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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5692081" data-attributes="member: 2205">Precisely.  But you're not really talking about that.  You're talking about the "contractual" agreement between the player and the GM about who actually is in control of what actions the player character should or should not be able to undertake.  In my view, that's clearly the player's bailiwick, not the GM's.And yet you clearly say that you've percieved a problem between GM and player expectations, right?  Hence the whole point of the thread?I think you're going about it the wrong way, is all.  A GM mandated top-down approach to detailing player character codes of conduct is not likely to engender a lot of buy-in from players, IME.  Hence, it's largely a waste of time.  In fact, it's actually counterproductive, assuming that your goal is make the game more friendly to potential paladin players, or to make the paladin class a more attractive option to a player mulling over what to make his next character be.As to the rest of that paragraph just posted; I don't know where you got that the players are "justifying" whatever they want to do from what I said.  There isn't any other rule in the books, so why would the GM think it necessary to put a bunch of other restrictions on the player that the game doesn't?  Also, I don't know when it became common or acceptable in game for the GM to proscriptively define how a player should or shouldn't play his own character, but I'd argue that it was never the way that any good games have ever been run from the very beginning.You keep switching back and forth from in-game to out of game discussion.  It makes your point a bit hard to follow.For that matter, this is out of game inappropriate by my book.  You just told me what my character's motivation is.  Bad form.  Nuh-uh.  It's my character, Mr. GM, not yours.  I'll decide why he decided to become a paladin and what he hopes to accomplish as such, thankyouverymuch, not you.If you say so.  How has that worked out for you in the past?  For me personally, I'm not so hard up for a game that I'm interested in playing one where the GM keeps trying to meddle with my interpretation of who the character is, what he should or shouldn't do, what he should or shouldn't believe, etc.  That's not too far from, "why don't you just run my character for me and tell me what happened later?"  Which isn't that far from "On second thought, why don't you not.  Find someone who's interested, because it's not me."I remember once, when some friends were over with their kids, they decided it was time to leave in the evening and put the kids to bed.  One of them was complaining about having to go, asking why they didn't ever get to make any choices for themselves.  The dad, rather sarcastically, said, "You've got all kinds of choices to make!  You can decide if you want to put your left arm in the coat first or the right!  You can decide if you want to zip it up or just run to the car and hope you don't get too cold.  You can put your coat on first or your hat!  Or, if you like, you could even choose to put your snow boots on first!  Can't you see all the crazy choices you have to make?"I've considered playing a paladin in my current group.  But otherwise, I've largely sworn off the class for exactly this reason; it's a class that gives many GM's the bizarre notion that they suddenly have a "say" in the motivation of my character, and what he should or shouldn't do.  Quite frankly, that's just unacceptable.  Any GM who believes that and doesn't relent has, at best, completely taken the paladin class off the table as a viable alternative, and at worst, completely turned me off from the game entirely.</blockquote>

Verification