Red Flags

[The Jack]

And I have a lot of problems with DM that expect me to have a strong agency, particularly DM that expect me to try to anticipate what will happen (for example, preparing against an ambush, a traitor, an unconventional enemy, or not falling into a trap).

Really?
In an ideal game half my actions are instigation and the other half is paranoia. Characters make the story for me.

as a dm I've grown to dislike too-passive players who just wanted to follow the story. I dont want my game to be a river you flow through, i want you to fight me. I once had a pc cheaply sell their soul to a demon because he thought i wanted him to, and I felt robbed of either a story of continued temptation or a battle of dominance between two characters. The same guy liked to play housewives that wouldnt do anything i didnt push him into (one reluctant character would've been fine, but this guy had a problem)

And as a GM, it's just a lot easier for me to run for instigators. I make a rough sandbox, throw a few movers and shakers in, the players start with a quest with no certain outcome to get them into the setting, the players do things on their own accord, i bull**** a scenario for them and then invent rewards/consequences or have someone act against them. repeat. It's easy for me.

I want players to change the world. I don't want to line up a bunch of quests so that they can save the world.

If I have passive players dming feels more like work (and when i play with them,i feel guilty of leadering too much and start getting shy)

I set things up so that if you just do what you're told and follow the story, you'll lose. my baddies will abuse how predictable you are... i dont want to be punative, but i like to do what feels natural/logical.

I dont expect all players to be adventerous, especially not newer ones, but if i dont have anyone in the party willing to forge their own path, things look bleak.

[Quertus]

Okay, so basically you prefer a sandbox where the GM just gives you the stuff you want to do. That's fine too. Just seems a bit petty to decide that you don't like when GMs have a storyline in mind and a general course of events planned out.

Well, look at this:



The backstory red flag, for me, is an indication in the provided backstory that it is not motivation or background, but rather the start of a fairly well understood story by the player that was essentially written in a vacuum without consideration of the other players or GMs and their wishes. IOW, "this is the story, you're all bit players in me telling my story."

It's essentially the player-side version of a railroad, though players have less mechanical powers to enforce it.

Replace "player backstory" with "GM story", and you've got the backbone of my complaint.

More insidiously, it taints the GM's perspective. They're looking at the game from the PoV of "their story".


If the rocks float, the rocks float. The stuff people are talking about are mechanical rules issues, "Can I take an extra attack after doing that move?" or "How much damage does this power swing's bonus strike do if I'm under a strength spell?". Stuff that, after the fact, you can look up in the official rules and see who was accurate and who was mistaken.

You're not going to pull out the Big RPG Book of Stone Densities and make a mechanical argument for rocks floating or sinking. Just gotta roll with the DM on that one; if his rocks float then they float. Decide on another plan. Or find a DM who doesn't have silly world physics but you're not going to actually prove that the way rocks act in his world is wrong.

It's the same thing for world physics / game rules, too, just much less jarring for you, but equally jarring for me.

So, if you view then differently, you've proven my point.


well, when i set up the whole thing, the characters were low level, so i figured i'd never have to worry about that. Now they are high level, so I do.

If there were ways to take down that defence trivially, I assume they are blocked in some way. I'd have to see the specific case, but the whole world has roughly 100 casters with 9th level spells, so I assume anything trivial was already taken into account.
Something that is not trivial, that I may let fly, as long as it's obscure enough that it's reasonable that nobody used it before. As I said, worldbuilding consistency is important to me; if everybody used defences that had a big gaping hole, and nobody noticed it, that's inconsistent. if somebody discovered some new spell that can take down existing defences, that's something that happens once in a while.

Anyway, you can take down one such stronghold by blasting the front door. they are warded against teleportation, so they need a mundane door for allies to enter. the doors are thick and require some time to break down, and after them there are some mechanical defences involving abundant use of gunpowder in antimagic fields, but with enough high level firepower, it is possible to take down the defences. scamming may also work, though very difficult because they run a lot of checks.

In the end, I expect the party to start assaulting the places soon enough. We'd be already at that point, if real life business hadn't kept us from playing in the last two months.

Ah, I completely forgot to look up if my ideas would work by RAW. :smallredface: If they would, you can't really "block" them, you have to change world physics to make your world work.

And, again, my question is, would you be willing to change world physics to make a player's concept for his PC work, too, or does your world have dibs on assisted coolness?


A motivation doesn't have to be written in prose form. It can be very terse. It's also the most actually useful bit.

+1 this.

(I still prefer a conversation, to reduce the chances of miscommunication)

[Resileaf]

I have a player whose way of getting into character is to write two or three pages of a scene of his character's past, generally something that will show what kind of person he is, what he likes and what he stands for, without telling his life's story or even the most dramatic moment of his life. It's not even relevant to the plot. It's just "A day in the life of..."

It's a nice type of fluff, imo.

[MoiMagnus]

I set things up so that if you just do what you're told and follow the story, you'll lose. my baddies will abuse how predictable you are... i dont want to be punative, but i like to do what feels natural/logical.

One of my group did lose a campaign because of this. Our team was pretty good optimisers (few munchkins, in pathfinder), so any fight that was winnable was mostly won. Some of us were really involved RP wise, the munchkins a little less. But none of us were in the thing called "anticipation", and we just died around level 13 because we were too predictable. (Well, technically, my character survived, but probably not for long)

In general, I have a lot more fun with "illusionist" kind of DMs, so those of the school "Feeling of agency is more important than agency itself" or "Film conventions and plot device apply in RPG too" (or the kind of DM that will not make the ennemy play cleverly, because dramatic purpose expect them to be much more powerful than the PCs, so it would make the PCs have 0% survival rate.)

But that's fair to say this preference is far from being universal. We're just incompatible Player/DM, which is totally fine.

[OverLordOcelot]

Basically, there's three entire threads full of them. Start here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275152-What-am-I-supposed-to-do), and brace for madness.

That's not an example of a DM deciding to cut an argument at the table short, then revisit it later. That's an example of a game where the DM keeps rewriting the game on a whim and players just keep going along with it for no good reason. Most notably, there aren't any examples in there (at least in the part I read) where the DM says "I'm not sure what the real rule is, we're doing it this way for now," it's all "This is the rule now because I say so." It's also WAY past red flag territory, it's clearly a highly dysfunctional situation.

[Mr Beer]

If it is a simple matter, yes. But erroneous rulings can have major, game effecting consequences. In one game I was in, it led (through a chain of events) to my wife and I leaving the game permanently.

<snip>

That's not a problem with a DM making a quick ruling and moving on with the game, that's a problem with:

a) The DM refusing to allow even 10 seconds for a player to either state their case or quickly check a rule.

b) The DM being the kind of DM who won't retcon character survival even when they, the DM, was in the wrong.

c) Personality conflict between two players (your wife and DMs wife).

I am a big fan of the 'that's the way it is for now, check the rules later' approach to DM-ing, because I've seen too many narratives derailed with various 'calculate the volume of a fireball'-type arguments. But taking an I'm-in-charge-we're-doing-this approach only works well with adults when the players trust you not to be a jerk about it.

[DataNinja]

If it is a simple matter, yes. But erroneous rulings can have major, game effecting consequences. In one game I was in, it led (through a chain of events) to my wife and I leaving the game permanently...

[snipped for length]


I think most reasonable people would allow a rules check before killing a character (if its in dispute) even if they'd normally move past a question of whether you you use [skill] to stack another five damage on an attack. I wouldn't assume that a GM doing the latter will be indicative of him not allowing the former.

Yeah, I've not known people to skip past something where it would lead to a character death. That's something in a whole different category than most that could have 'quick rulings' because, yeah, as you pointed out, that's a lot harder to retcon, and can cause far worse hurt feelings than having to drink an extra healing potion or something.

[Draconi Redfir]

i've actually had the opposite. My character got hit by four Unholy Blight (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/u/unholy-blight)s while she was Lawful Good. Dropped her down dead. The DM isn't one to enjoy killing PC's (and as i later learned, actually had something planned for my character he wanted to do) so we were all scrambling to try and figure out how she could have possibly survived, any buffs she might have had that i forgot about, the possibility of her being in range of a Breath of Life (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/breath-of-life/) spell... nothing. She was dead-dead-dead...

BUT THEN!

i realized i had Spell Resistance! the DM rolled for the four attacks, two of them failed, and it was enough for me to not die! so my character retroactively lived through the attack:smallbiggrin:

i've never forgotten my SR since...

[King of Nowhere]

I want players to change the world. I don't want to line up a bunch of quests so that they can save the world.

If I have passive players dming feels more like work (and when i play with them,i feel guilty of leadering too much and start getting shy)

I set things up so that if you just do what you're told and follow the story, you'll lose. my baddies will abuse how predictable you are... i dont want to be punative, but i like to do what feels natural/logical.

I dont expect all players to be adventerous, especially not newer ones, but if i dont have anyone in the party willing to forge their own path, things look bleak.

this is a matter of finding the golden mean.

I fully agree that it is much easier to Dm for players who are propositive. I think I'd have given up on my group long ago without the one propositive player.
On the other hand, if every player is propositive, you'll easily run into conflicting agendas, strife, and interparty tensions. So it's better to not have all the players trying to drive the plot.




Ah, I completely forgot to look up if my ideas would work by RAW. :smallredface: If they would, you can't really "block" them, you have to change world physics to make your world work.

And, again, my question is, would you be willing to change world physics to make a player's concept for his PC work, too, or does your world have dibs on assisted coolness?



1) cut me some slack; by the time I came up with the idea, I had a sketchy knowledge of core, and no knowledge of extras (besides being aware that there existed splatbooks). You can't expect me to figure out any RAW trick at the time. Knowing that a prismatic wall works in AMF while everything that can take it down does not was the apex of my skill.
2) Relax your expectations a bit. Maybe you are used to playing with bigger nerds, but you honestly can't expect most DM to plan for everything. There are so many obscure things in splatbooks, it's virtually impossible to account for everything.
3) relax your gameplay. If the DM is presenting you a scenario, and all you can think of is how to find obscure loopholes to abuse it, then you are not the kind of person I want to play with. that kind of escalation can only end up in 5-D chess between DM and players, and while there are people who enjoy it, I don't, and I'm not putting that level of effort into anything unless I'm getting paid for it.

Heck, I've been in around half a dozen groups before, and I've never met someone who knew the rules nowhere near as well as I do. I am a bit tired of people in this forum implying that I am a terrible player/DM because I didn't take into account the interaction from source Y with book Z and therefore I should see my campaign world/character concept come crashing down because of it.
In the group where I'm a player, the DM regularly uses that kind of handwaving, because me and another player are more skilled and could trivialize everything he could come up with, and nobody resents him. Nobody wants to play that kind of game anyway, so when he says "I know you could think of something I missed, but just assume that X cannot be done", nobody coomplains. It's either that, or slide into players vs DM madness.

that said
1) if i had a player use a build from the beginning, and then we'd find out his whole build would be invalidated by some detail that we missed, of course I'd houserule the build to keep working. I value consistency, as I said.
2) if I found a way to make better builds to outshine the pcs? well, I already could do that well enough. Of course I don't.

But especially
3) coolness has NOTHING to do with it. Please stop waving that word around like I was some kid trying to feel strong through his characters. I would appreciate if you stopped implying that I'm trying to show off to my players by making cool stuff that they cannot do.
It's a matter of setting up a few assumptions and keeping up with them.
It's also a matter of not derailing the game into a contest of gotcha! between the DM and the players.
And finally, it's a matter of not destroying a campaign by trivializing it

trivialize
verb
1 - to solve a problem in a way that involves no risk, no interaction with opposition, and negligible cost.
2- to overcome an encounter or obstacle with a single spell or skill check or actions

Now, trivializing a few encounters is all well and good, but I would never want the whole campaign to be trivialized. It sucks, and it's a waste of everyone's time, and it's not the game I want to play.
So I simply established that some things in my world cannot be trivialized.
Breaking into the stronghold of a major power is one such thing.
Defeating one of the major bosses outside of controlled conditions is another such thing.
Want to do that? You have to get down and dirty and roll some dice and face some real risk of failure and consequences.
Everything else, you can trivialize just fine.
I may also add "doing stuff that's explicitly established to be impossible in the setting" to the list, though that's different because you can do the others by non-trivial means, while this you can't do. If I establish that there is no way to do X, then there isn't for anyone, period.

[Quertus]

this is a matter of finding the golden mean.

I fully agree that it is much easier to Dm for players who are propositive. I think I'd have given up on my group long ago without the one propositive player.
On the other hand, if every player is propositive, you'll easily run into conflicting agendas, strife, and interparty tensions. So it's better to not have all the players trying to drive the plot.



1) cut me some slack; by the time I came up with the idea, I had a sketchy knowledge of core, and no knowledge of extras (besides being aware that there existed splatbooks). You can't expect me to figure out any RAW trick at the time. Knowing that a prismatic wall works in AMF while everything that can take it down does not was the apex of my skill.
2) Relax your expectations a bit. Maybe you are used to playing with bigger nerds, but you honestly can't expect most DM to plan for everything. There are so many obscure things in splatbooks, it's virtually impossible to account for everything.
3) relax your gameplay. If the DM is presenting you a scenario, and all you can think of is how to find obscure loopholes to abuse it, then you are not the kind of person I want to play with. that kind of escalation can only end up in 5-D chess between DM and players, and while there are people who enjoy it, I don't, and I'm not putting that level of effort into anything unless I'm getting paid for it.

Heck, I've been in around half a dozen groups before, and I've never met someone who knew the rules nowhere near as well as I do. I am a bit tired of people in this forum implying that I am a terrible player/DM because I didn't take into account the interaction from source Y with book Z and therefore I should see my campaign world/character concept come crashing down because of it.
In the group where I'm a player, the DM regularly uses that kind of handwaving, because me and another player are more skilled and could trivialize everything he could come up with, and nobody resents him. Nobody wants to play that kind of game anyway, so when he says "I know you could think of something I missed, but just assume that X cannot be done", nobody coomplains. It's either that, or slide into players vs DM madness.

that said
1) if i had a player use a build from the beginning, and then we'd find out his whole build would be invalidated by some detail that we missed, of course I'd houserule the build to keep working. I value consistency, as I said.
2) if I found a way to make better builds to outshine the pcs? well, I already could do that well enough. Of course I don't.

But especially
3) coolness has NOTHING to do with it. Please stop waving that word around like I was some kid trying to feel strong through his characters. I would appreciate if you stopped implying that I'm trying to show off to my players by making cool stuff that they cannot do.
It's a matter of setting up a few assumptions and keeping up with them.
It's also a matter of not derailing the game into a contest of gotcha! between the DM and the players.
And finally, it's a matter of not destroying a campaign by trivializing it

trivialize
verb
1 - to solve a problem in a way that involves no risk, no interaction with opposition, and negligible cost.
2- to overcome an encounter or obstacle with a single spell or skill check or actions

Now, trivializing a few encounters is all well and good, but I would never want the whole campaign to be trivialized. It sucks, and it's a waste of everyone's time, and it's not the game I want to play.
So I simply established that some things in my world cannot be trivialized.
Breaking into the stronghold of a major power is one such thing.
Defeating one of the major bosses outside of controlled conditions is another such thing.
Want to do that? You have to get down and dirty and roll some dice and face some real risk of failure and consequences.
Everything else, you can trivialize just fine.
I may also add "doing stuff that's explicitly established to be impossible in the setting" to the list, though that's different because you can do the others by non-trivial means, while this you can't do. If I establish that there is no way to do X, then there isn't for anyone, period.

So, if I read you correctly, what you are describing is (minor) railroading and an explicit call for Participationism. And that's fine. It's fine to lay rails like, "you cannot break through AM Prismatic Walls (but there will always be another way in), OK?". Really. As much as I hate railroading, even I will say that this is fine, if you get the buy-in.

Knowing that you're specifically getting buy-in, well, I wouldn't go about taking down your walls (unless I had a senile moment, then a Gentle Reminder (from someone other than Nybor) should suffice).

And it's great that you are fine with players trivializing non-buy-in encounters.

And it's cool that you would work to not invalidate an existing character.

But that's not what I'm asking.

What I'm asking is, what if a player had an idea that they thought was as cool as you seem to think AM + Prismatic Wall should be, that you know doesn't work in RAW? Like, say, a Petal Lich, or rupturing a Bag of Holding in a stable way to create a mobile portal the astral plane? Or combining Animal Companion and Necrotic Tumor, saying that their "Animal Companion" is a sentient tumor, conjoined twin, or strange tauric template? Would you change world physics to allow what they think is cool, just as you have for your rails, or do you limit physics changes to your personal world-building?

Related note: do you allow PCs to utilize whatever physics changes were necessary to allow your world-building?

[Jophiel]

I want players to change the world. I don't want to line up a bunch of quests so that they can save the world.

If I have passive players dming feels more like work (and when i play with them,i feel guilty of leadering too much and start getting shy)

I set things up so that if you just do what you're told and follow the story, you'll lose. my baddies will abuse how predictable you are... i dont want to be punative, but i like to do what feels natural/logical.
We have maybe three hours every two weeks. If the players spend that time derping around randomly, we quickly lose an entire session of game time and no one gets much of anything. I find it's much more productive to line up goals for them and allow them freedom in how to tackle those goals but still keep the session focused. Otherwise we hit a point where six weeks have gone by and no one has made much progress of any sort and people start feeling discouraged with the game.

If I was in a situation where we were spending six hours every Saturday night, I could probably handle it differently but, as is, lining stuff up is how the group stays productive and engaged.

Edit: This is a Session 0 discussion and, in fact, a pre-Session 0 point I make when looking for players. I don't want it to be an Adventurers League style A-B-C walkthrough but we also can't spend an hour on your character haggling the price of rope or everyone sort of meandering around aimlessly.

[DaOldeWolf]

Three paragraphs is probably fine.
I feel in smaller games you can write a bit more, in large games you shouldn't write anything.

I don't want to target you, but some people just write bad backstories.


You want to be good and special enough to be in the game. *
But not so good that you're way more special than the other players or exceed what would be good for your level.

*Often you can just play the most boring bad character so long as you have a good plot hook to keep you in the game, but I feel a lot of concepts need a 'you must be this tall to enter' restriction. In DnD, you just need a reason to be in the party. In say WoD you are chosen and need to be worthy of that somehow; There's a minimum base competence for a lot of factions.

Mundane backstories are generally better.
I mean mundane in context; You can go to wizard school, encounter a magic creature that influenced you or have supersticious villagers try to drown you because they all feel personal, but the less chosen one stuff you've got is better. I think whimsical fairytale stuff can work, but chosen one/unnatural talent stuff is the mark of a bad player.
(unless the unatural talent is something whimsical, like you're a Yo-yo artist or you put expertise into cooking, then it can work.)

I usually decide how special the character is depending on the campaign. I also like to add a couple plot hooks, characters important in his life, in characters reasons behind character design (like for example why he decided to multiclass), etc. I want to believe my chars werent that bad since I am usually told that I almost made it whenever I get rejected. Still, when I ask what the issue was, I have been told many times that its the lenght of the backstory (not long enough or too long).

[kyoryu]

Replace "player backstory" with "GM story", and you've got the backbone of my complaint.

More insidiously, it taints the GM's perspective. They're looking at the game from the PoV of "their story".

At the risk of BadWrongFun, for games I like, nobody should really have a set idea of what's going to happen. That's why you play.

(Some people dig prewritten adventure paths. Good on them.)

[Arbane]

chosen one/unnatural talent stuff is the mark of a bad player.
(unless the unatural talent is something whimsical, like you're a Yo-yo artist or you put expertise into cooking, then it can work.)

I bet you're not a fan of Exalted, 13th Age, Godbound, or Pathfinder.

[The Jack]

I bet you're not a fan of Exalted, 13th Age, Godbound, or Pathfinder.

Havent played. Exalted never struck my interest and sounded like someone made a decadent superhero WoD, havent heard if the next two. After reading the corebook i concluded that Pathfinder is bull****.

[Tanarii]

It might be strange to you, but I don't. I'm playing RPG to discover a universe and a story, enjoy moments with others, and influence the universe to fill some blank and improve some parts.It does not sound that strage to me to want to discover a world, enjoy moments, or influence the world. It does sound strange to me to want to discover a story in an RPG. I read books for that. But I t wouldn't sound strange to me to want to (virtually) experience exciting adventures, or discover there are common threads tying them together. Just in case that's what you mean by "story".


I usually ends up in the "assistant DM" position, because I don't really care about my character.Based on what you care about, you'd have to have a specific primary DM for that to work.


