The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[Bendris Noulg]

With KM's attitude, my players would tell him to take a hike before I ever a got a chance to do so !

Joining my group requires a three-step interview: First with me, which often involves the question "Tell me about your last three characters" as well as asking about playing style and so forth.

The second is with my players.

The third is during Character Creation.

At any point during these three, a player can be given the "I don't think this is going to work" speech. Most don't get past stage 1, very few get past stage 2, and I've had to reject a few during stage 3. Only the rarest of occassions has a problem player gotten into the actual game only to be dismissed later (and these have most often been dismissed by the players than by myself).

 

[barsoomcore]

Okay, for those of you slagging off my players (I'm looking at YOU, diaglo) -- the Barsoom campaign is composed of a combined total of about seventy years of gaming experience. When I started the game up, I said: "No non-humans, fighters and rogues only, flintlock pistols, dinosaurs and red guys. Are you in?"

Every one of the people I asked were enthusiastic at the get-go. If they hadn't been, I wouldn't have included them in the campaign. If they'd said, "But I really want to play a sorcerer," I'd have said, "Then join a different campaign."

I didn't justify a thing. I didn't offer any explanations and I don't intend to. There are no non-humans because Barsoom doesn't have non-humans. There are no clerics because Barsoom doesn't have clerics. Why would I justify these things? If a player doesn't want to play in this campaign, that's okay with me.

The stewardesses (who are also playing in Barsoom, just in a different time and place) were each of them complete newbies to role-playing. I designed their characters for them and they've never questioned a thing.

I run games at my FLGS once a month and usually provide characters and usually have one or more weird house rules for the session. Some people don't like that and bug out -- most people say, "Okay, got it," and we're off.

A. the idea that a DM needs to justify houserules is silly.
B. the idea that 3e somehow makes it harder to implement houserules is equally silly.
C. the idea that Paizo committed some atrocity by explaining how one might use paladins in a defunct campaign setting is possibly even sillier than those other two.
D. I DM a bunch of stewardesses.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Joining my group requires a three-step interview: First with me, which often involves the question "Tell me about your last three characters" as well as asking about playing style and so forth.

The second is with my players.

The third is during Character Creation.

At any point during these three, a player can be given the "I don't think this is going to work" speech. Most don't get past stage 1, very few get past stage 2, and I've had to reject a few during stage 3. Only the rarest of occassions has a problem player gotten into the actual game only to be dismissed later (and these have most often been dismissed by the players than by myself).

Well, at least you know enough to not play with people that you don't think you'll have a good time with, but a three step interview process? If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear more about it. How long does that take--do you do it on multiple nights? One night? One weekend or can it last longer depending on schedules? What do you tell people when they start the process? Have you ever had anyone bail when they find out how involved your interviewing process is?

This is just so contrary to my own experience that I'm a bit surprised. My group's had to interview some new players, and we usually just grab some coffee, talk a bit, and then (at least every time we've done it since the group has been together) we've been off and running. Maybe we're lucky. Hey, if it works for you, it works for you, but wow.

Best,
Nick

 

[Rel]

I want to float a metaphor and see if it brings any clarity to the discussion:

Consider the participants to the game to be painters and the various races, classes, feats, skills, etc. are all colors of paint. Some of these paints are used to create PC's and some are used to create the rest of the world.

I think we're seeing two different points of view emerging. One point of view is focused on the canvas and this point is necessarily dominant among the GM's because they have the most control over what actually goes there. To them, the paints on the pallette represent the tools they can use to create a colorful picture of their world. There is no need to use all of the paints and perhaps they feel that using all of the paints, in every picture, makes the pictures start to look too much the same over the long haul. So they pick and choose what paints are the best ones to get the picture they want and then they try to sell the final picture to the players.

While all of that is going on, the players have no idea what sort of masterpiece the GM is working on. They don't know that it is full of earth tones or only pastels. All they have in their own hands is the full pallette that holds all of the primary colors of the game. That pallette MUST be their focus and so they toy with all the ways that the colors can be put together in interesting ways. But when the GM reveals his masterpiece, the player is seeing only part of the color selection he is used to staring at. "Where's the Blue, dude?"

Now the GM has, at this point, spent a lot of effort putting together his masterpiece and does not want to hear, "Where's the Blue?". He wants to hear how much the player appreciates what he has done with the colors. How he has woven them together. His focus has NOT been on the colors that he wasn't using in the first place. The very idea that the player insists there should be Blue is at least failing to appreciate all the colors that WERE used and at most is flat out insulting to his art.

On the other hand, if the GM knew that the player in question has a long history of LOVING Blue, then what did he expect? Of course the player is going to miss his favorite color. It was poor planning by the GM to assume that the player was going to buy the picture, especially if he didn't warn him ahead of time.

Ok, enough of the metaphor. Where does that leave us?

