DM's Campaign Vision vs. Player preference

[DonTadow]

Wow, this is going two separate ways. I'm actually seeing more than a single instance here; the immediate issue is one of character portraits; there's the chance (however slight) that the player does, in fact, 'get it' and is now needling the DM (Don) out of basic spite. Proof positive: just because it's female & rolls dice, doesn't mean you want to date it. That aside.

We're talking in an apples to oranges comparison if the issue with the character portrait matters. You say "This is." She says "It ain't." The resolution here is to either sit down, one on one, and have print outs for purposes of reference and ask (thus turning the problem around) why none of these work for her, when she selected the racial package after having it made utterly clear what that package means and what it entails. It sounds, in part, like you're on the defensive. Force her to justify her actions. "You can have the ball back, when you explain, in clear, simple detail, why I should give it to you."

Failing that, or if she decides (and has failed to articulate; some people have difficulty converting what they think or feel into what they say, or what they want) that when you said 'Dark Elf' she heard 'Drow,' then you've at least resolved the immediate issue at hand, i.e., why Dark-Skinned Elves aren't working and she wants a white-haired, black/purple skinned Elf. From there it's a simple matter of either changing the package, or making the cosmetic adjustment. And, if you're clever, you can always let said adjustment (from brown to purple) be incredibly detrimental. People recognize Drow, people kill Drow. Congratulations! Your arguments have made you a victim!

Second: never, ever keep a player because you feel an obligation. The larger issue here is one of improper behavior in your world, for your genre, for your campaign. Make sure she's clear on the rules (yes, she can shoot into a dark room without penalties, if she has ambient light, if her target doesn't have cover or concealment, etc.) and not simply abusing them for the sake of abusing them. Most players, given enough books, will start generating combos that maximize their potential. That, in and of itself, isn't wrong. Trying to change the rules to fit their circumstances, that's wrong.

Flip side: this is a game. Game. Even as a die-hard story teller, I recognize there are times that without bending a little, I can't get what I want, which is to tell my story in a cooperative, dynamic setting. You can give a player what they want without hamstrining yourself. If you need a mediator (generally the DM is the mediator) then you may want to approach her husband first, explain your concerns, and instead of asking "Are you on my side, or hers" which is a tremendous mistake, ask him to approach it impartially. "She has a point I can't understand, and it's making me running this game, which you enjoy and are involved in, difficult. Please help me bridge the gap to fix this problem so we can go back to playing."

Good luck.

Perhaps you're right. I feel kind of bad for the hubby as I think he knows his wife's social problems. I'm going to talk to him. It's definatly becoming a problem already. She now complains that she is useless. Part of it is because I have to veto have of the absurd things she suggests and the other part is that she multi classed her character up so that its only a mediocre rogue, ranger as opposed as strong to either.

Sidetrek- let me explain the character creation process this player took when making her new character. Keep in mind the player left the campaign for two months because of her child's soccer season. All but two of the players noted to me in some way or another that hte campaign seemed to go by more peacefully since she was gone. When she asked to come back I had some concerns and told her that she should get a character whom can fit in more with the party

ME "Choose one of these races. (dark elf, drow and gilden are not on the list of races to choose because of their associate in the plot)
HER "I really want to play a drow assasian"

ME (upset and thinking is she joking hasn't she been keeping up to date with the party nearly being killed by drow every 5 games--- )" That would be bad for the party, I'd suggest something else
HER" I just saw Domino can we work out something. I really want a character like that
ME " OK, tell you what ou can choose dark elf, not drow but I need you to design the characters background around being a slave (leeway)

Her "Wrote background concentrating more on the exploits of an espionage elf as opposed to slave girl
ME "Ok this is going to be hard to put into the campaign because the dark elves have been enslaved for some time and are not allowed to freely roam the country sideworking for a secret organizatoin... " I twiddled the background a bit to encorporate the slave girl and used the Bloodhound organization from the complete adventurer to make sure her concept was still there leeway

Her "The character will be a ranger, oh and I decided to go wood elf"

ME " That may not be a good idea considering that your last character clashed heavily with the current ranger and it spilled into out of game argument. I'd suggest something that doesnt tread on her role. Perhaps a rogue seeing as though the party's rogue was just killed and it still fits ini with your character.

Her " Sends me a sheet for a dark elf rogue/ranger/ vigilante.
Me " Accepts the sheet and just goes with it leeway

 

[Django]

Apart of me thinks this is so minor, but the dm in me knows that this is bigger than this.

It is minor.

Sure pictures can add to the gaming experience, but it looks like you are giving them way too much weight. It's the game itself that matters. It's supposed to be about the interactions among the players and the GM during game time. It's about the story being told, the challenges overcome, the villains defeated.

Letting yourself get all caught up in the trappings is counterproductive. Cut her some slack and quit stressing about a picture. Just because she is showing some individuality doesn't mean your game world is broken.

