log in or register to remove this ad

 

Character vs. Campaign

You know what can really derail a game? Making a character that conflicts with the guidelines the GM created for the campaign.

clown-5866511_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Some Guidelines​

Now, I should say up front that I don’t think the GM should be able to make the guidelines so tight they may as well just hand out pregen characters. It is very important to remember that every player should be able to not only create a character they want to play, but one they have had the opportunity to invest some of their imagination in creating. It’s pretty much their only input into the setting of the world and so it’s only fair the GM should share that power a little. For many players, the excitement to join a new game is not to enter the setting but to get to play the person they just created. Cut down that enjoyment and you will cut down their investment in the adventure.

However, there are occasions when players simply ignore the world and create a character they want, or worse, a character actively works against playing the game as a group. For instance, the GM might decide to run a crossover World of Darkness game where each player plays one of the various supernatural creatures each. When the person playing the Werewolf arrives he declares, “My character really hates vampires, like just goes into a killing rage when he sees one.” It may be in character, and it may not have been explicitly against the GM’s instructions. But its pretty clear that in a mixed group, such an extreme reaction to a character someone else is playing is not only going to cause problems, but make playing those two characters together impossible.

Why This Happens and How to Fix It​

In most cases, the player isn’t trying to make trouble. It’s more likely the player simply played a character they’re accustomed to playing, or didn’t consider the consequences of their actions in group play. So in this case the GM should take care not to just say what players can’t play, but to offer them some suggestions of what would be acceptable. One of these templates or examples might inspire a player having trouble deciding what to create.

The GM should also be up front with what will and won’t work in the game they are offering. Being clear about the game’s guidelines may turn off some players to the game early, but will save a lot of headache later.

In the Saga Star Wars game I’m playing in the GM said he wouldn’t allow droids as PCs, and would prefer humans, but anything else was ok. What we didn’t know was that we were all adapted clones of the Emperor, created to give him several possible body options depending on his mood if he was killed and needed to possess a new one. Most of us went for a human but one player chose a Besalisk (large and very corpulent 4-armed guy). In this case no one had gone against anyone’s instructions and the Besalisk is a cool character. But as we played the game it turned out we found ourselves infiltrating a lot of Imperial bases. While the rest of us could disguise ourselves as officers or storm troopers, they don’t do too many XXXL uniforms with 4 arms. It added a difficulty that meant in retrospect, insisting on all human or human-like characters might have helped.

Some players are of course more bloody minded. This often comes from what they think is fun not being what everyone else thinks is fun. This is one of the reasons Guardians of the Galaxy is clearly an RPG group: a wise-cracking thief, a deadly assassin, a powerful warrior, a tech guy, a tree that only says one word, and a talking raccoon with an attitude. The group really worked in the end, but if the GM had been planning a serious and intense sci-fi heist caper, that was off the table the minute he heard “racoon” and “tree.”

So, it’s important to set the theme and mood as much as the physical aspects of the characters. The GM needs to tell the players if they are ok with silly characters from the get go, or if actually they prefer them. If you are playing a game of Red Dwarf or Toon and everyone creates deep and serious characters, it will fall apart just as quickly.

But It Restricts My Creativity!​

Even with many tough restrictions of the types of character allowed, there is still a vast array of options. The GM might say: “You are all cops on a space station. You went to the same academy, you must have the following skills at least at the following levels, off you go.” Restrictive yes, but carbon copies of each other? No. Is your character married? Did they have relationships with any of the others at the academy? Is one of them corrupt or on the take? How well do they react to the internal hierarchy? Do they do anything illegal themselves? The list could go on, mainly as the true heart of a character is rarely to be found in their stats.

Interestingly, whole games that restrict characters are often easier for players to dive into. Vampire the Masquerade restricts you to one of 13 clans as character templates and its one of its most successful features. Star Trek Adventures assumes you are a Federation crew and that’s fine. The three Fantasy Flight Star Wars games are each very specific about the type of characters available (Fringers, Rebels or Jedi).

