Saying "no" and equality

[kaomera]

Something that I've been thinking about a bit in light of the "I don't like it" thread.

For a while now I've been running games with no major restrictions on what's available to players, despite the fact that I would normally prefer not to have certain things crop up in my games. I had limits in place for quite a while, differing from campaign to campaign. Mostly these where based on the setting / fluff / story, I rarely really banned anything for being "broken", but what fit in the game and what didn't was, in turn, very significantly affected by my personal preferences. So, for instance, since I'm not a real fan of psionics I did not make a place for them in my games. (Actually, my policy has usually been to specify what is available instead of what isn't...)

When I plan a campaign I usually end up doing it mostly blind. It's easier to approach players with a campaign idea in hand, and I've had a serious lack of luck getting players to make serious suggestions regarding what my next campaign should be or what characters they wanted to play. At best I could guess with a few of them. Now ideally in this case, I would think, the players would take the information I provide them about the upcoming campaign (including which rules where or where not available for use) and find something cool that they wanted to play. However, it seemed like all too often we where actually operating on a double-blind basis, with the players seemingly having designed their characters beforehand.

I enjoy being able to accommodate the players' wishes when I can. I'm willing to relax or remove my restrictions, re-writing part of the campaign if need be in order to let a player have what they want. But I was always a bit cagey about this - I find that players enjoy getting special stuff to the point that they feel almost compelled to get me to change something for them, just because they can... And I really would prefer not to have to deal with significant negotiations with each and every player. And what's more I hate having to say "no", so I'd really prefer to avoid having any discussion unless I can actually accommodate the player.

Now, at one point I had a player approach me about playing a psionic character in a campaign I was setting up (IIRC this was just after the 3.5 psionic book had come out). We talked about it and she convinced me that it wasn't going to be a hassle for me, and that she could handle the complexity of the character. What's more, she had some interesting ideas on how to work the character into the setting which also worked to make the "fluff" of the character less obnoxious to me, and was happy to incorporate my own suggestions. And I knew from playing with her previously that she would do cool stuff in the game.

Now at this point it came out to the players in general that I was willing to be flexible about the campaign (largely because they knew how I felt about psionics). And one of the other players who came forward with a "request" for an exception also wanted to play a psionic character... However: he deliberately chose a very complex character and from previous experience I didn't think that he could handle it, the character seemed likely to generate more work from me even under the best conditions, and he couldn't articulate what he wanted from the character or what he was going to do with it beyond "it's cool".

I think it is worth mentioning that one other thing played into this as well: my ego. The first player approached me diplomatically, made it clear that she'd play in the game and expected to enjoy it even if she had to come up with a different character, and generally made me feel like allowing her to play the character was a generous thing to do as a DM. And I enjoy being able to be a generous DM. The second player, on the other hand, just rubbed me the wrong way, acting like any restriction on what he could play was pretty unreasonable, and generally hesitant to consider any compromise.

Despite that, I think it was a fair decision to allow the first player to play the character she had suggested and ask the second player to come up with something a bit more appropriate... I gave them both an opportunity to sway me, and one did so while the other idi not. But I ended up facing a pretty general consensus from the players that this was, in fact, grossly unfair. And in the end I decided that I would just unban everything, which has generally been my policy since...

The thing is, I've been noticing more and more lately annoyances in my games that it seems like could be really easily avoided if I just started banning stuff again. Nothing that's ruining my game or anything, mind you, but if the TV's turned to static and it's bugging me, why would I not get up and turn it off? So I'm giving some serious consideration to significantly limiting what stuff is used in my next campaign. Normally it would be most effective to specifically ban only the stuff I don't want to deal with (or allow only the stuff that I do), but in light of my previous experiences I think I'd be better off working in much broader strokes - entire books and such. Otherwise I think I'm just opening myself up to more arguments than I really want to deal with. And I'm going to end up eliminating cool options with that approach, but there should be enough stuff left to make up for it...

I guess what I'm really worried about is the players "not getting it". I've been finding myself waxing nostalgic for the days when I could get a group together composed of nothing but close friends - people I knew and hung out with apart from gaming. Friends, it seems to me, are more willing to put up with each others' BS, and therefore more willing to compromise. A lot of the people I game with that I don't really know well otherwise seem to now want to deal with the fact that we might have different points of view and differing priorities for the game.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

The rule is, Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. In other words, everyone plays by the same rules. If one player can be psionic, then so can another.

