What it started as is unchanged, only what happens after.

The thesis of your post appeared to be, "Players do not design the game world, so it is pointless for the player to have a conversation with the DM about what monsters there are in the game world."

My response to that was to suggest that firstly, depending on the relationship between the players and the DM, the first part of your thesis may not actually be true - some players may actually have direct control over certain aspects of the game world. Secondly, even if the DM retains direct control over the design of the game world, conversations between the player and the DM are not pointless because they are opportunities for the players to learn more information about the game world (that their characters should reasonably know as inhabitants of the world), and because they may influence DM decisions in ways that would make the game more enjoyable for everyone involved.

This could quite easily fall into ridiculous backstory territory. A player deciding for an entire race what the customs are, yet another player doesn't get to be rich form the start because they were born of nobility and jsut adventuring to learn about the world.

Yes, it could, but obviously the DM would only entrust such power to a player who is responsible enough and has the ability to distinguish between interesting flavor and game-disrupting effects with the DM as a secondary check to ensure that the inputs are of the former instead of the latter variety.

OR

Has players with very poor ideas.

Oh, ideas are actually a bonus. What a DM should (IMO) be trying to elicit from his players are preferences which might lead him to make changes to his game world, or at the very least, to emphasize different elements during the game.

That said, most of the time, I do game with fairly intelligent and creative people (it's funny how gaming tends to attract people like that) and so, good ideas are not out of the question, either.

The design of the game isn't for the players, unless they ask someone to run Module #1957 for them. When they found the DM that will, there is no need for further communication about anything because you already picked the train you wish to ride, so no sense in complaining about the rails then.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up game design. I thought we were discussing game world design?

 

[shadzar]

The Shaman, I don't think that there necessarily has to be a final authority - certainly not a single final authority for all these calls.

For The Shaman there does, as well for others. For some, it seems there doesn't.

Shadzar, one time I joined a startup 2nd ed game where a couple of the players were friends, the GM an acquaintance and some other players strangers.

I picked the Cavalier kit for my Skills and Powers cleric. I needed a backstory for my cavalier, so got a list of countries and gods from the GM and then wrote something up about being the next in line to a county where my brother was the count, but was distressingly subordinated to the drow overlords. I also made up an order of religious knights which I had run away to join and be trained by, and whose arms I now bore on my surcoat and shield.

I ran it past the GM, and he OKed it. If he wanted it changed I guess I would have, but I would also have been a bit surprised - from my point of view my backstory wasn't hurting his game, but giving him stuff to work with in hooking my PC (and me) into his game.

Is this the sort of player participation in world building that you object to?

It really all depends on what you did with that backstory in the game, or how much you expect to be incorporated into the game.

If you left it a just some background for the DM's reading pleasure then it really doesn't design a thing for the game world itself, as it never becomes a part of the game.

If you used stuff from this such as angst against the drow, then it isnt designing the world either, just giving the DM some information about why your character acts in certain ways based on this information.

If your character is always going around talking about being the next in line to so-and-so and trying to direct the game back there to check on it, or to use that background as resources either monetarily or other that would force creation of NPCs where they may not otherwise have a place or be needed, then that would be the ridiculous backstories.

I like the way it was explained in 2nd edition of which here is a little section:

A character's background is a role-playing tool. It provides the player with more information about his character, more beginning personality on which to build. It should complement your campaign and spur it forward. Background details should stay there--in the background. What your characters are doing now and will do in the future is more important than what they were and what they did.​

I'm not sure why you are bringing up game design. I thought we were discussing game world design?

I consider each group to be designing their own game as no two groups play the "same game" the same way.

Inclusion or banning of certain parts of the published material for a game system causes games to be different.

Game System: Ex: D&D, Pathfinder, FATAL, RIFTS, etc
Game: Group of people with a chosen game system they are using
Game Design: Creation of the world/settings/playing field in which the game system will be used to play the game.

 

[pemerton]

It really all depends on what you did with that backstory in the game, or how much you expect to be incorporated into the game.

If you left it a just some background for the DM's reading pleasure then it really doesn't design a thing for the game world itself, as it never becomes a part of the game.

If you used stuff from this such as angst against the drow, then it isnt designing the world either, just giving the DM some information about why your character acts in certain ways based on this information.

If your character is always going around talking about being the next in line to so-and-so and trying to direct the game back there to check on it, or to use that background as resources either monetarily or other that would force creation of NPCs where they may not otherwise have a place or be needed, then that would be the ridiculous backstories.

I like the way it was explained in 2nd edition of which here is a little section:

A character's background is a role-playing tool. It provides the player with more information about his character, more beginning personality on which to build. It should complement your campaign and spur it forward. Background details should stay there--in the background. What your characters are doing now and will do in the future is more important than what they were and what they did.​

Well, I guess I disagree pretty strongly with that section from the 2nd ed AD&D rules.

Both when I play and when I GM, I want the PC backstories to come into play. I want backstories that lead me, as GM, to introduce situations and NPCs into the game that otherwise I wouldn't have. When you say "wouldn't otherwise have a place or be needed", I want to ask "needed for what?" If they are crucial to the game that the players are trying to play with their PCs, then it seems to me that of course they are needed!