More open games are the ones that can run into problems. We added “Associations” to Victoriana 3rd edition as we had many people say of 2nd Edition “but what do you play?” The answer of “any Victorian you like” just left them confused. Similar advice was required in Doctor Who as “anyone from the whole of time and space” was quite daunting as character options. So a totally blank page is actually problematic rather than freeing. To quote Monica in Friends, “Rules are good, rules control the fun.” Essentially, a few restrictions are not a hurdle to be overcome but a guideline to help reduce the impossibly wide selection of options.

Isn’t This the GM’s Job?​

It’s a common refrain that it’s the game master’s job to make every character work for the setting. But I find that long-term, cohesive campaigns are a collaborative effort from the start. It’s everyone’s job to work the characters into the adventure, and that starts at character creation. It’s up to each player to create something that will fit into the adventure. It’s up to every player to create a character that can at least join the player character group (even if they hate everyone) and then it is up to the GM to adjust the setting a little to make sure everyone fits. If any single person ends up having to do all that the game will suffer.

So, while it is up to the GM to allow a certain amount of freedom in character creation, the players have a responsibility to make that job as easy as possible. They need to meet the GM halfway; sometimes, explaining why the guidelines are there can ruin the adventure or secrets of the campaign. If in my Star Wars game, we’d known what we all were from the start, a huge part of the driving mystery of the game would have been lost. GM and player trust go a long way in creating a fun game.

Your Turn: How do you manage player concepts that don’t fit your campaign?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine

As GMs, it’s odd how a lot of us kibosh an offbeat pick for a heritage or class from player we know is cooperative but then okay a straight up fantasy build whose super lone wolf/jerk character concept has red flags all over it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As GMs, it’s odd how a lot of us kibosh an offbeat pick for a heritage or class from player we know is cooperative but then okay a straight up fantasy build whose super lone wolf/jerk character concept has red flags all over it.
In my experience, the natural dynamic in the party will form to force lone wolves to stop. On the other hand, trying to force, say, an alien into a game where that doesn’t fit the tone can’t ever really be fixed without significant world buy in from the GM. Granted I think both should be conversations with the player. Just my two cents.
 

In my experience, the natural dynamic in the party will form to force lone wolves to stop. On the other hand, trying to force, say, an alien into a game where that doesn’t fit the tone can’t ever really be fixed without significant world buy in from the GM. Granted I think both should be conversations with the player. Just my two cents.
Sadly I’ve had the opposite experience. A lot of groups I’ve been are very adverse to RL conflict, especially when there was little online play and IRL was a rural town. Then again I run games in big cities and players were adverse to rocking the boat to bring another player in line.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
You know what can really derail a game? Making a character that conflicts with the guidelines the GM created for the campaign.
... For instance, the GM might decide to run a crossover World of Darkness game where each player plays one of the various supernatural creatures each. When the person playing the Werewolf arrives he declares, “My character really hates vampires, like just goes into a killing rage when he sees one.” It may be in character, and it may not have been explicitly against the GM’s instructions. But its pretty clear that in a mixed group, such an extreme reaction to a character someone else is playing is not only going to cause problems, but make playing those two characters together impossible.
I don't mind this at all. They can sort it out in-character and if it comes to a fight or one (or both) leaving the party, so be it. Or maybe they'll find a reason to get along or at least bury the hatchet for a while.

But it stays in character.
Your Turn: How do you manage player concepts that don’t fit your campaign?
Once I set the guidelines around what species are playable, my attitude falls well toward the "anything goes" camp both as DM and player.

I don't have too much problem with a DM telling me what I can play - e.g. if there's no Dwarves in the setting then fine, I can't play a Dwarf - but I'll push back very hard if the DM veers into telling me how to play whatever I end up with. It's only natural that some characters aren't going to get along, or aren't going to be the white-hat heroes people might expect, or have their own agendae within the setting; so let's play that out if-when it arises rather than find contrivances to sweep it under the rug.