I think the right way of handling the first player was to say to everyone, "As an experiment, I'm going to allow psionic characters within certain limits. The limits are x, y and z." (List the objective, testable limits you've established in clear terms.) "If anyone else wants to play a psionic character they can but they have to stay within those limits, is that cool?"

 

[Mort]

Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the things you like and disallowing the things you don't.

Not simply because it's "your game" but because invariably you will present a better world and interact better with the players if the stuff you actually like is on the table.

As far as materials allowed, I generaly say something "like anything in books x,y,z are allowed without reservation, anything outside that must be discussed and ok'd by me before inclussion into your character" (I'm actually extremely liberal as to what I let in, but the extra step means I get to see it and weed out the truly annoying stuff).

The key also is not to play favorites, that may lead to resentment and bad feelings - BUT make it expressely clear that if a concept, build, whatever - is not working (too powerful, too boring, clearly just "doesn't fit" etc.) you have the right to ask the player to change it.

 

[kaomera]

The rule is, Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. In other words, everyone plays by the same rules. If one player can be psionic, then so can another.

I think the right way of handling the first player was to say to everyone, "As an experiment, I'm going to allow psionic characters within certain limits. The limits are x, y and z." (List the objective, testable limits you've established in clear terms.) "If anyone else wants to play a psionic character they can but they have to stay within those limits, is that cool?"

I know the term "Judge" is sometimes used to refer to a GM, but I don't consider myself a Judge. I don't think the DM's job should be solely to be impartial; and if that was all that was needed, you wouldn't really need a DM. Part of the job should be to handle all of the things that can't be handled impartially, that the rules and the dice can't manage on their own.

What's more, I would have to recluse myself from running any game, ever if it was required that I remain impartial, let along appear impartial. I have a significant stake (my fun) in any game I run, at least as much as any of the players. And there's no plaintiff or defendant for me to be impartial to - if anything they're on one side (the side that can "win") and I'm on the other (the side that can only ensure that everybody "loses").

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Say that there will be limits, but take the players input on those limits--provided if, and only if, they are willing to spend some time collaborating on those limits upfront. Now, it would probably still be a good idea if you provide a starting point, based on your preferences.

So for example, you start with no psionics, by default. Player A says (in a collaboration session, or over email, or however you work it out so that anyone can participate) that she has some ideas for psionics that she wants to try. She elaborates, and you discover that you are willing to go along with this. Player B jumps in and wants to push it even more. You go back and forth, maybe with other people chiming in. Perhaps A helps B get where he wants. Perhaps B is unreasonable, and the group decides that you stop with A's suggestions. Any number of things could happen. But when you are done, all the suggestions got heard, and the group agreed to the ones that were chosen.

Now consider the alternate example where B doesn't say anything, perhaps merely assuming in some vague way that what A was suggesting opened up his idea too. Tough, he should have paid more attention. The subset of the group that discussed and paid attention decided what the limits would be. If B wants to change those after the fact, when his character violates them, he has to justify those changes to the whole group. And the burden is very much on him.

Basically, there is a time set aside when the default answer is: "We'll find a way to make this work if at all reasonable and enough of us agree." And then there is a later time when the default answer is: "No, unless you have a darn good reason for another answer."

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I had limits in place for quite a while, differing from campaign to campaign. Mostly these where based on the setting / fluff / story, I rarely really banned anything for being "broken"...

I ban stuff for the exact opposite reasons. Weird.

I've found that while many DMs like to write detailed and artistic worlds, most players just want to choose from the game's eleven jillion character options and then start dungeon diving. So in my own campaign, I don't ban anything for personal or setting reasons. I've even home brewed a couple races that I initially thought of as too gonzo, but have since grown to accept and even love as part of my baby [campaign world].

On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in the DM's authority. I'll give opinions and make requests as a player, but at the end of the day it's the DM's call. If I really don't like what the DM disallows, I'll vote with my feet.

 

[pemerton]

I think it was a fair decision to allow the first player to play the character she had suggested and ask the second player to come up with something a bit more appropriate... I gave them both an opportunity to sway me, and one did so while the other idi not. But I ended up facing a pretty general consensus from the players that this was, in fact, grossly unfair.

