Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2579942" data-attributes="member: 26473">I agree. I do my best to spell out in advance what the game will include and what options will be considered (with respect to source books and the like): "This is a d20 Modern game using the core rulebook, Weapons Locker, and the Urban Arcana web enhancement. Classes, feats and schools from Ultramodern Firearms, Martial Arts Mayhem, and Modern Player's Companion will be considred on a case-by-case basis. No other third-party material will be allowed. There is no FX in this game." There it is - those are your parameters for making your character, and the guidelines around which the world functions. A player may certainly ask to include a feat from Blood and Fists, or take a talent from 22 Talent Trees, but the answer quite honestly is most likely to be no.Why? Why not allow something if it's not obviously broken? A couple of reasons come to mind: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I don't like the game to become an escalating arms race of "s/he who buys the most books wins"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I'm not personally familiar with the book the player would like to use</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I am familiar with the book but don't like the content for the game I'm running</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The material that I cited as permissible is what I've used to create the game-world and is the closest thing to the "laws of physics" for how that world works</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The material doesn't fit with the setting</li> </ul>With respect to the first three reasons, I've encountered gamers who would say that I'm not working hard enough to make the game fun for the players, that I'm lazy as a GM, and so on. Perhaps they're right: I don't claim to be a good GM - average is a reach for me on my best days.I do know that there's an upper limit to the amount of time I can reasonably spend on game prep, and the more material that's introduced the more time I have to spend on mechanics interactions that takes away from adventure and non-player character prep. Given the choice between adding in crunch to satisfy a player's jones for the feat-of-the-month, and working on developing challenging encounters and interesting non-player characters, that's an easy call for me to make.The fourth and fifth reasons are fundamental for me. I select the rules that reflect both the physical and social/cultural 'reality' of the game-world. The player's character must live within those parameters. If the character does not fit the setting, the player changes the character - full stop.In preparing for our Modern military game I had a player ask to run a chaplain character. While I liked the concept, it wasn't going to work well with the rest of the characters or the adventures for a number of reasons, so I said no. In another bulletin board thread I was taken to task for saying no, that it was my responsibility as the GM to work the character into the game rather than reject the player's concept. However, to do would involve ignoring important setting considerations while pushing hard against the limits of suspended disbelief. I wasn't prepared to change the fundamental assumptions of the game enough to allow the character.As a GM, my fun comes from creating a setting and campaigns and sharing them with the players. I invest a lot of time and effort to provide a richly detailed setting and three-dimensional non-player characters with which the adventurers may interact. When I need to change the setting assumptions to fit a character, that takes away from my enjoyment of the game. My response to that is simple: when I'm a player in your game, I will create and run a character that conforms to your setting, and I expect the same from you in mine.(In the case of the chaplain character, I suggested a couple of alternatives to the player that would work with the game, such as a former or future divinity student - in the end, the player chose not to participate, which was ultimately the best choice for both of us.)With respect to the workload issue, I do believe the players have the responsibility to bend their expectations, not the GM - there is simply no comparison between players and GMs in terms of what it takes to make the game possible. Players need to understand the setting and conform to the GM's parameters on what is or isn't permitted in terms of character creation.</blockquote>

Verification