And I have a lot of problems with DM that expect me to have a strong agency, particularly DM that expect me to try to anticipate what will happen (for example, preparing against an ambush, a traitor, an unconventional enemy, or not falling into a trap).
That is strange to me, but I understand. I've encountered plenty of players that share your preference. I even have some that have a strong touch of what you're talking about in my campaign, which is fairly player driven. They mostly let the other players do the driving.

But more power to your preferences. Obviously you have a different set of red flags from me (which I didn't see in many prior pages of posts if you've already shared), and we might not enjoy playing or DMing in the same game, or for each other. That's fine.

[Friv]

I bet you're not a fan of Exalted, 13th Age, Godbound, or Pathfinder.

Not necessarily agreeing with Jack, but I think there's a pretty substantial difference between bringing a super-cool chosen one type into a game where the assumption is that everyone is an awesome hero-type at the beginning, and doing it in a game where the assumption is that people are playing grounded or nobody characters and will be growing into uniqueness.

[Arbane]

Not necessarily agreeing with Jack, but I think there's a pretty substantial difference between bringing a super-cool chosen one type into a game where the assumption is that everyone is an awesome hero-type at the beginning, and doing it in a game where the assumption is that people are playing grounded or nobody characters and will be growing into uniqueness.

True enough, but that kinda hits a pothole when you consider that (in a D&Dish fantasy game at least) some of those 'nobodies' are capable of WORKING MIRACLES.

[Tanarii]

True enough, but that kinda hits a pothole when you consider that (in a D&Dish fantasy game at least) some of those 'nobodies' are capable of WORKING MIRACLES.exalted and 13th are not really on the same level as d&d when it comes to being a nascent god.

[Kardwill]

My wife and I decided soon after to leave that game. Had I been allowed to look up Strength damage, none of it would have happened. (The DM would not have allowed a ret-con, even if I had been able to later show him his mistake.)

Wouldn't have changed the fact that you were playing with jerks, though. If things blew up that badly at that moment, it meant the game had already bigger problems than rules knowledge.

But yeah, even if I'm on the "don't slow down the game" camp, refusing a 1-minute check to save a PC's life is a jerk move. Even if you don't want to enter a rule argument right there, then you make a ruling favoring the PC's survival (like "you are down, unconscious, and possibly dying, until end of session, then we'll see what the rules say").

Sounds like your GM really wanted a dead PC so that he could force the player to play a psycho-clown adept, and jumped on the opportunity. Or he had the good old "God-GM" syndrome, which is one of my personal red flags : If the guy thinks he's always right and doesn't trust the players enough to compromise and work with them so that everyone is having fun, why should I trust him as the almighty god of the campaign?

[Quertus]

Yeah, the more I read online, and the more I look back at my experiences, the more I believe that things work best when the the table makes the ruling, and the GM has the least power in this regard.

I had one table where 3 of us were skilled GMs / rules lawyers, and everyone trusted whenever one of us said anything. It was great. I even have a very fond memory of the only time I corrected the player who generally knew the rules better than I did.

That table had a great dynamic that was so much better than these authoritarian GM horror stories.

[OmSwaOperations]

When a player asks you whether he can play an Evil character, in a campaign where the setting clearly implies that players are heroic defenders of the common folk, loyal knights of the Imperial crown, or whatever. It's basically a giant flashing sign saying: prepare for me to betray our allies, steal from the party, kill the peasants and ally with the Demon Lord.... please don't...

[Max_Killjoy]

You mean a backstory is supposed to be more than a short paragraph?

I've been doing it wrong all along...

According to the venomous strawman caricature painted of PC backstories by certain posters here, the only PC backstories that exist are novelette length, poorly written, and always intended by the player to justify a mechanical or narrative snowflake advantage.


Meanwhile, one of my red flags is when a player comes to the table with a bunch of numbers and entries on a piece of paper, but no character.

[The Jack]

Meanwhile, one of my red flags is when a player comes to the table with a bunch of numbers and entries on a piece of paper, but no character.

I've never actually done this, but as I'm pretty good at falling into a character, I think I could do that and it'd be to my advantage.

The biggest thing I've learnt from my mistakes is that I need to know the players and the game before I invest a lot into an ideal character. Maybe I was too serious in a dumb game, maybe too dumb for a serious game, too ambitious for a railroad, too evil for a good game...

A character can be made in a minute, a session zero or a week, but if your idea for a character has festered for a month, you're likely going to be really invested even if it's the wrong game for the character, and you're going to have a bad time.

Now mechanics are a different story. In some systems some characters are a minute of work, others require hours to work out stats and spells and equipment and background resources...

[Quertus]

I've never actually done this, but as I'm pretty good at falling into a character, I think I could do that and it'd be to my advantage.

The biggest thing I've learnt from my mistakes is that I need to know the players and the game before I invest a lot into an ideal character. Maybe I was too serious in a dumb game, maybe too dumb for a serious game, too ambitious for a railroad, too evil for a good game...

A character can be made in a minute, a session zero or a week, but if your idea for a character has festered for a month, you're likely going to be really invested even if it's the wrong game for the character, and you're going to have a bad time.

Now mechanics are a different story. In some systems some characters are a minute of work, others require hours to work out stats and spells and equipment and background resources...

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

[The Kool]

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

I have the exact opposite preference, for the same logic. I prefer to match the character to the game, and to what I'd currently enjoy. I also have a strong dislike for repeating concepts or playing a character I've played before. Each one is unique, you know? One time in a series of freeform games, I played the same character several times in different settings. I eventually worked out a canon explanation for how it was all the same guy because it bothered me (sci-fi, so dimension-hopping and time travel was available). But yeah, in my mind how can you have something that fits the group if it wasn't tailor made to the group? One of my first questions I always ask is what other people want to play. I can find a gap in the roles or an opportunity for synergy, then explore the various options until something clicks. Sometimes this takes moments, sometimes weeks.

On the topic of red flags though, I have quite a few. One of the biggest ones is a player who doesn't want to disclose their character sheet, tactics, or planned combos. I've had recent and past issues with this, and aside from any 'trusting the DM' comments that are to be made (Hey I get it, sometimes the game is run DM vs players but that's not my style), this is almost always indicative of someone fudging their numbers or taking liberties with RAW and assuming it'll be fine.

[Quertus]

But yeah, in my mind how can you have something that fits the group if it wasn't tailor made to the group? One of my first questions I always ask is what other people want to play. I can find a gap in the roles or an opportunity for synergy, then explore the various options until something clicks. Sometimes this takes moments, sometimes weeks.

On the topic of red flags though, I have quite a few. One of the biggest ones is a player who doesn't want to disclose their character sheet, tactics, or planned combos. I've had recent and past issues with this, and aside from any 'trusting the DM' comments that are to be made (Hey I get it, sometimes the game is run DM vs players but that's not my style), this is almost always indicative of someone fudging their numbers or taking liberties with RAW and assuming it'll be fine.

How can any clothes not custom-tailored for you fit? :smallconfused: Curiously, my off-the-shelf socks fit just fine. No, characters that I have played before, that I have experience with and have gotten to know, I can make much more definitive statements about whether or not they'll fit; however, "psychology experiment #1726"? Yeah, I may be wrong about how well it will fit the group - I'd rather play it in a series of 1-shots (under multiple GMs, with multiple groups) until I get a handle on who, exactly, the character is. Not entirely dissimilar to how the fit of new shoes is more of an unknown than the fit of broken-in shoes, tbh.

As to non-disclosure, unless the GM is running a published module - unless the GM is not creating the content - knowledge of the PCs will subconsciously influence their creation process. That's just human nature. I prefer to come by my victories honest, and I cannot do that if the GM has been tainted by knowledge.

But, yeah, I've played with plenty of fudgers, too. Usually, IME, they sit behind the GM screen. :smallannoyed:

[The Kool]

How can any clothes not custom-tailored for you fit? :smallconfused: Curiously, my off-the-shelf socks fit just fine. No, characters that I have played before, that I have experience with and have gotten to know, I can make much more definitive statements about whether or not they'll fit; however, "psychology experiment #1726"? Yeah, I may be wrong about how well it will fit the group - I'd rather play it in a series of 1-shots (under multiple GMs, with multiple groups) until I get a handle on who, exactly, the character is. Not entirely dissimilar to how the fit of new shoes is more of an unknown than the fit of broken-in shoes, tbh.
To each their own. Different styles for different people, I've met plenty who work as you do. I just don't enjoy it myself.


As to non-disclosure, unless the GM is running a published module - unless the GM is not creating the content - knowledge of the PCs will subconsciously influence their creation process. That's just human nature. I prefer to come by my victories honest, and I cannot do that if the GM has been tainted by knowledge.
If your style of play is player-vs-DM, then by all means keep your plans secret. As a DM though, I want to tailor the adventure to the PCs. I want to challenge them, I want to make sure they have the means to overcome obstacles, I want to highlight different aspects of their character. I don't see it as taint, I see it as their story. How can I tell a story that fits them if I don't know what they can do? How can I make sure I'm not boring them, or accidentally killing them? I sure as heck can't rely on the encounter creation guidelines for the systems I play, they fall apart pretty quickly and there's so much wild variation in what the players might be capable of. I like to have the players be a part of the story, not just present at a story.


But, yeah, I've played with plenty of fudgers, too. Usually, IME, they sit behind the GM screen. :smallannoyed:
OK, I'll admit I fudge things from behind the screen. But that's why the screen exists, so the players don't know it's happening. The goal is to increase enjoyment, not detract from it. If players thing you're cheating or being unfair, that's doing it wrong (and I've hit this side of the line more than I care to admit). If players walk away having a good laugh, a great story to tell, and a win in the books, who cares that they technically made the save on the pit trap? After all, you told it dramatically and fudged with the goal of keeping the party together, and no one complained or even noticed. Anyway, that's my philosophy on fudging. There's a difference between fudging and cheating, and it sounds like you've experienced the latter (or have a zero-tolerance policy and prefer to play strictly by the rules all around, which is fine, it's just not a style I or the majority of people I've played with enjoy).

[Calthropstu]

If they want to play evil in a heroic campaign.

If they want to play good in a villainous campaign.

If they only play paladin.

If they constantly start pvp.

If they brag (often) about how their character can beat the others.

If their character can single handedly defeat higher level characters on a regular basis.

If they only roll high numbers.

If they try to constantly derail the campaign for kicks.

If they come to the table and crack open a 6 pack of beer... For themselves.

[The Kool]

I feel like Red Flags are more things you catch as quick as possible to alert you to upcoming problems. Constantly starting PvP or only rolling high numbers is less of a red flag and more of the problem itself.

[Quertus]

If your style of play is player-vs-DM, then by all means keep your plans secret. As a DM though, I want to tailor the adventure to the PCs. I want to challenge them, I want to make sure they have the means to overcome obstacles, I want to highlight different aspects of their character. I don't see it as taint, I see it as their story. How can I tell a story that fits them if I don't know what they can do? How can I make sure I'm not boring them, or accidentally killing them? I sure as heck can't rely on the encounter creation guidelines for the systems I play, they fall apart pretty quickly and there's so much wild variation in what the players might be capable of. I like to have the players be a part of the story, not just present at a story.

Plot Hook: The moon is slowly falling out of orbit.

Superman - Pushes the moon back into orbit.

Quertus - Um... I have some gravity-manipulation spells, but nothing on that order of magnitude... wait, why is the moon falling out of orbit? Divinations, Teleport Through Time, stop the problem from happening?

A few of my characters - We... leave?

Most of my characters - Um... ****? The moon crashes, we tell the story of surviving in a post-apocalyptic world? Or the story of "what we do before we die"?

I prefer stories that, well, are different stories for different characters. Not stories that feel custom-tailored to these characters.


OK, I'll admit I fudge things from behind the screen. But that's why the screen exists, so the players don't know it's happening. The goal is to increase enjoyment, not detract from it. If players thing you're cheating or being unfair, that's doing it wrong (and I've hit this side of the line more than I care to admit). If players walk away having a good laugh, a great story to tell, and a win in the books, who cares that they technically made the save on the pit trap? After all, you told it dramatically and fudged with the goal of keeping the party together, and no one complained or even noticed. Anyway, that's my philosophy on fudging. There's a difference between fudging and cheating, and it sounds like you've experienced the latter (or have a zero-tolerance policy and prefer to play strictly by the rules all around, which is fine, it's just not a style I or the majority of people I've played with enjoy).

So, since you've given me just about the perfect setup...

Having had GMs "being unfair" too many times, I developed a 0-tolerance for "not playing by the rules". Except... it wasn't 0 tolerance. There are thousands of pieces on the chessboard - if one piece (ie, one of my fellow PCs) is clearly cheating? That's fine. That just makes that one piece cool and different, a statistical anomaly that "always rolls 16+". If that's what that person has to do to have fun, who am I to say it's wrong. But when the remaining 99.99% of the world cannot be trusted to behave according to the rules? There's no point. It's just a game of "listening to the GM's story". I want to come by my victories (and losses!) honest, not tell stories of how the GM decided that this was what happened.

Sure, winning is probably better that losing. But a well-deserved loss is much better than an undeserved win - the latter invalidates the entire campaign, along with everything else the GM has ever done, or will ever do.

[JoeJ]

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

That's something that, in general, I don't allow. Part of the reason I have a session 0 is for the players to create their characters.

[The Jack]

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

I'm not following you. Do you mean from another game or do you have a bank of unplayed characters stockpiled up? Cause if it's the former... That sounds like the worst strategy.

'Hi yeah welcome to the game, the other three players are working with the church to better my hostile, grim dark, post-cataclysmic world where humans and hobbits have banded together against everything else and fiends, undead and monsters roam the land.'

'well I've really been enjoying playing a saucy Teifling minx who's a fiend pack warlock, a great laugh and a suave lover. She's been trying to gather exotic animals for her own circus but they always seem to get away...'

Alright, it's extreme, but I really don't like characters from other games (unless they're my games and in the same setting... which hasn't happened yet)

[The Kool]

Plot Hook: The moon is slowly falling out of orbit.

Superman - Pushes the moon back into orbit.

Quertus - Um... I have some gravity-manipulation spells, but nothing on that order of magnitude... wait, why is the moon falling out of orbit? Divinations, Teleport Through Time, stop the problem from happening?

A few of my characters - We... leave?

Most of my characters - Um... ****? The moon crashes, we tell the story of surviving in a post-apocalyptic world? Or the story of "what we do before we die"?

I prefer stories that, well, are different stories for different characters. Not stories that feel custom-tailored to these characters.

To use your example, if I have a story about the moon falling, it may very well be the setup to a time-traveling intrigue story of mystery and discovery. Or it may be a post-apocalyptic story of survival and struggle. Those are two vastly different stories, for different PCs. If I'm prepared to tell the latter, and it turns out one of my players is Superman? Well uh, ok guys, thanks for coming, sorry the session was 5 minutes long, have a nice day? If I'm prepared to tell the former, and nobody has anyway to go down that path... Well uh, sorry but you guys all die when the moon impacts the planet and splits the crust open... sorry for the 5 minute session have a nice day? Regardless of communication and what type of game the players want, if I don't know what the PCs are capable of it puts me in a bind.


So, since you've given me just about the perfect setup...

Having had GMs "being unfair" too many times, I developed a 0-tolerance for "not playing by the rules". Except... it wasn't 0 tolerance. There are thousands of pieces on the chessboard - if one piece (ie, one of my fellow PCs) is clearly cheating? That's fine. That just makes that one piece cool and different, a statistical anomaly that "always rolls 16+". If that's what that person has to do to have fun, who am I to say it's wrong. But when the remaining 99.99% of the world cannot be trusted to behave according to the rules? There's no point. It's just a game of "listening to the GM's story". I want to come by my victories (and losses!) honest, not tell stories of how the GM decided that this was what happened.

Sure, winning is probably better that losing. But a well-deserved loss is much better than an undeserved win - the latter invalidates the entire campaign, along with everything else the GM has ever done, or will ever do.

Yeah, I've been railroaded before. It's no fun. Fudging is best done judiciously and in secret, to add dramatic tension. Sometimes I screw up a stat block, and I fudge things to not kill the players because that'll feel unfair to them. Sometimes, having them succeed will screw up a lot of things (like splitting the party with no way for them to reconvene), so I fudge things against them a little. Done seldom and in secret is how it goes, and if done right you'll never even know.

[Quertus]

I'm not following you. Do you mean from another game or do you have a bank of unplayed characters stockpiled up? Cause if it's the former... That sounds like the worst strategy.

'Hi yeah welcome to the game, the other three players are working with the church to better my hostile, grim dark, post-cataclysmic world where humans and hobbits have banded together against everything else and fiends, undead and monsters roam the land.'

'well I've really been enjoying playing a saucy Teifling minx who's a fiend pack warlock, a great laugh and a suave lover. She's been trying to gather exotic animals for her own circus but they always seem to get away...'

Alright, it's extreme, but I really don't like characters from other games (unless they're my games and in the same setting... which hasn't happened yet)

Well, that's just stupid - that's bringing in a character that doesn't match.

Now, what if I brought in existing character Winx who was working for the church, and your idiot player brought a brand new sexy seductress succubus?

Pretty clear - to me, at least - that "existing character" isn't the problem.


That's something that, in general, I don't allow. Part of the reason I have a session 0 is for the players to create their characters.

Why not?

So, for me, one of the points of a character is to explore human psychology. For example, I created Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, because I could not understand how people could do something (like, say, play an RPG) for years (or decades) and still just not get it. So I specifically engineered a personality I thought would be as resistant to catching a clue as possible.

And it worked. Deep into epic level, and Quertus is still pretty tactically inept. In the process, he turned out to be my most requested, the most successful massively multi table character I've ever made.

Now, if Quertus would actually work for one of your games, I could play Quertus. Or I could build a new character, and find that I can't meet the stretch goal I made for his personality. So scrap him, and build a second... that I don't enjoy playing. Etc etc repeat forever. I usually have to "take a 20" to create a character worth playing. Most of my characters have a valuable life of 0-1 sessions. Usually 0.

So, that's why I find it better to allow existing characters. What is your reason for *not* allowing them?

(Also, as an added benefit... No GM will ever create the variety of content that 20 GMs will. I cannot explore a character under just 1 GM. So "no existing characters" guarantees that the characters have no real value to me)

[Friv]

So, that's why I find it better to allow existing characters. What is your reason for *not* allowing them?

Just speaking for myself... in about 90% of games that I run, I present a one-sentence pitch and a couple of ground rules, and we sit down and build our characters and setting together. So if one person comes in with a pre-finished character, they're going to have to be up to modify that character's background and concept based on what other people are thinking of and tossing out.

If it's a pre-finished character who has literally already had other experiences, chances are they're not going to work great for a game premise that starts with, "You are all teenage students in a moderately-magic School" or "you are all a gang of professional mercenaries in a post-post-apocalyptic steampunk Imperial outpost" or "okay, let's do Buzzfeed's Unsolved, but in a world in which ghosts and demons are real".

But to be honest, this is a thing that has never come up for me. I've never once had someone say, "Hey, I'd like to bring this character I played somewhere else into your campaign." The closest I've come is, "I didn't get a chance to play this character, I'd like to try a variation on them here."

[Quertus]

To use your example, if I have a story about the moon falling, it may very well be the setup to a time-traveling intrigue story of mystery and discovery. Or it may be a post-apocalyptic story of survival and struggle. Those are two vastly different stories, for different PCs. If I'm prepared to tell the latter, and it turns out one of my players is Superman? Well uh, ok guys, thanks for coming, sorry the session was 5 minutes long, have a nice day? If I'm prepared to tell the former, and nobody has anyway to go down that path... Well uh, sorry but you guys all die when the moon impacts the planet and splits the crust open... sorry for the 5 minute session have a nice day? Regardless of communication and what type of game the players want, if I don't know what the PCs are capable of it puts me in a bind.

So, yeah, the moon falling is a really bad example. And that's why it's good.

IMO, if the GM wants to run a "time-traveling intrigue story of mystery and discovery", then the GM needs to get buy-in for that. If the GM wants "a post-apocalyptic story of survival and struggle", then the GM needs to get buy-in for that. In short, if the GM wants anything, they need to not railroad - they need to get buy-in. So, the fact that "the GM's story" falls apart? That's a feature, not a bug.

The GM should just present scenarios, not plan stories. Any deviation from that should mandate explicit buy-in from the players. Otherwise, as this silly example exacerbates to make it obvious, you're looking at either railroading or epic failure. But I repeat myself.

[JoeJ]

Why not?

First, because before session 0 the player won't have enough information to create a character who fits into the world. And second, because part of character creation is deciding how your characters know each other. It's a lot harder to tie your background into somebody else's if you're creating your characters separately.