I can't offer a lot of advice on the broader issue. I've never really had trouble selling players on a campaign "pitch" and then having them build PCs that fit that pitch.

But I tend to feel your pain in relation to what you've described about these two players. There is a big difference between a player who makes it clear that s/he can handle a particular PC - both mechanically, and from the point of view of the gameworld/story - and one who is out of his/her depth in one or both respects. The trouble is, by banning the second one's PC you are, in effect, telling that person that s/he is not as good a player. And while true, this may come across pretty harshly.

I'm lucky in that mostly my players build PCs that fit within their "complexity toleration", and they tend to be happy to accept house rules intended to done down broken mechanical elements. In part, this is probably a result (at least in part) of playing with friends.

 

[C_M2008]

I ban stuff in games I run all the time, and there isn't any give and take - I'm devoting dozens of hours of my time to continuously developing a realistic (within the genre), evolving, vibrant, living world/setting. If I say no psionics/elves/xyz - than that's that. I have far more invested in terms of time & effort engaged in the game then any player - I'm going to make sure I enjoy the payoff during gameplay.

As long as my setting is sufficiently consistant & engaging players will want to play regardless, they know I run a good, impartial, and fun game and that beyond any restrictions they're free to do what they want.

 

[kaomera]

Basically, there is a time set aside when the default answer is: "We'll find a way to make this work if at all reasonable and enough of us agree." And then there is a later time when the default answer is: "No, unless you have a darn good reason for another answer."

That sounds like good advice, but I've had an issue, in the past, with players not being willing to participate in the game until I'm "actually ready to run". I suppose that would just put us into the later time, and there would at least have been the possibility of working something out...

I ban stuff for the exact opposite reasons. Weird.

Yeah, I've found that play balance can be a thorny issue. A lot of players I encounter, play balance issues are really the only thing they really think about or research regarding game design. Invoking "play balance" provokes arguments, which I could deal with, but in picking my battles I think it's better to go for what I really want, which is usually story stuff.

And lack of player interest in setting fluff is a decent part of the issue, certainly. What confounds me more is the seeming desire to have every option available, even though you can't use them all at once. It really seems to me that most players have their next character decided on and "on deck" in advance (otherwise why is it so hard for them to come up with something that actually fits the setting?), so it annoys me that I can't usually get them to give me that info. I'd be very happy to build a campaign setting around a set of character concepts, for instance...

As a player, I like a certain amount of limitation. I have dozens and dozens of character ideas I'd like to someday get a chance to try and I'm sure I can find something that fits or can be made to fit nearly any setting / campaign. What bugs me (as a player) is GMs who seem to try to enforce the double-blind, insisting that I should come up with a character concept on my own that "I really want to play" without any input from them... In D&D, at least, it's usually easy for me to just get ideas from the other players / "fill in the holes" in the party, but for some other games (WoD, frex) where you would not normally get to see the other players' characters, it's pretty maddening.

The trouble is, by banning the second one's PC you are, in effect, telling that person that s/he is not as good a player. And while true, this may come across pretty harshly.

Yeah, that was pretty much exactly my issue and why I ended up backing down from placing limits on the PCs.

It also didn't / doesn't help that I think the second player was at least in part deliberately picking a more complex character type to prove that "he could do it". The results weren't really satisfactory for anyone, and he ended up dropping the character after only a few weeks anyway...

 

[kitsune9]

I'm not a DM who likes to ban stuff except in rare cases in which something comes out that we feel is broken in the game. However, even broken stuff has their place and I give the players the option of continue to take whatever combo / items they want, but should realize that monsters or NPCs along the same lines they will have similar builds.

For example, if the PC's want to go around and sunder every weapon their enemies have, be my guest, but don't cry about it when you come across the occasional fighter or monster that also has the sunder feat and sunders your +3 flametongue sword.

Now I do have certain limitations within the campaign in which the player characters cannot exceed. For example, regardless of whether they can afford it or not, the player characters cannot buy any magic item above their GP limit. This is an idea I borrowed from Living Greyhawk. At every level, there was a GP limit on what a character could buy. They would not be allowed to exceed it. So in my campaign, I too have a GP limit table for the characters. It allows me to not have to worry too much of PC's buying game-breaker items until later down the road.