This is an example of the parameters I think we should be interrogating. Why should it be that if you go to the civilized lands that being a goblin suddenly becomes a problem?
How Accommodating to Player Preferences Should the GM Be?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
payn
I don't believe in the no-win scenario
Not every setting is Mos Eisley cantina.
G
Guest 6801718
Guest
Be totally accommodating. Lean into it. There are a few things that GMs need to understand. One, it's not your game. It's everyone's game. So allow for additional input to whatever concept you pitch. You game will only be better for it. Another is that this player is telling you a lot about what they want in a game. Not just what kind hero they want to play but what kind of problems they want to face. They've already signed on the big conceit of the game. Now they're asking for little something else. Adding some spice, so to speak. That actually makes your job as a GM easier. They told you what they want. Now just give it to them. Be as hard about it as you like. Just give them the challenges they want.
Take the example of playing a goblin in a world where people don't like goblins. They player is telling you that they want to deal with that kind of problem. Being seen as a monster and having to prove their worth. Tackling different problems. Good, give it to them. Make the townsfolk nasty and hateful. Then give the player opportunities to be heroic and help them anyway. Allow for change. Let the game grow.
If the conceit is a "standard fantasy world where the group sets out to explore unknown ancient ruins", then you've already thrown the idea of "standard fantasy" out the window with the concept. The group, by definition of what you're doing in the game, will already be leaving standard far behind. Otherwise you aren't doing anything in the game. Look over here, it's more of the same! So if a player wants to do something unusual in your game, it sounds to me like they already understand the concept a lot better than everyone else. Heroes and adventurers aren't like everyone else. Just going on an adventure makes them different from everyone else in the world. Regular people stay home and become farmers or join the town guard. Unusual people go delving through ancient ruins.
Take the example of playing a goblin in a world where people don't like goblins. They player is telling you that they want to deal with that kind of problem. Being seen as a monster and having to prove their worth. Tackling different problems. Good, give it to them. Make the townsfolk nasty and hateful. Then give the player opportunities to be heroic and help them anyway. Allow for change. Let the game grow.
If the conceit is a "standard fantasy world where the group sets out to explore unknown ancient ruins", then you've already thrown the idea of "standard fantasy" out the window with the concept. The group, by definition of what you're doing in the game, will already be leaving standard far behind. Otherwise you aren't doing anything in the game. Look over here, it's more of the same! So if a player wants to do something unusual in your game, it sounds to me like they already understand the concept a lot better than everyone else. Heroes and adventurers aren't like everyone else. Just going on an adventure makes them different from everyone else in the world. Regular people stay home and become farmers or join the town guard. Unusual people go delving through ancient ruins.
Jack Daniel
Legend
▯
Last edited:
Jack Daniel
Legend
▯
Last edited:
If being non-standard were not an issue in some way, shape, or form, then there's no need for your OP at all. Since you failed to stipulate, folks are looking for the more plausible forms of issue. This issue is extremely plausible.
This is not about goblins, specifically, this is about In-group and Out-group divisions. It is a fairly common (perhaps even universal) event in our own experience that people who are outside the cultural norms of a place meet with problems. Common enough that, if it doesn't exist in your fantasy world, that should bear remark in your world brief.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Depends entirely on the specifics. It mostly comes down to what does this race, class, background, etc bring to the table that no other option can provide and how would that effect the world, tone, etc of the setting.
The two that jump out are power gamers trying to game the system and contrarians who have to be unique for its own sake. Either way, nope.
The two that jump out are power gamers trying to game the system and contrarians who have to be unique for its own sake. Either way, nope.
Last edited:
G
Guest 6801718
Guest
As long as you're doubling down and refusing to grow in any way. Interesting position to take. If it's YOUR game and YOUR way, you'll soon be playing by YOURself.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
I agree with that poster about the referee owning the setting and I’ve had zero problems filling D&D tables for about 40 years now. Having that attitude in no way stifles someone’s personal growth. What a weird take to have.
G
Guest 6801718
Guest
Good points. Power gamers and contrarians can be problems. Power Gamers probably less so as they typically can go along with a group. They just want to really excel at what the game does and don't want to fail. Disruptive players are a whole other thing. Hopefully the contrarians don't last in your group very long or can change. I've had some luck calming down power gamers with some assurance than being "less than optimal" won't hurt them. They can still be as great as they want. Otherwise, yeah, not going to happen.