What usually happens IME is that after a few early in-character fights and arguments a tone gets set by the winning side, after which new characters are (in the fiction) often - but not always! - somewhat "vetted" as to whether they'll suit that tone before they're taken in. For example, if a stereotypical D&D party starts out with a Paladin and an Assassin in it, it's inevitable that after a very short time only one of those is going to be around; and which one remains in the group will set the tone for that group going forward. Often the choice isn't made by the actual opposed characters at all but by the rest of the party deciding which one they'd rather keep. :)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I think this is a basic truism for RPGs: You as a player have the responsibility to create a character that will engage with the setting, engage with the PCs, and drive the story forward, not sideways.
Engage with the setting? Absolutely.
Engage with the other PCs? Absolutely, as long as nobody tries to tell me what form that engagement has to take.
Drive the story forward? Who cares? Forward, sideways, off a cliff; as long as the story is going - or has the potential to go - somewhere rather than nowhere, it doesn't matter which direction it ends up moving.

Worth noting also that sometimes engaging with the setting and driving the story forward can in fact be opposing notions e.g. why on earth do I-as-character want to keep doing x (story) when everything in the setting is telling me I should do y (something else) instead? Personally, as a player I'll usually prioritize engagement with the setting over the story unless a) the DM has us on rails or b) we've mutually agreed out-of-game to stick to the story no matter what.
 

My last campaign was a homebrew job. I created the entire history and geography of the continent.
I told the players straight-up use PHB only species, plus Half-Orcs are kill on sight, Tieflings are incredibly rare, and treated with enormous suspicion and antipathy. Dragonborn don't exist, as dragons themselves have not been seen for thousands of years.

Players worked within those restrictions, and came up with chars that were all unique. It worked out just fine. The game has so many options, that even with severe restrictions, good players still create interesting chars. Good players make for good campaigns, and bad players make for bad campaigns.

The current campaign I am playing in is all human, except for my outlier Halfling.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
This is part of why I like shorter campaigns. It's easier to get buy-in from certain players if they know it's not a super long commitment. Broadly, short campaigns are nice for exploring a variety of campaign settings, systems, playstyles, as well as character concepts.
High-lethality campaigns serve much the same purpose, only more randomly. :)
Oh, and I find restrictions (on characters and/or settings) to be a fun exercise. It forces me to think in new directions, so I personally find that to be a boon for creativity, not a hindrance at all.
I agree re setting restrictions e.g. specific creatures don't exist here; and I agree with certain classes having alignment restrictions (or equivalent), but I very much dislike arbitrary metagame restrictions such as "no evil PCs" or "no PvP" or "no in-party romance" or "you can only play characters of your own gender", all of which I've seen posted here by different people as being standing policy at that person's table.

And just because PvP is allowed, for example, doesn't automatically mean I'm going to engage in it; I just want the freedom to do so if and when it makes sense in the run of play.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Engage with the setting? Absolutely.
Engage with the other PCs? Absolutely, as long as nobody tries to tell me what form that engagement has to take.
Drive the story forward? Who cares? Forward, sideways, off a cliff; as long as the story is going - or has the potential to go - somewhere rather than nowhere, it doesn't matter which direction it ends up moving.

Worth noting also that sometimes engaging with the setting and driving the story forward can in fact be opposing notions e.g. why on earth do I-as-character want to keep doing x (story) when everything in the setting is telling me I should do y (something else) instead? Personally, as a player I'll usually prioritize engagement with the setting over the story unless a) the DM has us on rails or b) we've mutually agreed out-of-game to stick to the story no matter what.
By engaging with the story, I'm specifically talking about pushing towards something, even if that something is as ephemeral as "exploring the sandbox". If everyone wants go to explore the dungeon, don't be they guy that decides "I'm actually going to go off on my own and do some more shopping, you guys have fun exploring." Follow Dan Savage's advice and be GGG for roleplaying. :)
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
3. Don't play a disinterested loner that doesn't care about anything. It's fine to have characters that are slow to open up or who default to aggressive responses or whatever, but this is a group activity and you're being brought together to cooperate. It wouldn't make sense to invite along people who are 0% interested in cooperating with others.
This whole list is gold, but #3 is the most important one in my experience. If your character is never going to join the group, why are you here?
 

