Hi

Hi

Hello. How are you?

Geez, Metroknight, he didn't ask for your life's story!! q;}

TOO MUCH BACKSTORY

Metroknight said: Hello. How are you? Hows that? Still to much, I can just delete my post. :P

Hey there Donovan, read your Bio, and I must say, anyone that likes playing a kobold, has to be fun to game with. Good luck on your test/evaluation.

Hi

Daniel B. said: Hey there Donovan, read your Bio, and I must say, anyone that likes playing a kobold, has to be fun to game with. Good luck on your test/evaluation. See, you are the only one whom realize that, but 90% of most GMs don't like players to play Monsterus characters, even if the creature is even equal to or less then a standard character... So i don't have much of a luck with finding a good game... As i see it, GMs are to afraid or not skilled enough to deal with unusual players like me. And i would say that i'm rather unusual for a player ;) As for the evaluation period, it's over next week.

sometimes the thing just doesn't fit the campaign concept. A kobold PC would be like Jar Jar Binks in my campaign, so , not having it.

James J. said: sometimes the thing just doesn't fit the campaign concept. A kobold PC would be like Jar Jar Binks in my campaign, so , not having it. If a Kobold is JarJar, what would you rank a Kender as?

Most of the time a DM that doesn't allow a player to pick a monstrous race is doing so for the benefit of the player. While it is fun to play them there are settings or games that allow them to be played where as most games/setting would make it incredibly difficult to be said race. The monstrous races tend to have a bad reputation with most villagers/townsfolk so playing one would mean a very bad reception for said char to the point where your character and/or party would be attacked or banned from most places due to having an evil creature in the party. So instead of having the party suffer just because you want to play a monstrous humanoid is kinda selfish. I myself am 50/50 about letting people play monstrous races in a game that isn't structured around them for that very reason. On a personal note the fact that you think that DM's are too afraid or not "skilled" enough to deal with "unusual players like you" reeks of arrogance and kinda gives you a negative connotation which might also be a factor why DM's are unwilling to let you play said race. I mean no offence by that, it is just the vibe I get from those statements.

Outside of a balance issue (which doesn't exist in some games), in a fantasy world derived from our imaginations there are practically limitless reasons why it'd be totally okay to be a monstrous race and only one reason to say "No" - because the DM said so. A given monstrous race or specific PC monster could easily have a perfectly fine reputation among the setting's NPCs. It's just a matter of saying as much. "Yes" is about inclusion of others' ideas. "No" is about control.

Well Donovan, it looks to me like your quest to find a GM is over.

How so?

Headhunter Jones said: Outside of a balance issue (which doesn't exist in some games), in a fantasy world derived from our imaginations there are practically limitless reasons why it'd be totally okay to be a monstrous race and only one reason to say "No" - because the DM said so. A given monstrous race or specific PC monster could easily have a perfectly fine reputation among the setting's NPCs. It's just a matter of saying as much. "Yes" is about inclusion of others' ideas. "No" is about control. Honestly there are reason other than the GM saying "No", I think you either have very good players or simply run a different style of campaign of the ones I participated in but... A "monster" by definition is something out of the usual, yet dwarfs and elves are not considered monsters but kobolds and ogers are. You can make the argument that this is due to "norms" but I would tend to disagree. The monster races are considered so because they do not respect any norms similar to the ones in our society or that we read about in history books or tales while most "player races" do. Most people that I know cannot "role-play" a monster properly because they end up playing him as a human, in which case why not play a human or a dwarf or elves ( which in the end, are just humans with a few "fantastic" traits that many might find enjoyable and are there to allow more "cultural diversity"... it's fun to play in a Dark ages type setting and than go into a dwarven city to find it's more renaissance like ). And really, how else could you role-play a individual that lives in a humane society other than humane... else he would end up dead/imprisoned. By allow players to use a monster race you are not "changing the world in a fun way" you are simply taking a monster and finding a silly reason why he can have humane traits in his behavior.

George said: Honestly there are reason other than the GM saying "No", I think you either have very good players or simply run a different style of campaign of the ones I participated in but... I tend to think most players are pretty good. Maybe some have a few bad habits, but those are easy enough to break with some patient guidance. A "monster" by definition is something out of the usual, yet dwarfs and elves are not considered monsters but kobolds and ogers are. The plain English definition might seem to support that assumption, but that's an assumption that needn't exist in a fantasy world. We can choose otherwise. Maybe dwarves and elves are the monsters in a given fantasy world and kobolds and goblins are the civilized races. You can make the argument that this is due to "norms" but I would tend to disagree. The monster races are considered so because they do not respect any norms similar to the ones in our society or that we read about in history books or tales while most "player races" do. When discussing a fantasy world based upon our imaginations, it would be equally valid to say that "monster races DO respect norms similar to the ones in our society..." If we wanted to. Most people that I know cannot "role-play" a monster properly because they end up playing him as a human, in which case why not play a human or a dwarf or elves ( which in the end, are just humans with a few "fantastic" traits that many might find enjoyable and are there to allow more "cultural diversity"... it's fun to play in a Dark ages type setting and than go into a dwarven city to find it's more renaissance like ). How a monster is roleplayed "properly" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, right?. We can choose to believe that however Donovan plays his kobold is how kobolds are meant to be played as far as that particular campaign setting is concerned. And really, how else could you role-play a individual that lives in a humane society other than humane... else he would end up dead/imprisoned. By allow players to use a monster race you are not "changing the world in a fun way" you are simply taking a monster and finding a silly reason why he can have humane traits in his behavior. Again, we can choose to believe that monsters live in perfectly humane societies relative to the campaign setting's tropes and assumptions. Fantasy worlds aren't these monolithic things where everything's a certain way. That's never been true even in published materials which are the only thing that might even be considered canon. It varies depending on what we decide to imagine. I take the position that the real person sitting down to play a game with me and who desires in good faith to play a particular race, class, or whatever to be far more important than the imaginary people in the setting. That's a person whose real feelings and desires - and ultimately his or her engagement with the game - will be impacted by me saying "No" to what is otherwise a reasonable request. My imaginary NPCs and setting will feel absolutely nothing at all and we can come up with any reason we like to make it work.

I agree with Headhunter Jones. Also, what started a minor "Joke" thread just o say Hi to people for no apparently reason seems to have turned into an amazing debate. don't have much myself to say any further on this matter. Other then it seems to me it apear most GMs puts Monsters into a stereotypical box of being feral or evil beings that does random slaughter and shit. But they also forget that it's not EVERY single soul among those "monsters" that feel the need to cut stab slash and chop their way through their lives and become target practice for other players. Some, as some PCs, will rise from this "box" and do their own thing. Maybe circumstances actually lead the "Monsters" to learn other values in it's life and is not as"feral" as it's kin. A detail i often see GMs not even give a thought. -- But then again, i can only speak from my experience and what i have read thus far.

Headhunter Jones said: The plain English definition might seem to support that assumption, but that's an assumption that needn't exist in a fantasy world. We can choose otherwise. Maybe dwarves and elves are the monsters in a given fantasy world and kobolds and goblins are the civilized races. When discussing a fantasy world based upon our imaginations, it would be equally valid to say that "monster races DO respect norms similar to the ones in our society..." If we wanted to. How a monster is roleplayed "properly" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, right?. We can choose to believe that however Donovan plays his kobold is how kobolds are meant to be played as far as that particular campaign setting is concerned. Again, we can choose to believe that monsters live in perfectly humane societies relative to the campaign setting's tropes and assumptions. Fantasy worlds aren't these monolithic things where everything's a certain way. That's never been true even in published materials which are the only thing that might even be considered canon. It varies depending on what we decide to imagine. I take the position that the real person sitting down to play a game with me and who desires in good faith to play a particular race, class, or whatever to be far more important than the imaginary people in the setting. That's a person whose real feelings and desires - and ultimately his or her engagement with the game - will be impacted by me saying "No" to what is otherwise a reasonable request. My imaginary NPCs and setting will feel absolutely nothing at all and we can come up with any reason we like to make it work. Okay, I don't think you understood the point I was trying to get across, English is my second language and thus I am not very proficient in it so I will try to explain it once again: Yes, I do agree that in a fantasy world you can have kobolds and goblins be civilized, however ( as you said yourself ) in that case they are simply not "monsters" anymore and thus what is the appeal to play them ? The fact that they look differently ? You can have any character look almost however you want regardless of race. To your second point, I do agree that I am not one to say what is "proper" when role playing a monster whoever due to the fact that we are, once again, human we lack the ability to play something that is so different from us and thus we will end up playing the monster as being more or less "humane". So while I do agree you can play a monster in any setting, especially if the GM is good at changing up things within the "typical lore", I believe that there is no point in doing so since you cannot "role play" that monster in such a way that he will be different from a human, and thus why not play a humane or the 4 "human variations" that exist within the world ? I fell like allowing monster races just because they are "cool" although they add nothing really new in terms or RP to the table just gets you into a 4e-like situation where you have 50 strange races yet non "role plays" them much differently and they only help "drain" that fantasy felling by making there "monsters" into things you meet every day instead of an unusual thing that excites and intrigues players.

