How Accommodating to Player Preferences Should the GM Be?

[Micah Sweet]

So, a few thoughts:

First off, play has not begun, so this is a potential player. I feel the GM has more responsibilities to players once play has begun. Prior to that, how accommodating the GM should be is mostly a question of how much they want this player at the table.

This campaign doesn't sound like it is particularly heavy on interaction with the society of the setting. It sounds more like mega-dungeon/ruin crawling. If that's true, then socially, nobody's going to care much if the character is a big old weirdo from another planet.

I would want to know why the player wants this non-standard character., and check whether the game I'm planning will get them what they think this non-standard character will bring.

If everyone wants to play big old weirdos from another planet... maybe I would adjust my plans to accommodate a "big old weirdos from another planet" game. Like, they are exploring the ruins to find artifacts that make portals to get them home, or something.

This idea always bothers me. If one person wants to play an out of genre character but is otherwise on board with the premise, the solution is negotiation and compromise (on one side or both). If the rest of the group follows suit, its a sign of bad faith to me, and that doesn't mean I should give up on my own ideas and embrace whatever it is they want at this moment.

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, the GM, as a player, is responsible for player gratification. So are all the other players at the table. Everyone in the group is responsible for having fun.

No. Just plain no.

My first duty as a GM is to have fun¹ myself. If I'm not having fun, the games on a fairly short calendar.²
My secondary duty is to ensure no player is actively preventing others from having fun¹.
My tertiary duty is to be fair with the rules.
My quaternary obligation is to provide opportunities for story that meshes with player desires.

I'm not responsible for them having fun - that's on them.
I expect them to let me know if they aren't. And I do ask from time to time. I try to provide the opportunities they asked for, when it doesn't interfere with my fun. And when it does, I let them know. But at the end of the day, if they don't take the opportunities, that's on them. If they aren't honest about what they want in the game, that's on them.

My players definitely have the right to vote with their feet.
They don't have the right to interfere with others fun, and my wed group has had to bounce two players for interfering with other players' fun. That's over the last 7 years... and none of the originals are left. But the second gen are... and go back 5 years or so. One of the two was fun to boardgame with, but not a good RPG player. Then again, that's because the originals weren't townies, and when they graduated or dropped out of OSU or LBCC, moved away.

-=-=-=-
¹: Noting that Fun in this case means whichever of pathos, enjoyment, catharsis, or struggle as desired for the combination of characters and setting.
²: When I'm getting paid, in money and/or product, I can run most things short term - 2 to 4 sessions. When I'm not getting paid, the equivalent is getting enjoyment. I killed off one campaign last month because I was no longer having fun. After 3 sessions in a row where it felt more like a chore, I was at my limit. It wasn't the players fault, per se, but it was a case of the players requested goal at outset had been met, I was no longer having fun, and remembering why I quit GMing that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be clear, I am not saying "don't do that" I am simply saying it might be useful to interrogate one's reasoning for that. As I said above, GMs are often far too precious about their worldbuilding choices, which are often just arbitrary. It is worth thinking about alternatives, or how things that we not considered interact with those world building choices.

I will return to the very real world example of a player wanting to play an elf ninja in a (AD&D2E) game set up with a dark ages England vibe. Because i interrogated my own world building on the issue, and then found a way to accommodate the player, the depth and breadth of a campaign that ended up lasting over 20 years was greatly improved.

You don't have to say "Yes" to everything. But it is worth pausing to ask yourself why you are kneejerking to "no."

Would you have a similar complaint if someone knee-jerked to "yes"?

 

[Celebrim]

I cannot disagree with you in stronger terms.

Ok, whatever.

Back in 3.5 days, I was creating a character and my young daughter wanted to make one as well. What they wanted wasn't channeled into the narrow constrictions of what D&D offers.

When I was talking about "new players" I was thinking generally along the lines of "new to my table" and not necessarily whether they've played the game before. I have probably had 50 or so players in my time in various groups, short games, and campaigns. Kids are some of the best RPers there are, because they generally only want to play make believe. They are generally better than adults who have been playing RPGs for 10 or 20 years. And if you know the kid - or really any person well -as you would with your daughter, then you can assess whether the reasons for the character are functional or dysfunctional because you know their heart and motives. So sure, with a small child some you know well, you could make an exception to the guidelines that I gave.