[The Kool]

Actually, I look at the moon example as an encounter or a short arc, not as the whole story. It serves as an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to say, which is that if I don't know what tools are at the players' disposal I can easily overwhelm them by expecting them to have access to something they do not. Now, you may consider this a failure on the part of the DM for expecting too much from the players, or you may see this as a failure on the part of the players for not having prepared thoroughly enough, but I find it doesn't matter whose fault it is if it can be avoided with a little communication. And, to get back to the original point, if someone is reluctant or refusing to engage in that communication, it's a bad sign (for reasons given before).

What you seem to be describing though is a very player-driven playstyle. For you, the story comes from the players and the DM is very behind the scenes. The DM presents the setting, the players create the story, the DM serves as arbiter. Which is fine, it's just a very different style from what my groups and I play.

[geppetto]

So, for me, one of the points of a character is to explore human psychology. For example, I created Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, because I could not understand how people could do something (like, say, play an RPG) for years (or decades) and still just not get it. So I specifically engineered a personality I thought would be as resistant to catching a clue as possible.

Now that is truly Freudian. Worthy of a textbook.

[Arbane]

You say you want to play a Paladin, and the DM bursts into mad-scientist-worthy laughter.

[Xuc Xac]

One of my red flags is when a player writes a backstory that is written in what I call "tragic past perfect". A lot of bad things have happened to the character but all the bad stuff is fully resolved and can't come back to bite them: all the enemies are dead, the family inheritance is secured, and all the strings tied to the character have been cut.

It seems to be an attempt to preemptively avoid any dramatic difficulties by getting the hard parts out of the way before the game starts.

[Quertus]

And second, because part of character creation is deciding how your characters know each other. It's a lot harder to tie your background into somebody else's if you're creating your characters separately.

Whenever I've tried "I know this guy, and formed X relationship with them", it failed horribly. Our personalities were never such that that relationship would have formed, nor was the artificial relationship well roleplayed. Thus, I exclusively desire to not know the other characters, and form relationships during the game. Creating relationships / forming bonds is a game in and of itself.


Actually, I look at the moon example as an encounter or a short arc, not as the whole story. It serves as an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to say, which is that if I don't know what tools are at the players' disposal I can easily overwhelm them by expecting them to have access to something they do not. Now, you may consider this a failure on the part of the DM for expecting too much from the players, or you may see this as a failure on the part of the players for not having prepared thoroughly enough, but I find it doesn't matter whose fault it is if it can be avoided with a little communication. And, to get back to the original point, if someone is reluctant or refusing to engage in that communication, it's a bad sign (for reasons given before).

What you seem to be describing though is a very player-driven playstyle. For you, the story comes from the players and the DM is very behind the scenes. The DM presents the setting, the players create the story, the DM serves as arbiter. Which is fine, it's just a very different style from what my groups and I play.

No, I view it as a failure on the part of the GM, for trying to railroad a particular story without getting explicit buy-in. Trying to do an end around, by making sure that they understand the capabilities of the PCs well enough to craft the details of the story so that it *has* to go the way that they intend? It may be an attempt to be more subtle, but it's still railroading.

And, since these rails invalidate everything the GM has ever done or will ever do, and, since, given enough time, even subtle rails will become visible & even the best illusionists will make mistakes, I prefer to force railroading illusionist GMs into the light, and make them get buy-in on their rails.

Now, sure, I think player-driven games are better. But that's not the point. The point is, I think that constantly lying to your players, and treating them like children, is suboptimal. And probably dysfunctional (but I lack the psychology credentials to make such an official pronouncement).

-----

Interestingly, these two conversations are related. I only care about what I came by honest, not what story the GM read to me. This is why I care more about the relationships that I form with the other PCs than I do about the GM's story.

Having me start with artificial relationships, and railroading the game? Well, there's nothing for me to do now, so they're no point playing the game now.

[The Kool]

... Trying to do an end around, by making sure that they understand the capabilities of the PCs well enough to craft the details of the story so that it *has* to go the way that they intend? It may be an attempt to be more subtle, but it's still railroading. ... The point is, I think that constantly lying to your players, and treating them like children, is suboptimal. ...

Ah, see you're either misunderstanding me or overstating what I do. I never force it, it's about what the players *can* achieve, not what I'm deciding they *will* achieve. If I throw a raging barbarian at them, I'd like to know they are capable of winning. I would also like to know they are capable of losing. Failing to ensure that the players can influence the outcome is railroading in its own way. On the other side of the coin, nothing I do with fudging the dice is constant, and there is nothing about it in any way that involves treating anyone like a child.

[Quertus]

Ah, see you're either misunderstanding me or overstating what I do. I never force it, it's about what the players *can* achieve, not what I'm deciding they *will* achieve. If I throw a raging barbarian at them, I'd like to know they are capable of winning. I would also like to know they are capable of losing. Failing to ensure that the players can influence the outcome is railroading in its own way. On the other side of the coin, nothing I do with fudging the dice is constant, and there is nothing about it in any way that involves treating anyone like a child.

Ah. I misunderstood. Trying to engineer Combat as Sport, trying to engineer a "sporting challenge", is very much something where understanding people's capabilities is a prerequisite.

Still very much not my cup of tea (in an RPG / outside a War Game), but "we're playing CaS" is all it takes to get buy-in from your players / to not have the dysfunction I was describing.

[King of Nowhere]

Just speaking for myself... in about 90% of games that I run, I present a one-sentence pitch and a couple of ground rules, and we sit down and build our characters and setting together. So if one person comes in with a pre-finished character, they're going to have to be up to modify that character's background and concept based on what other people are thinking of and tossing out.

If it's a pre-finished character who has literally already had other experiences, chances are they're not going to work great for a game premise that starts with, "You are all teenage students in a moderately-magic School" or "you are all a gang of professional mercenaries in a post-post-apocalyptic steampunk Imperial outpost" or "okay, let's do Buzzfeed's Unsolved, but in a world in which ghosts and demons are real".


This should go without saying. Of course the details must be adapted from one setting to another. And of course, unless you are starting a new high level campaign in the same setting, you cannot have the character being the same character.
You can, however, take the same backstory (adapted as needed to fit the setting) and the same personality, and tell some different stories with the same character.




No, I view it as a failure on the part of the GM, for trying to railroad a particular story without getting explicit buy-in. Trying to do an end around, by making sure that they understand the capabilities of the PCs well enough to craft the details of the story so that it *has* to go the way that they intend? It may be an attempt to be more subtle, but it's still railroading.

And, since these rails invalidate everything the GM has ever done or will ever do, and, since, given enough time, even subtle rails will become visible & even the best illusionists will make mistakes, I prefer to force railroading illusionist GMs into the light, and make them get buy-in on their rails.


I'm having troubles understanding what you would not consider railroading under that premise.
I mean, as a DM you set up an evil overlord. You expect the campaign will be about the players figthing the evil overlord. So, by your definition, you are railroading the players into fighting the evil overlord.
You present them with a wide open-world sandbox? You are railroading them into exploring it and following the various plot hooks you'll throw at them.
You are not throwing any plot hooks? you are railroading the players into taking the initiative, when they may just want to be prodded into action.

Personally, I call railroading when player's choice has no consequence. i generally set up a scenario and let the players decide how they want to handle it. Of course I have expectations on what they'll do, which help me prepare better. And I have planned at least one way they can actually overcome the challenge, because I have to make sure the challenge is beatable. that's not railroading. trying to goad your players along that way, and punishing them arbitrarily for trying to do something else, that's something i'd call railroading.

Furthermore, if the players do not trust the DM to have some decent plans, they should not play with that DM. And if the players and the DM are wrestling for control of the story, then they should stop and have a big talk on what they actually want.

[Alhallor]

If all other Players know your Charakter better than yourself.

I played in a Group once with one Player who was:
1. On the phone most of the time.
2. Would not listen to the GM. At the time that Player had a 1 on 1 talk with an important NPC and we roleplayed amongst ourselves after the talk that Player said "Yeah, I tell you all what GM just told me." Looks of bewilderment followed and we told them that we didn't listen in. "Could you tell us what GM said?" And the Response was a hopeful look at the GM.
3. Forget one of the most useful spells that the Player used multiple times beforehand. Also forgot a lot of the capabilities of their Charakter. That seriously all other players knew because these abilities were used.

[Max_Killjoy]

If all other Players know your Charakter better than yourself.


Flip side, if the GM or any other player thinks they know your character better than you do.

"Your character wouldn't do that."
"Your character wouldn't say that."
"Your character wouldn't think that."
"This is how your character would react to ____."
"Your character is supposed to be afraid in this situation."

[Quertus]

This should go without saying. Of course the details must be adapted from one setting to another. And of course, unless you are starting a new high level campaign in the same setting, you cannot have the character being the same character.
You can, however, take the same backstory (adapted as needed to fit the setting) and the same personality, and tell some different stories with the same character.



I'm having troubles understanding what you would not consider railroading under that premise.
I mean, as a DM you set up an evil overlord. You expect the campaign will be about the players figthing the evil overlord. So, by your definition, you are railroading the players into fighting the evil overlord.


Personally, I call railroading when player's choice has no consequence. i generally set up a scenario and let the players decide how they want to handle it. Of course I have expectations on what they'll do, which help me prepare better. And I have planned at least one way they can actually overcome the challenge, because I have to make sure the challenge is beatable. that's not railroading. trying to goad your players along that way, and punishing them arbitrarily for trying to do something else, that's something i'd call railroading.

Furthermore, if the players do not trust the DM to have some decent plans, they should not play with that DM. And if the players and the DM are wrestling for control of the story, then they should stop and have a big talk on what they actually want.

What is not railroading? That's a good question.

I would consider it not railroading if the GM set up an evil overlord. And then the GM let the PCs fight the evil overlord, or join the evil overlord, or ignore the evil overlord, or show the "evil" overlord the true meaning of evil, to where he repents his wicked ways, then gathers up the forces of good to stop the PCs.

If the GM forces things to go a certain way, and invalidates player choices to make that happen, yes, that's railroading, and the type that both normally gets discussed, and is easiest to see how it is bad for a game. But railroading takes other, more subtle and insidious forms. And all of these forms start from the same base, when the rails are first laid in the GM's head, when the GM wants / needs something specific to happen, and doesn't get buy-in from the players.

-----

As for your first paragraph, I can see where you are coming from, but multiple instantiations of a concept would have no value to me. Because they aren't the same "person". Only exploring the same person under the diversity of content that only multiple GMs can deliver has value to me.

[Morgaln]

What is not railroading? That's a good question.

I would consider it not railroading if the GM set up an evil overlord. And then the GM let the PCs fight the evil overlord, or join the evil overlord, or ignore the evil overlord, or show the "evil" overlord the true meaning of evil, to where he repents his wicked ways, then gathers up the forces of good to stop the PCs.

If the GM forces things to go a certain way, and invalidates player choices to make that happen, yes, that's railroading, and the type that both normally gets discussed, and is easiest to see how it is bad for a game. But railroading takes other, more subtle and insidious forms. And all of these forms start from the same base, when the rails are first laid in the GM's head, when the GM wants / needs something specific to happen, and doesn't get buy-in from the players.

-----

As for your first paragraph, I can see where you are coming from, but multiple instantiations of a concept would have no value to me. Because they aren't the same "person". Only exploring the same person under the diversity of content that only multiple GMs can deliver has value to me.

I don't quite understand: on one hand you claim you want diversity of content delivered by GMs, on the other hand you decry every attempt by the GM to influence the story as railroading. I get the impression you'd prefer a game without a GM, purely made up of player interactions. So what can a GM even bring to the table that you would consider of value?

[JoeJ]

Whenever I've tried "I know this guy, and formed X relationship with them", it failed horribly. Our personalities were never such that that relationship would have formed, nor was the artificial relationship well roleplayed. Thus, I exclusively desire to not know the other characters, and form relationships during the game. Creating relationships / forming bonds is a game in and of itself.

Games where the PCs don't know each other tend to break any sense of verisimilitude for me. It could work for a one-shot, where they're all survivors of a plane crash or something like that, but for anything more than that, I want the characters to have a in-world reason to be together and not just be teaming up because they're PCs.

[Quertus]

I don't quite understand: on one hand you claim you want diversity of content delivered by GMs, on the other hand you decry every attempt by the GM to influence the story as railroading. I get the impression you'd prefer a game without a GM, purely made up of player interactions. So what can a GM even bring to the table that you would consider of value?

This is priceless. I couldn't hardly ask for a better lead-in. Thank you. (EDIT: of course, even with your +10 circumstance bonus, I think I still rolled a 1 on crafting my response...)

So, when playing, say, Quertus, the question I get to answer is WWQD? If there were an evil overlord, WWQD? If there were this particular evil overlord, WWQD? Railroading attempts to skip past all the interesting questions, and insert the GM's answers instead. So, yes, I decry the GM attempting to "influence" the story.

I want to answer how this specific character will respond to this specific scenario. And, for any character worth playing (about 1-in-20 of the characters I make), I want to do so over a bredth of scenarios that only multiple GMs can provide. So, what can the GM provide? Scenarios.

Not every GM is going to create the diplomatic but vengeful evil overlord who is outfitting his legion of doom in dragon hide armor in preparation to launch an attack on the past. But when I meet that GM, I want to answer the question of how this particular character reacts to that particular evil overlord, not be told that I'll be collecting the 7 Shards of McGuffin, his only weakness, in order to defeat him.

And, yes, interacting with the other PCs is another set of scenarios where I get to ask WWQD. Which is part of why I value that, too - often more than the much less efficient question delivery methods used by the GM.

[Quertus]

Games where the PCs don't know each other tend to break any sense of verisimilitude for me. It could work for a one-shot, where they're all survivors of a plane crash or something like that, but for anything more than that, I want the characters to have a in-world reason to be together and not just be teaming up because they're PCs.

Funny thing - I fully agree with the bolded part. I'm guessing you just cannot see how to do that if the PCs are existing characters.

[JoeJ]

Funny thing - I fully agree with the bolded part. I'm guessing you just cannot see how to do that if the PCs are existing characters.

I can see a few contrived situations where they would, but in general, no.

[Morgaln]

This is priceless. I couldn't hardly ask for a better lead-in. Thank you. (EDIT: of course, even with your +10 circumstance bonus, I think I still rolled a 1 on crafting my response...)

So, when playing, say, Quertus, the question I get to answer is WWQD? If there were an evil overlord, WWQD? If there were this particular evil overlord, WWQD? Railroading attempts to skip past all the interesting questions, and insert the GM's answers instead. So, yes, I decry the GM attempting to "influence" the story.

I want to answer how this specific character will respond to this specific scenario. And, for any character worth playing (about 1-in-20 of the characters I make), I want to do so over a bredth of scenarios that only multiple GMs can provide. So, what can the GM provide? Scenarios.

Not every GM is going to create the diplomatic but vengeful evil overlord who is outfitting his legion of doom in dragon hide armor in preparation to launch an attack on the past. But when I meet that GM, I want to answer the question of how this particular character reacts to that particular evil overlord, not be told that I'll be collecting the 7 Shards of McGuffin, his only weakness, in order to defeat him.

And, yes, interacting with the other PCs is another set of scenarios where I get to ask WWQD. Which is part of why I value that, too - often more than the much less efficient question delivery methods used by the GM.

Hm, I think we're actually not far apart in what we expect from RPGs. When I GM (yes, I know, that makes me an idiot by default :smalltongue:), I don't know where my story will go. I provide an initial scenario and then let the players decide how to go about solving whatever problem I put before them. Usually I'll put out several hooks and they can decide which ones they want to follow. Depending on their choices, the story will move in different directions. However, as the GM, it is my job to decide how the world reacts to whatever the players do. As such, I will be influencing the story. There's no way around that. But I also consider this one of the strong points of RPing; everyone at the table can influence the story and thus the story shapes around them and is unique to that particular group of people.
I also believe in having living, breathing settings. Meaning, things can happen even if the players are not involved or not focused on that part of the setting, and whatever happens there might affect the players in unforseen ways. How much I do that depends on how active the players are. If they're good at keeping themselves busy with in-game stuff, I'll lean back and let them do their thing. If they don't quite know what to do, I'll give them some added story hook to get them going again.

I still believe that not every character is a sensible choice for every scenario. To talk about what I know best (Werewolf: the Apocalypse), if I intend to have a scenario exploring the life of Garou in the city, bringing a Red Talon Ahroun will cause problems, at the very least because fitting that character into the scenario will put so much focus on them that the other characters will have to play second fiddle. Likewise, if the scenario is about the characters being marooned in a remote area of the spirit world, a character strongly dependent on human technology and connections would likely be unsatisfying to play. In both cases, I would warn the player that his choice is a very difficult fit and recommend choosing something else, but I wouldn't forbid the character outright.

[King of Nowhere]

So, when playing, say, Quertus, the question I get to answer is WWQD? If there were an evil overlord, WWQD? If there were this particular evil overlord, WWQD? Railroading attempts to skip past all the interesting questions, and insert the GM's answers instead. So, yes, I decry the GM attempting to "influence" the story.


Well, I fully agree on that part.
However, part of the gaming contract is to agree on a certain kind of story to be told. this sometimes means that the players will have to find in-character reasons to not wreck the game. I think it's explained better with a couple examples.

In my game, the high priest of vecna almost ascended to godhood before the pcs stopped him. in the fight, the ritual got out of control, and gave a bit of power to everyone in the room. the vecna dude, who was already the single most powerful humanoid in the world, got some extra nifty powers, and the party also got nifty powers and now they are the only ones strong enough to realistically stop him. then vecna dude, being established as a very pragmatic and result-oriented villain, offered the party to join him and conquer the world together. Now, let's see the choices:
1) the party accepted. them and the vecna dude were established as the most powerful people around; together, they would conquer the world without much opposition. Campaign ended without any more meaningful story, just steamrolling over encounters.
2) some of the party accepted, some refused. the party is broken, and either they fight among themselves here and there, or they are forced to run two separate halves of the campaign.
3) the party refused.
So, while I knew the party would refuse, I would not have stopped them from accepting. But the only decision that would allow continuing the campaign was refusing.

In my other game, one of the players decided to retire his character and make a new one. the party wizard is evil, paranoid, and has abandonment issues, so he didn't take it well; his main concern was that our many enemies could scry and teleport to the lone barbarian and interrogate him for information. So he decided to teleport himself to the barbarian, turn him to stone, so he could keep him "safe".
the rogue was evil and paranoid, and he agreed with the wizard.
My monk is LN/LG and he picked up adventuring specifically to stop evil wizards disposing of the lives of lesser people at their leisure.
I don't remember what the fighter would have done.
So, I had two options:
1) my monk decides the wizard crossed the line, fights him; regardless of outcome, someone has to give up on his character (both me and the wizard player are very attached to our character)
2) I find an excuse to keep my monk oblivious to it all, and deciding that he trusts the wizard despite his good wisdom score and the bad charisma of the wizard.
It was a free decision, but the only decision that keeps the table fun and avoids hard feelings is 2).

In fact, the whole "my character would react this way" requires a lot of maturity and experience from the player to work. It works if the players can railroad themselves into not collapsing the campaign or break the party. it requires creating a character that wants to work with the party, and pushing its character development in that direction.
otherwise, "my character would react this way" and "stop railroading me" are practically the hymn of murderhobos and the related disruptive behaviors.
Notice that I am not accusing you of being a murderhobo; you clearly have a lot of gaming experience and you can make it work. however, not everyone do, especially if you are trying to recruit teenagers into the game.
And sometimes you just have to be frank and say "well sorry guys, but if you do that the campaign ends now. is that what you really want?"

[Koo Rehtorb]

There is nothing wrong with making constraints clear at the start of the campaign. Such as "This game is about superheroes. You are required to be heroic. If your character is no longer interested in being a superhero then they are no longer a PC."

[Quertus]

I can see a few contrived situations where they would, but in general, no.

So. We both want the same thing. We both see one way to get there that works, and see the other person's way as feeling contrived*. It only makes sense that we would view each other's styles as red flags, if our styles obviously produce style mismatch.

Other than me repeating, "it can work, really", I'm not sure we'll benefit much from continued discussion, beyond perhaps a detailed analysis of what produces the "contrived" response, and whether / how that can be changed.

* Or, in my case, both feels contrived (since none of my co-workers were my childhood friend) and produces worse role-playing, IME.


Hm, I think we're actually not far apart in what we expect from RPGs. When I GM (yes, I know, that makes me an idiot by default :smalltongue:), I don't know where my story will go. I provide an initial scenario and then let the players decide how to go about solving whatever problem I put before them. Usually I'll put out several hooks and they can decide which ones they want to follow. Depending on their choices, the story will move in different directions.

Sounds cool.