George said: Okay, I don't think you understood the point I was trying to get across, English is my second language and thus I am not very proficient in it so I will try to explain it once again: Yes, I do agree that in a fantasy world you can have kobolds and goblins be civilized, however ( as you said yourself ) in that case they are simply not "monsters" anymore and thus what is the appeal to play them ? The fact that they look differently ? You can have any character look almost however you want regardless of race. I understand your point. It's just that your previous posts appear to be based on a perception of how things must be rather than how they could be. This echoes Phisto Roboto's post as well: "where as most games/setting would make it incredibly difficult to be said race." The only difficulty in that situation is the DM saying "No" or hanging disincentives around those choices. Given that it's a fantasy world, we can make anything make sense in context. (You appear to agree with this below which is cool.) For my part, if a player wants it, that's good enough for me to make whatever accommodations need to be made. To your second point, I do agree that I am not one to say what is "proper" when role playing a monster whoever due to the fact that we are, once again, human we lack the ability to play something that is so different from us and thus we will end up playing the monster as being more or less "humane". Are you a fan of Star Trek? So while I do agree you can play a monster in any setting, especially if the GM is good at changing up things within the "typical lore", I believe that there is no point in doing so since you cannot "role play" that monster in such a way that he will be different from a human, and thus why not play a humane or the 4 "human variations" that exist within the world ? Could not the same argument be made for the "core" races? Can any RPGer consistently make the same decisions ( roleplaying ) or emulate the mannerisms of a race that hails from the darkest depths of the stony earth (dwarves)? Or truly know how a practically immortal elf - in terms of lifespan - might respond to a given immediate situation? I don't think we can. What we can do is make decisions and then justify those decisions by whatever reasoning we like. I fell like allowing monster races just because they are "cool" although they add nothing really new in terms or RP to the table just gets you into a 4e-like situation where you have 50 strange races yet non "role plays" them much differently and they only help "drain" that fantasy felling by making there "monsters" into things you meet every day instead of an unusual thing that excites and intrigues players. Edition warring aside, this is another good example of why it's more positive and proactive in my opinion to imagine reasons why something can be rather than default to reasons why something can't be. I can imagine why "50 strange races" can exist as viable player options and imagine ways that doesn't "drain" that fantasy feeling. Eberron is an example of this and is billed as "if it exists in D&D, it exists in Eberron." What I think is going on here is that people have a particular view of what a "fantasy setting" must be and anything "outside" of that is anathema. I prefer to look at the options available and imagine what that world looks like instead of get disgruntled when they don't quite fit into the little box I've created. After all, whatever it is I've created, I can change at will. That's especially true if it means accommodating a player's wishes to increase their engagement with the game.

And all of this started from a simple "Hi"

Headhunter Jones said: Could not the same argument be made for the "core" races? Can any RPGer consistently make the same decisions ( roleplaying ) or emulate the mannerisms of a race that hails from the darkest depths of the stony earth (dwarves)? Or truly know how a practically immortal elf - in terms of lifespan - might respond to a given immediate situation? I don't think we can. What we can do is make decisions and then justify those decisions by whatever reasoning we like. Edition warring aside, this is another good example of why it's more positive and proactive in my opinion to imagine reasons why something can be rather than default to reasons why something can't be. I can imagine why "50 strange races" can exist as viable player options and imagine ways that doesn't "drain" that fantasy feeling. Eberron is an example of this and is billed as "if it exists in D&D, it exists in Eberron." What I think is going on here is that people have a particular view of what a "fantasy setting" must be and anything "outside" of that is anathema. I prefer to look at the options available and imagine what that world looks like instead of get disgruntled when they don't quite fit into the little box I've created. After all, whatever it is I've created, I can change at will. That's especially true if it means accommodating a player's wishes to increase their engagement with the game. I do agree that the same arguments can be made for the typical races: half-orc, halfling, dwarf and elves and people are indeed roleplaying them in wired ways considering their differences from humans, but I think that this is an argument for why you should, sometimes, limit even those races. You seem to be a strong believer of the fact that "locking yourself in the little box someone created (be that creator the GM, the rulebook or a fantasy author)" is a bad thing but I believe it can be, and most of the time it is, a good thing. Lets just take the extreme example and say we play a dnd campaign and the setting is your current town, the character are a person you are a very good friends with or even yourself and the rules are very restricting when it comes to what you can do, is that a bad thing for the story ? I would say no: Don't you ever think of little scenarios in your head: "What would happen if I knew how to do"X" ?", "What would happen if I didn't know how to do "Z" ?", "I wonder if "B" and "A" would still be friends if this happened ?", "If only this event and that event happened a few days closer something crazy could have been going on here"... etc, I might be the only crazy person doing this but many people that I talked with sometimes think about stuff like that. With that knowledge in mind, wouldn't it be fun if you played a dnd campaign in that setting and got to "imagine" together with other people what the answer to those question is ? I think it would be, because even if they are rather mundane things compared to zombie dragons and magical werewolves you are involved in them, you can picture them happening and you might even care about them in a strange way. And that is because the world you would be playing in has a lot of depth and you are involved in that world. If you look at what is now the most popular mature fantasy series, A song of ice and fire, it barely contains any "fantasy" at all and the character are just like normal persons, corrupt, unjust, misguided, ugly, made of flesh and vulnerable to disease, not able to summon up incredible power and defeat a man 10 times their size just because they are "the good guy". That is a good thing, because by looking yourself withing that box of "The people here are just like normal human beings and magic never shows up" you are more excited when someone like sir Barristan shows up and he is actually a just, noble person, a fantastic fighter... etc and when a tiny bit of magic, a prophecy or a resurrection spell or a baby dragon not a huge fireball that can annihilate and entire army or a wizard that can slaughter people with one word, is shown it really does fell "magical" not "Oh, here it goes again". I do agree that DnD is fun because you can always "get out of the box" and make whatever you want come true but by doing so you are just expanding an empty and "fantastical" universe that non has no connection to. By staying the the box and limiting yourself to certain things, forcing yourself to expand on the stuff that is "inside the box" instead of simply creating something new, you add depth to your world by forcing yourself to not break certain rules, "if anything can be changed than nothing has any meaning" is what I would say.

