Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[Lanefan]

That's some pretty fine hair splitting. Both boil down to, "You will do what I say or get out." Considering you gave an example later of #2 where the entire group rebelled, I'd say it's probably equally problematic.

IMO, I solve all of this with group character generation. No one gets to create characters in a vacuum in my campaigns anymore. Your character WILL have a reason for being with this group and he WILL have ties to other members of the group.

Isn't that just saying, at its extreme, "You will play what I say or get out?"

I mean sure, it's your perogative as DM to say "no Gnomes" or "no Tieflings" or even "no Wizards" if it fits the setting. But taking it the step further of telling me what personality types I can/cannot play is *far* worse of a railroad than anything you-as-DM could ever do in an adventure. The adventure is yours. Do with it what you will. But the personality - the actual character of the character I'm playing: that's mine.

Lan-"now off to run a game"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

A better example might be D&D's standard point of reference... The Lord of the Rings.

Each member of the Fellowship is a hero in his own way. Each of them has his own absolute beliefs and unbending, unyielding natures. And, what happens when those beliefs come into conflict and cannot be resolved? One of them dies, two of them get captured, and the team falls apart irrevocably, with majority of them abandoning the original quest they set out upon, either on purpose or by necessity.

So? You then have a 3-way split party for a while, one of which stays split and finishes the original quest while the other two eventually end up re-meeting and interweaving as characters come and go.

That's hardly inspiring, when you really think about it.

Au contrarie, it's very inspiring; proof that you don't always have to have the same party stay together in order to get a grand adventure and good story.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

First off, Celebrim needs more posrep in this thread. Someone cover me please. That is one wise cat.

Isn't that just saying, at its extreme, "You will play what I say or get out?"

I mean sure, it's your perogative as DM to say "no Gnomes" or "no Tieflings" or even "no Wizards" if it fits the setting. But taking it the step further of telling me what personality types I can/cannot play is *far* worse of a railroad than anything you-as-DM could ever do in an adventure. The adventure is yours. Do with it what you will. But the personality - the actual character of the character I'm playing: that's mine.

Lan-"now off to run a game"-efan

Not really. It's, you can play whatever you want so long as it is not disruptive to the game. Your character will fit in with the group and have a reason for adventuring with this group.

Now, if you can fit your "man with no name" character into that restriction, then groovy. I follow Rel's advice on this. Your character has to have a reason for being here beyond a big flashing P floating over his head.

So? You then have a 3-way split party for a while, one of which stays split and finishes the original quest while the other two eventually end up re-meeting and interweaving as characters come and go.

Having 2/3rds of the group relegated to observers for significant amounts of time is not the way I want to run a game. Might be fine for some people, but, to me, RPG's are not spectator sports.

 

[Lanefan]

Not really. It's, you can play whatever you want so long as it is not disruptive to the game. Your character will fit in with the group and have a reason for adventuring with this group.

I'll be the one who decides if my character fits in, and how; and who in the party she gets along with and doesn't; and whether she sees them as doing something useful and to be helped and respected or sees them as just a bunch of walking treasure ripe for the stealing (most likely a bit of both); and whether or not she ever tells them her name; and whether that name is real or not, etc.

Parties that function like soulless killing machines might be efficient, but they generally sacrifice character to do so and thus are boring as hell.

Now, if you can fit your "man with no name" character into that restriction, then groovy. I follow Rel's advice on this. Your character has to have a reason for being here beyond a big flashing P floating over his head.

Done.

Name: none. Alignment: N possibly trending NE.

Background that players might eventually learn: I have no name, no past, no future; I'm a drifter who learned my warrior skills through the simple fight to survive in an uncaring world. You'll get maybe one word out of me a day if you're lucky and chances are it'll be unrepeatable in mixed company.