payn

Legend
2. Don't play a necromancer. Necromancy is suuuuper forbidden in this setting and anyone caught doing it would basically be a pariah. Save yourself the trouble and do something else; I will help you make it work.
Thats a hawt take around the internets. Lotta posters consider you a jerk GM if you not only let them play a necromancer, but also let them have a good alignment. Even after becoming a lich! ;)
 

pumasleeve

Explorer
I think this is a basic truism for RPGs: You as a player have the responsibility to create a character that will engage with the setting, engage with the PCs, and drive the story forward, not sideways.
This makes sense to me. But then I had 2 players that sent me a youtube video from Matt Coleville on "railroading" after one session, so maybe im not one to ask... :ROFLMAO:
 

pumasleeve

Explorer
By engaging with the story, I'm specifically talking about pushing towards something, even if that something is as ephemeral as "exploring the sandbox". If everyone wants go to explore the dungeon, don't be they guy that decides "I'm actually going to go off on my own and do some more shopping, you guys have fun exploring." Follow Dan Savage's advice and be GGG for roleplaying. :)
Or not going sideways from previously agreed upon expectations. For example, (possible spoilers for wotc adventures) your running Hoard of the Dragon Queen. you set the expectation from the beginning with your players that it is a chapter based railroad adventure and they agree that they would like to do this. The player that then runs his character in ways that are not oriented towards that goal ("id rather do X than chase after this treasure hoard") is not cooperating with your prior agreed upon frame.
Another example- your running Tomb of annihilation. The partys goal is to find the soul monger in chult and think that exploring the city of Mezro is an obvious place to start. There are exactly 2 paragraphs in the 300+ adventure book that have anything to do with Mezro. IE the adventure doesnt take place there. Players feel slighted that their plan didnt produce desired results and accuse you of railroading them even though you introduce artus cimber as an npc and help get them on track. they are still just pissed that the adventure doesnt take place in mezro. they are "taking the story sideways" as they have agreed to do the adventure and the adventure just doesnt take place there.
 

Thats a hawt take around the internets. Lotta posters consider you a jerk GM if you not only let them play a necromancer, but also let them have a good alignment. Even after becoming a lich! ;)
Like I said, it's a setting element, specifically a religious one. While it might be the case that a person could be good and practice necromancy (lich is another question...), in this setting, if you get outed as a necromancer your life is basically over. Even if you don't get a witch hunt declared on you, you're persona non grata to the region. People wouldn't do business with you and wouldn't hire you for jobs. Religion is a low-key thing most of the time in this setting, but necromancy is probably the one supernatural thing that is absolute anathema to the main religion of the area (and generally frowned upon by its predecessor and main competitor today).

The only things that rise to the level of "don't do necromancy" in this setting in terms of "that would be VERY unwise" are breaking the sacred guest/host trust (the Bond of Salt) and literally slavery. That's how serious a problem necromancy is. I made this very clear to my players and nobody had a problem with it.
 

payn

Legend
Like I said, it's a setting element, specifically a religious one. While it might be the case that a person could be good and practice necromancy (lich is another question...), in this setting, if you get outed as a necromancer your life is basically over. Even if you don't get a witch hunt declared on you, you're persona non grata to the region. People wouldn't do business with you and wouldn't hire you for jobs. Religion is a low-key thing most of the time in this setting, but necromancy is probably the one supernatural thing that is absolute anathema to the main religion of the area (and generally frowned upon by its predecessor and main competitor today).

The only things that rise to the level of "don't do necromancy" in this setting in terms of "that would be VERY unwise" are breaking the sacred guest/host trust (the Bond of Salt) and literally slavery. That's how serious a problem necromancy is. I made this very clear to my players and nobody had a problem with it.
I think thats great for your setting. I was simply making a joke about just how popular being a necromancer seems to be for players.
 

toucanbuzz

Legend
Amen, it's a collaborative effort. I play with friends so I generally don't have to worry about complaints because no player wants to be the arse that ruins immersion for everyone else by playing something that clearly doesn't fit the tone or theme. My gamers tend to be "all in" to the campaign vibe, whether it be gothic horror, European style kingdom building, surface world slaves brought to the Underdark, or Veiled Alliance sympathizers in Dark Sun.