George said: I do agree that the same arguments can be made for the typical races: half-orc, halfling, dwarf and elves and people are indeed roleplaying them in wired ways considering their differences from humans, but I think that this is an argument for why you should, sometimes, limit even those races. You seem to be a strong believer of the fact that "locking yourself in the little box someone created (be that creator the GM, the rulebook or a fantasy author)" is a bad thing but I believe it can be, and most of the time it is, a good thing. On the contrary, I understand and can appreciate the value of creative constraints. The games themselves comes with certain creative constraints built in. However, there is no creative constraint so important that we can't break it or bend it to work with a player's reasonable request, especially if it means greater player engagement with the game. Where I take issue is with a DM saying that a request like playing a monster race isn't tenable because some imaginary people I thought up while in the bathroom might not like it. For the sake of clarity, I'm not classifying "game rules" as creative constraints in this context. Lets just take the extreme example and say we play a dnd campaign and the setting is your current town, the character are a person you are a very good friends with or even yourself and the rules are very restricting when it comes to what you can do, is that a bad thing for the story ? I would say no: Don't you ever think of little scenarios in your head: "What would happen if I knew how to do"X" ?", "What would happen if I didn't know how to do "Z" ?", "I wonder if "B" and "A" would still be friends if this happened ?", "If only this event and that event happened a few days closer something crazy could have been going on here"... etc, I might be the only crazy person doing this but many people that I talked with sometimes think about stuff like that. With that knowledge in mind, wouldn't it be fun if you played a dnd campaign in that setting and got to "imagine" together with other people what the answer to those question is ? I think it would be, because even if they are rather mundane things compared to zombie dragons and magical werewolves you are involved in them, you can picture them happening and you might even care about them in a strange way. And that is because the world you would be playing in has a lot of depth and you are involved in that world. Anything can work with buy-in and I'm advocating getting buy-in from your players by saying "Yes" to their requests rather than saying "No" and pointing to some imaginary construct as the reason why. There are always workarounds. If you look at what is now the most popular mature fantasy series, A song of ice and fire, it barely contains any "fantasy" at all and the character are just like normal persons, corrupt, unjust, misguided, ugly, made of flesh and vulnerable to disease, not able to summon up incredible power and defeat a man 10 times their size just because they are "the good guy". That is a good thing, because by looking yourself withing that box of "The people here are just like normal human beings and magic never shows up" you are more excited when someone like sir Barristan shows up and he is actually a just, noble person, a fantastic fighter... etc and when a tiny bit of magic, a prophecy or a resurrection spell or a baby dragon not a huge fireball that can annihilate and entire army or a wizard that can slaughter people with one word, is shown it really does fell "magical" not "Oh, here it goes again". Different games have different assumptions and rules. If the game's rules say there are no orcs or common magic, then there are no orcs or common magic since those are the rules of the game the player has presumably agreed to play. However, imagine a scenario in which a D&D DM says "No" to Donovan playing a kobold because "the imaginary villagers in a town I made up don't like kobolds," then that's a different situation, right? I do agree that DnD is fun because you can always "get out of the box" and make whatever you want come true but by doing so you are just expanding an empty and "fantastical" universe that non has no connection to. By staying the the box and limiting yourself to certain things, forcing yourself to expand on the stuff that is "inside the box" instead of simply creating something new, you add depth to your world by forcing yourself to not break certain rules, "if anything can be changed than nothing has any meaning" is what I would say. Nothing you're saying here is inherently true, however. Anything can work with buy-in. I would submit that a DM who is more interested in the unchanging nature of his creative constraints than his player's engagement has his priorities backwards. That's just my opinion, of course, but time and again experience has shown me that incorporating player ideas, even in contravention of established parameters leads to better results in game play. The setting has no kobolds and Donovan wants to be a kobold? Fine - he's the last kobold. Or the first one. Or maybe the sages were all wrong and the kobolds fled to an underground enclave during The Cleansing and are preparing an assault on the surface world. There is enough creative space there to make it happen in a fun and interesting way for everyone. And there is only one reason to say "No." Because the DM said so. That's a missed opportunity in my book.

Headhunter Jones , the problem with the idea of "there are always workarounds" is that those workarounds often require experience and skill by the GM to accommodate requests. No GM should be forced into GMing for something he is not prepared to handle. I have players that regularly ask for things that would break the game. They see something and go, "oooh shiny! I want that!", without considering game balance. As a result I regularly tell them no. No should be the starting point, it prevents arguments over game balance. Yes changed to no creates bad feelings. No changed to yes is your lucky day. Now, maybe you are a highly experienced GM that can handle anything but most people are not. Perhaps you have players that do not make unreasonable requests but many GMs have such players. A GM should feel free to tell the players that he (or she) is not comfortable with something.

Gauss said: Headhunter Jones , the problem with the idea of "there are always workarounds" is that those workarounds often require experience and skill by the GM to accommodate requests. No GM should be forced into GMing for something he is not prepared to handle. I have players that regularly ask for things that would break the game. They see something and go, "oooh shiny! I want that!", without considering game balance. As a result I regularly tell them no. No should be the starting point, it prevents arguments over game balance. Yes changed to no creates bad feelings. No changed to yes is your lucky day. Now, maybe you are a highly experienced GM that can handle anything but most people are not. Perhaps you have players that do not make unreasonable requests but many GMs have such players. A GM should feel free to tell the players that he (or she) is not comfortable with something. I would say that you're speaking outside the scope of this discussion as previously framed. To wit (emphasis added): Headhunter Jones said: Outside of a balance issue (which doesn't exist in some games), i n a fantasy world derived from our imaginations there are practically limitless reasons why it'd be totally okay to be a monstrous race and only one reason to say "No" - because the DM said so. A given monstrous race or specific PC monster could easily have a perfectly fine reputation among the setting's NPCs. It's just a matter of saying as much. "Yes" is about inclusion of others' ideas. "No" is about control. Headhunter Jones said: For the sake of clarity, I'm not classifying "game rules" as creative constraints in this context. ... Different games have different assumptions and rules. If the game's rules say there are no orcs or common magic, then there are no orcs or common magic since those are the rules of the game the player has presumably agreed to play. However, imagine a scenario in which a D&D DM says "No" to Donovan playing a kobold because "the imaginary villagers in a town I made up don't like kobolds," then that's a different situation, right? "No" is about control. Why a given GM would need or want that control will vary. Some may say it's for "balance" reasons, others for the supremacy of their own ideas. As an aside, I would also submit that if you and your group value game balance, perhaps it's best to play games that are balanced according to your priorities. I too value game balance and only play games where I don't have to worry about player requests throwing the game out of whack. I simply don't put myself in the position of needing to say "No" to player ideas. Food for thought.

We prefer the D&D style game with the 3.X/PF engine despite (or maybe because of) the imbalances inherent in the system. But, that requires the GM to have the ability to say no. You are right, I missed your limiting statements in this particular thread. But frankly, you have made a point of indicating to people in many threads how GMs should always have player buy-in. I interpret this as saying the GM should bow to player whims rather doing his job, running the game. In D&D style games the GM is in control of the game, he is the judge, jury, and executioner. GMs are a finite resource. In the D&D style games there are not usually enough GMs to go around. People simply do not want to GM because it usually requires a lot of work. Why would a GM want some random player to come along and screw up that work by introducing elements he is not prepared for? The only 'buy-in' required is: I am the GM and I am running the game, do you agree? No? Ok, there is the door, Ill grab the next player in line. Next player, same question. With that said, a GM *should* work with players to find a common ground, but if that is not feasible it is up to the players to adapt to the GM, not the other way around. The players aren't the ones that are spending hours each week in game prep. There are a variety of play styles and GMing styles and the one you advocate is only one of the possible styles and not always applicable to all game systems.

Gauss said: We prefer the D&D style game with the 3.X/PF engine despite (or maybe because of) the imbalances inherent in the system. But, that requires the GM to have the ability to say no. I wonder if the rules specifically say that or if that's just something that is assumed to be true. I'll look into it out of curiosity. You are right, I missed your limiting statements in this particular thread. But frankly, you have made a point of indicating to people in many threads how GMs should always have player buy-in. I interpret this as saying the GM should bow to player whims rather doing his job, running the game. In D&D style games the GM is in control of the game, he is the judge, jury, and executioner. I think the part I bolded above is an unkind characterization of my position. It posits indirectly that I don't "do my job" and casts positive collaboration with fellow players in a game as some form of submission. I point that out because you are normally much more gracious in your posts. Perhaps I caught you on a bad day. :) As well, the GM is not in "control" of the game unless the rules specifically say he is. Generally, he has a specific role and the players have another role in the game dynamic which are described in the rules. This varies by edition. In D&D 4e for example, "Yes, and..." and collaboration is specifically mentioned in the DMG1 and DMG2. GMs are a finite resource. In the D&D style games there are not usually enough GMs to go around. People simply do not want to GM because it usually requires a lot of work. Why would a GM want some random player to come along and screw up that work by introducing elements he is not prepared for? Games that involve collaboration require less "work" for the GM and less reason to want to say "No" to protect that work. Why put myself in the position of needing to do more work and needing to say "No" when I don't have to? The only 'buy-in' required is: I am the GM and I am running the game, do you agree? No? Ok, there is the door, Ill grab the next player in line. Next player, same question. That's one way. I don't find that to be particularly positive behavior. To each their own though, if it works for you. With that said, a GM *should* work with players to find a common ground, but if that is not feasible it is up to the players to adapt to the GM, not the other way around. The players aren't the ones that are spending hours each week in game prep. Nor do GMs need to do all that "work" if they don't want to - all they need do is collaborate more. I also find it's best for players and GMs to adapt to each other. That's why "Yes, and..." improvisation isn't a one-way street where the DM "bows to player whims" but rather where both DMs and players acknowledge each other's ideas as valid and then justify why with added context which brings depth to the game. There are a variety of play styles and GMing styles and the one you advocate is only one of the possible styles and not always applicable to all game systems. I disagree. Since RPGs are essentially improvisation in a framework of mechanics for determining resolution-outcomes, improvisational acting techniques like "Yes, and..." can improve group dynamics (especially building trust which sounds like it's in short supply among some groups) and make any RPG sing.