 

[Soul]

Well, I'd say for you to decide how major or minor it is, I think most people here would agree that its probably minor, but different playstyles and all of that. I would just let her choose a 'normal' looking elf pic, and then just ask the players to imagine it with darker skin, or maybe she has a skin disease, maybe she is albino or whatever... maybe further down the line in her gene pool are 'normal' elves, whatever....I don't think its worth the frustration... and I don't think it compromises you as a DM... I think thats taking things a bit extreme. Now, on the other issues... I' could go into a lot more, but I'd rather save that for another thread.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

If a DM told me that my character illustration was unsuitable for the campaign, I would have a very hard time going back to the gaming table.

 

[Thia Halmades]

I think I'm getting to the core of this. Guys: the picture isn't the disease, it's a symptom. The disease is a dissassociative, difficult player who thinks because she saw it in a film, or has heard the term, that it must be acceptable. She doesn't seem (from the one side of the argument I've got) to have wrapped her skull around the following:

- DM as arbiter, guide, and author. There's a give & take between what the DM does (write the plot about the characters) and what players do (portray characters within the confines of the plot as written). She (the wife) is playing to her whims, not the strengths or abilities of the party. Which isn't an indictment, it's an observation. Some folk just don't know any better.

- The picture issue, then, is about her 'giving back' a bit; I was correct in my initial assumption, she just doesn't "get it." Don seems to be saying "I'll concede these points so you can play something you like." She then takes that rope, and using her son's boyscout training, cleverly ties it into a knot and attempts to hang Don with it. Don, for his part, disagrees with the notion of having his windpipe choked out.

Discussion ensues: Don: "Please stop choking me, I can't run my game this way." Her: "I don't care about the game, I'm ME oriented. I want a character about ME and what I want to do. If it isn't about ME, it's not worth it." This is generating a vicious cycle; plenty of players are down with what they're doing. You'll always have one player (I've had, and have them) who 'feel useless' because they aren't in the spotlinght 24/7. There are a couple of fixes for this.

Step 1: Have the same sit-down, now with a wider view of the issue. "You say you feel useless. In order to not be useless, we may need to consider changing directions from what you want to play, which is already being done, to something which isn't being done. This is both a good change of pace for you, as a player, because you can try something different, and good for the group, because they have a need in the X slot." I think you're doing the right thing by being willing to bend, if she wants to play a Gillen (sp) then by all means; if it's that important, roll with it. If she wants to play a Drow, hey, draw a line (see Step 2).

Step 2: The if/then statement. If you want to play in this game, then you have to help me help you. You're clearly unhappy, and that detracts from everyone else's experience, including your own. I make no guarantees that someone who is me-thinking oriented can break that mold long enough to grasp the concept her behavior is unilaterally detrimental; she doesn't have fun, you can't run properly, and then no one else has fun. This a small group dynamics issue, and as such has larger implications than her and her character. The if/then statement is the first step in your ultimatum. See Step 3.

Step 3, Ultimatum. PRIOR to going this far, make sure you've talked to the husband, and he was at least informed of steps 1 & 2. I do not recommened allowing him to get in the middle unless you have too (see prior post about opening communication/bridging the gap). You do not, under any circumstances, want to put him in the middle where he's forced to choose, because his choice will have to be her. That's a lose/lose proposition. In the event it gets this far, your conversation may then look like this:

"I'm useless and your ideas suck." You: "Not playing is an option; I can't make you have fun, and I can't upend the world structure - which is working fine for everyone else - just to satisfy you. It compromises too much of the story and what about the game works." In this scenario, you've put the weight on her. Make sure you know what you've tried, and you have some sort of documentation (even if you write it down for yourself) of how these conversations go. When dealing with conflict resolution, you want evidence, including emails, personal notes, etc. That way if push comes to shove, you can say with certainty, I tried this, this... you threw this out... you won't listen to anything involving this... sounds to me like you aren't real team oriented, and D&D is a team game.

Good luck.

 

[The Shaman]

- DM as arbiter, guide, and author. There's a give & take between what the DM does (write the plot about the characters) and what players do (portray characters within the confines of the plot as written).

Could you explain how you're using the term "plot" in these instances?

It sounds like your saying that the player exist only to act out the roles of the GM's story - I hope that I'm reading that wrong.

 

[Thia Halmades]

Sorry, I'll extrapolate.

When I run games (please note: I'm writing this from the "I" perspective, and it's not meant as either a general assumption of how anyone else does it, nor how I feel anyone else SHOULD do it; just how I do it) I sit down and get a general plot outline. I build a world, throw some people on it, generate an overplot (see: Campbell, Hero Myth) and then, with that living, breathing world intact, throw the players in it.