However, as the GM, it is my job to decide how the world reacts to whatever the players do. As such, I will be influencing the story.

Yup. And this is why it's so easy for the GM's "intent" to influence the outcome, without them even realizing it. This is why I advocate so strongly the GM not intending anything.


There's no way around that. But I also consider this one of the strong points of RPing; everyone at the table can influence the story and thus the story shapes around them and is unique to that particular group of people.
I also believe in having living, breathing settings. Meaning, things can happen even if the players are not involved or not focused on that part of the setting, and whatever happens there might affect the players in unforseen ways.

Sounds cool. I tend to focus more IC than OOC here, but similar sentiment.


How much I do that depends on how active the players are. If they're good at keeping themselves busy with in-game stuff, I'll lean back and let them do their thing. If they don't quite know what to do, I'll give them some added story hook to get them going again.

Kudos. I apologize for underestimating you. See, I expected we'd have to go back and forth numerous times before there was any chance you'd have understood my PoV. So I oversimplified.

Instead, you come back not only understanding what I said, but with the parts I left out, too. Wow, egg on my face. :smallredface:

Yes, the GM should care about one thing: their players having fun. They should let this influence things, consciously or subconsciously. Much like you've described doing. You're not caring about any specific outcome, only that the PCs/players retain traction / retain the ability to have something to do.

So, um, yeah, I'm 100% in agreement with your GM style, as stated. At least, the portion of it stated in this post.


I still believe that not every character is a sensible choice for every scenario. To talk about what I know best (Werewolf: the Apocalypse), if I intend to have a scenario exploring the life of Garou in the city, bringing a Red Talon Ahroun will cause problems, at the very least because fitting that character into the scenario will put so much focus on them that the other characters will have to play second fiddle. Likewise, if the scenario is about the characters being marooned in a remote area of the spirit world, a character strongly dependent on human technology and connections would likely be unsatisfying to play. In both cases, I would warn the player that his choice is a very difficult fit and recommend choosing something else, but I wouldn't forbid the character outright.

Agreed. Or, well, if I was fully cognizant of the facts, I might leave it to the group to decide about the acceptability of the inherent spotlight hog. Some groups would hate it, some love it, and some just wouldn't care one way or the other. Shrug.

[JoeJ]

So. We both want the same thing. We both see one way to get there that works, and see the other person's way as feeling contrived*. It only makes sense that we would view each other's styles as red flags, if our styles obviously produce style mismatch.

Other than me repeating, "it can work, really", I'm not sure we'll benefit much from continued discussion, beyond perhaps a detailed analysis of what produces the "contrived" response, and whether / how that can be changed.

That's probably true. Our preferred play styles seem to be very different.


* Or, in my case, both feels contrived (since none of my co-workers were my childhood friend) and produces worse role-playing, IME.

You don't have to have been childhood friends. Maybe you were in the same army platoon in the last war. Or maybe one of the other PCs is your cousin. Or you are lovers (or ex-lovers). Or have been co-workers for many years. There are many paths that lead to being willing to trust somebody when the bullets start flying. Situations where you're expected to rely on people you don't know well may work for a one-shot, but that's not what I'm interested in for a campaign.

[Quertus]

There is nothing wrong with making constraints clear at the start of the campaign. Such as "This game is about superheroes. You are required to be heroic. If your character is no longer interested in being a superhero then they are no longer a PC."

Oh, agreed. That's that "explicit buy-in" I was talking about.

Except... you didn't really do a good job there. If the only superheroes I've ever seen are Wolverine and the Punisher, I could perfectly well believe that I'm following your directive as I murder my way through your world.

Far too often, IME, people *think* that they've said something that's clear, when, in reality, they've made gross assumptions regarding there being only one possible reasonable interpretation of their words.

One time, the GM specified that put characters needed to be "poor". I understood what he meant - people were going to hire us. Money was meant to be our motivation. But he didn't explicitly say that - he just said "poor". But my brother? He built a character who had no money because he didn't care about money. He'd seen emerald cities with streets paved gold, diamond waterfalls whose rainbows were unmatched blah blah blah. He was here for cool new experiences, and he was being asked to do something mundane? And being offered pavement? ... No?

Cool character, good adventure*, horrible mismatch due to miscommunication.

* Well, I believe it was - I don't actually remember anything beyond the story any more - or, if I do, I don't remember that it was the same game as that story came from.


Well, I fully agree on that part.
However, part of the gaming contract is to agree on a certain kind of story to be told.

So, do I say, "see above", or did you mean something different?


In my other game, one of the players decided to retire his character and make a new one. the party wizard is evil, paranoid, and has abandonment issues, so he didn't take it well; his main concern was that our many enemies could scry and teleport to the lone barbarian and interrogate him for information. So he decided to teleport himself to the barbarian, turn him to stone, so he could keep him "safe".
the rogue was evil and paranoid, and he agreed with the wizard.
My monk is LN/LG and he picked up adventuring specifically to stop evil wizards disposing of the lives of lesser people at their leisure.
I don't remember what the fighter would have done.
So, I had two options:
1) my monk decides the wizard crossed the line, fights him; regardless of outcome, someone has to give up on his character (both me and the wizard player are very attached to our character)
2) I find an excuse to keep my monk oblivious to it all, and deciding that he trusts the wizard despite his good wisdom score and the bad charisma of the wizard.
It was a free decision, but the only decision that keeps the table fun and avoids hard feelings is 2)

And sometimes you just have to be frank and say "well sorry guys, but if you do that the campaign ends now. is that what you really want?"

Actually... I'd been meaning to discuss this topic at some point...

So, IMO, this is the correct time for a retcon. This is a "Houston, we have a problem" moment. This is where you realize that acting in character would cause a problem, and you back up time and change events until you reach a point where this is no longer the case.

So, rather than the Barbarian choosing to leave, he dies of a heart attack. Or the paranoid Wizard has/uses Mindrape to remove any secret knowledge from the barbarian. Or the party (if they knew your stance, or made a Sense Motive check) diplomatically purposes to your character (insert something that wouldn't make your character go postal) / asks your character if he has a better plan.

[King of Nowhere]

Actually... I'd been meaning to discuss this topic at some point...

So, IMO, this is the correct time for a retcon. This is a "Houston, we have a problem" moment. This is where you realize that acting in character would cause a problem, and you back up time and change events until you reach a point where this is no longer the case.


I prefer railroading to retconning.
the principle, however, is the same: the table agrees that a certain outcome is undesirable, and actions are taken to avoid that outcome. in one case you change a decision in the past, in the other you change a decision in the future.

another borderline case is when the party/a player is about to take a really bad decision that would end with death. do you let a tpk happen? do you give hints to nudge the players away from the course of action, thus influencing their choices? do you change the world so that the mistake won't be all that costly after all, thus railroading the players into victory?

ultimately, i don't think it's possible, or desirable, to not influence the game at all. some prodding and nudging is not bad, as well as establishing what can be done and what will have repercussions in the world and being consistent with it. the important thing is that players have enough meaningful decisions, that their actions can change things. perfect freedom is impossible and impractical.

[The Kool]

I prefer railroading to retconning.

Allow me to present a different phrasing of this: Rather than change the experiences we've had around the table and invalidate prior decisions and playtime, I prefer to think hard about my character, coming up with a situation that still allows them to be them without disrupting the table. Sometimes it's difficult and requires the party to agree to play along, like "please don't let my character find out about this". Sometimes it's a defining moment for the character, a moment of growth as they are faced with a choice and choose something they might not have in the past. The decision is made within the scope of the character. There is never only one way that a character could react to a situation, characters are constantly growing and evolving and moments like these can help shape that.

[Lorsa]

A red flag for me is if I don't want to hang out with the person outside of the roleplaying sessions. That indicates that I don't like them for some reason, and if I don't like them, chances are it's for a reason and this will affect the game at some point.

[Mrark]

Allow me to present a different phrasing of this: Rather than change the experiences we've had around the table and invalidate prior decisions and playtime, I prefer to think hard about my character, coming up with a situation that still allows them to be them without disrupting the table. Sometimes it's difficult and requires the party to agree to play along, like "please don't let my character find out about this". Sometimes it's a defining moment for the character, a moment of growth as they are faced with a choice and choose something they might not have in the past. The decision is made within the scope of the character. There is never only one way that a character could react to a situation, characters are constantly growing and evolving and moments like these can help shape that.

I am the wizard King of Nowere previously talked about. The one obsessed with power etc etc. And that is exactly what we did: hiding the monk what was going on, since only me and the evil rogue knew it.
i also agree with him with pratically everything he said. Even if railroading is bad generally speaking, there can be no campaign without it at all... And I actually like (Being a player in the other campaign he DMs) the reality he is putting us into. Not all problems can be trivialized, otherwise playing d&d would just become a “i found something deeper and more unknown than you did”, which is not even fun.

[Pex]

You don't have to have been childhood friends. Maybe you were in the same army platoon in the last war. Or maybe one of the other PCs is your cousin. Or you are lovers (or ex-lovers). Or have been co-workers for many years. There are many paths that lead to being willing to trust somebody when the bullets start flying. Situations where you're expected to rely on people you don't know well may work for a one-shot, but that's not what I'm interested in for a campaign.

I get it, but for me I don't need that Session 0 bond so to speak. I'm willing to suspend belief for the sake of the game that absolute strangers who meet drunkenly in a tavern suddenly team up to become world saving heroes. The bond happens with the playing of the game on the first mission. It's an acceptable metagame that these strangers have mystical "PC"s on their forehead so you choose to work together. I fully accept and do not apologize for that this is a reason why I hate players who secretly work for the bad guys or be the Lone Wolf or That Guy or whatever non-cooperative means of playing the game. Your way indirectly prevents that from happening or at least hopefully since it's not a guarantee. That's an observation not a critique.

[Floret]

* Or, in my case, both feels contrived (since none of my co-workers were my childhood friend) and produces worse role-playing, IME.

So, do you mean by this that you can't play a relationship with people that you don't actually have with them, or do you see your fellow party members as your characters "coworkers" and wouldn't see how such a relationship with coworkers might be possible/likely?

If the former... I met my boyfriend six years ago. We obviously didn't grow up together. Now, we both did have siblings. And so, if we play characters that are siblings, we know how to do that - we know how siblings interact, and the fact the other one wasn't a sibling makes little difference.

If the latter... I'm not sure characters tend to be coworkers, most of the time. People doing things together, yes, but the situation with coworkers is that you got hired by a third person for a similar thing. That describes very few games I've been in. And even with coworkers - you didn't all get hired the same day, right? The dude who shared your office for the last few years and the dude whom you fought alongside of in the same mercenary company? Those feel like the same thing. And I run into people in different circumstances all the time. Finding out the new hire is that loud kid from school? Absolutely... possible, and not that unlikely. Did you move a lot in your life?

I will note, however, that playing pre-existing relationships works best when you allow the other player to define your characters past somewhat. All the little stories and anecdotes they would have shared? Set some ground rules, but If one player comes up with something, that's it. That happened. Your character did that. It requires some trust and knowlege on how the characters in question work, but it absolutely enhances my roleplaying experience. Like the moments of "yeah right, I did that" when your mom talks about an embarrassing thing you did as a kid.

And I can absolutely see how the way to make this work goes absolutely against all your preferences.


Yup. And this is why it's so easy for the GM's "intent" to influence the outcome, without them even realizing it. This is why I advocate so strongly the GM not intending anything.

It's hard not to intend anything. Or rather, it's hard not to have a preference. That shouldn't influence your decision to go along with player actions, but it is good to keep in mind - don't ask for perfection here, it's pretty impossible.


Yes, the GM should care about one thing: their players having fun. They should let this influence things, consciously or subconsciously. Much like you've described doing. You're not caring about any specific outcome, only that the PCs/players retain traction / retain the ability to have something to do.


The GM is a player, too. This is their free time, too. More of it, often. Of course that fun shouldn't come at the detriment of that of the others... but that goes for every player. I reject in total the notion the GM should be just a servant, and their own enjoyment is irrelevant.

Yaknow, that being said, I barely ever plan stuff and love Powered by the Apocalypse in part because it encourages rolling with the punches the players throw you. I love RPGs precisely for their potential to achieve results/stories/whatever you wanna call them that none of the participants would have come up with on their own. I just... wanna have fun, too, yaknow? I'm a fellow player.

[Quertus]

So, do you mean by this that you can't play a relationship with people that you don't actually have with them, or do you see your fellow party members as your characters "coworkers" and wouldn't see how such a relationship with coworkers might be possible/likely?

Neither.

I'm saying it feels contrived for my character to be working with their childhood friends in the game, since, well, I'm not working with my childhood friends IRL.

I'm saying that the player is not the character, and the character is also not the character you imagine it to be. Hmmm... others have put it better... searching... here's one:



Flip side, if the GM or any other player thinks they know your character better than you do.

"Your character wouldn't do that."
"Your character wouldn't say that."
"Your character wouldn't think that."
"This is how your character would react to ____."
"Your character is supposed to be afraid in this situation."

So, thinking that you know the other unknown character well enough to form a believable relationship with them? No, just doesn't happen, IME. IME, it always feels wrong, fake. It's the opposite of what I'm trying to get out of a game.


If the former... I met my boyfriend six years ago. We obviously didn't grow up together. Now, we both did have siblings. And so, if we play characters that are siblings, we know how to do that - we know how siblings interact, and the fact the other one wasn't a sibling makes little difference.

I don't know about you, but the families that I have observed? Siblings can act differently towards their various siblings. And pairing their "relationships" at random (1st child of family A acting like 7th child of family B was their sibling) would produce some rather nonsensical results. So... you've just described a perfect example of my fail case.


I will note, however, that playing pre-existing relationships works best when you allow the other player to define your characters past somewhat.

And that would defeat the purpose of playing the character. I cannot see if X + Y + Z = Q, if someone else is replacing Y with A and adding B.


And I can absolutely see how the way to make this work goes absolutely against all your preferences.

Yup. Glad you get it. :smallsmile:


It's hard not to intend anything. Or rather, it's hard not to have a preference. That shouldn't influence your decision to go along with player actions, but it is good to keep in mind - don't ask for perfection here, it's pretty impossible.

Oh, agreed - it's hard to intend nothing.

Closest I come in practice is, I know how everything would have turned out if the PCs didn't exist.

That's the one thing I don't want.

I want the PCs to matter. I want the existence of the PCs to change something. So I err on the side of "the PCs' story" being different from "the story without the PCs".


The GM is a player, too. This is their free time, too. More of it, often. Of course that fun shouldn't come at the detriment of that of the others... but that goes for every player. I reject in total the notion the GM should be just a servant, and their own enjoyment is irrelevant.

Yaknow, that being said, I barely ever plan stuff and love Powered by the Apocalypse in part because it encourages rolling with the punches the players throw you. I love RPGs precisely for their potential to achieve results/stories/whatever you wanna call them that none of the participants would have come up with on their own. I just... wanna have fun, too, yaknow? I'm a fellow player.

Hmmm... can I explain both of my responses to this? ... heck, I'm not sure I can even explain 1 coherently.

So, yeah, if the GM cares about things going a certain way, that is the opposite of the "roll with the punches" attitude that you describe, and will tend to produce either a GM not having fun, or a GM having fun at the detriment of the other players.

So don't do that.

Be a GM who does not care about the specific outcomes, unless you have gotten explicit buy-in from the players.

The only exception to "the GM cares about nothing" that an optimized GM would have would be "the GM cares that the players are having fun", and IIRC the example I was replying to was agreeing that a GM who modified how many rumors the PCs heard based on how much traction they currently had seemed a good example of a GM implementing "caring about the player experience".

[Floret]

Neither.

I'm saying it feels contrived for my character to be working with their childhood friends in the game, since, well, I'm not working with my childhood friends IRL.

So, actually, you are saying exactly what I suggested in my second point. We may have talked past each other a bit there. What I'm saying, though, is that while you might not be working with childhood friends, a) It happens to other people, and b) you're working with your coworkers. Preexisting relationships between characters are not in any way limited to siblings, and I've seen "long-time coworkers" more often then any sort of family. Heck, "we've been doing this a while" is more prominent.


I don't know about you, but the families that I have observed? Siblings can act differently towards their various siblings. And pairing their "relationships" at random (1st child of family A acting like 7th child of family B was their sibling) would produce some rather nonsensical results. So... you've just described a perfect example of my fail case.

I don't think I have. I think you're just trying to get specifics that are... impossible. Look, evrry relationship between two people is unique. There are certain traits that are likely to be shared, if other specifics line up. There is a certain spectrum of how growing up together influences you. Within that realm, we let the personalities of our characters play off each other to form this exact sibling relationship, not imitating any specific real one to the t, but being influenced by what we found to be true about siblings that generally like each other, but have certain moral differences.

Or, to put it differently: If two characters can never realistically share a relationship their players don't, you can't ever truly play and understand a character the way you try to. Because you are a different person. And the same limitations would, naturally, apply.


And that would defeat the purpose of playing the character. I cannot see if X + Y + Z = Q, if someone else is replacing Y with A and adding B.

I mean, absolutely it would. It's just... After years of reading your opinions on this matter, I'm still not getting how you can think roleplaying can teach you anything about human psychology from the character you are playing. After all, all they do ultimately was in you, and can at most show how you personally, maybe channeling your preexisting notions on how the type of person you're imitating would react.

I mean, if you're having fun, good for you, and maybe you are somehow managing it, but... I dunno.

We do agree on GMing styles, for what it's worth?

[JoeJ]

I'm willing to suspend belief for the sake of the game that absolute strangers who meet drunkenly in a tavern suddenly team up to become world saving heroes. The bond happens with the playing of the game on the first mission. It's an acceptable metagame that these strangers have mystical "PC"s on their forehead so you choose to work together.

That wouldn't be a deal killer if I was playing in somebody else's game, but I don't like doing it that way.

With one exception that I just though of. If I'm playing a 4 color superhero game I'm okay with supers meeting for the first time and deciding to team up, because that's not too uncommon in the genre.

[Lord Torath]

I'm willing to suspend belief for the sake of the game that absolute strangers who meet drunkenly in a tavern suddenly team up to become world saving heroes. The bond happens with the playing of the game on the first mission. This depends on the method of introduction. I was in a game where we were supposed to be members of a mercenary team who'd been working together for several months. We got our mission to recover the McGuffin, was told it was vital and secret, and set off. The first night, a drunk man in clerical robes stumbles into our camp. None of us recognized him. I was all for getting him nicely tucked into bed, and then moving our camp a good half-mile away so he'd wake up on his own. And yet, because of the "PC Tattoo" (player missed the first session) we were supposed to welcome him into our party.

[Quertus]

Look, evrry relationship between two people is unique.

Or, to put it differently: If two characters can never realistically share a relationship their players don't, you can't ever truly play and understand a character the way you try to. Because you are a different person. And the same limitations would, naturally, apply.

Yes to that first sentence, but the rest missed the mark.

Yes, every relationship is unique. I want the characters to form those precious, unique relationships over the course of play, not have some ham fisted attempt at pregenerated them, or unrealistically copying the relationships between the players.


I mean, absolutely it would. It's just... After years of reading your opinions on this matter, I'm still not getting how you can think roleplaying can teach you anything about human psychology from the character you are playing. After all, all they do ultimately was in you, and can at most show how you personally, maybe channeling your preexisting notions on how the type of person you're imitating would react.

Hmmm... Oh, I think I have a perfect example!

When I was in 1st grade (I never went to kindergarten or preschool), I was tested. The test was exclusively math. Unbeknownst to me, the format was "keep asking questions, giving the correct answer after guess, until the child gets 5 wrong in a row".

I had never heard of a "right" triangle. But, given a few examples of the problem and the solution, I was able to decode the relationship. Same with everything else that they asked me. I only "failed" the test at upper-high-school level because I got tired, stopped listening, and kept repeating "I don't know" until the test went away.

Same thing with how you humans work. I don't get humans, but I make theoretical models of how I think certain facets of human behavior might work, and try them out in character form. If, when handed a broad range of stimulus, it produces the results I was expecting, then I have modeled that facet of human behavior correctly.

Sure, sometimes the "failures" are interesting characters in their own right. And, often, the "successes" aren't terribly fun to play. This is just all the more reason it takes me a lot of tries to make an acceptable character.

So, if you get a PC to run an emulator for a Mac, or Linux, or a PlayStation, would you still say that "all they do ultimately was in them (the whole time)"? I mean, yes, the individual pieces of the functionality have to be there, but they couldn't understand each other's code / programs without the emulator.

I'm doing the same thing - I'm working on building, and testing, a "human" emulator.

[Max_Killjoy]

Neither.