To add, which is a more positive approach? Player: I'd like to be an orc. DM: No. There are no orcs in my world. Player: Maybe I can just be the only orc in the world? DM: Yes, but they're overpowered anyway. Also, everyone in the world would be suspicious of orcs. or Player: I'd like to be an orc. DM: That's interesting. There are supposed to be no orcs in this world. How do you see those ideas working together? Player: I'm the first orc in the world, born to human parents after a hag cursed them. DM: Cool, I can use that hag idea for sure. I understand orcs might be out of balance with the rules as written. How can we make that work? Player: Maybe I can take a penalty elsewhere? Like it's hard for me to mix in society and so I draw unwanted attention from time to time? DM: If that's an interesting challenge for you and everyone else, I'm game! What kind of unwanted attention would the rest of you find fun? In the second example, I'm not using "No" as a starting point. I'm using "Yes" and then asking for justification and getting player buy-in from everyone at the table. I find when we go from acting defensively (to protect our ideas or avoid concerns about "balance") to acting inclusively, we can get better results as DMs. If anyone would like to learn more about being more inclusive of player ideas, you can join the GM Academy and check out some of the threads on saying "Yes, and..." or on Improvisation in general. In fact, Paul U. recently hosted a workshop on this. Here's a video of it. It only scratches the surface, but that's a pretty good primer.

Gauss said: We prefer the D&D style game with the 3.X/PF engine despite (or maybe because of) the imbalances inherent in the system. But, that requires the GM to have the ability to say no. That places the DM in a very unfortunate position. From what I recall of 3.5, it got to the point that even seemingly benign options of the game had to be treated with utmost suspicion, and it was very easy for a request by a player to turn into an argument, even if the player had the best intentions. You are right, I missed your limiting statements in this particular thread. But frankly, you have made a point of indicating to people in many threads how GMs should always have player buy-in. I interpret this as saying the GM should bow to player whims rather doing his job, running the game. In D&D style games the GM is in control of the game, he is the judge, jury, and executioner. Buy-in simply means that the players are supportive of the choices that make up the game. This is why anything can work, with buy-in. Some players want a GM to say no, at least to the other players. I think we're all familiar with the bad feelings that can arise from a DM who relies on No, for any reason. Sure, the players could just go along with what the DM decides, but if they're asking questions then they obviously have preferences, and no one likes having their preferences blocked, especially if those preferences are being blocked defensively to maintain game balance, or some other abstract concept. At best, players will simply stop offering ideas. That might seem easier for the GM (it's really not), but it's a straight road toward having players that stick staunchly to the rules and only do things that they don't have to ask permission for. Maybe you don't like 4th Edition D&D? Well, you made it necessary. GMs are a finite resource. In the D&D style games there are not usually enough GMs to go around. People simply do not want to GM because it usually requires a lot of work. Why would a GM want some random player to come along and screw up that work by introducing elements he is not prepared for? First of all, it doesn't require a lot of work. Second of all, it's time to accept the reality that even well-behaved players are going to do things the GM is not prepared for. It's simply foolishness and vanity to believe otherwise. Every GM already has to improvise and the sooner they admit that and embrace it rather than trying, in vain, to prevent it, the more smoothly their games will run. The only 'buy-in' required is: I am the GM and I am running the game, do you agree? No? Ok, there is the door, Ill grab the next player in line. Next player, same question. That is a much more complicated proposal that you or most GMs seem to realize. What it boils down to is that the players can expect to have a minimum amount of control over what is going to happen during their playtime. I don't think everyone realizes this when they agree to play. Not every table is for every person, even if the GM is very collaborative and improvisational. Sometimes dismissing a player or walking away from the table is the right thing. But is the issue of control really what we want driving people away? Especially when exercising that control can crush the very creativity we hope our players bring to the table. With that said, a GM *should* work with players to find a common ground, but if that is not feasible it is up to the players to adapt to the GM, not the other way around. The players aren't the ones that are spending hours each week in game prep. It's always possible. Game prep time is not an excuse for blocking player ideas. Prep is find, but do it because you enjoy it for its own sake, and be prepared for any and all of those ideas to never see the light of day. There are a variety of play styles and GMing styles and the one you advocate is only one of the possible styles and not always applicable to all game systems. I don't think you understand it well enough to say that.

Note: I am posting as a user not as a Moderator (I should've put that above too). Many of my comments were specific to pre-4e D&D and Pathfinder. Specifically the "I am the GM" comments. That is what those editions are based on. Yes, this is a collaborative game which is what I also indicated. However, the way that Headhunter Jones comes across is that it is ALL collaboration and that if you take a stance of 'this is my game' then you are doing it wrong. Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding his position but I am not the only one to feel this way. As for the hours of work, tell me. Who spends the time making the maps (either at the table or in Roll20). How about the time to prep the encounters? What about the storyline prep? The World prep? Not the players. That takes time on the GM's side of things. Even if he is running a pre-written adventure he has to read it all in advance, make tweaks to accommodate his particular group, etc. That takes time. Regarding blocking player's ideas, I am not talking about 'Player X wants to go to town and I said no'. I am talking about 'Why cant I have this shiny magic item printed right here in the book!?' or 'Why cant I play a four armed giant in a world of humans?' or 'I want a Manga character!' Players come in with all sorts of ideas that are not part of a GM's world design or are a problem mechanically. As for not understanding it well enough, why do you think I do not understand that there are not a variety of play styles and GMing styles? The extremely cooperative style that Headhunter espouses is only one of them. In Pathfinder (as well as 3.X and earlier editions) the GM is spelled out as controlling everything that is not controlled by the players. quote from Pathfinder GMG p6: "But if you don’t know, a Game Master (or GM) is the Pathfinder RPG player who arbitrates the rules of the game and controls the actions of every game element that isn’t explicitly controlled by the other players." Now, other game systems have more co-operative styles but in the history of D&D up to and including 3.5/PF it is the GM who controls the game and the players that control their characters. Edit: HJ regarding the "orc" example. I actually agree that the GM in that instance can try to work with the player. However, it is my experience that if you start from a position of "yes" players will whine until they get their way rather than actually justify it. Then when you do say no (because they failed to work with you or because there was no workable compromise) they get upset. If you start from a position of "no" and then ask them to justify it they will work harder to justify it and if they don't then they will just chalk it up to no being the default rather than getting upset. My no is usually a 'No, now convince me' type of no.

ITT someone says hi, hippies march for monster rights, not wanting to accomodate player fetishes means the GM is "unskilled" and GM fiat is badwrongfun.

