D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

Fine. My choice of example did suggest how little energy I have left for the argument you're making. Replace catgirl ninjas with storm troopers or Japanese traders or French nobles or aliens or Chinese animists or elves or Norse gods. I'm still a tyrant in your eyes and I'm OK with that.

No.

Because, again, you keep defaulting to obviously ridiculous things, rather than having even the slightest consideration for the possibility of something that isn't what you prepared for, but isn't radically against it either. It is the obviously-ridiculous nature of the examples that is the problem. You are pretending that the ONLY possible way someone could disagree with you is for them to be obviously ridiculous--meaning, any disagreement I might raise, any at all, is going to be written off as though it were asking to play Stormtroopers or Japanese traders.

For example: What if I want to play a black man?

Black men were, of course, quite uncommon in northern Europe during the "Viking age" in our real-world history--but, if you are being truly scrupulous about "historical Viking" stuff, some "blackamoor" men did in fact come to northern Europe. We have few to no relevant records from the "Viking age" as typically defined (roughly 800-1050) to give us hard numbers, unfortunately. But we do know that there were actual populations of African peoples in England by the 1300s, and that Chrétien de Troyes, writing the Arthurian romances (and adding such important characters as Launcelot, the Original Character Do Not Steal), included tales of black or mixed-race characters only one century after the "Viking age" (ca. 1160), meaning he expected the French courtiers of his day to be quite comfortable with the presence of non-white characters.

I'm not saying this is actually something I would do (TBH I probably wouldn't simply because I prefer more fantastical and/or science-fictional premises for games), but it is a much more reasonable thing. Rather than portraying all possible dissent as being equivalent to "a bohemian catgirl ninja in [a] historical Viking game", which is precisely what your responses did. There are two and only two options: perfect obedience, OR trying to play "a bohemian catgirl ninja in [a] historical Viking game".

But remember folks, I'm the one who ascribes extreme positions to others. No traditional-GM-role advocate would ever do that to anyone.

 

[pemerton]

My reasons for wanting player action constrained to their PCs has nothing to do with worrying about abuse. It's about the play experience I want to have, and the creative goals of the games I play.

So why do you continually impute a different, abuse-preventative motivation to those who enjoy a different procedure of play from that which you prefer?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don't like GMs having the power to decide what is acceptable in their game or not.

Nope. I do not believe that. Hence why I've never said it, and why you can't quote me as having said it nor anything like it.

Instead, I don't like GMs unilaterally and unquestionably declaring that.

I believe in discussion, collaboration, and building real consensus--convincing people to go with one option or another, or finding a way to get everyone the really important things they're looking for, so long as everyone is participating in good faith.

So yes, I absolutely do think that if someone offered a game and pretended that anything even remotely outside the most rigidly narrow definition of "historical Viking" was 100% precisely equivalent to "bohemian catgirl ninjas", yeah, I would think that that person was being a jerk about how they run their games, and I wouldn't want to get anywhere near such a game. I'd nope out faster than you can say bob's your uncle.

 

[SableWyvern]

No.

Because, again, you keep defaulting to obviously ridiculous things, rather than having even the slightest consideration for the possibility of something that isn't what you prepared for, but isn't radically against it either. It is the obviously-ridiculous nature of the examples that is the problem. You are pretending that the ONLY possible way someone could disagree with you is for them to be obviously ridiculous--meaning, any disagreement I might raise, any at all, is going to be written off as though it were asking to play Stormtroopers or Japanese traders.

For example: What if I want to play a black man?

Black men were, of course, quite uncommon in northern Europe during the "Viking age" in our real-world history--but, if you are being truly scrupulous about "historical Viking" stuff, some "blackamoor" men did in fact come to northern Europe. We have few to no relevant records from the "Viking age" as typically defined (roughly 800-1050) to give us hard numbers, unfortunately. But we do know that there were actual populations of African peoples in England by the 1300s, and that Chrétien de Troyes, writing the Arthurian romances (and adding such important characters as Launcelot, the Original Character Do Not Steal), included tales of black or mixed-race characters only one century after the "Viking age" (ca. 1160), meaning he expected the French courtiers of his day to be quite comfortable with the presence of non-white characters.

I'm not saying this is actually something I would do (TBH I probably wouldn't simply because I prefer more fantastical and/or science-fictional premises for games), but it is a much more reasonable thing. Rather than portraying all possible dissent as being equivalent to "a bohemian catgirl ninja in [a] historical Viking game", which is precisely what your responses did. There are two and only two options: perfect obedience, OR trying to play "a bohemian catgirl ninja in [a] historical Viking game".

But remember folks, I'm the one who ascribes extreme positions to others. No traditional-GM-role advocate would ever do that to anyone.