 

[Raven Crowking]

We can talk about communications and cooperation and courtesy all we want, but in the end this thread, and all the others like it I've read over the years, comes down to one thing: WHO DECIDES?

I agree with this.

My answer, though, would be: Everyone gets to decide for him- or herself.

The GM gets to decide what he is willing to run.

Each player gets to decide what to play and how.

Sometimes, those decisions preclude certain groups of GMs and players, such as when one player only wants to play something that the GM is unwilling to run a game for, or when one player wants to run a character in such a way as to creep another player out.

At some point, people might experience conflicting desires.

DM Bob wants to run a campaign world without amazons, but he knows that Linda Carter wants to play an amazon. At this point, DM Bob has to decide what he wants more: To run the world as envisioned, or to accomodate Linda Carter. And only DM Bob knows which is more important to himself.

At the same time, if DM Bob announces that his new campaign world will have no amazons, Linda Carter has to decide what she wants more: To play something other than an amazon, or to give DM Bob's game a pass, perhaps to seek another where she can play the character of her heart's desire. And only Linda Carter knows which is more important to herself.

And either or both of them might be able to come up with reasons why it is so, but for either or both of them those reasons might be personal, or they might be hard to articulate. And perhaps one or both of them doesn't really know why he or she wants what he or she wants. Regardless, none of these circumstances invalidates either of their right to choose.

The point is, it is arse-backwards to assume that Linda Carter has a right to find DM Bob's campaign a comfy fit, just as it is arse-backwards to assume that DM Bob has a right to expect Linda Carter to play regardless of how he sets up/runs his game.

Compromise is about dealing with conflicting desires. Knowing the reasons why someone else's desires exist might make you feel better about not getting everything you want, but no one has a right to know why someone else's desires exist, nor does anyone have an obligation to explain themselves.

Communication is good. That's true. But that truth doesn't create either a right or an obligation.

Ultimately, for each individual involved, compromise is about understanding your own desires, deciding which are most important to you, and deciding which you can set aside in order to fulfill those important ones.

It is nice if you are both compromising, and everyone gets something that fulfills his or her strongest desires. But the only person you have a right to demand compromise from is yourself. And no one else has a right to demand compromise of you.

In most cases, people sort out what they want to do naturally, and compromises occur naturally because a group of people want to play together, and making that happen usually requires some degree of compromise on everyone's part. That's a pretty natural phenomenon, and one that I feel confident most of us experience on a daily or near-daily basis.

Ultimately, though, that means the buck stops with each of us. The DM didn't force you to play a game you didn't like. The player didn't force you to include Broken Build 101 from Splat Book 13. These were choices that were made because, ultimately, that DM or that player was more important than the game.

And, if you think about it, that's sort of cool, isn't it?



RC

 

[Rel]

I just had a bit of an epiphany about my perspective on this thread. I'm sure you're all dying to know about it so here it is:

As recently mentioned, I have long had great success at making sure I'm not gaming with jerks. In fact thinking back on it I can't think of any that I've gamed with in the last ten years for an ongoing campaign. And certainly less than a handful at one-shot games.

What I have seen some during that same time period is Casual or even outright Passive players. Not a lot of them, but considerably more common than jerks. You know, the players who show up on game nights and roll the dice when they are supposed to but otherwise don't seem to really engage with the campaign very much. For them I think it's a lot like watching a television show or movie with only the mildest participation in the mechanical aspects and little attempt to push any agenda in the game world. Like I said, I've not had many of these players (none in my current group) but I've found them more common than the pushy jerks by an order of magnitude.

So, to me, when a player is asking questions about aspects of the campaign world design, it shows me that they are interested in those things. Maybe for roleplaying/story reasons. Maybe for powergaming/mechanical reasons. But at least they are interested and seeking to know more.

I think most GMs tend to enjoy talking about our campaigns to interested parties. But my favorite part of those conversations is when they ask questions I don't know the answers to. It prompts me to think of the campaign as a painting in progress and the player has just pointed to a blank spot on the canvas and asked, "What's going there?" Often my favorite answer for them is, "Well what do you think would be cool?"

Not only are such players frequently in possession of good ideas but, as Firelance says, it tells you their preference. The merging of player preference with a GM's creative excitement is the alchemy that makes for great campaigns.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I just had a bit of an epiphany about my perspective on this thread. I'm sure you're all dying to know about it so here it is:

Rel, I would agree that a good campaign milieu creates questions in players almost by virtue of its existence. Where those questions are something a normal person in the milieu would know the answer, or a character background means the character should know the answer, I am more than happy to answer. Otherwise, I encourage players to have their characters actually go out and find the answers!

Like others on this thread, I usually prepare a campaign document that tells players what is allowed, as well as some general information that they should know (and which hopefully points to particular potential adventures). I want this document to generate questions.....questions the players must adventure to discover the answers to!

I would be shocked by a GM being offended by, say, "Does my PC know if kobolds are often encountered in the Tulgey Wood?" or "I'd like to make a ranger; what are some common creatures hereabouts that I might use for a favoured enemy?" In 30+ years of gaming, I've never seen it.

OTOH, "Why can't I play a warforged ninja in your humans-only low fantasy world?" shouldn't really require much in the way of an answer. Unless the GM believes that the player in question really doesn't "get" the idea of a humans-only low fantasy world, of course.


RC