Gauss said: Note: I am posting as a user not as a Moderator (I should've put that above too). Thank you for making that clear. Many of my comments were specific to pre-4e D&D and Pathfinder. Specifically the "I am the GM" comments. That is what those editions are based on. That doesn't mean that that was ever a particularly good basis. Yes, this is a collaborative game which is what I also indicated. However, the way that Headhunter Jones comes across is that it is ALL collaboration and that if you take a stance of 'this is my game' then you are doing it wrong. Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding his position but I am not the only one to feel this way. The stance he and I both take is that "this is my game" is an approach with known issues, and adequate buy-in for avoiding those issues is not always obtained. As for the hours of work, tell me. Who spends the time making the maps (either at the table or in Roll20). How about the time to prep the encounters? What about the storyline prep? The World prep? Not the players. You miss my point entirely. If the GM is doing all that work with the expectation that they have somehow earned a guarantee that all of that work to be used, appreciated, and enjoyed, then they are sorely mistaken. There is no guarantee, and there can't be. If they don't enjoy doing that work for its own sake, and aren't completely prepared for none of it to see actual use or application in play, then they are simply setting themselves up for frustration. Doing prep is fine, but it doesn't give the GM any special rights, and certainly not the right to favor their own efforts over the enjoyment of the players. That takes time on the GM's side of things. Even if he is running a pre-written adventure he has to read it all in advance, make tweaks to accommodate his particular group, etc. That takes time. If GMs choose to put in that effort, then it is their choice. It doesn't entitle them to anything. If they want a guarantee that the players won't mess up what they've done, then they need explicit buy-in with what they've done. Simply having done the work doesn't guarantee them anything. Regarding blocking player's ideas, I am not talking about 'Player X wants to go to town and I said no'. I am talking about 'Why cant I have this shiny magic item printed right here in the book!?' or 'Why cant I play a four armed giant in a world of humans?' or 'I want a Manga character!' I know what you're talking about. That's what I'm talking about. None of those ideas are unworkable, and all of them come with one thing plenty of GM ideas don't have and never get: player buy-in. Players come in with all sorts of ideas that are not part of a GM's world design or are a problem mechanically. Why would the GM design a world that couldn't accommodate the players ideas? If something is a "problem mechanically" the response to that is not "No." The response is "I'm not sure how to handle that. I'd like your help." As for not understanding it well enough, why do you think I do not understand that there are not a variety of play styles and GMing styles? What I think you don't understand is how saying "Yes, and..." works. quote from Pathfinder GMG p6: "But if you don’t know, a Game Master (or GM) is the Pathfinder RPG player who arbitrates the rules of the game and controls the actions of every game element that isn’t explicitly controlled by the other players." Now, other game systems have more co-operative styles but in the history of D&D up to and including 3.5/PF it is the GM who controls the game and the players that control their characters. Sure, but it doesn't say how the GM controls those elements or where the idea for that control comes from. Using player ideas, or collaborating with the players is perfectly valid way for a GM to "control the actions of every game element." Besides which, the history is D&D is filled with sad tales of GMs who held on tightly to their supposed "control" to the detriment of their game. I understand what you and others thing collaboration looks like, and I understand the fear that goes along with the idea of a GM's ideas not being used or appreciated. But collaboration does work and can apply very widely. The point, as far as this thread goes, is that accommodating player race choice is pretty easy and isn't going to wreck anyone's game. There's a way through that. It's not a corner case. If it doesn't work, it's because the GM is choosing for it not to work, not because of any inherent aspect of the game.

I get that there are different styles, but that fact mainly seems to get brought up when one style is making someone uncomfortable. When the traditional line is being toed, no one feels the need to say "Don't forget, there are other ways to play."

Even with 4th edition a DM is responsible for considerably more of the work than the players. While it is possible to play the game with an entirely cooperative manner the creators of the game held the belief that the DM was going to be more leg work. That is why they included Chapter 2 "Running the game." in the DMG. In that chapter they cover stuff such as rules of thumb on the hours you allot to prep work, narration styles, pacing, dispensing information, what props you need and yes even a section on improvising for when you need it. They don't suggest that you should focus exclusively on one section or play style but should incorporate all of them to create your style. Part of this means crafting a world, as a DM you have to have a good grasp on the theme of said creation and what works. The thing in my mind that makes playing a monstrous race in a standard setting (whether canon or home brew) is that a lot of these races are seen as the enemies and often are the bad guys. Is it possible to play in a world where that is not true? Yup. However it would all depend on the GM. They should in no way feel obligated to allow a race or class that they don't want to. Does this mean I think a player and DM shouldn't discuss adding the race/class? Nope, I believe that the player and DM should talk about it and try and come up with something that works however sometimes that isn't possible. I find if the player and DM actually have a discussion about it before the choice is made than the player tends to understand the reasons behind the choice and is ok with it. If the player is not ok with whatever decision that was made then they need to make a choice on whether they switch concepts or games. It has been mentioned that player "buy in" to a game is important and should be respected however players shouldn't expect stuff without discussing it. Maybe it is just me but I can come up with a thousand different concepts with little to no effort many of which are created by the discussions I have with a DM about their worlds. And now I kinda lost track of where I was going with this so I am just going to end it here.

My point is not limited to this thread. It is the 'maximum player buy-in' attitude being "the only right way of doing things" that is annoying. It precludes actual dialog as to how to run a game. First, not all games involve the level of 'player buy-in' that is espoused in this and other threads. Second, not all people want the level of 'player buy-in' that is espoused in this and other threads. Third, most, if not all, games must have some level 'player buy-in'. But, in some game systems such as Pathfinder that level is far less than has been espoused. If the GM wants to say "no" that is his right. It is also the right of players to dislike that or leave the game altogether. But, that is not "wrong". It is just as valid a way of gaming as "how do you want to do this". If expectations are aligned from the start then the "no" will be rare. Example: I do not take on players that want to play Manga versions of characters in Pathfinder. Why? Because I tried that and while I thought we came up with common ground it turns out we didnt. Game play stopped on a regular basis as the player tried to pull some "manga" thing that her character could not do by the Pathfinder rules. When expectations are far apart the GM has a few choices. Say no, have a long dialog on every potential aspect of the choice, or be prepared to stop the game when the character exceeds the understanding. Now, in my 'no but we can talk about it' version of things, I establish the groundwork right from the start and then if you want to set up some exception to that we can talk about it. I do allow exceptions. I have house rules. But, I still say no to things. Another example: Synthesists are banned in my Pathfinder games. Period. There was a time not long ago where a player asked if he could present a Synthesist for consideration if he toned it down. I said yes and then when he presented it the "toned down" synth was still so overpowered compared to the rest of the group there was no way feasible (within the rules) to fix it. It was denied. However, the player went into it with the expectation that it would be denied and so he didn't have any hurt feelings despite all of the work he did. Had he gone into it expecting to play a Synthesist he may have been upset if he had done all the work and THEN I told him no. For that reason I prefer no followed by a possible yes rather than a yes followed by a possible no.

+1 Gauss.

They don't suggest that you should focus exclusively on one section or play style but should incorporate all of them to create your style. They most certainly don't suggest using "all" styles. Part of this means crafting a world, as a DM you have to have a good grasp on the theme of said creation and what works. Less than you think. The thing in my mind that makes playing a monstrous race in a standard setting (whether canon or home brew) is that a lot of these races are seen as the enemies and often are the bad guys. Is it possible to play in a world where that is not true? Yup. However it would all depend on the GM. Of course. That's the directions this conversation is coming from. The GM prefers not to allow a race. Why? Because other facts the GM established make that choice harder. Why doesn't the GM just establish other facts? Their facts aren't more important than player ideas. They should in no way feel obligated to allow a race or class that they don't want to. Sure, they should just be clear that the reason is that they don't want to, not because they can't. Does this mean I think a player and DM shouldn't discuss adding the race/class? Nope, I believe that the player and DM should talk about it and try and come up with something that works however sometimes that isn't possible. That's not true, as long as everyone is acting in good faith. And if they're not, that's a whole different problem, not covered by the rules. I find if the player and DM actually have a discussion about it before the choice is made than the player tends to understand the reasons behind the choice and is ok with it. If the player is not ok with whatever decision that was made then they need to make a choice on whether they switch concepts or games. I find that if the GM goes into a discussion already saying "Yes" then the GM tends to understand why the player made that choice, and can work with them to make it work. players shouldn't expect stuff without discussing it. Unfortunately, this is true. It doesn't have to be, though.