If my intention was to run a game about Vikings, and not about visitors to Norway hanging out with Vikings, I would most likely be disinclined to allow someone from southern Europe, Africa or the like. Whether I ultimately would or wouldn't would depend on all the specifics, who's asking, why and what the other players are doing. The fact that, "In theory, such a person might have been there" is not reason enough for me to just say "Yes".

I would be far more inclined to go with it if this player was the only one with a non-standard concept. I mentioned earlier in the thread an actual example that was given to me by GM who went to run a Viking game, and the players came back with concepts for an English monk, a European adventurer, a north African trader, etc. None of them actually wanted to play a Viking. This example was exactly what I was thinking of when I mentioned catgirls all the way down. Plenty of players want something special and unique but sometimes that just doesn't work. If no one wants to play a Viking, then cool, I won't be running a Viking game. But I'm not going to go ahead with the Viking game that has few or no actual Vikings. I would ask the players to either get on board with the game I pitched and that they agreed to play, or I'd go back to the drawing board.

On the other hand, if my pitch had been, "Asterisk, but in Denmark instead of Gaul, go crazy!" a mix of characters types from all over the place would probably work much better.

 

[clearstream]

Typically, I establish what the canon will be in a game I run, so I don't see much of a difference.

As I've mentioned, my next game is likely to be set in the 1e Savage Frontier but, anywhere they differ, my vision trumps any and all official Forgotten Realms material. I feel zero obligation to adhere to published material, although where there is a shared foundation we're all drawing on, I do have an obligation to ensure my players understand where our game setting will differ from existing understandings.

Note that I will always work with a player to help them realise whatever character they prefer, but I will give a hard no any time I feel it necessary.

I see I didn't quite make my thought clear.

Granted you establish canon; once it is established, in what ways do you limit yourself in its regard? For instance, can things you made true one session become false the next through simple fiat with no reason required?

 

[SableWyvern]

Nope. I do not believe that. Hence why I've never said it, and why you can't quote me as having said it nor anything like it.

Again, almost every post I read from you is telling me otherwise. You absolutely have said things "like it" even if you haven't literally used the words I did.

Instead, I don't like GMs unilaterally and unquestionably declaring that.

Declaring what?

I absolutely do have right of veto for anything that goes into a game I run. I had a player ask if they could play an alien in an X-Com game I was prepping for. I thought about it, and then let them know that the answer was no. There was no feasible way to adjust the game, in a way that I would be happy with, to allow for an alien PC. And, at the end of the day, it turned out that the player in question wasn't really all that interested in the game in the first place. They were looking for something different to pique their interest, but they almost certainly would have dropped out anyway, even if I'd said yes to the alien. I was right to say no, they elected not to participate at all, and they rejoined us later when I was running a game more to their liking. Everyone was better off.

I believe in discussion, collaboration, and building real consensus--convincing people to go with one option or another, or finding a way to get everyone the really important things they're looking for, so long as everyone is participating in good faith.

Sure. I will always work with my players; if I didn't, I wouldn't have any. But the final say in a game I run rests with me.

 

[SableWyvern]

I see I didn't quite make my thought clear.

Granted you establish canon; once it is established, in what ways do you limit yourself in its regard? For instance, can things you made true one session become false the next through simple fiat with no reason required?

This thread probably contains at least a thousand posts where various people, including me, have pointed out that no, they can't. If this point isn't already clear, it never will be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If my intention was to run a game about Vikings, and not about visitors to Norway hanging out with Vikings, I would most likely be disinclined to allow someone from southern Europe, Africa or the like. Whether I ultimately would or wouldn't would depend on all the specifics, who's asking, why and what the other players are doing. The fact that, "In theory, such a person might have been there" is not reason enough for me to just say "Yes".

I would be far more inclined to go with it if this player was the only one with a non-standard concept. I mentioned earlier in the thread an actual example that was given to me by GM who went to run a Viking game, and the players came back with concepts for an English monk, a European adventurer, a north African trader, etc. None of them actually wanted to play a Viking. This example was exactly what I was thinking of when I mentioned catgirls all the way down. Plenty of players want something special and unique but sometimes that just doesn't work. If no one wants to play a Viking, then cool, I won't be running a Viking game. But I'm not going to go ahead with the Viking game that has few or no actual Vikings. I would ask the players to either get on board with the game I pitched and that they agreed to play, or I'd go back to the drawing board.

On the other hand, if my pitch had been, "Asterisk, but in Denmark instead of Gaul, go crazy!" a mix of characters types from all over the place would probably work much better.

Did you, perhaps, consider the possibility that that meant your players weren't that excited about playing vikings?

Because I would take that as an indication that the game I offered wasn't really what the players wanted to play.

 

[SableWyvern]

Did you, perhaps, consider the possibility that that meant your players weren't that excited about playing vikings?