That said, I taught my kids to play RPGs when they were about 5 years old. I have no idea what age you mean by "young daughter", but if it's younger than say a precocious 10 year old, a really crunchy game like 3.5e D&D might not be the best introduction to the RPing. You might for example try the SIPS rules that I wrote for my five-year-olds at that age, and even then I find they really are better off with just make believe until they are eight or so. And precisely because they can't figure out how to make the character that they want in a game that crunchy, even at eight or ten or twelve, the process of character creation for a kid that young needs to be guided because something like 3.5e D&D has "Challenge" as a principle aesthetic of play and well, you really should be helping that player put themselves on a sound footing to overcome challenges.

And that said, I have a 600 page house rule document for 3.x D&D that I think I could use to help a 10 year old make just about any character that they wanted which did not break the rule that your concept can't be about being impressive - promising and talented is just fine but impressive is something in D&D you earn through play. So, I had a first time player say to me, "I want to ride a dinosaur that shoots lasers out of their eyes.", and I said, "Ok, so unlike some games, you can't start as a character in this game that has a dinosaur that shoots lasers from their eyes, but what I can do is show you how to make a character that can tame dinosaurs." And in some games like a supers game or Monsters and Other Childish things, a character that rides a dinosaur that shoots lasers from its eyes might be perfectly appropriate as a starting character. But, you aren't under any obligation as a GM to try to accommodate any request to be any sort of character, and indeed I would say that part of your duty as a GM that is teaching a new player of any age is how to create appropriate characters to the game and setting.

Judging 9 out of 10 of them as dysfunctional when you admit you'd let a long time player do it is nothing short of judgemental gatekeeping.

There isn't nothing wrong with a bit of reasonable gatekeeping and reasonable judgement. Every community has to exercise that. It keeps everyone at the table happier in the long run. I really hate that word "gatekeeping" because as a term of art people keep missing what's important about it. Gatekeeping is a fine and necessary thing, the important point that was trying to be made is that when gatekeeping you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of categories like gender, race, and so forth which are not reasonable basis for judgment and discrimination. But sometimes you just have to tell a player, "That's a fine and creative idea for a character, but it doesn't fit this game or setting." or even, "That character would be perfectly fine in a story where they were the principle character in the story, but I don't see how that character is going to work in a story of a group where no one in the group is the main character."

 

[Micah Sweet]

It depends on the referee, their preferences and style. If you're a railroading, high-prep referee, then yes, prep and running games is hard and time consuming. If you're an improvisation master who can get by with minimal or no prep, then running games is a breeze. Most people are somewhere on the spectrum between those two extremes.

I'm a sandbox GM. Lot of work there too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All that sounds like a lot more GM control that I have generally experienced at the table, as a GM or player. For example, the GM doesn't "doll out gratification." If anything does that, it's the dice. And GMs that are so protective of their worlds and stories they feel the need to -- well, maybe they should give writing novels a go.

To be honest, it sounds like you already knew your answer to your question before you asked it in the OP, judging by your responses to answers you don't like.

 

[MGibster]

There is a class of GM that seems to really disdain players and think of them as, at best, a necessary evil in order to run the campaign they want to.

I'm not talented enough to be a novelist, so I take it out on my players.

If one person wants to play an out of genre character but is otherwise on board with the premise, the solution is negotiation and compromise (on one side or both).

From my point of view, a player who wants to play an out-of-genre character isn't really onboard with the premise of the game. (Keeping in mind that playing against type isn't the same as being out-of-genre.) If Bob shows up to the Vampire game with his Mage, he's telling me he doesn't want to play Vampire. I ran a Trail of Cthulhu game set in the 1930s telling players their characters should be connected to the NYPD in some way and they should just be regular film noir type people. One player came back with the idea of a time traveling fighter pilot. He was clearly not interested in the premise of the campaign.

 

[Reynard]

Would you have a similar complaint if someone knee-jerked to "yes"?

I'm not sure what you are asking. If the game doesn't involve a strong premise, or if it is supposed to be a gonzo kitchen sink, I don't think there is a "yes" equivalent.

If you mean "should the GM interrogate their preferences even in the positive" -- sure, I guess? But I would need a concrete example to really understand the question.

I mean, "that concept fits too well with my prescribed intent!" doesn't seem like a likely scenario.

 

[Reynard]

To be honest, it sounds like you already knew your answer to your question before you asked it in the OP, judging by your responses to answers you don't like.

It wasn't a quiz with a right answer. Of course I have a preference. Am I not allowed to express that preference?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It wasn't a quiz with a right answer. Of course I have a preference. Am I not allowed to express that preference?

Of course you are. I guess I just expected that you would state it in the OP as opposed to wait until someone provides an answer you object to.