Gauss said: My point is not limited to this thread. It is the 'maximum player buy-in' attitude being "the only right way of doing things" that is annoying. It precludes actual dialog as to how to run a game. First, not all games involve the level of 'player buy-in' that is espoused in this and other threads. Second, not all people want the level of 'player buy-in' that is espoused in this and other threads. Third, most, if not all, games must have some level 'player buy-in'. But, in some game systems such as Pathfinder that level is far less than has been espoused. This is baffling to me. I feel like you don't understand what's meant by "buy-in." Buy-in another word for "collaboration." Collaboration is merely a powerful way to obtain buy-in. Buy-in just means that the players are personally interested in seeing the concepts of the game work, rather than interested in seeing them fail. This can mean rules, plots, settings, techniques, ideas, or anything. If the players are going along with something and helping it along, then they're bought-in. If they're working against something, or are bored by it, they're not bought in. People can be bought into anything. Fans of the worst, weirdest show you can think of are bought in. People who make fun of the best, most well-put-together show are not bought in. If the GM wants to say "no" that is his right. It is also the right of players to dislike that or leave the game altogether. But, that is not "wrong". It is just as valid a way of gaming as "how do you want to do this". If expectations are aligned from the start then the "no" will be rare. No one "wants" to say "no" for its own sake. They say no for some other reason, usually conservatism and control. And no, that's not wrong, it's just the source of a lot of problems that GMs complain about. And it's highly unlikely that everyone's expectations are going to be precisely aligned, and even less likely that they'll stay that way, unless the core expectation is something overarching such as "The GM is on the side of the players." Example: I do not take on players that want to play Manga versions of characters in Pathfinder. Why? Because I tried that and while I thought we came up with common ground it turns out we didnt. Game play stopped on a regular basis as the player tried to pull some "manga" thing that her character could not do by the Pathfinder rules. Stopping play was your choice. Why did you choose that? When expectations are far apart the GM has a few choices. Say no, have a long dialog on every potential aspect of the choice, or be prepared to stop the game when the character exceeds the understanding. Or buy into the choice, accepting and adding on to it. Or have a short dialog on the immediate potential of the choice. You are limiting your options. Now, in my 'no but we can talk about it' version of things, I establish the groundwork right from the start and then if you want to set up some exception to that we can talk about it. I do allow exceptions. I have house rules. But, I still say no to things. Do you find that this encourages people to talk to you and come up with ideas, or to stick strictly to what they know you can't tell them they can't have? There was a time not long ago where a player asked if he could present a Synthesist for consideration if he toned it down. I said yes and then when he presented it the "toned down" synth was still so overpowered compared to the rest of the group there was no way feasible (within the rules) to fix it. It was denied. However, the player went into it with the expectation that it would be denied and so he didn't have any hurt feelings despite all of the work he did. Had he gone into it expecting to play a Synthesist he may have been upset if he had done all the work and THEN I told him no. Think of all the cool stuff that you might have accepted but which people didn't bother bringing up because they assumed you'd say no to it. And I like how he was the one with the responsibility to tone it down. Where was your involvement with that? Would it have been impossible to tone it down or otherwise balance the character in a way you and he were happy with? Did you want the player to be able to play the class they wanted? Were you happy to be able to reject it finally? For that reason I prefer no followed by a possible yes rather than a yes followed by a possible no. If you'd said "Yes," thereby obligating yourself to help find a way to make the concept work, then you also would not have run a risk of upsetting the player.

Headhunter Jones said: George said: I do agree that the same arguments can be made for the typical races: half-orc, halfling, dwarf and elves and people are indeed roleplaying them in wired ways considering their differences from humans, but I think that this is an argument for why you should, sometimes, limit even those races. You seem to be a strong believer of the fact that "locking yourself in the little box someone created (be that creator the GM, the rulebook or a fantasy author)" is a bad thing but I believe it can be, and most of the time it is, a good thing. On the contrary, I understand and can appreciate the value of creative constraints. The games themselves comes with certain creative constraints built in. However, there is no creative constraint so important that we can't break it or bend it to work with a player's reasonable request , especially if it means greater player engagement with the game. Where I take issue is with a DM saying that a request like playing a monster race isn't tenable because some imaginary people I thought up while in the bathroom might not like it. For the sake of clarity, I'm not classifying "game rules" as creative constraints in this context. What is a reasonable request ? If it is a request "within reason" than it can be absolutely anything because anything is "within reason" as long as we can break creative constraint. If it is a request that "has a reason" than I would really like to hear the reason, most people do not have a good reason for play monster races. The only guy that I saw play a monster race "well" had a very good reason for playing said race. But most people that want to play a monster race could not give a concrete reason as to why they want to play it as opposed to a "usual" race. ( Not saying it's the case of Dovan here, he might be the opposite for all I care since he might have experience with kobolds and he might have a good reason for wanting to play them)

Gauss said: Note: I am posting as a user not as a Moderator (I should've put that above too). Many of my comments were specific to pre-4e D&D and Pathfinder. Specifically the "I am the GM" comments. That is what those editions are based on. Yes, this is a collaborative game which is what I also indicated. However, the way that Headhunter Jones comes across is that it is ALL collaboration and that if you take a stance of 'this is my game' then you are doing it wrong. Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding his position but I am not the only one to feel this way. It's probably important to note that "comes across" doesn't equal "intent" and that strongly advocating for one's position in a direct manner doesn't necessitate a defensive response from those that disagree. My advocacy for what I believe isn't an attack on what other people believe. I'd be very happy to read equally strong advocacy of other people's positions and why they think their style is great. I'd really like to know how these other styles really work for people. Often I hear them put in terms of how much "work" GMing is or that such-and-such thing I never have to worry about is "their job" or how much their players need to be controlled or else they'll ruin the game. That approach doesn't sound all that appealing to me. I'd love for someone to sell me on that approach. What are the upsides? In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I do believe "my way" is better - for me . I've tried "your way." I did it for 20+ years. It doesn't work for me anymore, if it ever did. My experience (which is obviously anecdotal) is that once I've shown people "my way," they get the same or better results than they're getting now with a lot less work and more player engagement. They don't tend to go back to their former approaches. That's what happened to me, too, when I changed my approach. For every person you know that feels I'm saying "you're doing it wrong," I bet I have two PMs requesting to join or just observe our games or asking me additional questions or offering support. That doesn't mean I'm "right," or that I always put my best foot forward in these discussions, but something about more fun and player engagement for less effort certainly does resonate with GMs and rightly so. As for the hours of work, tell me. Who spends the time making the maps (either at the table or in Roll20). How about the time to prep the encounters? What about the storyline prep? The World prep? Not the players. That takes time on the GM's side of things. Even if he is running a pre-written adventure he has to read it all in advance, make tweaks to accommodate his particular group, etc. That takes time. Except these are all choices you're making because of your approach. My approach doesn't require me to do any of these things, even if I do choose to do them (I happen to enjoy playing with Roll20's art/image features, for example.) Maps? I can do that collaboratively with the players as we play. Prepping encounters can be done on the fly with or without the players' help. (Paul's got more experience at this than I do.) Storylines? That's a plot and only some GMs use plots. Because it's inherently more work than adventures without plots , you can imagine I don't do them in favor of locations and situations. As for the world, I can create that collaboratively too out of nothing in about 15 minutes with player collaboration and we can add onto it as we play. Case in point, a couple months ago, Paul U. ran an Eberron adventure that was very exciting with zero actual prep. He just pulled it all together as he played, using player ideas for input and produced an adventure on the spot. All you have to do is be open to ideas and roll with it with improvisation (which is just a skill one can learn like any other). Roll20 features, of course, helps a bunch! Regarding blocking player's ideas, I am not talking about 'Player X wants to go to town and I said no'. I am talking about 'Why cant I have this shiny magic item printed right here in the book!?' or 'Why cant I play a four armed giant in a world of humans?' or 'I want a Manga character!' Players come in with all sorts of ideas that are not part of a GM's world design or are a problem mechanically. "Blocking" as a thing only exists in the context of improvising during actual play, but I understand what you mean. Still, there's no reason why those things can't be accommodated. You'd just prefer not to is all. It's about control for reasons that I'm sure you find perfectly valid. Blocking's about control, too, though that's really more during play. As for not understanding it well enough, why do you think I do not understand that there are not a variety of play styles and GMing styles? The extremely cooperative style that Headhunter espouses is only one of them. In Pathfinder (as well as 3.X and earlier editions) the GM is spelled out as controlling everything that is not controlled by the players. quote from Pathfinder GMG p6: "But if you don’t know, a Game Master (or GM) is the Pathfinder RPG player who arbitrates the rules of the game and controls the actions of every game element that isn’t explicitly controlled by the other players." Now, other game systems have more co-operative styles but in the history of D&D up to and including 3.5/PF it is the GM who controls the game and the players that control their characters. Paul gave what I think is the best response to this bit here above . How you go about controlling those elements that fall under the GM's purview in that game does not obviate collaboration. Edit: HJ regarding the "orc" example. I actually agree that the GM in that instance can try to work with the player. However, it is my experience that if you start from a position of "yes" players will whine until they get their way rather than actually justify it. Then when you do say no (because they failed to work with you or because there was no workable compromise) they get upset. If you start from a position of "no" and then ask them to justify it they will work harder to justify it and if they don't then they will just chalk it up to no being the default rather than getting upset. My no is usually a 'No, now convince me' type of no. I obviously can't tell you what your own experience is, but I can tell you that I don't get whiners, even in pick-up groups, because when they want something, I just say "Yes, and..." then either ask for justification or offer justification on my own to make their idea work. There's no need to whine because, provided the player is acting in good faith, I'm already bought into whatever idea they have by default and can justify it using the rules of improvisation. It's so simple and conflict free. Once I show them that I trust them, they trust me and start buying into the things I'm saying. It's amazing to watch it work. EDIT: I'll respond to more a bit later as I'll be afk for a tick. Carry on though, great discussion!