Because I would take that as an indication that the game I offered wasn't really what the players wanted to play.

They weren't my players. But choosing to play a game other than a Viking one is exactly the solution I arrived at, assuming everyone remained adamant they didn't want to play Vikings.

If it was my group, we would not have reached the point where everyone was presenting characters and none were Vikings. Instead, we would have a discussion before this point to establish whether most or all of the group would play Vikings or if we write the game off completely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Again, almost every post I read from you is telling me otherwise. You absolutely have said things "like it" even if you haven't literally used the words I did.

Funny. I feel precisely the reverse way about your own posts--but I try to keep that feeling to myself and not express it at every single turn.

Perhaps, instead of pretending either of us knows detect thoughts, it would be more useful to work with the things people say, and not the things we think are behind what people say.

You repeatedly used hyper-ridiculous examples. I found that disrespectful of the kinds of preferences I have. I found it to indicate that you don't take seriously the idea that anyone would ever

Declaring what?

Depends. Declaring that everyone must play one narrowly-specific archetype probably would leave me quite cold, because I often like to: (a) play against type in at least some way, though generally more in a "invert a sad/dark/negative thing into a happier/brighter/positive thing" kind of way, (b) look at the edges or the un-alike, as that is often a natural source of character growth and interesting exploration, and (c) use or invoke dragonlike or dragon-related character elements because I just really, really like dragons and feel happy when I get to integrate dragon-y things into characters I play.

Conversely, rather than declaring, but instead discussing with players about personal limitations or known sore spots? Great, fantastic. I myself have told my players I won't run the game for evil characters. This is not because I have some secret hatred for evil characters and am finally getting to ban them from the game I play. It's because I really, really just...feel gross putting my head in the space of someone evil. Like it genuinely makes me feel like a bad person. I can--barely--get by running evil NPCs because they're comparatively incidental. I would not be able to produce an enjoyable game where the PCs are evil. Almost anything short of unrepentant evil, I'll work with: an atoning, formerly-evil person; an evil being bound by a geas to do good and grumbling about it; a being that has been evil and is trying to learn to be good; a being that is a very very dark shade of neutral but drawing the line at actual evil--any of those can and will work, and I'm happy to work with my players for as long as it takes to get an end result that we can both be happy with. If they're engaging in good faith--presuming I, too, am engaging in good faith--then I am 100% certain we can develop something that will work.

And other than that? I genuinely can't think of anything that would be so unacceptable that I couldn't make it work somehow. The only time I've ever said a firm "no" to a player was because that player wanted to do something blatantly and horrifically evil (namely, trying to reactivate a spider-bot that requires a human soul in order to operate.) The only time I've ever had to give a deeply-disappointed, "I wish I could make this work but I just can't see how" no, the player in question assured me he felt no qualms about that, it was just a wild idea he'd had and wanted to pass by me (specifically, playing a "familiar" rather than a character proper, which...I didn't feel confident I could run an interesting game for such a character, similar to the evil example above, but for a completely different reason.)

I absolutely do have right of veto for anything that goes into a game I run.

And I find it concerning when a person feels the need to emphasize at every turn how their power of veto is RIGHT THERE, don't forget it, better remember I have veto power, did you remember that I have veto power, have you forgotten about my veto? Okay just wanted to be sure you remembered I'll veto anything and everything you consider that I don't like for any reason. Or maybe for no reason, because I don't have to justify my veto to you, or anybody.

That "I'll take my toys and leave" attitude is not one I find conducive to any degree of collaboration, cooperation, mutual understanding, or consensus-building. I find instead that it actively places something else--such as "GM vision" or "consistency of the world" or what-have-you--above the investment and involvement of the players.

I had a player ask if they could play an alien in an X-Com game I was prepping for. I thought about it, and then let them know that the answer was no. There was no feasible way to adjust the game, in a way that I would be happy with, to allow for an alien PC. And, at the end of the day, it turned out that the player in question wasn't really all that interested in the game in the first place. They were looking for something different to pique their interest, but they almost certainly would have dropped out anyway, even if I'd said yes to the alien. I was right to say no, they elected not to participate at all, and they rejoined us later when I was running a game more to their liking. Everyone was better off.

But of course you would have example after example that proves you right, and never even a single example where something might possibly prove you wrong or even minimally undercut the "have you remembered my absolute veto today?" message.

Sure. I will always work with my players; if I didn't, I wouldn't have any. But the final say in a game I run rests with me.

It sure as hell doesn't sound like it from the literal actual things you've just said.

As in, you've literally given multiple examples where you refused to do so, and none where you did it. Hard to find the working-with, the collaboration, the give-and-take, when the only examples you give are you putting your foot down hard with no discussion whatsoever.