What I think is that the process of campaign creation must, on some level, be colaborative between the GM and players. It's not just common courtesy, it is a way to solve a TON of problems before they happen. I cannot think of a time when I did not consult my group of players before putting together a campaign. It is a negotiation process from the time I first get the urge to run the game until we roll the dice the first night (and sometimes even beyond that). And that's fine with me. But I'll acknowlege that one of the reasons that it is fine with me is that the group of players I've got seem happy with the idea that not every campaign must contain every color of the rainbow but instead may lean heavily toward one end of the spectrum or another.

 

[Altalazar]

Joining my group requires a three-step interview: First with me, which often involves the question "Tell me about your last three characters" as well as asking about playing style and so forth.

The second is with my players.

The third is during Character Creation.

At any point during these three, a player can be given the "I don't think this is going to work" speech. Most don't get past stage 1, very few get past stage 2, and I've had to reject a few during stage 3. Only the rarest of occassions has a problem player gotten into the actual game only to be dismissed later (and these have most often been dismissed by the players than by myself).

Interesting. Do they need to bring references and salary requirements?

What would you do if you were in an area where you were lucky even to find a player, much less one who is somehow "perfect" for your needs? What if you need three or four players to run a game and you have only one and there are only one or two possible others? Would you just stop playing, or would you change your "interview" process?

 

[SSquirrel]

Ya know I was gonna do a point by point answer to KM, but BN beat me to it and Barsoomcore said the other things I was thinking so yeah I second both.

I think the 3 step interview may be a bit much, but then again, my groups over the years have always been much more free form with membership. I used to play in a CoC game that had about 6-8 players who were there every week and then another dozen or so that showed up occasionally, etc. If you were a part of the group that day and someone hadn't told JIm they wouldn't be there that character would be the first likely "oops". If you told him in advance it was cool so long as ya didn't make a habit of it. If you gave no notice you got tossed into the mix of possible hits.

My current group has had the same 4 people at the core the entire time and over time another 3 have become core members. We've also had at least another 8 people drift in and out in the last 4 years. Generally these were friends of at least 1 of us and most were gaming for their first time.
Some decided it wasn't for them and left, some got annoying as all get out and were told to do so by the DM. One pair has been in and out of the group several times over the last 7 years and its generally when they're on our DMs good side that they would join up. That got old for him pretty quick and BANG they went again heh.

We're all a generally helpful bunch and want to make people comfortable and to enjoy themselves so we try to make it the least confusing we can *not so easy when our main game was Rolemaster for a long while*. I'm going to be running a game of my own of AU in mid-May and have already told people I want to use the new version of Ken Hood's Grim n Gritty rules and there's no Oathsworn. I've told them that I have problems with seeing how I'd be able to easily work the Oath needed into the game that wouldn't set conflict into the group for what firection they would go etc. Everyone is fine with this. Being old Rolemaster fans, grim n gritty is ok with them.

While I did justify my decisions, it was just b/c that's how I am. They would have accepted the decision anyway, but I just always explain myself.
I don't think a DM is REQUIRED to do so tho. I mean it's THEIR game. If the world doesn't sound like fun, don't play in it. If your pet race has never existed there, that is the ONLY reason they need. Heck if there's no gnomes and you press him and he goes on a rant about how useless they are and how annoying and he just hates em (hypothetically speaking) hey that's a reason too and a good one. Why? Because why should the DM run something that doesn't fit HIS vision? He shouldn't be made to redesign his world to fit elves in if he doesn't want elves in the game. It could be a world of just Goblins, Dwarves and Orcs and someone might bitch. Tough.



Ya know, I ssaid I wasn't gonna respond about it but oh well I guess I did *grin* least I didn't do it point by point. Anyway, run your game with exactly what you want in it. Make sure the players know BEFORE character creation what all of your house rules and other alterations are. Reasonable players will possibly ask why something isn't there, but accept whatever the DM says as his ideal of the setting. If the DM decides the player is right and X would be more interesting to have in the game after all congrats. If everything stays the same that's great too. Good players look at "limitations" and see what they can do that is interesting to them and how they can stand out from each other. Read some of Mark Rosewater's columns over at www.magicthegathering.com about limitations vs completely open. 1 pushes creativity and 1 does not. Guess which one. yup. Limitations.

Hagen

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, at least you know enough to not play with people that you don't think you'll have a good time with, but a three step interview process?

Actually, it just evolved naturally... The first being the "phone interview", meaning that the player is responding to a note left by me at the FLGS of choice and I'm "feeling out" the person's interests, preferences, and habits to see if there are any obvious points of potential conflict in tastes. The second meeting can take, as an average, a week (although sometimes tight scheduling might make it two), being a "meet the gang" interview; the candidate is invited over for a non-game night to discuss both the candidate's own gaming history as well as the history of the current group. This is usually in the form of tales of previous gaming exploits that give each other a sense of everyone's style and tastes and to see if everyone "feels right" about being together at a table with RPGs as the main topic of discussion. (Hint: If we learn more about your previous character's stats than we do about his adventures, you've probably just failed. Actually, you most likely did...)