You say collaboration like the players helped you make the world, or design the encounters, or designed the NPCs. They didnt. Not all games are collaborative on the level that is espoused in this and other threads. Not all game systems are collaborative on the level that is espoused in this and other threads. If I do not want element X in my world I do not have to allow it. Stopping play is not exactly the GM's choice when someone is upset because they cannot do something that they thought they could do. Either you stop play and explain it, you allow it (thereby setting precedent), or you say no and REALLY make them upset. Remember, not everyone is a calm and rational player. If people assume that I would say no to things when I said I start with no and proceed to yes then that is their own failing. I cannot be responsible for that. I did not state he had the responsibility to tone it down, perhaps you shouldn't read into my posts what is not there. I said he asked if he could present it if he toned it down. I worked with him on it as I do all my player's builds. You assume my "no" results in a different course of actions than your "yes". It does not. I still try to work with players on it. But, by starting with "no" the emotional expectations are different. People get less upset when "no" is confirmed than when "yes" is turned into "no. In any case, my main point in this thread is not to debate this further, it is to explain that there is not one right way of doing things. The level of collaboration is a variable and the amount of times I see people being told to collaborate while shutting down or ignoring other povs is detrimental to a normal discussion.

George said: Headhunter Jones said: George said: I do agree that the same arguments can be made for the typical races: half-orc, halfling, dwarf and elves and people are indeed roleplaying them in wired ways considering their differences from humans, but I think that this is an argument for why you should, sometimes, limit even those races. You seem to be a strong believer of the fact that "locking yourself in the little box someone created (be that creator the GM, the rulebook or a fantasy author)" is a bad thing but I believe it can be, and most of the time it is, a good thing. On the contrary, I understand and can appreciate the value of creative constraints. The games themselves comes with certain creative constraints built in. However, there is no creative constraint so important that we can't break it or bend it to work with a player's reasonable request , especially if it means greater player engagement with the game. Where I take issue is with a DM saying that a request like playing a monster race isn't tenable because some imaginary people I thought up while in the bathroom might not like it. For the sake of clarity, I'm not classifying "game rules" as creative constraints in this context. What is a reasonable request ? If it is a request "within reason" than it can be absolutely anything because anything is "within reason" as long as we can break creative constraint. That's right. Practically speaking, though, people don't ask for "absolutely anything." They ask for stuff they think would be cool. All the GM has to do is agree that it's cool, to buy-into the idea, and work with the player, rather than erecting barriers to it and them.

HJ, perhaps you have a more select group of players. But, not all players act in good faith. Some want what they want and that is it. There is no working towards a middle ground and even when that does happen they still take liberties. Perhaps the difference is that you may be socially skilled and that allows you to work with your players better. From how you describe things Paul is apparently improvisationally skilled. Do you believe that the majority of GMs have either or both of these qualities? In my 30 years of gaming my answer would be no. Socially skilled: fact is many of us are geeks and nerds. Not a category of people known for our social skills. Improvisation: Many GMs cannot pull together encounters on the fly. They take minutes just to read the monster entry and understand it. It gets worse at higher levels. How do they improvise a 3.5/PF 15th level wizard complete with feats and spells? Hell, it takes most people days just to create a PC. Why would creating an NPC of the same level be much different? It takes hours. As a result game preparation is required. As I told Paul a moment ago, my main purpose here is to indicate there are other ways of doing things. Perhaps if you acknowledged them as valid rather than try to deconstruct them then people would not take offense. You can acknowledge something as valid and then present an alternate way of doing things without offending people. I really haven't seen you make an effort to do that but, perhaps I missed that post.

Paul, So, what if the player would think it is cool to create a psychopath PC in order to kill all of his fellow PCs. You should buy into that? What of the other player's? Wouldn't they get upset if you set up a situation so that one PC can kill all the other PCs they put so much work into? The above is not a unknown situation, it has happened in games. So, I have a rule: no psychopath PCs (no PvP). Find a way to get along or change characters. Now, am I wrong for disallowing PvP? Or have I protected the other player's fun? How about super-powerful PCs? If a player wants a superpowered PC even though the other players do not have one should a GM allow that? Sure, you could say yes and... but that is not fun for the other players who do not have superpowered PCs. Either they have to recreate their PCs or you have to arbitrarily find some way to advance them and that is even if they want that (not all will). This has also occurred to me and the people who objected was not me, the GM, it was the other players. Not all requests are reasonable. People make unreasonable requests that are 'cool' all the time. It is up to the GM to say no.

Gauss said: You say collaboration like the players helped you make the world, or design the encounters, or designed the NPCs. They didnt. Why not? Not all games are collaborative on the level that is espoused in this and other threads. Why not? Not all game systems are collaborative on the level that is espoused in this and other threads. They can be. If I do not want element X in my world I do not have to allow it. I agree. I AGREE. But say that you don't want it, don't make up reasons why it can't work. If nothing else, you're being honest, and you're saving yourself some time. Stopping play is not exactly the GM's choice when someone is upset because they cannot do something that they thought they could do. True. The choice you make is whether to allow them to do the thing they thought they could do. I'm not sure why you'd make a choice that necessitates stopping the game. Either you stop play and explain it, you allow it (thereby setting precedent), or you say no and REALLY make them upset. Remember, not everyone is a calm and rational player. Again with the limited choices. You also have the choice to just roll with it. If people assume that I would say no to things when I said I start with no and proceed to yes then that is their own failing. I cannot be responsible for that. You are at least partially responsible for that. Not everyone enjoys having to defend their ideas from someone who is predisposed to blocking them. You certainly don't come across as encouraging unusual ideas. I did not state he had the responsibility to tone it down, perhaps you shouldn't read into my posts what is not there. I said he asked if he could present it if he toned it down. I worked with him on it as I do all my player's builds. My apologies. You said he "presented" the toned down version, which I assumed mean that he went away, tried to fix it, and came back. What I'm trying to ask is what you did to try to make the idea work, and why it was impossible for you to make it work. You assume my "no" results in a different course of actions than your "yes". It does not. I still try to work with players on it. But, by starting with "no" the emotional expectations are different. People get less upset when "no" is confirmed than when "yes" is turned into "no. People don't get upset at all if you always say "yes," and and never turn it into a "no." The opposite of "Yes" is not "No," it's "I'll need your help figuring this out." In any case, my main point in this thread is not to debate this further, it is to explain that there is not one right way of doing things. The level of collaboration is a variable and the amount of times I see people being told to collaborate while shutting down or ignoring other povs is detrimental to a normal discussion. Sort of like how it's detrimental when people shut down or ignore collaboration.