Hence, Session 0 becomes even more important to collaboratively work together with what does and doesn't fit the theme. I invite my gamers to contact me and one another about ideas, and I always create a "guide" that sets the mood with art, poetry, stories, lore, etc.

With that said, it's a good idea from time to time to run something where anything does go. This can even be done inside a pending campaign. You could tell everyone to bring a 1st level character, anything they want, crazier the better, to next session. Then, run something unexpected. Put down your regular character. We're doing today a move-cut-away, thanks to the lore your wizard has uncovered, wherein an ancient cyclopean empire once kept slaves of all races for their entertainment, and a group tried to break away, causing the birth of modern sorcery when something they did impacted an artifact. Sorcery led to the slave races becoming empowered enough to break away, and it all started here...
 

Hussar

Legend
Totally true. It's all about player buy in.

What baffles me is players who automatically push back against any limitations, regardless of the limitations. Hey, let's play a no-caster D&D game for a change - I get three caster characters immediately pitched. Hey, let's play a Dragonlance game set during the War of the Lance - ok, now we have the gnomish sorcerer, dragonborn bard, and kender cleric? Err, ok. Hey, let's play a naval campaign set in Saltmarsh - ok, we're all land based characters, with no naval skills, and zero interest in being on a boat. Hey, let's play a high concept post-humanist SF game set in the far future - ok, I'm going to play a luddite anti-tech character who refuses to use any technology. :erm:

It's basically gotten to the point where I just don't want to set any limitations because I'm so sick and tired of constantly having push-back. My current Candlekeep game had zero limitations. My last Chaos Scar (updated for 5e) campaign had zero limitations. It's just so much easier just to rewrite stuff in my adventures and setting rather than constantly butting heads with players. I'm just so tired of it.

I really don't get it. When I play, maybe it's because I play so rarely, but, when I do get to play, my first thought is always "Hey, I want to play this" but my next thought is a very close secondt - "How can my character make the DM's life easier so we can all have fun?"

Players as consumers rather than content creators just irk me. Sorry, you want to push back like that? Pay me. Then you can have whatever content you want and I'll dance to whatever song you like. Otherwise, gimme a break. Take thirty seconds to actually consider how this character is going to fit into the campaign and with the other characters.

FFS, I have enough trouble trying to get the players to come and make characters as a group. Everyone shows up with characters already made and then looks at me with puppy dog eyes expecting me to somehow pound five square pegs into the triangular hole of my campaign.

/end rant. Thank you for listening. That was cathartic.
 

MGibster

Legend
Your Turn: How do you manage player concepts that don’t fit your campaign?
Many years before special snowflake became a politicized term, I referred to these players as special snowflakes. My classic example is the guy insisting on playing a Mage character in what we all agreed would be a Vampire game. My favorite from my childhood is when we got a hold of GURPS: Martial Arts in the 1990s and decided to run a campaign in the style of 70s and 80s martial arts movies. One player insisted on being the gun guy that would be doing the main damage and we would be his support. For some reason we all decided to play something different.

What I do is talk to the player and try to explain what we're going for in this game. Maybe a Mage could fit into a Vampire campaign but not this one. This campaign centers heavily around Kindred politics and your Mage would simply have no place in it.
 


billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Many years before special snowflake became a politicized term, I referred to these players as special snowflakes. My classic example is the guy insisting on playing a Mage character in what we all agreed would be a Vampire game. My favorite from my childhood is when we got a hold of GURPS: Martial Arts in the 1990s and decided to run a campaign in the style of 70s and 80s martial arts movies. One player insisted on being the gun guy that would be doing the main damage and we would be his support. For some reason we all decided to play something different.
Some people seem incapable of "getting" genre conventions. I had a player in a teen hero Mutants and Masterminds campaign who wanted to play a Constantine clone - complete with a pistol. A teen ritual magician/investigator, fine, but who packs a pistol in a mutant academy?!?
 


Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top