I'm saying it feels contrived for my character to be working with their childhood friends in the game, since, well, I'm not working with my childhood friends IRL.

I'm saying that the player is not the character, and the character is also not the character you imagine it to be. Hmmm... others have put it better... searching... here's one:

So, thinking that you know the other unknown character well enough to form a believable relationship with them? No, just doesn't happen, IME. IME, it always feels wrong, fake. It's the opposite of what I'm trying to get out of a game.



That list was more specifically about the way certain players, GM or otherwise, make a bad habit of "giving" roleplaying "advice" that's really just the presumption that they know more about the inner workings of another player's PC than that player does. It wasn't intended to be about how well or not the various characters themselves know each other.

[Quertus]

That list was more specifically about the way certain players, GM or otherwise, make a bad habit of "giving" roleplaying "advice" that's really just the presumption that they know more about the inner workings of another player's PC than that player does. It wasn't intended to be about how well or not the various characters themselves know each other.

While I admit that that was not your intent (yours wasn't actually my first choice for quote), can one not draw the same conclusion?

That is, is it not "imperfect knowledge of your character" that causes both "you cannot know what my character would do" and "you cannot know what relationship these characters would form"?

I mean, sure, your angle was more "I get to do one thing..." (and I wholeheartedly agree with 90% of your angle*), but I feel that you could put those words in my mouth to mean my angle, and it would make more sense than my attempt to say the same thing.

* I lack your dislike of supernatural mind control

[5crownik007]

Since I lack player numbers in the real world, I play online with roll20.
A major red flag is when in the middle of combat, I notice a steam notification that one of my friends is playing Rainbow Six: Siege. The same friend who is currently playing in my game.

Naturally I've never let him live down the fact that he decided to lobby for a tactical shooter in the middle of the game.

[Pex]

This depends on the method of introduction. I was in a game where we were supposed to be members of a mercenary team who'd been working together for several months. We got our mission to recover the McGuffin, was told it was vital and secret, and set off. The first night, a drunk man in clerical robes stumbles into our camp. None of us recognized him. I was all for getting him nicely tucked into bed, and then moving our camp a good half-mile away so he'd wake up on his own. And yet, because of the "PC Tattoo" (player missed the first session) we were supposed to welcome him into our party.

What would be the alternative, kick the player out as punishment for missing the first session? It's only a game. Could have been handled better for story maybe of he was always a member of your team but was passed out drunk and missed the briefing or ret con he was always there but kept quiet the whole time.

[Max_Killjoy]

While I admit that that was not your intent (yours wasn't actually my first choice for quote), can one not draw the same conclusion?

That is, is it not "imperfect knowledge of your character" that causes both "you cannot know what my character would do" and "you cannot know what relationship these characters would form"?

I mean, sure, your angle was more "I get to do one thing..." (and I wholeheartedly agree with 90% of your angle*), but I feel that you could put those words in my mouth to mean my angle, and it would make more sense than my attempt to say the same thing.

* I lack your dislike of supernatural mind control

One faces the universal limits on what one person can know about what's going on inside another, whether its two people, or two RPG characters.

The other denies those limits and pretends to know more about someone else than they do -- or about their RPG character than they do.

[Lord Torath]

What would be the alternative, kick the player out as punishment for missing the first session? It's only a game. Could have been handled better for story maybe of he was always a member of your team but was passed out drunk and missed the briefing or ret con he was always there but kept quiet the whole time.There were definitely better ways to handle it. Showing up completely sloshed and unknown was the player's idea (after we'd all been informed we were part of a team). I would have been quite happy to have him be a member of our squad who got off to a late start, and thus had to play catch-up, or have been sent ahead to scout, or otherwise be a part of our team. In any case the game (on Roll20) didn't last much longer, because the DM stopped showing up. :smallannoyed:

[Pex]

There were definitely better ways to handle it. Showing up completely sloshed and unknown was the player's idea (after we'd all been informed we were part of a team). I would have been quite happy to have him be a member of our squad who got off to a late start, and thus had to play catch-up, or have been sent ahead to scout, or otherwise be a part of our team. In any case the game (on Roll20) didn't last much longer, because the DM stopped showing up. :smallannoyed:

I give point a player should make a character that will mesh with the group. Being a PC is not total immunity of belief suspension. I remember an old 2E campaign where I was a paladin and there was a ranger in the party, back when rangers were also meant to be always good. A player wanted to join and he knew our characters were in the party. He brought in a cleric of a deity all about poison, disease, and decay. Couldn't get past the in character introduction. He was welcomed to create a new character, but he declined and never joined the group. A player or DM can be so hyped about his idea that not playing in the face of rejection is self-righteously worth more than doing something else.

[Kardwill]

What would be the alternative, kick the player out as punishment for missing the first session?

Or come up with a reason why the characters trust each other, which is a big part of establishing prior relationships.

Simply having another player saying "Hey, I know this guy! Can't handle his booze, but his spells saved half of my company during the retreat across the Atraxian Plains. Let me handle him, and we'll ask him why he's here in the morning" would have taken 1 minute, salvaged the situation, kicked off a RP dynamic, and avoided an awkward moment.
(after a short conversation between the 2 players so that it doesn't clash with whatever backstory the cleric player might have in store, of course)

Finding reasons why the PCs adventure together is the player's job, and common backstory/prior relationship (family, old friends/rivals, teacher, old friend of the family, servant/bodyguard/employee, same school/town, old coworkers, ex-lover...) is a nice tool to do it. As long as you agree that those relationships will evolve during play (because static backstories and dynamics are not very fun)

Some of my best moments in RPGs were generated by this kind of stuff (when PCs relationships kick off entire adventure arcs, or allows a party dynamic that would have taken dozens of sessions to establish), so the "you met in a tavern/are mercs hired for this mission" beginning feels a little awkward now. It can be useful when you don't have time to do a session zero and you want to start quickly, but it always feels like a missed opportunity.

[Cluedrew]

"Hey, I know this guy! Can't handle his booze, but his spells saved half of my company during the retreat across the Atraxian Plains. Let me handle him, and we'll ask him why he's here in the morning"I've seen all the way to "Hey, you're the guy with the face. We worked together that one time." "Yeah, way off in the other place." "That's the one."

We never found anything else about that one time way off in the other place.

Red Flags:
My character/setting/story is holy ground upon which thou shall not tread. Besides there being a simple play-style miss-match (I like emergent game-play and characters tugging on each other) it hints at an inability to compromise.
Using a DM screen.
Does not understand the campaign's tone or setting. I think I mentioned this before, but it is a big one. Even in otherwise good players it is something that should have been immediately addressed.
Inability to think about what is going on in the game world. Includes not being able to see NPCs as (fictional) people or widely disregarding descriptions.
Trying to bend the rules for an advantage. Either play within the rules or just give us a good reason to go outside them.
Inability or unwillingness to have their character rely on other PCs.

[Quertus]

Red Flags:
My character/setting/story is holy ground upon which thou shall not tread. Besides there being a simple play-style miss-match (I like emergent game-play and characters tugging on each other) it hints at an inability to compromise.


So, I could say a lot, like referencing this from one of your old threads



Character - Setting

Personally, I prefer for them to be completely divorced, at least insofar as my characters are concerned.

If a character is from a setting, they should be tightly coupled. A character's past greatly informs who the character is. But there are problems with this.

When Setting informs Character, you get stupid arguments about how a character from Thay would never think that way (much like stupid alignment arguments of "a good character would never do that").

When Character informs Setting, you get complaints of how a player is trying to bend the campaign setting around their character.

Now, all this would be bad enough for most characters, but, personally, I agree with the sentiment behind these statements.

I don't give players narrative control in my games. No, you can't just state that the Baron has had an affair, because the Baron's fidelity to his wife informed some of the decisions he has made, including ones made after resisting some behind the scenes seduction attempts.

So you clearly can't walk into an existing campaign, and declare that your character is the illegitimate son of the Baron, if that doesn't match established facts. But the players are not actually in a position to know what facts have been established, because they don't know all the hidden machinations that have produced the small portion of the world that their characters can see.

Similarly, as a player, I will never understand all the details of the world the same way as the GM (who may or may not be the world's creator). There will always be this dissonance, where my character just doesn't feel "right", to one or both of us, especially if we care about the setting.

So, while it's fine for other people to have setting inform character, or to play narrative games where character informs setting, I'll stick to my characters being "not from around here", and get to enjoy my favorite aesthetic of Exploration - on the GM's setting.

, and drone on about incoherent characters and incoherent settings, and adventures where the GM didn't choose what was going on ahead of time, and made an incoherent mess.

Or I could yammer about my personal preferences, and how such seemingly innocuous changes would defeat the purpose of making the character / world.

Or I could quibble over details, and create numerous examples, asking which you consider red flags.

But, tonight, I thought I'd try a new approach.

X questions (it was 2, then 3, who knows how many before I'm through):
1) what does a good version of "compromise" look like, in your opinion?
2) "Red Flags:... Besides there being a simple play-style miss-match" - are we meant to infer that a playstyle mismatch is itself as red flag?
3) I am now curious how many "red flags" would best be categorized as playstyle mismatches. Any guesses?

[geppetto]

I had to think about this for a minute and this thread has definitely helped me to focus on a few things that I consider a no go.

1. Poor hygiene. Theres just no way around this. If you stink your going to make people around you have a bad time. And I really dont want to have the akward conversation about why you stink and go fix it. I'm not your daddy and its not my job to teach you to bathe occasionally like a normal human.
Best I can do is if I already know you, and know your otherwise a great player, AND you have a good excuse ie you take the bus from work and its summertime so your sweaty, is take you aside and say "bro you reek. If you have to pop a new shirt in your bag and show up a little early. You can use my shower and heres some dollar store deodorant." But thats a 1 strike offense.

2. Alchoholism/drug abuse. Just not dealing with it. If your totally out of it or obnoxious during a session you have to go. Bye.

3. Rules lawyer. I dont follow RAW all the time and I am not arguing about it in the middle of a game. Or honestly at the end of a game either. If you want clarity thats fine, if you want to debate what we should do? Nope. GM is the umpire, my call wins.

4. If your a delusional schizophrenic. Saying things like your not human, or your an actual sorcerer...... yeah nope. Aint no one here got time for all that. Adios.

[JoeJ]

A red flag for me is a player who doesn't pay attention to my elevator speech explaining what the game is going to be about. If I say, for example, that the PCs are going to be Round Table knights in a campaign heavily influenced by Malory, and somebody shows up expecting to play an Aarokocra hexblade that they brought with them even though I told them that we'll be creating characters together during session 0, I'll take that as a warning sign.

[MoiMagnus]

2) "Red Flags:... Besides there being a simple play-style miss-match" - are we meant to infer that a playstyle mismatch is itself as red flag?
3) I am now curious how many "red flags" would best be categorized as playstyle mismatches. Any guesses?

Play-style miss-match definitely enter in the category "stuff that you can see early and will lead to great frustration in the long run"

And contrary to the "terrible human being" kind of red flag where someone is obviously wrong, the "play-style miss-match" kind of red flag is possibly even more difficult to handle because no side is objectively wrong.

[Calthropstu]

Plays destructive pranks.

[Cluedrew]

But, tonight, I thought I'd try a new approach.

X questions (it was 2, then 3, who knows how many before I'm through):
1) what does a good version of "compromise" look like, in your opinion?
2) "Red Flags:... Besides there being a simple play-style miss-match" - are we meant to infer that a playstyle mismatch is itself as red flag?
3) I am now curious how many "red flags" would best be categorized as playstyle mismatches. Any guesses?I think we have already had the other conversation already anyways. Maybe even in that thread you linked, I didn't reread all of it. So questions:


That is tricky to define in the abstract. A good compromise gets everyone involved most of what they want out of a situation. A great compromise gets everyone what they actually wanted, even though that initially seemed impossible, but that is hard.
I forget. But as I understand red flag (a sign that something deserves extra attention to make sure it doesn't cause problems) I suppose it does count as a red flag. They aren't (primarily) problems but warnings about future problems.
I haven't really been counting, but most would either be that or problem player (including problem GM). I feel like mismatch might be in the majority but again, haven't been counting.

[Mr Blobby]

A red flag for me is if I don't want to hang out with the person outside of the roleplaying sessions. That indicates that I don't like them for some reason, and if I don't like them, chances are it's for a reason and this will affect the game at some point.

Now, that's a bit harsh. There are many reason(s) you may not desire to socialise with an individual. Not all of them automatically mean it's a red flag for RPG'ing with them. I've played before with people I wouldn't hang out with; and while a majority of them yes, it was a general flag for 'bad person' [be it nasty, creepy or just plain nuts]. However, there's been a few that we wouldn't hang out simply because we had nothing in common - the only overlap our lives had was around that board. There's nothing wrong with that [in fact, it was interesting from a sociological point of view]. Another reason could simply be 'they are real dull'; again, this doesn't automatically mean they'd be a bad player.

Thing is - would you judge people on the same criteria for, say a book club? How about a sports team? Hobby group, perhaps?

[Lorsa]

Now, that's a bit harsh. There are many reason(s) you may not desire to socialise with an individual. Not all of them automatically mean it's a red flag for RPG'ing with them. I've played before with people I wouldn't hang out with; and while a majority of them yes, it was a general flag for 'bad person' [be it nasty, creepy or just plain nuts]. However, there's been a few that we wouldn't hang out simply because we had nothing in common - the only overlap our lives had was around that board. There's nothing wrong with that [in fact, it was interesting from a sociological point of view]. Another reason could simply be 'they are real dull'; again, this doesn't automatically mean they'd be a bad player.

Thing is - would you judge people on the same criteria for, say a book club? How about a sports team? Hobby group, perhaps?

I would say there are three categories:

1. People I really don't want to be around or socialize with.
2. People I can be around and socialize with but might not due to lack of common interests or something such.
3. People I can socialize with and do.

When people are in the first category, it's a red flag for me.

Also, yes, I do have harsher criteria for roleplaying than book clubs or sports team. The reason is quite simply. Roleplaying is much more intimate and only really works well when I feel comfortable around the people in the group. It's very different from playing in the same sports team as someone.

[kyoryu]

And contrary to the "terrible human being" kind of red flag where someone is obviously wrong, the "play-style miss-match" kind of red flag is possibly even more difficult to handle because no side is objectively wrong.

While you're correct that neither side is objectively wrong (and, really, in most "RPG group fallout" situations, it's not a black and white thing), I disagree that it's difficult to resolve.

"Hey, I noticed you want <xyz> in the game. This game isn't that, it's <abc>. You're welcome to keep playing, but understand it's <abc> and is going to remain so. We may be able to do the the following things to include some of what you like, but we're not going to go full <xyz>. We'd love you to keep playing with us, under those conditions, but understand if you don't want to."


I would say there are three categories:

1. People I really don't want to be around or socialize with.
2. People I can be around and socialize with but might not due to lack of common interests or something such.
3. People I can socialize with and do.

Yeah, there's a huuuuge delta between "don't socialize with, or have a reason to" and "would actively avoid socializing with". Like, if your D&D group decided to do a group movie, and you wouldn't go because of a person? DANGER WILL ROBINSON.

[Mr Blobby]

We all do "person ratings", even if we're not concious of it. Like the woman you'll chat to at work but wouldn't go for a coffee with, the relative you would but wouldn't invite around for dinner, and the old friend you would but wouldn't go on holiday for a week with.

My gripe - a minor one really - was placing roleplaying at a "higher rating" than I felt was justified. Not to say there's gradients in this too; I would fully understand you'd be more picky if you were the host rather than if you were playing in say, a rented back room of a pub [I would be!]

It does also depend on how much 'socialising' your group does; I've seen ones which veered between 'a lot' and 'almost none'. Having a 'person you don't really like' in the group isn't half as bad if you can limit the interactions with said person, there's a hard time-limit on the session and the amount of OOC-ness is pretty low.

Though one thing I've noticed... a lot of 'red flag' people do seem to have rather a lot of free time. Or is this just me?

[MoiMagnus]

I disagree that it's difficult to resolve.

"Hey, I noticed you want <xyz> in the game. This game isn't that, it's <abc>. You're welcome to keep playing, but understand it's <abc> and is going to remain so. We may be able to do the the following things to include some of what you like, but we're not going to go full <xyz>. We'd love you to keep playing with us, under those conditions, but understand if you don't want to."

Your assuming there is a predetermined play-style. In most situations I've encountered, it was more 2 players (or player/DM) with incompatible play-styles, and the remaining of the table being compatible with both (and interested in both kind of play-style, or evenly split between the two).

Which mean that the ideal solution here is to split the table into two tables (with possibly some peoples in both tables) so that everyone can have fun, but it isn't always possible (time restrictions, not enough players to have two full tables, ...)

(Not to say that playing RPG might not be the goal of the session. Playing RPG might be the mean by the way you pass a good evening with predetermined friends.)

But yes, saying it was more difficult to handle was an exaggeration, it might in some corner cases be more difficult, but most of the case it isn't (especially because you are dealing with someone which isn't a terrible human being, so diplomacy is easier)

[Lorsa]

We all do "person ratings", even if we're not concious of it. Like the woman you'll chat to at work but wouldn't go for a coffee with, the relative you would but wouldn't invite around for dinner, and the old friend you would but wouldn't go on holiday for a week with.

My gripe - a minor one really - was placing roleplaying at a "higher rating" than I felt was justified. Not to say there's gradients in this too; I would fully understand you'd be more picky if you were the host rather than if you were playing in say, a rented back room of a pub [I would be!]

It does also depend on how much 'socialising' your group does; I've seen ones which veered between 'a lot' and 'almost none'. Having a 'person you don't really like' in the group isn't half as bad if you can limit the interactions with said person, there's a hard time-limit on the session and the amount of OOC-ness is pretty low.

I've found that the best roleplaying groups for me have been the ones that involve some amount of OOC-ness. As I said, I need to feel comfortable around people to really "open up".



Though one thing I've noticed... a lot of 'red flag' people do seem to have rather a lot of free time. Or is this just me?

That has been my experience as well.

Then there was one guy who didn't seem to know what a shower and laundry-machine was. That was also a red flag...

[Calthropstu]

I have no problem gaming with just about anyone. Unless they have screwed with me in a game before I can dislike someone and play games with them.

[The Jack]

legitimately wondering about the personal hygiene stuff. I've never been in groups where anyone consistently bad. Wait, I've had one guy who burps far too much and greasy hair is a problem of him and another, but people don't stink. I don't care what you look like, I do care about sound/smell tho.


It is unpleasant when the host of the game has stinky cat smell throughout the house. I guess you get used to that.

[Calthropstu]

legitimately wondering about the personal hygiene stuff. I've never been in groups where anyone consistently bad. Wait, I've had one guy who burps far too much and greasy hair is a problem of him and another, but people don't stink. I don't care what you look like, I do care about sound/smell tho.


It is unpleasant when the host of the game has stinky cat smell throughout the house. I guess you get used to that.

It can be a problem with homeless gamers. But usually that is easily corrected by simply letting the guy shower or use the bathroom to freshen up at least. Clothing can be an issue though. If those are the cause of the smell, there's no help but to boot him or bear it, unless you wanna find him a change of clothes.

There was, however, a really old gamer who naturally smelled bad. It was awful. He could shower 100 times it just never went away. Few people would game with the poor guy. Good guy too. Really felt sorry for him.

[kyoryu]

Your assuming there is a predetermined play-style. In most situations I've encountered, it was more 2 players (or player/DM) with incompatible play-styles, and the remaining of the table being compatible with both (and interested in both kind of play-style, or evenly split between the two).

It's almost like I simplified the situation for brevity.

And even then, it still boils down to "find a style everyone can work with, or the game doesn't work and we shouldn't play together".


(Not to say that playing RPG might not be the goal of the session. Playing RPG might be the mean by the way you pass a good evening with predetermined friends.)

In which case I'd expect people to be more flexible, and if not, find a different activity.


But yes, saying it was more difficult to handle was an exaggeration, it might in some corner cases be more difficult, but most of the case it isn't (especially because you are dealing with someone which isn't a terrible human being, so diplomacy is easier)

Yup. And if you're dealing with a terrible human being then it's easy again :D

[Gnoman]

There are some people that seem to believe that bathing and laundry are not part of daily life. I used to work with a guy who went almost two years without washing his work uniforms (we're supposed to take them home and wash them ourselves, he just changed to street clothes and threw the uniform in a locker every day), and quite obviously bathed rarely.


Subgroups that tend to be socially inept tend to attract a lot more of this group - this is why the term "neckbeard" is so strongly associated here.

[Quertus]

So, would assuming that "wanting different things" was inherently unreconcilable be indicative of a lack of skill at comprising? A "meta" red flag, if you will?

