The Thread In Which We Rant

[Reynard]

The rant that is about to follow doesn't really deserve its own thread, but I need to get it off my chest, so here's a thread where you can do some venting about game related things: players, GMs, companies, books, games, stores, whatever.

Now--

Dear Player: Can you please, just once, play a character that is in some small way NORMAL for the setting? I know you love your strange creations, and often times they bring a certain something to the table, but this time I just really need you to play a character that doesn't require creative gymnastics to integrate into the game. All I am really asking is for you to play in genre this one time. Please?

 

[prabe]

Dear Player: I encourage (outright ask for) backstories. Can you please write one that (A) is not a 10,000 word novella, (B) doesn't force large-scale alterations in the world I"m trying to run (like adding a city or a BBEG), and (C) doesn't contain roughly 3.76 bazillion specific NPC names I'm expected to remember precisely?

Thanks.

 

[Celebrim]

Dear Player: Can you please, just once, play a character that is in some small way NORMAL for the setting? I know you love your strange creations, and often times they bring a certain something to the table, but this time I just really need you to play a character that doesn't require creative gymnastics to integrate into the game. All I am really asking is for you to play in genre this one time. Please?

I am a strong believer that the GM/player relationship can be for traditional games summed up as, "The GM controls the setting and everything in it, but the player is sovereign over his own character. A GM shouldn't tell a player how to play his character."

I used to be absolute purist in this division, to the extent that I didn't think the GM should have any input over what character the player played. And I think, that for a two player game with one GM and one player, that would mostly work. You'd have a relationship of peers and the player could in fact play anything he wanted to play and there would be no harm in that.

But I have learned the hard way over the years that if you have multiple players in the game that the GM ought not allow just any character that a player wants to play into the game. Since the game is social, there has to be rules about what a player is allowed to play for the good of the game and the enjoyment of all involved.

So absolutely, if the player wants to play something that I think will be too hard to integrate into the group and too hard to integrate into the setting, I will just say "No." You don't get to play a misanthrope loner. You don't get to play a coward that wants to avoid all conflict. You don't get to play a character that is a traitor secretly working to undermine the group. You don't get to play a bug eyed monster with a heart of gold in a setting where anything uncanny is burned at the stake. You don't get to play a villain when everyone else is a hero, and you don't get to play a hero when everyone else is a villain.

(Technically, none of that is true, but before I'd let a player play any of those things, I'd have to have developed a lot of trust in the player's skill, maturity, and humility.)

 

[Reynard]

I am a strong believer that the GM/player relationship can be for traditional games summed up as, "The GM controls the setting and everything in it, but the player is sovereign over his own character. A GM shouldn't tell a player how to play his character."

I used to be absolute purist in this division, to the extent that I didn't think the GM should have any input over what character the player played. And I think, that for a two player game with one GM and one player, that would mostly work. You'd have a relationship of peers and the player could in fact play anything he wanted to play and there would be no harm in that.

But I have learned the hard way over the years that if you have multiple players in the game that the GM ought not allow just any character that a player wants to play into the game. Since the game is social, there has to be rules about what a player is allowed to play for the good of the game and the enjoyment of all involved.

So absolutely, if the player wants to play something that I think will be too hard to integrate into the group and too hard to integrate into the setting, I will just say "No." You don't get to play a misanthrope loner. You don't get to play a coward that wants to avoid all conflict. You don't get to play a character that is a traitor secretly working to undermine the group. You don't get to play a bug eyed monster with a heart of gold in a setting where anything uncanny is burned at the stake. You don't get to play a villain when everyone else is a hero, and you don't get to play a hero when everyone else is a villain.

(Technically, none of that is true, but before I'd let a player play any of those things, I'd have to have developed a lot of trust in the player's skill, maturity, and humility.)

In the particular situation that inspired my rant, the player in question always creates something creative and fun but way on the fringes of the setting, the genre and the tone. In this case, I am establishing a new era of an existing campaign setting (one that is 25 years old of real world play) and want to establish the eras normal before filling it with exceptions. And the thing is the player does it every time. Sometimes it works and is even helpful, expanding my conception of what the setting can be, or aspects of it. But Every. Time.

 

[Celebrim]

Dear Player: I encourage (outright ask for) backstories. Can you please write one that (A) is not a 10,000 word novella, (B) doesn't force large-scale alterations in the world I"m trying to run (like adding a city or a BBEG), and (C) doesn't contain roughly 3.76 bazillion specific NPC names I'm expected to remember precisely?

While I totally get where you are coming from, ironically I'm usually pretty OK with all of that provided the player is willing to negotiate with me a little bit on the details. I actually like backstories that add interesting things to the setting, and I can always fit new cities or new BBEG's into the map, or just take the player's idea and say, "Can I just change the name you are using for the thing, so that it fits into the existing map/culture/etc."

Things I've allowed players to add through backstory:

a) Heretical factions of a cult.
b) New deities and the associated cult.
c) A previously undocumented civil war in a nation's history.
d) Famous mercenary companies.
e) New BBEGs, major NPCs, and potential powerful allies.
f) Entire new noble houses.

Generally, if you give me leeway to adjust your ideas in small ways to fit the setting and if you agree that once the game begins, I'm running all those NPCs you just called out, and if you aren't just trying to get mechanical advantage for your PC in the guise of backstory, then I'm OK with extensive backstories.

One caveat is that the more players you have, the less a detailed individual backstory is going to matter, simply because you aren't able to shine spotlight on any one particular player for as long.

 

[Numidius]

Dear players: can You please consider my npc as if They were real, reserve them the same treatment I do with your PCs? At least for the scenes in which they are present.
Also please can you refrain from asking me things OOC, while you can veicolate those same arguments thru my npc, so to not abruptly break immersion every time?

 

[prabe]

While I totally get where you are coming from, ironically I'm usually pretty OK with all of that provided the player is willing to negotiate with me a little bit on the details. I actually like backstories that add interesting things to the setting, and I can always fit new cities or new BBEG's into the map, or just take the player's idea and say, "Can I just change the name you are using for the thing, so that it fits into the existing map/culture/etc."

One caveat is that the more players you have, the less a detailed individual backstory is going to matter, simply because you aren't able to shine spotlight on any one particular player for as long.

In principle, I'm fine with it. It's the reactions at the table when I don't remember every detail of his backstory (especially the NPCs' names) that slightly grind my gears. The fact there are six players at both tables he's at is a thing, but there are players at both tables with more minimal backstory, so ... it's not as though I had to read 60,000 words of backstory at the start of each campaign.

I probably should read his backstory in the one campaign, though, if only so I can figure how to fit other things around it.

 

[jasper]

dear player, "Please play a different personality and class. Regardless of the system. I am tired of your cute as button child like thieves."

 

[Reynard]

Just to illustrate that this thread is not supposed to be only rants against players:

Dear Fellow Con GMs: My table is right next to yours, and I have the same number of players as you do, all of whom deserve the same chance at a fun experience for these 4 hours. So kindly keep your roaring and frankly terrible "acting" to a reasonable volume so my players can hear what I and each other are saying? Thanks.

 

[prabe]

dear player, "Please play a different personality and class. Regardless of the system. I am tired of your cute as button child like thieves."

Players who always play the same character, or at least the same type, are something of a pet peeve for me, as well, but I don't have any of those (that I know of) in the campaigns I'm DMing. That said, I'm considering some approaches for character generation for my next campaign (months away, at least) to ... keep that from being a thing. Probably a request not to bring a complete character, plus some random somewhere to keep the players on their toes.