Why do I alwaus get one player......

[tec-9-7]

Speaking as a player, I feel that it really is the role of the player to be more flexible then the GM in this regard. After all, the GM is (ostensibly) putting the most effort into the game, and restricting player choices doesn't in and of it self indicate that the game will be no fun, though it can be a warning sign. However, it is a pretty poor gamer who will only enjoy playing if they have complete freedom to play anything they want to.

Thank you for making these correct observations as a player - There can always be a game without A player (unless you only have one), but there can be no game without THE DM.

 

[ThirdWizard]

We always keep the same core group. Me and two other guys, and I'm not always the DM. Sometimes we add in a few people to get the magic four PCs that makes things easier, but there's no going elsewhere to play. If I'm not playing with them, I'm not playing. To me, playing with friends is more important than playing the game.

What this means is that it isn't the DM's game, and if you don't like it you can't go elsewhere. If the DM wants to run a gnomish pirate game on the high seas and none of the others want to play it, well then it doesn't get played and the DM better either think of something else or let someone else DM a campaign. So, what we play is what the DM and the players want to play.

 

[Acid_crash]

In the last couple groups I was in there was a guy like this... he always played a rogue or ranger, no other class. He would play them according to what he felt was right, as in he mimicked the Thief video game, which is how a 'proper' rogue should be. He'd make decisions that countered the groups, and was just plain annoying.

He is no longer playing in the game with us now.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

But hey, it didn't bother me in the least to have someone say that they didn't want to play that game. Their choice and I fully respect it. In my case, it was going to be a new group made up of bits of several other groups. Those who wanted to play were welcome, those who didn't, oh well, maybe next time.

See, that's perfectly fine in my book. You're willing to wait and find the right group of players. It's when the player isn't willing to budge on his/her concept and the DM wants to force restrictions that nobody's interested that I see the problems crop up.

I imagine that if a player came to you with a concept for your human/dwarf setting like "A guy that's really a trickster so I was thinking halfling rouge" you might be able to say something like, "Well, there's this band of human gypsies that are known to be tricksters, and they're often rogues, so you won't be a halfing but the concept is similar...?" If the player pitches a fit and still wants to be a halfling, then yeah, they're better off in another game. At least you tried, eh?

NCSUCodeMonkey

 

[tec-9-7]

I imagine that if a player came to you with a concept for your human/dwarf setting like "A guy that's really a trickster so I was thinking halfling rouge"

I would interpret that as a coded transmission meaning "I wanna play a KENDER!" The player would probably rightfully not go for the human gypsie idea, as without the whole Kender background, there would be no reason for the rest of the PCs not to cut this character's throat when they became insanely annoying.

 

[S'mon]

If you know one of the players really wants to play a half-medusa tiefling genasi ninja and the DM chooses to run the campaign about human mercenaries in a gritty medieval setting dispite that, then the DM desrves some of the blame.

Well, obviously I disagree, no GM deserves blame for offering to run the game he/she wants to run. I have been a player when a GM said they wanted to run a game (Shadowrun) I had no interest in. I could have tried to twist her concept into the gritty Cyberpunk setting I would have been interested in, but I did the (IMO) decent thing and said "no thanks."

Players who try to force GMs to run games that GMs don't want to run are sh*tty players.

 

[S'mon]

For me, it's all about making sure that everyone has fun. That means at least attempting to cater to those players who are very devoted to a character concept.

I try to cater to concepts within reason, eg I allow elves & dwarves in my low fantasy Conanesque swords & sorcery setting, but I limit their numbers and make it clear they'll be "odd one out" characters. I let players add huge chunks to my campaign setting as part of their PC background, but those chunks must be extrapolated from the existing setting, not in opposition to it.

 

[S'mon]

What this means is that it isn't the DM's game, and if you don't like it you can't go elsewhere. If the DM wants to run a gnomish pirate game on the high seas and none of the others want to play it, well then it doesn't get played and the DM better either think of something else or let someone else DM a campaign. So, what we play is what the DM and the players want to play.

I don't disagree with this - players always have the right to say "I'm not interested in playing this", and the GM can then either discard his idea or the player can sit out that game, whichever is best for that GM and that group.

 

[S'mon]

I imagine that if a player came to you with a concept for your human/dwarf setting like "A guy that's really a trickster so I was thinking halfling rouge" you might be able to say something like, "Well, there's this band of human gypsies that are known to be tricksters, and they're often rogues, so you won't be a halfing but the concept is similar...?" If the player pitches a fit and still wants to be a halfling, then yeah, they're better off in another game. At least you tried, eh?

That's a good example of player & GM working together, and is what I always try to do - see what bits of the concept are essential to the player and whether and how they can be fitted into my campaign. So halfling rogues become happy go lucky human rogues, and everyone's happy.

 

[MonsterMash]

I try to cater to concepts within reason, eg I allow elves & dwarves in my low fantasy Conanesque swords & sorcery setting, but I limit their numbers and make it clear they'll be "odd one out" characters. I let players add huge chunks to my campaign setting as part of their PC background, but those chunks must be extrapolated from the existing setting, not in opposition to it.

As one of the players in S'mon's campaign I think this is actually working pretty well. If I'd had totally free choice of what class/race to play I might have gone with a Gnome Wizard with illusion specialisation, but I'm enjoying playing a human cleric and there is plenty of scope for roleplay with just about any combo of class or race and often I find the weird concept stuff tends to stifle roleplay. I don't want somebody playing a half drow/half whale ninja pirate that acts like a modern american.

In the campaign I GM there is a restriction on races and classes, but it is pretty broad - most core classes, most races (drow don't exist in the setting) with plenty of subraces with humans, but the party must have a reason to be a party. If someone wanted to play a 'monster' race I'd allow it if there was a decent justification (e.g. something like a goblin, hobgoblin or Orc would be possible).