[Tanarii]

Also, yes, I do have harsher criteria for roleplaying than book clubs or sports team. The reason is quite simply. Roleplaying is much more intimate and only really works well when I feel comfortable around the people in the group. It's very different from playing in the same sports team as someone.
Interesting. It's the exact opposite for me. I play and run games in game stores. I tolerate people I'd have no interest in otherwise socializing with when playing RPGs, because to me they are a "public" gathering around a common interest. People need to either cross the line into problematic/disruptive (interrupting the common interest), or not be interested in playing the same kind of game I want to play (not really a common interest).

As such I don't particularly view it as socializing, although of course it actually is. We're there to play the game, accomplish a task, do something. Not just kibitz. The social aspect is a side affect, albeit often a pleasant one.

In fact, someone I'd rather not socialize with is less annoying at the gaming table than as a coworker. At least I won't see them five days a week.

Different on those rarer occasions when I get to play with a group of friends of course.

[Quertus]

Criteria for roleplaying vs sports vs coworker? It's an interesting question.

I suppose... I tend to be good at separating different aspects of an individual. Probably comes from being steeped in an "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... and the wages of sin is death" background. So, since (according to how I was raised) everyone is wicked enough to deserve to die, well, if I'm going to socialize with anyone, I have to accept that everyone is a terrible person compared to perfection.

Looking back, I've gamed with a lot of sketchy people.

I certainly do have different quality of experiences with different sets of people, just... not necessarily aligned in a way that would make sense at first glance. Or second glance, for that matter.

I'll have think on it.

Like I said, it's an interesting question.

[kyoryu]

So, would assuming that "wanting different things" was inherently unreconcilable be indicative of a lack of skill at comprising? A "meta" red flag, if you will?

I'm feeling a little attacked.

I mean, obviously you'd try to work out a compromise first, right? You'd only go to "don't game" if the differences were irreconcilable.

[Cluedrew]

So, would assuming that "wanting different things" was inherently unreconcilable be indicative of a lack of skill at comprising? A "meta" red flag, if you will?
I'm feeling a little attacked.

I mean, obviously you'd try to work out a compromise first, right? You'd only go to "don't game" if the differences were irreconcilable.Well then you don't consider it to be inherently unreconcilable. I actually would actually agree with Quertus here. I'm sure there are situations where there isn't a good compromise, simple example I have some friends who enjoy much darker campaigns than I do, so I don't play those campaigns. But that's not all the campaigns, so when they finished the "we are the Spanish Inquisition" campaign and played monster hunters, I was on board for that.

[darkrose50]

My pet peeve is when someone waits for there turn to go to the bathroom, or make a phone call. I have a friend who does this, and I wonder if it is because she likes the attention. Take your turn, then go to the bathroom or make a phone call. Also know what you are going to do on your turn most of the time . . . not knowing most of the time seems disrespectful. Sometimes I don't know what to do, but at least 80% of the time I do. When I don't there are often multiple options that could all be fun, or there is a shift in the battle that needs to be taken into account.

Another pet-peeve is having skills that are never used. "I am a expert scholar in the supernatural, what can I tell about this supernatural monster" . . . answered with "nothing, you have never seen this monster before". I am of the mind that I an expert would have the chance to know something. If I encounter an animal that I never seen before and I am a world renown zoologist, then I would have some ideas . . . some possibilities. This is a common one in my friends game. Ones knowledge skills just do not matter. I may as well have never put skill points into knowledge skills in his games, because they never matter anyhow.

Players who only want to do the smart thing over the fun thing. Sometimes you need to do the fun thing. When brainstorming up a plan of action, then I want to pick the plan that would be the most fun, not the plan that would be the most boring, but would work.

Players who think that everyone should act logically and efficiently (as they see logic and efficiency, I fall for this trap in real life when dealing with authority). My friend was like "If we were a threat to Strod, then he would never let us live" . . . my thought was "boy this Strod guy is board, wants some entertainment, wants some excitement, and basically wants to use us as playthings."

Some players want the DM to run all the monsters to there fullest. Sometimes the bad guys do stupid things. The bad guys doing stupid things is not the same thing as the DM doing something stupid. I would run primitive young hunter and gather Goblens differently than elite seasoned professional soldiers. A pack of starving wolves would take a much more higher risk to get some food, then a well fed pack. That guy jogging in the woods was attacked by a starving young mountain lion more than half his size, and the man killed it. Stressed people / monsters / animals do stupid things, even smart stressed people / monsters / animals.

Operah is super crazy successful, and she thinks that her success was because she thought positively and the universe granted her wishes. She thinks that other people need to learn how to tap into this magical universe genie. Now imagine if she was the queen, and wrote laws. Poor people might be vilified, or placed into positivity camps where they would be trained on how to properly make a wish. Her elite guard might do something super crazy stupid because they believe in the power of positive thought. Heck the queen could just go in front of her army and think that her wishing skills would protect her.

[Mr Blobby]

Another pet-peeve is having skills that are never used. "I am a expert scholar in the supernatural, what can I tell about this supernatural monster" . . . answered with "nothing, you have never seen this monster before". I am of the mind that I an expert would have the chance to know something. If I encounter an animal that I never seen before and I am a world renown zoologist, then I would have some ideas . . . some possibilities. This is a common one in my friends game. Ones knowledge skills just do not matter. I may as well have never put skill points into knowledge skills in his games, because they never matter anyhow.

A prime example of what I call "lawful stupid rulings" - things which can be infuriating. I remember playing with a GM who never, ever allowed re-rolls. So if your character - for example - failed a Search check in a library, and you reply 'well [character] has the time and really needs to see if they have anything on [topic], so they will re-check the place' the GM would simply refuse. The worst thing was that they didn't say 'you can't re-roll' - if you said '[character] tries again' they'd simply repeat the previous info not informing you they had not, and would not re-roll.

Thing is, I would call the top example as more "skill stupidly used" rather "skill never used". I would describe that being 'character has skills etc which never come up'. I might be weird, but if I make a character with X, Y & Z skills/whatever and the GM ticks them off, I assume they'll see a bit of use eventually. That is what I do as a GM myself - that if a player submits something which I know I will never use [be it a element of backstory, skill or whatever] I tell them outright so. That when you're doing a build which has limited amount of points/dots/whatever - to dump a load in something effectively useless means the character's gonna be weaker than the others. Lastly, if I build a character who is [say] 'a skilled, bookish occultist' and the GM okays it - I assume they will fit the planned story. If it turns out said story is all action/combat and there's no such thing as the occult in it... well, I didn't sign up to such a game!

[Calthropstu]

A prime example of what I call "lawful stupid rulings" - things which can be infuriating. I remember playing with a GM who never, ever allowed re-rolls. So if your character - for example - failed a Search check in a library, and you reply 'well [character] has the time and really needs to see if they have anything on [topic], so they will re-check the place' the GM would simply refuse. The worst thing was that they didn't say 'you can't re-roll' - if you said '[character] tries again' they'd simply repeat the previous info not informing you they had not, and would not re-roll.

Thing is, I would call the top example as more "skill stupidly used" rather "skill never used". I would describe that being 'character has skills etc which never come up'. I might be weird, but if I make a character with X, Y & Z skills/whatever and the GM ticks them off, I assume they'll see a bit of use eventually. That is what I do as a GM myself - that if a player submits something which I know I will never use [be it a element of backstory, skill or whatever] I tell them outright so. That when you're doing a build which has limited amount of points/dots/whatever - to dump a load in something effectively useless means the character's gonna be weaker than the others. Lastly, if I build a character who is [say] 'a skilled, bookish occultist' and the GM okays it - I assume they will fit the planned story. If it turns out said story is all action/combat and there's no such thing as the occult in it... well, I didn't sign up to such a game!

I am guilty of this more than once, BUT, I don't care how much of an expert you are. You are NOT going to correctly identify an entirely new species, nor is your high expertise going to give you any information on things not written about.

[malachi]

I am guilty of this more than once, BUT, I don't care how much of an expert you are. You are NOT going to correctly identify an entirely new species, nor is your high expertise going to give you any information on things not written about.

If a talented zoologist encounters a new species, they're going to have a chance to figure out things about it - what is its likely diet (based on mouth, etc), what is most dangerous about it (based on physiological structures), what other critters could it be related to (and thus share some similarities with), etc.

If a talented zoologist encounters his first werewolf, he's going to know its a werewolf (or whatever other well-known monster). If a talented zoologist has studied fire drakes, he's going to understand things about frost drakes even without ever studying them specifically, even if he's going to have some incorrect information (such as someone who knows lots about black bears would have some incorrect information about brown bears that wouldn't necessarily be entirely obvious, such as which ones climb trees).

[kyoryu]

A prime example of what I call "lawful stupid rulings" - things which can be infuriating. I remember playing with a GM who never, ever allowed re-rolls. So if your character - for example - failed a Search check in a library, and you reply 'well [character] has the time and really needs to see if they have anything on [topic], so they will re-check the place' the GM would simply refuse. The worst thing was that they didn't say 'you can't re-roll' - if you said '[character] tries again' they'd simply repeat the previous info not informing you they had not, and would not re-roll.

Well, I can get behind not allowing re-rolls of the same thing, but there's good ways to handle that. That's not it. "Okay, the roll will be to see if you can find the info before the Duke gets to the library" works. Or "of course the information is here, and well indexed, and you have nothing better to do all day, so yes, you find it" works too. Or anything.

I mean, I'm all for one-and-done skill rolls, but that's best handled by making the situation evolve from the initial state, not by setting a mechanical limit.

I mean, that's kind of what even old-school D&D did, right? If you searched, time advanced, and there was a chance of a random monster roll?


Lastly, if I build a character who is [say] 'a skilled, bookish occultist' and the GM okays it - I assume they will fit the planned story. If it turns out said story is all action/combat and there's no such thing as the occult in it... well, I didn't sign up to such a game!

Absolutely! And someone taking that skill should be a flag to the GM that "hey I want this" and so it should be included in the story if it's not already, or the player should be warned. And, you know, I'm kind of over the "planned story" before you know who the PCs are. If you want engaged players, why not include the elements that they basically tell you they find interesting???

[The Kool]

My pet peeve is when someone waits for there turn to go to the bathroom, or make a phone call. I have a friend who does this, and I wonder if it is because she likes the attention. Take your turn, then go to the bathroom or make a phone call. Also know what you are going to do on your turn most of the time . . . not knowing most of the time seems disrespectful. Sometimes I don't know what to do, but at least 80% of the time I do. When I don't there are often multiple options that could all be fun, or there is a shift in the battle that needs to be taken into account.

As the DM, if you aren't present on your turn you get One Call. "Hey, it's your turn!" If the response isn't to immediately return attention to the game, I declare what they do. I keep it fairly conservative and generic according to their given strategy, and try not to consume resources, but I understand that 'standing there in a stupor' can be a death sentence in D&D. So a paladin might stand back and guard the wizard with a readied attack, for example. Easy things that don't need me to reference their sheet and move the game along to the next turn. Another thing I've done is to just delay their turn. "Alright, you're thinking. Rogue, your turn." Then after the rogue, "OK did you figure out what you want to do?" and if yes then that's their new initiative.

For knowledge skills... OK yeah that's annoying. Knowledge skills represent study beyond personal experience, knowledge outside the scope what's been seen or shown in the game. If the point of an encounter is that it's new, mysterious, unheard of, then this should be highlighted. The player should be able to learn things from what they don't know. In all other cases though, there's a chance you've encountered the information before. Elementals, you've never met them, but you might remember coming across an article. Werewolves, you don't know much, but you've heard of them and that they're shapeshifters, so what do you know about shapeshifters? I'm also fairly generous with my knowledge skills overlapping but providing different aspects of information. Players might roll Arcana and Planes on the same thing, and come up with different pieces of the story. Knowledge skills are not memory. Knowledge skills are study.

[MoiMagnus]

I am guilty of this more than once, BUT, I don't care how much of an expert you are. You are NOT going to correctly identify an entirely new species, nor is your high expertise going to give you any information on things not written about.

Though, there is a middle ground between "no, you have no info" and "here is the the full description with the stat block".
An expert is probably able to at least spot what they don't know, and have some good educated guess (except if the species come from the far realms, and even in that situation...)
I mean, even if you don't know a clue about the magical habilities of the species, you can have an approximation of its non-magical ones (so the physical characteristics and physical saves) just by observing how the species move and behave.

[Calthropstu]

Though, there is a middle ground between "no, you have no info" and "here is the the full description with the stat block".
An expert is probably able to at least spot what they don't know, and have some good educated guess (except if the species come from the far realms, and even in that situation...)
I mean, even if you don't know a clue about the magical habilities of the species, you can have an approximation of its non-magical ones (so the physical characteristics and physical saves) just by observing how the species move and behave.

Which can be fair. But useless. "It can attack with its teeth and claws" will be pretty obvious when it has jumped out at you and attacked already for example. But I'd say "it has red metallic scales, possibly related to red dragons. Avoid fire spells." Might be doable... Though could also be misleading.

[geppetto]

legitimately wondering about the personal hygiene stuff. I've never been in groups where anyone consistently bad. Wait, I've had one guy who burps far too much and greasy hair is a problem of him and another, but people don't stink. I don't care what you look like, I do care about sound/smell tho.


It is unpleasant when the host of the game has stinky cat smell throughout the house. I guess you get used to that.

Where I live its really hot in the summer so back when we were in our teens and 20s and a lot of gamers took the bus or walked to the game funk could be a problem. Wasnt so much that they didnt bathe, just that spending a few hours outside, hauling a bag full of books when its 115 degrees is going to make anyone sweat like a pig.

[Mr Blobby]

DarkRose's point merely said 'you've never seen this creature before'. This leads to the conclusion the character is only an 'expert' in things they've personally experienced, and is incapable of, say reading books on the subject, being taught about them in training/apprenticeship or suchlike.

Sure, the info given may be incomplete, guestimations or even [occasionally] flat-out wrong. As long as the players understand this, I think they're okay with it - after all, we in RL operate all the time on imperfect information.

'Not re-rolling' is situational. If time is of the essence, yes the character may not have the time to do it. Naturally, if you fail baking a cake, you can't re-try doing the cake again unless you had extra ingredients on-hand. My point was that this GM not always never re-rolled but also did their best to hide this fact - it was only when I forced the issue they admitted it.

This 'no re-rolls' rule was even more damaging for in this case it was a Vampire the Masquerade game. You fail a 'hunting roll' in a bar - no dinner tonight. Looking for signs of a local gang? You look once... and can't look ever again. Everything had to be successful on the first try or else. Thank god they weren't GMing real life or I'd be homeless, jobless and possibly dead.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If you can retry a thing until you succeed then you shouldn't be rolling for it at all.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you can retry a thing until you succeed then you shouldn't be rolling for it at all.

I was just about to say that that the GM in question probably read some GMing advice along those lines somewhere -- and decided it meant that you never got to reroll anything ever for any reason.

[MoiMagnus]

Which can be fair. But useless. "It can attack with its teeth and claws" will be pretty obvious when it has jumped out at you and attacked already for example. But I'd say "it has red metallic scales, possibly related to red dragons. Avoid fire spells." Might be doable... Though could also be misleading.

In a combat situation, I might expect stuff like
1) Does it look like a living creature, an undead, .... -> This give a rough approximation of standard immunity (notably poison and mind affecting effects), even if it isn't 100% certain.
2) Do I have more chance to touch it with Fortitudes saves (or Con saves for 5e) than with Reflexes saves (or Dex). And what about AC? And any clue for Will (or Sag)? (Will being here is more difficult to estimate, so I'm more expecting "you don't know" for that last one. But For and Ref are most of the time quite dependent on the creature's appearance.)

[MoiMagnus]

If you can retry a thing until you succeed then you shouldn't be rolling for it at all.

No, you should be rolling once, but for the time it takes you to succeed instead of "if you succeed".

[Mr Blobby]

Well, it does depend on the game being done: this being World of Darkness, the dreaded 'Botch' / 'Critical Failure' was possible - which meant my 'gang-finding' vampire might, for example be mistaken for a rather rubbish 'undercover cop' / 'rival gang spy' and either be led astray or led into some wasteland to be put into a shallow grave - something which the chances of happening might increase if the character has been hitting the same 'hood for let's say the last week.

[The Jack]

The WoD botch is great, because it rarely happens in a multi-dice system and the difficulty increases the likelyhood of the botch, so silly-bad events happening when you bugger up is fine because you tried to punch above your weight.

When people carry over those bad-botches to other games like DnD, it sucks ****, because there's always a 1/20 chance of it and your skill or difficulty of the task don't come into it. I find DM's really contrive it too, because whilst a WoD character faceplanting after attempting a fantastical feat of acrobatics with normal-people athletics is as easy thing to think up, DnD botches more often involve godlike climbers getting murdered by trees.

[Draconi Redfir]

Which can be fair. But useless. "It can attack with its teeth and claws" will be pretty obvious when it has jumped out at you and attacked already for example. But I'd say "it has red metallic scales, possibly related to red dragons. Avoid fire spells." Might be doable... Though could also be misleading.

you could also do basic deductions though. like say, the player's encounter their first-ever displacer-beast. They don't know fully what they are or what they can do, but they LOOK a lot like Panthers or other big-cats, and a lot of big-cats have Pounce (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Pounce-Ex-) as a special attack, so even if you haven't seen the Displacer-beast pounce, it might be fair to guess that it also has that special ability. Given it's long tendrils, it'd also be fair to assume they have a reach of some length, such as being able to hit an opponent 10ft away.

They might not know anything about the displacement ability initially, but after a few rounds engaging with the beast and witnessing it's effects, they might be able to deduce the basics of how it works, even if they think it has a range of around 20ft when in actuality the beast can go as far as 40ft and just hasn't been doing that.

[Mr Blobby]

And as so many WoD players forget, if the ST is doing it right, NPC's can botch too. In one game I've run myself I've had them shoot each other, fall out of a window, fall down stairs, slash their own arm with a sword and in one point, blow up the building they were in and cause a couple of tons of roofing tiles to crush them to death.

I think it makes my players feel a bit better when they see it happens to 'them'. Like when a major NPC literally failed to notice the assassin behind them... [took some skill to explain that away, I can tell you!]

[JoeJ]

you could also do basic deductions though. like say, the player's encounter their first-ever displacer-beast. They don't know fully what they are or what they can do, but they LOOK a lot like Panthers or other big-cats, and a lot of big-cats have Pounce (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Pounce-Ex-) as a special attack, so even if you haven't seen the Displacer-beast pounce, it might be fair to guess that it also has that special ability. Given it's long tendrils, it'd also be fair to assume they have a reach of some length, such as being able to hit an opponent 10ft away.

They might not know anything about the displacement ability initially, but after a few rounds engaging with the beast and witnessing it's effects, they might be able to deduce the basics of how it works, even if they think it has a range of around 20ft when in actuality the beast can go as far as 40ft and just hasn't been doing that.

Why do you need a mechanic to let the PCs deduce what the players can easily figure out themselves?

[Draconi Redfir]

Why do you need a mechanic to let the PCs deduce what the players can easily figure out themselves?

helps prevent metagaming if the players themselves know what displacer beasts are. but i get where you're coming from here.

could also throw in things like "you know what a tiger is, and this thing has claws that resemble a tiger's claws, and a tiger has 1d8+10 slashing claw damage" or something of the sort that the character's wouldn't really be able to know.

[JoeJ]

helps prevent metagaming if the players themselves know what displacer beasts are. but i get where you're coming from here.

could also throw in things like "you know what a tiger is, and this thing has claws that resemble a tiger's claws, and a tiger has 1d8+10 slashing claw damage" or something of the sort that the character's wouldn't really be able to know.

But it doesn't prevent metagaming. On the contrary, it forces the players to metagame. Instead of engaging with the displacer beast, they have to think about how to get the GM to let them "accidentally" discover what they already know.

[Mr Blobby]

Also means the GM doesn't have to do loads and loads of description. Oh, and means you don't have to rely on the player to notice [for example] 'oh, it is like X creature/whatever.'

[Kardwill]

When people carry over those bad-botches to other games like DnD, it sucks ****, because there's always a 1/20 chance of it and your skill or difficulty of the task don't come into it. I find DM's really contrive it too, because whilst a WoD character faceplanting after attempting a fantastical feat of acrobatics with normal-people athletics is as easy thing to think up, DnD botches more often involve godlike climbers getting murdered by trees.

Many GMs like to make fun of their players by humiliating their PCs when they botch a roll. I've been guilty of it myself, when I was younger. Nowadays, that willingness to taunt a player is one of my "red flags", indicating a possible playstyle conflict with the GM.