The third is again a simple natural process because it is the point when the candidate and I sit down to create his first Aedon character. Here is where the "personal level" feeling of the person ends and the "business" relationship begins, so to speak. The main thing I'm looking for here is a willingness to learn about the setting; not to push for a PhD in Aedonian History and Physics, mind you, but rather a desire to at least understand the principles of the game world, the themes that its built around, the character concepts that best fit, and so forth. At the very least, I want to know that I'm going to be trusted as a GM.

I guess it would be easier to put it this way:

Talk to me; Become a "possibility".

Talk to the group; Become an "invite".

Accept and adapt to the campaign world; Become a "member-in-training".

After 4-5 sessions, you're either a member or a disturbance. [Important Note: Someone that is slow to learn/adapt isn't a disturbance, just those that refuse to.]

About are biggest "problem players" have been those that claimed to be "looking for more" in their D&D game only to turn around and be anti-social as a person and a PC; reason being that anyone "looking for more" likely will be given exceptions to some of our personal criteria for the sake of providing him the opportunity to "get more". Most of those that are found to be a disturbance are of this sort, being "jerks" (as the new catch-phrase around here seems to be) that had some free-time on his hands and wanted to disrupt a group intentionally.

(Yes, the world does have people in it that are prone to such petty behavior... Sucks for everyone, doesn't it?)

At any rate, I can imagine how "3 step interview" probably sounded more akin to getting a position in upper corporate management than it does to joining a gaming group. Sorry to confuse.

 

[Gothmog]

Interesting. Do they need to bring references and salary requirements?

What would you do if you were in an area where you were lucky even to find a player, much less one who is somehow "perfect" for your needs? What if you need three or four players to run a game and you have only one and there are only one or two possible others? Would you just stop playing, or would you change your "interview" process?

Well, I can't speak for BendrisNoulg, but I think he's got the right idea for people who are already gamers. IME, people who have been gaming a long time are a rather opinionated and close-minded bunch, especially as it regards playstyles. If you want to run an intrigue RP heavy game and the guy you are bringing in has always done dungeon hacks, no amount of concessions are going to make either side happy. Its better to simply not game at all than game badly. Also, there is the fact to consider that a lot of hardcore gamers are less than, shall we say, "fully functional" people. They have either grating personal habits, sexually harass females in the group, have bad attitudes, or antisocial tendencies that keep them from being able to find new groups to play with on a regular basis. Not all gamers are like this, but the ones who typically post ads at gaming stores are, and you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Trust me, I've tried the more open way before to get new players, and I regretted it- so I think an interview process is reasonable. Now for people you introduce to gaming yourself, thats a different story. The first thing to look for is whether they are sane or not, but past that most of them come to the game interested in the game genre, without the baggage of specific gaming ideals and preconceptions. YMMV of course, but I agree with BN on this one.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Interesting. Do they need to bring references and salary requirements?

What would you do if you were in an area where you were lucky even to find a player, much less one who is somehow "perfect" for your needs? What if you need three or four players to run a game and you have only one and there are only one or two possible others? Would you just stop playing, or would you change your "interview" process?

Alright, between my clarifying the "interview process" in my last post and Gothmog's reply (who doesn't speak for me but did a great job anyways ), I will add the following...

1. I only need 1 player. Ever. 3-5 is nice. 6 is too many (although I'm kewl with running multiple groups, being that I run 3 now and am about to start advertising a 4th).

2. I will go without a game if I feel that I can't find an acceptable group (although the fact that my wife both plays in my game and GMs an Oathbound game, I've always got my 1 player, so it's all good now). I can attest to not gaming at all from 86 to 92 (which started with me joining the Navy and ended with me burning-out on the road with The Dead), but 95-97 were fairly dry years as well. 83-85 were also slow years, but that's mostly because my parents thought I was worshipping the Devil.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

A. the idea that a DM needs to justify houserules is silly.

Agreed.

B. the idea that 3e somehow makes it harder to implement houserules is equally silly.

I don't think this is so silly, being that many of the rules are balanced/countered by other rules now more than in previous editions. Can it be changed? Yes. But it only becomes easy via experience. Issue being: Players not accepting houserules make it difficult for GMs to gain that experience.

C. the idea that Paizo committed some atrocity by explaining how one might use paladins in a defunct campaign setting is possibly even sillier than those other two.

They didn't explain "how one might use paladins" in Dark Sun; They included them as standard issue. The other way around would have been fine. But this is really a topic for the other thread (indeed, it's already been discussed).

D. I DM a bunch of stewardesses.

You lucky dog...