Background for DM: I've long held an unspoken love for the woman who has become the party Thief (i.e. another PC) and I'm here for one reason only: to see she comes to no harm. I'm going with the party whether they like it or not as long as she is in it. The rest of the party can go to hell as far as I'm concerned and will get there a lot faster if they show any interest in her beyond simple companionship.

Having 2/3rds of the group relegated to observers for significant amounts of time is not the way I want to run a game. Might be fine for some people, but, to me, RPG's are not spectator sports.

You're assuming all the parties are getting run at the same session. Split parties are run on different nights...one night it's Pippin-Merry-Gandalf, the next might be Aragorn-Gimli-Legloas, and so forth...

Lan-"unrepeatable words go here"-efan

 

[Doug McCrae]

I mean sure, it's your perogative as DM to say "no Gnomes" or "no Tieflings" or even "no Wizards" if it fits the setting. But taking it the step further of telling me what personality types I can/cannot play is *far* worse of a railroad than anything you-as-DM could ever do in an adventure. The adventure is yours. Do with it what you will. But the personality - the actual character of the character I'm playing: that's mine.

1) Personality and behaviour are related to race and class. For example it would be pretty much impossible to be a D&D wizard and not be studious.

2) No evil alignments is a relatively common houserule.

3) The xp reward system is very manipulative. It doesn't absolutely control PC behaviour but it gives a strong push in a particular direction. Xp for gold encourages the PCs to be greedy and mercenary, xp for class-appropriate activities encourages PCs to act according to class and so forth.

4) Don't the PCs need common goals and methods in order for the game to function? Traditionally in D&D all the PCs want to go to dangerous places, kill monsters and take their stuff. Which is quite strange behaviour when you think about it. PCs have to be extremely violent people.

If a PC wants to be a farmer, or a minstrel, or a cordwainer or a lorimer, or any kind of a normal person really, he's not going to be able to adventure with the party. If all the PCs want that they are not going to be able to interact with the DM's prepared material, which presumably mostly consists of holes in the ground with monsters in.

 

[Rel]

You're assuming all the parties are getting run at the same session. Split parties are run on different nights...one night it's Pippin-Merry-Gandalf, the next might be Aragorn-Gimli-Legloas, and so forth...

That neatly solves the problem of split parties resulting in boredom for those not currently involved in the action. But it creates a couple new problems that are not trivial.

First it means that the GM is running games on multiple nights of the week. That's not an option for many people due to either work schedule or family commitments.

It also means that the players might have to reschedule game sessions based on what part of the party they are in. This also might be a problem for the same reasons as the GM's issue.

Lastly but not leastly, my gaming group is foremost a group of friends and we all look forward to the chance to get together and see each other every week. I think it would kind of stink to not be able to see some of them for an extended period of time because the PC's in our RPG went separate ways.

I don't think that just because we have as part of the "buy in" conversation at the start of the game "The party should have good reasons to be together and stay together most of the time." that it makes them a "soulless killing machine". I will say however that if the group feels strongly that they need to split up for a short time to accomplish a particular thing that results in combat, I usually will have the players whose characters are not present run some of the monsters. It's fun for them to try and kill the rest of the party from the outside once in a while.


Anyway, I've recently been reading the 4e DMG2 and, amid the other good advice in there about running games, I really like the party building methodology. Basically it's a three step process:

Come up with a blurb for your character that contains a basic personality and motivations.

Then pick a "tie" that you have with one other member of the party.

Then pick a "conflict" that you have with another member of the party (something that might cause a little friction with them, not a giant wedge that keeps the group from doing their job).

I think that this approach assures an interlocking series of relationships that both binds the party together but also keeps things interesting. I don't think it needs to be adhered to rigidly or anything. But it makes for good guidelines.

 

[pawsplay]

"My character wouldn't do that!"

The five words that make every GM's blood run cold. It could be an unbitten adventure hook, a intriguing story twist, or simply a refusal to except the majority vote on which hall to turn down. What we have here is a power-struggle between player and GM, using the only narrative tool a player has; control of his character, to utterly stop any forward momentum the GM may have.