Nowadays, I prefer to interpret a fumble as a complication. "Something and interesting happens and changes the situation" : Your bullet has pierced the space station's hull, an explosion/fire occurs, a servant was in the room you just unlocked, you find information about ANOTHER ritual that will be performed the same night, the bodyguard you tried to intimidate knows you...

In heroic games, I think it's pretty important to describe the PCs as cool and competent, even when they fail. They didn't plant their face in the ground after a botched "jump", but the ground itself crumpled under their feet. They didn't cower away because of the failed "intimidate", but assessed the situation as a "no win if I escalate things, better try another way" one... Having the players help describe the failure can help, too. :smallsmile:

[Cozzer]

Nowadays, that willingness to taunt a player is one of my "red flags"

Seconded with emphasis. I have no problem with a bit of friendly taunting over "should have seen it" obivious mistakes, but the GM taunting players for things they had no control over (either dice fumbles, or bad decision made because the GM forced them to guess blindly) is extremely annoying.

[Jay R]

Sure, the info given may be incomplete, guestimations or even [occasionally] flat-out wrong. As long as the players understand this, I think they're okay with it - after all, we in RL operate all the time on imperfect information.

Decades ago, I re-wrote several monsters, and told the players, "What you read in the rules is the rumors and stories you have heard, from people who have claimed to face these creatures. And often, they really have, and their stories are true. But not always." Most of my re-writes changed or added weaknesses. Garlic works on all undead, not just vampires. Hippogriffs will be loyal to somebody who feeds them, etc.


The introduction of my most recent game had the following:


You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

...
DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

[kyoryu]

Many GMs like to make fun of their players by humiliating their PCs when they botch a roll. I've been guilty of it myself, when I was younger. Nowadays, that willingness to taunt a player is one of my "red flags", indicating a possible playstyle conflict with the GM.

I call that "Incompetence Porn". It's sadly common.

[Pex]

Some DMs just can't stand it for PCs to know things, so they get offended when a player wants to use a game mechanic to know something even when the player know something but wants to be fair to determine if his character knows. Some DMs even get offended players know things.

[JoeJ]

Some DMs just can't stand it for PCs to know things, so they get offended when a player wants to use a game mechanic to know something even when the player know something but wants to be fair to determine if his character knows. Some DMs even get offended players know things.

Some DMs don't.

My own stance is that if the player knows something, then that player gets to decide whether or not their character knows it as well. I don't want to force players to metagame when I'll let them know what they know. If I want something to be genuinely unknown, I have unlimited power to make something up that's not in any source the player could have read.

[Quertus]

If you can retry a thing until you succeed then you shouldn't be rolling for it at all.

That's missing lots of points, not just the point.

Vampires making hunting rolls? It's something you can keep doing forever, like panhandling. It's a question of how quickly X happens. Which can matter, if events move such that 3 hunting rolls later, stuff happens that you care about, that you didn't know was going to happen when you started hunting.

Or you could botch. At which point, stuff happens that you (and maybe others) care about, that wasn't part of anyone's schedule.

This isn't a generic "roll until you succeed" roll; this is "expend X resources (time), see what you get".

You absolutely should "roll until you succeed" (or until you botch, or until the sun comes up)


But it doesn't prevent metagaming. On the contrary, it forces the players to metagame. Instead of engaging with the displacer beast, they have to think about how to get the GM to let them "accidentally" discover what they already know.

That's... not a good way to do that. Yes, I've seen plenty of clueless players who played that way, and I blame their former GMs. IMO, a much smarter way is for the GM to bloody well just give you the information without making you ask stupid questions. It's up to the GM to be smart enough to know that you would know what a panther can do, know how the displacer beast appears different (such as more (or less) dangerous claws), know how reach works, and just tell your knowledgeable character what they would just know, just by looking at the thing.

Sadly, many GMs just don't seem to have even the slightest clue how intelligence might work, to be able to inform the players of intelligent characters of the things that said might just know. :smallfrown:

[Jay R]

But it doesn't prevent metagaming. On the contrary, it forces the players to metagame. Instead of engaging with the displacer beast, they have to think about how to get the GM to let them "accidentally" discover what they already know.

The problem came from giving the players information that their characters wouldn't know -- in this case, the fact that they are displacer beasts.

"You are attacked by giant cats, of a species you've never seen before."

Then the DM rolls the relevant Knowledge check for each of them separately; each player who succeeds gets handed a note that says, "They are displacer beasts."

If a player rolls a result that would hit if not for the displaced image, say, "You miss -- but you're confused. You're sure the sword went through what you saw."

[If somebody wants a fuller description in combat, ask, "Are you fighting them this round, or cataloging them?" I have once had to say (after the PC failed the knowledge check), "I'll give you a full description later. For now, there is nothing about them that gives your PC any useful information."]

The best way to avoid metagaming is to not hand out meta-knowledge.

[Pex]

The problem came from giving the players information that their characters wouldn't know -- in this case, the fact that they are displacer beasts.

"You are attacked by giant cats, of a species you've never seen before."

Then the DM rolls the relevant Knowledge check for each of them separately; each player who succeeds gets handed a note that says, "They are displacer beasts."

If a player rolls a result that would hit if not for the displaced image, say, "You miss -- but you're confused. You're sure the sword went through what you saw."

[If somebody wants a fuller description in combat, ask, "Are you fighting them this round, or cataloging them?" I have once had to say (after the PC failed the knowledge check), "I'll give you a full description later. For now, there is nothing about them that gives your PC any useful information."]

The best way to avoid metagaming is to not hand out meta-knowledge.

How do you know they wouldn't know they were displacer beasts? Why assume the PCs couldn't possibly know? That's why the DM rolled the Knowledge check, to determine if the PC would know. If the check succeeded they got the note. If failed no note. Some DMs let the player roll. Doesn't matter who rolls, just that there is a roll. It's a fair compromise. Players absolutely new to the game wouldn't know what they are, but their characters can still know about it. The success or failure of that roll is the permission slip for the player to be given the information and play appropriately. For experienced players the success or failure of that roll is the permission slip to warn other party members and play appropriately.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The danger of not giving out "meta-information" is that it assumes that the PCs are totally blind--saying "it looks like a cat" as the total description for a displacer beast is...insufficient. It has two long tentacles, for goodness sake! If you give me enough description to actually validate my character not being a total blind idiot, you've also given me (as a long-term DM with a good memory) enough information to know what it is 90% of the time.

I just don't stress about meta-knowledge when I'm DM'ing, unless it's meta-knowledge that the PCs could in no way have. As a player, I tend to roll a private Intelligence check to see if I say anything when I recognize a monster from the description but am not sure the character would. I usually set the DC at 10 for more common things and 15 for less common things, with adventure-specific monsters just being DC: No.

And then, even if I pass my self-imposed check, I'll ask "what do I know about this thing?" or "what can I deduce about this thing?". Intelligence checks, for me, are often just as much about what you can figure out as what you remember. Two tentacles? Probably a long reach. Catlike? Probably a decent DEX save and will try to get up close. Etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

The idea that PCs are supposed to be learning about the world from scratch, over and over again, with each new set of PCs, just doesn't work. People learn. Unless each DM creates their own setting and monsters and "races" and everything from scratch for every new campaign, the whole "green newb PCs" thing, the whole "zero to hero" arc, demands that the players pretend to forget everything they know about the setting all over again.

[Resileaf]

But what if it's literally a never-before-seen creature? If the PCs are among the first people to land on an undiscovered continent, they would obviously have no way to know what this new creature is.

[Max_Killjoy]

But what if it's literally a never-before-seen creature? If the PCs are among the first people to land on an undiscovered continent, they would obviously have no way to know what this new creature is.

With an experienced group of players, the GM needs to find or create creatures that aren't featured in the settings they've been playing in.

[JoeJ]

The problem came from giving the players information that their characters wouldn't know -- in this case, the fact that they are displacer beasts.

"You are attacked by giant cats, of a species you've never seen before."

Then the DM rolls the relevant Knowledge check for each of them separately; each player who succeeds gets handed a note that says, "They are displacer beasts."

If a player rolls a result that would hit if not for the displaced image, say, "You miss -- but you're confused. You're sure the sword went through what you saw."

[If somebody wants a fuller description in combat, ask, "Are you fighting them this round, or cataloging them?" I have once had to say (after the PC failed the knowledge check), "I'll give you a full description later. For now, there is nothing about them that gives your PC any useful information."]

The best way to avoid metagaming is to not hand out meta-knowledge.

The problem is the DM is trying to force the players to pretend they don't know something that they actually do know. So they either give a ridiculous non-description that leaves out the most obvious visible feature of the monster, or else they forbid the player to deal intelligently with the monster until they can "accidentally" discover what they actually already know. The second way is nothing but forced metagaming.

There's no reason not to describe the monster accurately, or even show a picture if you've got a good one. If this is a monster that exists in the world, why would you arbitrarily decide that the character can't know anything about it? It's the player's job to create their character's background, and that includes what creatures they would or would not have heard about.

If this is supposed to be an unknown monster, then use a monster the players have never heard of. Make something up, or just reskin an existing creature. Now everybody can easily roleplay a first encounter for their character, because it's a first encounter for the players too.

[Mr Blobby]

I think this argument can be boiled down to this: 'How much does the GM trust their players not to metagame?'

I've played with GM who were of both extremes - from needing to 'consult' GM for any knowledge/lore checks to pretty much allowing the players to do what they will. The former can get into stupid territory when they start 'ruling' things like the PC not knowing the basics of their own species/class/deity because 'they did not have the skill/bonus/whatever' on their sheet.

[MoiMagnus]

I think this argument can be boiled down to this: 'How much does the GM trust their players not to metagame?'

I've made a game in a cthulhu-like universe where you were explicitly allowed to metagame (like using your Player's knowledge of "what is a vampire", or talking to a player which is in another room) but each time you would do so, your character would lose sanity as a consequence.
(It is assumed your character is actually listening to some weird voices in its head)

That was pretty interesting.
(Bonus point: we used m&m's for counting sanity points, eating them when lost, but that's not required for this system to work)

[Quertus]

The problem came from giving the players information that their characters wouldn't know -- in this case, the fact that they are displacer beasts.

"You are attacked by giant cats, of a species you've never seen before."

[If somebody wants a fuller description in combat, ask, "Are you fighting them this round, or cataloging them?" I have once had to say (after the PC failed the knowledge check), "I'll give you a full description later. For now, there is nothing about them that gives your PC any useful information."]

The best way to avoid metagaming is to not hand out meta-knowledge.

No, what you've described is, "the best way to avoid thinking is to not hand out knowledge".

Fortunately, when playing Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, the answer is, "cataloguing. Always. Why are you even asking?"


The danger of not giving out "meta-information" is that it assumes that the PCs are totally blind--saying "it looks like a cat" as the total description for a displacer beast is...insufficient. It has two long tentacles, for goodness sake! If you give me enough description to actually validate my character not being a total blind idiot, Two tentacles? Probably a long reach. Catlike? Probably a decent DEX save and will try to get up close. Etc.

Lol. Exactly.

Now, if we've previously encountered, say, Aboleth, we may incorrectly deduce that this creature might have some similarities to Aboleth. Or make other mistakes based on our particular knowledge, biases, etc.

And that's part of the game.


The idea that PCs are supposed to be learning about the world from scratch, over and over again, with each new set of PCs, just doesn't work. People learn. Unless each DM creates their own setting and monsters and "races" and everything from scratch for every new campaign, the whole "green newb PCs" thing, the whole "zero to hero" arc, demands that the players pretend to forget everything they know about the setting all over again.


But what if it's literally a never-before-seen creature? If the PCs are among the first people to land on an undiscovered continent, they would obviously have no way to know what this new creature is.


With an experienced group of players, the GM needs to find or create creatures that aren't featured in the settings they've been playing in.

Eh, I'm all about role-playing ignorance - when it's deserved. The umpteenth time I was forced to not know what a werewolf was until the McGuffin told us, I said **** this boring ****, and started tracking who trained whom, who knew what, etc. Including what misinformation my characters had.

So, the GM creating new monsters whole cloth certainly works, it is certainly sufficient. But I don't think it's necessary. Role-playing is probably all that's necessary.

[JoeJ]

But what if it's literally a never-before-seen creature? If the PCs are among the first people to land on an undiscovered continent, they would obviously have no way to know what this new creature is.

In that case, how does it make sense that anybody would be allowed a knowledge roll to determine what it is?

[Quertus]

In that case, how does it make sense that anybody would be allowed a knowledge roll to determine what it is?

Suppose I make up a never before seen species of dragon. Do you, personally, know nothing about it? No hunches as to its capabilities?

[JoeJ]

Suppose I make up a never veggie seen species of dragon. Do you, personally, know nothing about it? No hunches as to its capabilities?

If it's completely new, then I obviously don't know anything about it beyond what I can perceive. In a game, what would be the justification for rolling a knowledge check rather than simply describing what the character can see, hear, smell, etc.?

[Velaryon]

My big "red flags," meaning things that immediately make me concerned but are not an automatic dealbreaker, are as follows:

1. Any time someone who is not part of the game shows up, either to "watch" or because they want to spend time with one of the players (a player's SO is often, but not always, the culprit here). 99% of the time, this person turns out to be disruptive and distracting, because they get bored. Sometimes this can be mitigated by giving them a temporary character to play, but even then they're not as invested in the game and will often goof around.

2. DM's who are running D&D but say their game is "low magic," especially if they're running 3.5. Almost every time, "low magic" is code for "does not give out appropriate levels of loot, and does not understand how this breaks the assumptions of the game's design or disproportionately affects some classes more than others." I too enjoy the occasional gritty fantasy game, but D&D is not built for that and doesn't hold up well when you try to make it so.

3. Players who ask for some sort of exception right at the beginning of the game. For example, asking to play a homebrew class or race they found online, or wanting a rule bent for them. This is not bad in and of itself (and I have been this player myself), but often that first request is followed by another, and another, and another, all of which seem to create more work for me as DM than if the player could find a way to play what they want using existing material.

4. When a PC is an obvious ripoff of a character from a movie, anime, video game, etc., to the point where they haven't even changed the name.

[Quertus]

If it's completely new, then I obviously don't know anything about it beyond what I can perceive. In a game, what would be the justification for rolling a knowledge check rather than simply describing what the character can see, hear, smell, etc.?

Really?

See, personally, as someone (much like my character) who has seen a lot of dragons, I would expect most of the following to be true of a new 3e Dragon: age corresponds to size; intellect corresponds to age; very durable hide (better with size/age); alignment potentially guessable by hide composition; lots of natural attacks; flight (even if no wings? Or was that a 2e thing?); resistant to magic; possible elemental type and/or immunity; likely breath weapon; "random" magical abilities (increases with age); good senses; likes to hoard gold; speaks Draconic; potential Spellcaster; "low" Dex; able to eat anything; able to breed with anything; lays eggs.

Now, the terrain we find it in can give me some more clues, as can certain observations, like "it radiates heat/cold", "its breath smells _____,” or the particular expression it has, on top of any gross physical properties that differentiate it.

But, regardless, I would expect "its threat can be estimated by its size" and "certain general anti-Dragon tactics are more likely to work than certain 'usually rated bad vs Dragons' tactics" to remain true over almost all Dragons.

If I knew most other published 3e dragons, but not this one particular published Dragon, where would this fail?

Well, I would be quite surprised when I polymorphed into a Fang Dragon, but could not copy it's nonexistent breath weapon. And something like a Pseudonatural or Paragon Dragon would be significantly more dangerous than their size indicates.

But, for the most part, if I'm knowledgeable about most 3e Dragons, then this particular unknown Dragon isn't actually a complete unknown, even for just clueless guesswork, let alone intelligent observation.

[JoeJ]

Really?

See, personally, as someone (much like my character) who has seen a lot of dragons, I would expect most of the following to be true of a new 3e Dragon: age corresponds to size; intellect corresponds to age; very durable hide (better with size/age); alignment potentially guessable by hide composition; lots of natural attacks; flight (even if no wings? Or was that a 2e thing?); resistant to magic; possible elemental type and/or immunity; likely breath weapon; "random" magical abilities (increases with age); good senses; likes to hoard gold; speaks Draconic; potential Spellcaster; "low" Dex; able to eat anything; able to breed with anything; lays eggs.

Now, the terrain we find it in can give me some more clues, as can certain observations, like "it radiates heat/cold", "its breath smells _____,” or the particular expression it has, on top of any gross physical properties that differentiate it.

But, regardless, I would expect "its threat can be estimated by its size" and "certain general anti-Dragon tactics are more likely to work than certain 'usually rated bad vs Dragons' tactics" to remain true over almost all Dragons.

If I knew most other published 3e dragons, but not this one particular published Dragon, where would this fail?

Well, I would be quite surprised when I polymorphed into a Fang Dragon, but could not copy it's nonexistent breath weapon. And something like a Pseudonatural or Paragon Dragon would be significantly more dangerous than their size indicates.

But, for the most part, if I'm knowledgeable about most 3e Dragons, then this particular unknown Dragon isn't actually a complete unknown, even for just clueless guesswork, let alone intelligent observation.

First of all, you didn't specify 3e, you just said dragon.

Second, you might suspect all the above, but you don't know. Any or all of it might be wrong.

Third, you've just demonstrated why a knowledge roll is not necessary. If you can reason that way, what more is added by making a die roll?

[MoiMagnus]

Third, you've just demonstrated why a knowledge roll is not necessary. If you can reason that way, what more is added by making a die roll?

Knowledge roll reflect experience of the character.

You have a lot of physical clues, and you need to have practical conclusions out of it. And your character might be a lot better at this than yourself, because (for example) that's literally 10 years that he is adventuring, encountering never seen-before species every month, while you are just a normal joe at a table.

Having high knowledge skills mean that you character not only knows more than you, but is also better than you at filling blanks and coming up with "the most reasonable conclusion" from incomplete knowledge.

If you give that job to the player instead of giving it to the character, you are nerfing knowledge skills and over-penalizing players that are oblivious to your hints (while playing high intelligence and wisdom characters).

[Mr Blobby]

Plus: Knowledge rolls even the playing-field between players familiar with [game] and the ones who aren't. Shunting that skill to the player means the latter ones will be always in the dark - even with things which are in 'bloody obvious' for their character's race/age/class/whatever.

It's akin to filming a new series of say CSI but not only does the 'new character' have almost nil knowledge of forensics, law or science but is also played by a [literal] alien who has an incredibly shaky grasp of human beings or what early 21st Century America is like.

[JoeJ]

If you give that job to the player instead of giving it to the character, you are nerfing knowledge skills and over-penalizing players that are oblivious to your hints (while playing high intelligence and wisdom characters).

If you let the character do that based on a die roll, you're denying the player the chance to play out the process of discovery, which defeats the purpose of using unknown creatures in the first place. I've always considered that mysteries and puzzles exist in roleplaying games so that they can be solved by the players; not overcome just by rolling a high number on the dice.

[Quertus]

First of all, you didn't specify 3e, you just said dragon.

Second, you might suspect all the above, but you don't know. Any or all of it might be wrong.

Third, you've just demonstrated why a knowledge roll is not necessary. If you can reason that way, what more is added by making a die roll?

The same principle holds if I'm an expert on, say, WoD Vampire, but I've never seen a "Meket" before. 3e being the Common tongue of this site (and having Knowledge skills), it seemed the easiest way to communicate my point.

Sure, just because a Displacer Beast is cat-like, you don't know that it's a carnivore. Just because it has tentacles, you don't know that it's an aberration (it isn't). Any moron can guess these things; an expert in the field of Magical Beasts (and where to find them) shouldn't have to guess.

No, I'm not a fan of Knowledge skills. But the GM should tell the players what any moron should know, and tell the expert who made his skill check more things - like which of those assumptions is wrong. Bonus points if the GM (or player) can narrate how "obviously" the shape of the bone structure blah blah blah. (I, obviously, cannot narrate xenobiology skill rolls).

[Quertus]

If you let the character do that based on a die roll, you're denying the player the chance to play out the process of discovery, which defeats the purpose of using unknown creatures in the first place. I've always considered that mysteries and puzzles exist in roleplaying games so that they can be solved by the players; not overcome just by rolling a high number on the dice.

I mean, I mostly agree. Quertus doesn't "fight" monsters, he "examines" them. Usually, he just sits there reading a book, and I tell the party what useless trivia Quertus tells them (no roll required). Then, if it's something Quertus wants to know more about, he'll take actions to gather that information - whether that involves throwing rocks at it, casting spells at it, or gathering samples to create copies of it.

But, still, I expect that a skilled biologist who encounters a new species can tell you a lot about it by the shape of its things, or its coloration, or something.