Gauss said: Paul, So, what if the player would think it is cool to create a psychopath PC in order to kill all of his fellow PCs. You should buy into that? Yes, absolutely. The first response is always "Yes." Following that is the "and...." In this contrived situation of yours, I don't know how I could make the idea work, so the "and" would have to be "and I'd like your help to make this interesting and fun for the group." The above is not a unknown situation, it has happened in games. So, I have a rule: no psychopath PCs (no PvP). Find a way to get along or change characters. Now, am I wrong for disallowing PvP? Or have I protected the other player's fun? I don't have that rule, but I tell my players prior to character generation that their character know and trust each other, and can work together and I ask them why that is. If they tell me "No, my character doesn't know or trust them and can't work with them" I point back to what I already established as true. The question isn't whether they can or do, it's why they can or do. By the way, thank you for being honest about the real reason why you don't like collaboration. How about super-powerful PCs? If a player wants a superpowered PC even though the other players do not have one should a GM allow that? Sure, you could say yes and... but that is not fun for the other players who do not have superpowered PCs. Why would you assume that's not fun? Superman and Batman team-ups work all the time. Gandalf rides with hobbits. I would say "Yes" to the idea and, again, get help making it fun for all. Either they have to recreate their PCs or you have to arbitrarily find some way to advance them and that is even if they want that (not all will). Such limited choices. You're more creative than that, I can tell. This has also occurred to me and the people who objected was not me, the GM, it was the other players. So, it sounds like it is valid for players to tell the GM how to run the game. Not all requests are reasonable. People make unreasonable requests that are 'cool' all the time. It is up to the GM to say no. I've stopped doing that, and it has only made my game better for all involved.

I have not been dishonest this entire time. I do like collaboration. Just not to the same level you do. I am always honest with my players. If anything, I am too honest. I even break down encounters afterwards to explain what they could have done differently. But, that does not change that you are not stating that other points of view are valid. You and Headhunter Jones continue to treat this (in your posts) like yours is the only right way. That is what rubs people wrong. Now, how are you doing that? Well, you pick apart people's responses and tell them how it should be done instead of asking why it works for them and then stating how it would work for you. At no point (that I have seen) have you even acknowledged that this DOES work for me and my players. In any case, discussing this with you and HJ is like arguing with a wall. It is not constructive. :)

Gauss said: HJ, perhaps you have a more select group of players. But, not all players act in good faith. Some want what they want and that is it. There is no working towards a middle ground and even when that does happen they still take liberties. The answer to that situation is still not to say "No," because "No" does not solve the issue of someone operating in bad faith. Such players just argue or find another way to cause trouble. Perhaps the difference is that you may be socially skilled and that allows you to work with your players better. From how you describe things Paul is apparently improvisationally skilled. Do you believe that the majority of GMs have either or both of these qualities? In my 30 years of gaming my answer would be no. They have more than they think, and they're smart enough to get better at them Socially skilled: fact is many of us are geeks and nerds. Not a category of people known for our social skills. Yes, and a category known for being victimized when they don't have total control over a situation and know all its rules. But I see social skills as a less important aspect of this than creativity. And geeks and nerds are very creative. For instance, you're creating reasons why collaboration should be avoided. Improvisation: Many GMs cannot pull together encounters on the fly. They take minutes just to read the monster entry and understand it. It gets worse at higher levels. How do they improvise a 3.5/PF 15th level wizard complete with feats and spells? Hell, it takes most people days just to create a PC. Why would creating an NPC of the same level be much different? It takes hours. As a result game preparation is required. Setting aside the fact that a system in which it takes days to create a PC is a system with some major dysfunction, you're creating false problems again. Why a wizard? Why not a sorcerer, who makes heavy use of just their top level spells, then runs? Why not a fighter? Why not a monster out of the book reflavored to be what you want? What about reading just a few important things about the monster, rather than the whole entry? What about asking the players what kind of encounter they even want, and if it's too hard to do on your own getting their help? What about asking them a week in advance exactly what they want to do, and then asking them not to deviate from that, rather than just assuming they won't because you worked so hard? Even if game preparation IS required, the point is that doing that preparation doesn't entitle the GM in any way to seeing that work pay off. They are not given license by the rules to then block player ideas to make sure that work pays off. As I told Paul a moment ago, my main purpose here is to indicate there are other ways of doing things. The "other ways" you talk about are the traditional ways. It's safe to assume people are aware of them. Perhaps if you acknowledged them as valid rather than try to deconstruct them then people would not take offense. I agree and have stated that they can work if everyone is bought into them, but there are reasons why getting that buy-in is often difficult. And perhaps if people were more open to their ideas being deconstructed, they would not take offense. I had to BOLD some things I said that got put into quotes.

Paul U. said: I don't have that rule, but I tell my players prior to character generation that their character know and trust each other, and can work together and I ask them why that is. If they tell me "No, my character doesn't know or trust them and can't work with them" I point back to what I already established as true. The question isn't whether they can or do, it's why they can or do. So isn't that the same as not allowing a player to play a certain race ? You are basically saying no to the idea of a character that acts, in certain ways, against the party , which is worse than saying "no" to a race, you are saying "no" to something a player should be allowed to do in character within the limits of, probably, any world... which is act out what they think their character would do, including trying to kill another PC.

Gauss said: I have not been dishonest this entire time. I do like collaboration. Just not to the same level you do. That wasn't the impression I received, but I apologize for putting it in terms of "honesty." I am always honest with my players. If anything, I am too honest. I even break down encounters afterwards to explain what they could have done differently. I don't see "too honest" as possible, though there are limits to how much information people want dumped on them. I'll just obverve that there are ways to avoid having to explain things to them afterward, to make it so they understand things in advance. But, that does not change that you are not stating that other points of view are valid. You and Headhunter Jones continue to treat this (in your posts) like yours is the only right way. That is what rubs people wrong. That doesn't make sense to me. Those who play the traditional way don't seem to acknowledge any other significantly different ways to play, let alone consider them valid. I don't think we're saying that ours is the only right way, but we are pointing out problems that other approaches cause. I think of ways as playing as separate from the people who utilize them, so I don't think of criticizing them as a personal attack. But when people are strongly bought into an approach and have put in decades of work justifying its problems it makes it hard for them to be objective about it. Now, how are you doing that? Well, you pick apart people's responses and tell them how it should be done instead of asking why it works for them and then stating how it would work for you. At no point (that I have seen) have you even acknowledged that this DOES work for me and my players. Of course it works. Anything can work, with buy in. That doesn't mean it's actually objectively good, anymore than the fact that people enjoy a movie makes it objectively good. And I think I ask plenty of questions, lots of which get avoided. I'm not telling you how to run your game, unless you're asking for advice. Otherwise, I'm mainly trying to counter assumptions you're making about what I'm saying.

George said: Paul U. said: I don't have that rule, but I tell my players prior to character generation that their character know and trust each other, and can work together and I ask them why that is. If they tell me "No, my character doesn't know or trust them and can't work with them" I point back to what I already established as true. The question isn't whether they can or do, it's why they can or do. So isn't that the same as not allowing a player to play a certain race ? You are basically saying no to the idea of a character that acts, in certain ways, against the party , which is worse than saying "no" to a race, you are saying "no" to something a player should be allowed to do in character within the limits of, probably, any world... which is act out what they think their character would do, including trying to kill another PC. I can see what you're saying. But I don't believe it's worse. I don't make up reasons why the world makes it impossible for them to make certain choices, I tell them my preference as a GM which is that they find reasons to be a team. How they do that is still up to them, and they can even be complete psychopaths. Some of the best characters in fiction are complete psychopaths, yet the writers use their creativity to make the story involving them interesting. But okay, I'll stop doing that. The target player decides the outcome of a PvP attack, so it's not like psychopath could actually kill any PC who didn't want to be killed.

Must be Friday, some folks have too much time...