How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?

My solution is to define this as a non-problem. If the GM's story requires the PC to act in a non-PC-like manner, the GM's story is the problem. Sure, the player should work with others on establishing a reasonable characterization, but once the campaign's underway, it's a little late for that, isn't it?

 

[Rel]

Sure, the player should work with others on establishing a reasonable characterization, but once the campaign's underway, it's a little late for that, isn't it?

Why is it too late to establish further characterization once the campaign is underway?

 

[pawsplay]

Why is it too late to establish further characterization once the campaign is underway?

It's not. It is, however, too late, to unestablish previous characterization.

 

[Lanefan]

That neatly solves the problem of split parties resulting in boredom for those not currently involved in the action. But it creates a couple new problems that are not trivial.

First it means that the GM is running games on multiple nights of the week. That's not an option for many people due to either work schedule or family commitments.

It also means that the players might have to reschedule game sessions based on what part of the party they are in. This also might be a problem for the same reasons as the GM's issue.

Lastly but not leastly, my gaming group is foremost a group of friends and we all look forward to the chance to get together and see each other every week. I think it would kind of stink to not be able to see some of them for an extended period of time because the PC's in our RPG went separate ways.

All fair comment, though as for the last it's all in all probably better for the game if you're also seeing each other outside of the game sessions; if for no other reason than if you're not the sessions can too easily get derailed by other conversations.

I don't think that just because we have as part of the "buy in" conversation at the start of the game "The party should have good reasons to be together and stay together most of the time." that it makes them a "soulless killing machine".

True, but I've seen the one lead to the other often enough to be wary of it.

Anyway, I've recently been reading the 4e DMG2 and, amid the other good advice in there about running games, I really like the party building methodology. Basically it's a three step process:

Come up with a blurb for your character that contains a basic personality and motivations.

Then pick a "tie" that you have with one other member of the party.

Then pick a "conflict" that you have with another member of the party (something that might cause a little friction with them, not a giant wedge that keeps the group from doing their job).

I think that this approach assures an interlocking series of relationships that both binds the party together but also keeps things interesting. I don't think it needs to be adhered to rigidly or anything. But it makes for good guidelines.

Though good advice on the surface, it makes one huge assumption:
that the PCs knew each other before adventuring.

If the party is thrown together by external forces (my previous campaign started this way) or if it is recruiting strangers on the fly (my current campaign started this way), this won't work well at all. Also, particularly at campaign start and it seems somewhat unlike others here, I prefer to have the players roll up their characters in isolation of what the others are doing, so each will at least start out playing what he/she wants. If there's any glaring gaps once they get together I'll lob in an NPC to fill 'em.

2) No evil alignments is a relatively common houserule.

Sadly, yes.

4) Don't the PCs need common goals and methods in order for the game to function? Traditionally in D&D all the PCs want to go to dangerous places, kill monsters and take their stuff. Which is quite strange behaviour when you think about it. PCs have to be extremely violent people.

If a PC wants to be a farmer, or a minstrel, or a cordwainer or a lorimer, or any kind of a normal person really, he's not going to be able to adventure with the party. If all the PCs want that they are not going to be able to interact with the DM's prepared material, which presumably mostly consists of holes in the ground with monsters in.

That's where the common goal needs to be presented from outside, by the DM via some aspect of the game world. If a PC wants to be a farmer but all the farmland's been overrun by Orcs, well guess what?

It's very rare, even in my wacky crew, for a PC to outright decline to adventure at all. But it's far more common for them to be individuals first, in the party mostly out of convenience and strength-in-numbers; and I'm fine with that.

And let's take your above thoughts one step further. Those dangerous violent people are most likely going to look out for themselves first when the going gets really tough; hardly conducive to a coherent team but much more realistic, and a large part of the reason why parties as an entity are so incredibly resilient - there's always going to be one who runs away and survives.

Lanefan