In that process, I've written a hook. The hook is the launching point of the story, and tells you (from character gen) why you care. If you don't care about your character, or the story, odds are you (again, 'you' is any player in my game, not 'you', The Shaman) shouldn't be in one of my games, as they massively story & character driven. Let's say in this case we're talking about the Ravenloft game I'm running; the hook is that after you were kicked out of the ancestral mansion, just before the Requiem, you went out to learn what you could, seek your fortune, choose who you would become.

You receive a letter from a lawyer, via messenger, which tells you to return to the ancestral manor. Your uncle has been murdered. Back up a second; I set this up during character gen, so everyone has already done two things: cooperatively written their backgrounds to include child-hood memories of their uncle, and in so doing created a family "we care" sibling dynamic. Within that dynamic, killing the person you just spent an evening writing about makes you (the player) care, and want justice.

Now we get into the plot as crafted; it's a murder mystery on the surface, with deeper implications. Choices made by the characters affect the direction and resolution (and creation, and continuation) of plot lines. Most people at first blush, as you did, think I'm all "story me, sheep you." Not the case. My over-arcs contain a few key events (must happens to keep the story clear) and then the rest occurs behind the scenes. The PCs are free to make their own decisions, but those decisions occur in a persistent, believable world with persistent characters & events.

If you quit your job, it has consequences. If you fail to appear in court, it has consequences. If you don't kill the Ghasts in your cellar, there are consequences. Only from a solid frame work of 'reality' (and this is what I mean when I talk about realism, as well - World Persistance) can we derive choice & consequence, and tell a convincing story about these characters (the players) as they exist in their world, and encounter all of those carefully crafted NPCs, have reasons to rescue people, hunt down other people, make & break deals, etc.

The agreement which is struck between me and my players is pretty straight forward: I'm going to write a story. It's an open ended story which, really, is only the beginning. There's a history, and we being in media res - in the middle. That's where the players become involved and start affecting change. My half of the agreement is to be a flexible DM, who isn't just writing the next dungeon to see how many players he can kill, and who isn't holding 'the story' over thier heads as some sort of axe. The players then agree to, within reason, play their characters as people who comprehend a persistant world. They won't just abandon the main quest to open a cheese shop in Bermuda. That doesn't make sense. I write plot about them and involving them so they continue caring, directly, and as they resolve those plot lines more information about the overplot is revealed.

True cooperative story telling. The DM is an author; he's written a story he wants to tell, that's his character, the world and the NPCs driving that story. That's the other key component to understanding how I run: PCs affect change. They can alter events, save (or kill) a key NPC, foil plots and inadvertantly create new ones. PCs are the outside forces which act on the plotline. Otherwise, much as Newton told us, the plot doesn't move. It follows the same rules, really:

- A plot in motion will stay in motion, unless acted upon by a PC
- A plot at rest will remain at rest, unless acted upon by a PC
- Every action that affects the plot has an equal & opposite reaction (it intelligently responds to change; it fills power vaccums, creates new plot twists, generates new dangers conversely to the rewards gained by the PCs).

Hope that helps.

 

[The Shaman]

Hope that helps.

It does, thank you.

As the EGG quote in my signature suggests, I'm much less concerned about "story" - I create locations and characters and turn the adventurers loose to do what they will.

I'm having a hard time seeing the player as the sole, or even the main, source of the problem for DonTadow. It's one thing for me as GM to say, "No, there are no half-elves in the game-world - pick a different race," something else entirely for me to say, "No, dwarves would NEVER dye their hair that shade of purple - find another picture!"

I absolutely believe that setting constraints are appropriate in roleplaying games - I use them, too. But there's a point at which the GM must evaluate how far those setting constraints will extend out-of-game. For example, in a Modern game I'm running, one of the players found a photo that he attached to his character sheet - the character is wearing the wrong (i.e., historically inaccurate) headgear for his character, and he's carrying a different (though similar) weapon. It sounds like (and please forgive me if I'm getting this wrong) that DonTadow would ask this player to change the photo for one in which the headgear and weapon are "correct."

In roleplaying games that depend on the participants' imaginations, is saying, "This is an illustration of a regular elf, so picture her with darker skin, okay?" really such a gamebreaker?

DonTadow seems to have made allowances for the character, including some that I might not have permitted given the setting constraints, but now draws the line at the character illustration?

 

[Warbringer]

As my ma would say "Is this a hill really worth dying on?"

Let it go, and enjoy the game

 

[Jim Hague]

DonTadow seems to have made allowances for the character, including some that I might not have permitted given the setting constraints, but now draws the line at the character illustration?

It's that the player wants the cake - having whatever benefits and background the race provides - without the consequences, I think. Don's repeatedly said she does things that are disruptive to the game and create an antagonistic environment. I turn the argument back on itself - why is she, after repeated requests to do so, refusing to describe her character in terms of the race the character is? It's like saying - 'I want to be a dwarf! But not a short dwarf.'