Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 5826318" data-attributes="member: 463">Yeah, as GM (or player) I find this sort of play style pretty insufferable.1. GM creates setting, explains setting norms to players.2. Players create PCs who function within the setting.3. Profit.That's my preferred approach, IME it's what works best. 1. GM creates setting, explains setting norms to players.2. Players create PCs without regard to the setting.3. Loss.IMO the problem there lies with the players, not the GM. And worst of all are players who tell the GM "You're doing it wrong" when the GM is running the setting explained to the players in #1, which the players didn't even bother to read/listen to because they were so wrapped up in creating their special-snowflake PCs.If you want to play John Brown in an AD 1850 USA setting, sure, go for it - but don't be surprised if you die.  If you want to play Spartacus in a 50 BC Rome settting, sure, go for it - but don't be surprised if you die.  And don't blame the GM.The only case it'd be fair to blame the GM would be bait & switch - the GM appeared to agree that your free-the-slaves PCs would have some kind of Narrativist/Dramatic plot immunity, then you all got butchered by the guards in session 1. Maybe there was a legitimate clash of expectations.  But that's a million miles from blaming the GM for not creating the setting you wanted, when the setting was already explained to you but you didn't bother to listen.</blockquote>

Verification