Do you really believe that skilled scientists go in as blind as some people make "skilled" D&D characters out to be?

[JoeJ]

Do you really believe that skilled scientists go in as blind as some people make "skilled" D&D characters out to be?

I don't know how "some people" run their games. I don't lock knowledge that a character would reasonably have behind a die roll or other game mechanic.

[Quertus]

I don't know how "some people" run their games. I don't lock knowledge that a character would reasonably have behind a die roll or other game mechanic.

Well, the question is, what does average Joe, a skilled adventure, or a subject matter expert know about a new creature?

The DM is the eyes and ears of the character. They are the interface between the players and the fictional world. I cannot strongly enough encourage GMs to err on the side of giving players "too much" information, or to build their GMing skills to give players the "right" information.

I may be preaching to the choir here (darn senility), but it's a point worth repeating nonetheless, IMO.

EDIT: apropos to this thread, "GM not giving players enough information" is one of my big red flags.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, the question is, what does average Joe, a skilled adventure, or a subject matter expert know about a new creature?

The DM is the eyes and ears of the character. They are the interface between the players and the fictional world. I cannot strongly enough encourage GMs to err on the side of giving players "too much" information, or to build their GMing skills to give players the "right" information.

I may be preaching to the choir here (darn senility), but it's a point worth repeating nonetheless, IMO.

I agree with Quertus here. Generally, giving too little information is way worse than too much information. And most of the time, "mystery" enemies come off feeling frustrating. Especially when it feels like you're being denied information that the character would have right in front of them. Basic sensory information, most especially. The DM does not control what guesses the player makes. He does control (and possibly gate through some form of check) confirmation that they're true. "Your character wouldn't think of that" is a way to limit agency, as is information denial (when that information should be available to the character).

[JoeJ]

Well, the question is, what does average Joe, a skilled adventure, or a subject matter expert know about a new creature?

The DM is the eyes and ears of the character. They are the interface between the players and the fictional world. I cannot strongly enough encourage GMs to err on the side of giving players "too much" information, or to build their GMing skills to give players the "right" information.

I may be preaching to the choir here (darn senility), but it's a point worth repeating nonetheless, IMO.

EDIT: apropos to this thread, "GM not giving players enough information" is one of my big red flags.

I think we're in agreement here. I don't want to lock information behind a die roll; I want the players to have that information so they can act on it. Besides, how can they be impressed with my world building if I don't show it off? :smallbiggrin:

[The Jack]

You know, DnD settings often have high literacy and decent availability of books. I'm sure people've tried to make monster manuals, and as they're both super interesting and outstandingly useful I think they would've propagated extremely well.

Of course, not all settings are so literate or secrecy's a massive deal for things, but in your casual game...


Of course, I really think a person who's very knowledgeable about certain things should get at least consolation information on stuff they're not meant to know about.


"You're certain you've never came across this beast in the tomes you've read, and you've read all the big ones. If it's in a book, It must be exceedingly rare or thought of as extinct. you would do well to cataloge your find'

"You don't know what this is, but an educated guess would suggest x,y and/or z. You think you could learn a lot with a closer look.

[Quertus]

You know, DnD settings often have high literacy and decent availability of books. I'm sure people've tried to make monster manuals, and as they're both super interesting and outstandingly useful I think they would've propagated extremely well.

Of course, not all settings are so literate or secrecy's a massive deal for things, but in your casual game...


Of course, I really think a person who's very knowledgeable about certain things should get at least consolation information on stuff they're not meant to know about.


"You're certain you've never came across this beast in the tomes you've read, and you've read all the big ones. If it's in a book, It must be exceedingly rare or thought of as extinct. you would do well to cataloge your find'

"You don't know what this is, but an educated guess would suggest x,y and/or z. You think you could learn a lot with a closer look.

Lol. Quertus is originally from 2e, where illiteracy is the default (don't ask me how illiterate Wizards work, but, apparently, they do), secrecy is the norm, and knowledge skills don't really exist.

Quertus didn't read "all the big ones", he wrote the definitive works on the subject(s). :smallbiggrin:

[Max_Killjoy]

Eh, I'm all about role-playing ignorance - when it's deserved. The umpteenth time I was forced to not know what a werewolf was until the McGuffin told us, I said **** this boring ****, and started tracking who trained whom, who knew what, etc. Including what misinformation my characters had.

So, the GM creating new monsters whole cloth certainly works, it is certainly sufficient. But I don't think it's necessary. Role-playing is probably all that's necessary.


Roleplaying ignorance sometimes is fine, when it makes sense.

But first, IMO, it gets old, and second, I'm bad at it.

So I don't make characters who are green, or ignorant. I know my limitations, and I'm a setting lore junky. I make characters who'd know this stuff.

Being "asked" to play an ignorant character over and over, the way some people expect, say, D&D to be played... is a red flag.

[Arbane]

This seems relevant. (http://ffn.nodwick.com/?p=8)

http://ffn.nodwick.com/ffnstrips/2003-05-14.png

[The Glyphstone]

This seems relevant. (http://ffn.nodwick.com/?p=8)

http://ffn.nodwick.com/ffnstrips/2003-05-14.png
I was thinking of that too, i just didn't want to go trawling for the link.

[137beth]

On the topic of meta-gaming vs knowledge checks, Kirth over on the Paizo forums has this to say (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tk2b&page=9?Is-pathfinder-becoming-unbalanced#433):


I've often posted before about the guy I played with whose character's prized possession was his flaming sword. The first time the group encountered a troll, he said, "I drop my sword and draw my dagger."
Everyone at the table stared blankly at him.
I said, "You ALWAYS use your sword! You yell 'flame on!' every time we meet a monster! And now all of the sudden you don't want to?"
Player (proudly): "Well, my character wouldn't know that fire hurts trolls! I'm not metagaming!"
Me: (headdesk)

There definitely comes a point at which the efforts of the "metagame police" are self-defeating. In this instance, the poor player was so traumatized by previous DMs that he resorted to blatant metagaming in order to avoid the appearance of metagaming.

I'd rather let the players know stuff, and have us all know that we all know it, and then let the game proceed based on how the character would act.

[Quertus]

Roleplaying ignorance sometimes is fine, when it makes sense.

But first, IMO, it gets old, and second, I'm bad at it.

So I don't make characters who are green, or ignorant. I know my limitations, and I'm a setting lore junky. I make characters who'd know this stuff.

Being "asked" to play an ignorant character over and over, the way some people expect, say, D&D to be played... is a red flag.

So, I've been thinking about this. I agree - strongly - that it gets old. In fact, I'll add "GM cannot handle competent PCs, and requires pants on head stupidity" to my list of red flags.

But how to deal with this particular role-playing deficiency?

Clearly, "GM made up the monster" is an optimal solution. But when your character wouldn't know what you yourself do? Do you just excuse yourself from the decision-making process? Advise (OOC) the players whose characters would know? Or can you always make sufficiently broadly knowledgeable experts in your systems of choice that this just doesn't come up?

[Pex]

So, I've been thinking about this. I agree - strongly - that it gets old. In fact, I'll add "GM cannot handle competent PCs, and requires pants on head stupidity" to my list of red flags.

But how to deal with this particular role-playing deficiency?

Clearly, "GM made up the monster" is an optimal solution. But when your character wouldn't know what you yourself do? Do you just excuse yourself from the decision-making process? Advise (OOC) the players whose characters would know? Or can you always make sufficiently broadly knowledgeable experts in your systems of choice that this just doesn't come up?

My cynical self perks up whenever I see a DM looking for players have a preference for new players. You'd think he wants to introduce new players to the game, and maybe he does, but I see a DM wanting players who don't know anything, in monster knowledge or even class abilities, so he can relish in the power. It's not rational and of course there's no proof, but I see it nevertheless.

I know it's a me thing. Except for that one DM in the first 5E campaign I ever played whose game I quit I haven't had the tyrannical DM I rant about in 5E, but those tyrannical 2E DMs are burned into memory. I still remember the instance of a DM who absolutely refused to tell the players we were facing bugbears.

[Pelle]

But when your character wouldn't know what you yourself do?


What would be the most fun for you and the group? Do that. Maybe spoiling the revelation that trolls take damage from fire will reduce the fun of discovery for the other players, don't take it away from them. Maybe they don't care, and just want to roflstomp the troll, and all hints are welcomed. Maybe you can help reveal it in a fun in-character way, i.e. good metagaming.



Do you just excuse yourself from the decision-making process? Advise (OOC) the players whose characters would know? Or can you always make sufficiently broadly knowledgeable experts in your systems of choice that this just doesn't come up?

What would you do if you by accident saw the GMs notes and learned the identity of the murder mystery killer? You can't unlearn it, so you have to shift your mental attitude in order to make the situation fun anyways.



I know it's a me thing.

Good, that's reassuring at least. You know, the reason for why puzzle monsters exist is that players enjoy solving puzzles. Maybe the GMs who like playing with new players thinks it's fun to watch people discover and learn new things. That's much more plausible than them just wanting to relish in power.

[Quertus]

Good, that's reassuring at least. You know, the reason for why puzzle monsters exist is that players enjoy solving puzzles. Maybe the GMs who like playing with new players thinks it's fun to watch people discover and learn new things. That's much more plausible than them just wanting to relish in power.

Well, I had a chemistry professor who usually taught really high-level chemistry, who (claimed he) came back to teach a low-level course because he was tired of students being filled with wrong-minded ideas by the time they got to him.

Of course, he was an idiot, full of wrong-minded ideas. But the idea is sound.

I got tired of players not knowing the difference between "the rules" and "house rules", of gaming in ways that were disruptive to the group, etc, and therefore preferred to train or reeducate rather than just game with any new players.

Of course, the problem still exists, of understanding everyone's style, everyone's source of fun, and trying to see if there's a style of game that will be fun for everyone.

I do love groups where experienced players will help new players where appropriate, to keep the game from being frustrating, for example. But not help new players when such help would be inappropriate, to let them experience the wonder of the game.

My first campaign had a win-win mix of new and veteran players. Although it was nerve-wracking when the group split the party (!), and the new player ended up alone in a room with a Sphere of Annihilation(!).

But, yeah. "Prefers new players" sounds like a yellow flag, that could mean anything from "patient, good at teaching" or "enjoys the sense of wonder" to "hates breaking bad habits" or "power-tripping ****". Hmmm... What's the opposite of "yellow flag"? What's the "sign that this might be singing that you want"? Because this, to me, sounds like a... checkered flag.

[Pex]

Good, that's reassuring at least. You know, the reason for why puzzle monsters exist is that players enjoy solving puzzles. Maybe the GMs who like playing with new players thinks it's fun to watch people discover and learn new things. That's much more plausible than them just wanting to relish in power.

Hmmph. Well, if you must be reasonable about it.
:smallsmile:

[Delta]

My biggest red flag by now when encountering new GMs has been when they immediately go "No powergaming!", because in my experience, "powergaming" turns out to either be a completely arbitrary reason to ban whatever they don't like ("No you can't play that half-orc barbarian you'd just use the strength bonus to powergame!" "So... um you don't have any problem with that elven wizard over there rewriting the laws of reality as he sees fit every round?" "No, that's just good roleplaying!") or it's the well known case of the passionate railroader who doesn't want any character in his group who might be able to actually do anything useful that might derail his precious plot.

I know it's not always like that, but I've seen both cases so often that it's gotten very tiresome.

[The Kool]

doesn't want any character in his group who might be able to actually do anything useful that might derail his precious plot.

As a DM, this is a tricky thing to respond to. Sometimes, we simply fail at designing something that actually presents a challenge, and sometimes this completely wrecks the adventure we had planned. "Oh, you grab the bars and bend them? You're strong enough for that? you... you are. Okay. Uh....." This isn't so bad. It's not the player's fault, and with experience we can overcome this and even work with it (and the answer isn't just 'higher DCs'). Often though, the phrase 'able to actually do anything useful' is a code phrase for a vast difference in expectations. On the one hand, you have the DM who has a familiarity with a certain chunk of the system and wants to work within the realms he knows (his prerogative as a DM, he gets to choose which parts of the system are in use in his world). He has set up expectations and challenges as appropriate to that portion of the system. The player is familiar with another portion of the system, and wishes to bring a part of it into play because it's something he's used to being able to do. When he is told he can't, it feels to him as if his options are being artificially stripped away and he's arbitrarily being told he can't do things that he's used to doing. It feels like there is no good reason for this, because he has done it or has seen it done before with no apparent problems at the time.

In short, the underlined phrase is a red flag for me. It indicates that, not only is there a gulf between player and DM expectations of the system, but the player may not graciously handle that gulf or others that might arise. Conflict is very likely to occur.

[Themrys]

I am wary of GMs who don't want players to play a character of the other sex because they claim that "no one can do this well".

Because, well, a GM has to play NPCs of the other sex. So if a male GM thinks this can't be done well by anyone ever, that's a sign that he will either introduce heavy misogyny into a fantasy world where it has no place to justify that almost all characters the players encounter will be male, or play the female characters badly. Or both. (Not kidding, I had a GM who only had two female characters, who both were barmaids, so he must have thought he didn't have a choice here, although men can perfectly well serve tables in taverns, too, but okay. Both of those female characters let themselves be bullied by the misogynist tavern owner, and one of them was raped by another NPC, as per decision of the GM, who invented this plot.)

So, yeah. It is perfectly okay to be aware that not all men can put themselves into a woman's shoes. I do recommend asking questions if a male player wants to play a female character. If the player says he wants to manipulate male NPCs with the "power" of boobs, then I'd not just not let him play that character but kick him out.

But a male GM who is against a male player playing a perfectly nice and ordinary female character on the grounds of "no man can understand women", then that's a hint that his female NPCs are going to be badly played, as he basically said that he won't even try to do it well.

(I never encountered a female GM who thought it impossible for women to understand men, and the risk of a conservative female GM turning an equal opportunity fantasy world into a matriarchy, just so she can roleplay all the important NPCs well, is rather low)

[OverLordOcelot]

1. Any time someone who is not part of the game shows up, either to "watch" or because they want to spend time with one of the players (a player's SO is often, but not always, the culprit here). 99% of the time, this person turns out to be disruptive and distracting, because they get bored. Sometimes this can be mitigated by giving them a temporary character to play, but even then they're not as invested in the game and will often goof around.

I think the key point is whether the person actually wants to watch the game and has their own method of leaving, or if they're getting dragged along and forced to sit around with something they don't want to do. In AL games in stores I've had several times where someone new to gaming wanted to watch a session to find out what it's like or get over their nervousness, and they've all just sat in and enjoyed watching the whole game. If they did get bored, they could wander to one of the other tables, browse the store, or drive themselves away. The 'problem observers' in my experience happen more where someone has decided to drag their SO to a game even though the SO has no real interest, or the SO wants to spend time with them and rather than scheduling time they just drag them to a game, or where they're 'babysitting' someone who doesn't want to be there. The problem comes down to 'there is someone there who doesn't actually want to be there', and that's what I'd look for as a flag, not just an observer.

[The Kool]

I think the SO in question usually does want to be in that location in that moment, so that's a poor test. In my experience, the true question is whether the observer is there for the game, or their for their friend/SO. If they are there to hang out with someone, they will be a distraction. If they are interested in the game, they will join in the banter and have a great time. Even if they are someone's SO.


-snip-

On the topic of barmaids... I think the only barmaid/waiter I ever wrote as a DM was a total BAMF. Displayed hints of being a mid-high level monk... Wove her way through an active barfight without spilling a drop, and when one of the PCs pulled out a bow she caught the arrow on (yes, resting on... Snatch Arrows fluff) her serving tray as it flew past and scowled him out of the tavern. I think another of the PCs fell in love with her in that moment.

[Pex]

My biggest red flag by now when encountering new GMs has been when they immediately go "No powergaming!", because in my experience, "powergaming" turns out to either be a completely arbitrary reason to ban whatever they don't like ("No you can't play that half-orc barbarian you'd just use the strength bonus to powergame!" "So... um you don't have any problem with that elven wizard over there rewriting the laws of reality as he sees fit every round?" "No, that's just good roleplaying!") or it's the well known case of the passionate railroader who doesn't want any character in his group who might be able to actually do anything useful that might derail his precious plot.

I know it's not always like that, but I've seen both cases so often that it's gotten very tiresome.

They sometimes hide behind saying they want "roleplayers" not "rollplayers".

[Arbane]

They sometimes hide behind saying they want "roleplayers" not "rollplayers".

Being a wisenheimer, I have to wonder why they're playing a game with dice instead of doing freeform RP.

[Gnoman]

I am wary of GMs who don't want players to play a character of the other sex because they claim that "no one can do this well".

Because, well, a GM has to play NPCs of the other sex. So if a male GM thinks this can't be done well by anyone ever, that's a sign that he will either introduce heavy misogyny into a fantasy world where it has no place to justify that almost all characters the players encounter will be male, or play the female characters badly. Or both. (Not kidding, I had a GM who only had two female characters, who both were barmaids, so he must have thought he didn't have a choice here, although men can perfectly well serve tables in taverns, too, but okay. Both of those female characters let themselves be bullied by the misogynist tavern owner, and one of them was raped by another NPC, as per decision of the GM, who invented this plot.)

So, yeah. It is perfectly okay to be aware that not all men can put themselves into a woman's shoes. I do recommend asking questions if a male player wants to play a female character. If the player says he wants to manipulate male NPCs with the "power" of boobs, then I'd not just not let him play that character but kick him out.

But a male GM who is against a male player playing a perfectly nice and ordinary female character on the grounds of "no man can understand women", then that's a hint that his female NPCs are going to be badly played, as he basically said that he won't even try to do it well.

(I never encountered a female GM who thought it impossible for women to understand men, and the risk of a conservative female GM turning an equal opportunity fantasy world into a matriarchy, just so she can roleplay all the important NPCs well, is rather low)


I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. A GM ruling that every character has to match the player's gender could easily be a case of "I put extra effort into avoiding the pitfalls, but I don't want to deal with the mess it will cause if any given player decides not to do that."

[Mr Blobby]

We have to remember that for some GMs they may have instituted said rules due to past negative experiences of - for example - poor/insulting/annoying cross-gender RP'ing. Therefore, it's a wise thing to ask for the reasons why they ruled X, Y and Z.

[Quertus]

snip

Well, that was a red flag for me being a player in your games. Why do you have something against letting the dice fall where they may, and letting the story evolve naturally based on the characters' abilities and personalities (what they can and will do)?


We have to remember that for some GMs they may have instituted said rules due to past negative experiences of - for example - poor/insulting/annoying cross-gender RP'ing. Therefore, it's a wise thing to ask for the reasons why they ruled X, Y and Z.

Bing! That is the correct answer! "Why" is your friend.

And, when the GM goes ballistic at you asking why? That's the red card, bye!

[The Kool]

Well, that was a red flag for me being a player in your games. Why do you have something against letting the dice fall where they may, and letting the story evolve naturally based on the characters' abilities and personalities (what they can and will do)?

I thought I explained thoroughly, but I'll try a little deeper. The concept of "the DM can include/exclude whatever they feel like and/or are familiar with" is context. The actual flag is the player complaining that they "can't do anything" because a request was shot down. The DM lays out the parameters. The player asks to go outside those parameters. The DM says no. The player responds by whining and exaggerating the situation, playing the victim to use harsher terminology. This is all assuming the players are either familiar with or have had explained to them what the scope of the DM's content is (most games I'm aware of do this, to varying degrees of detail. If you don't, I strongly recommend you do). None of that has anything to do with preventing the dice from falling where they may, and letting the abilities and personalities shape the story. It has everything to do with what abilities are appropriate for the game in the first place.

[OverLordOcelot]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. A GM ruling that every character has to match the player's gender could easily be a case of "I put extra effort into avoiding the pitfalls, but I don't want to deal with the mess it will cause if any given player decides not to do that."

I wonder how such a DM handles people who are agender or genderqueer or anything that is not a static binary? The obvious answer is, of course, "badly," and I'd avoid getting involved in a home game with someone with that attitude - very likely they would take significant issue with who I hang out with and date if they found out, and I don't keep my friends and dates a secret.

[Pex]

I thought I explained thoroughly, but I'll try a little deeper. The concept of "the DM can include/exclude whatever they feel like and/or are familiar with" is context. The actual flag is the player complaining that they "can't do anything" because a request was shot down. The DM lays out the parameters. The player asks to go outside those parameters. The DM says no. The player responds by whining and exaggerating the situation, playing the victim to use harsher terminology. This is all assuming the players are either familiar with or have had explained to them what the scope of the DM's content is (most games I'm aware of do this, to varying degrees of detail. If you don't, I strongly recommend you do). None of that has anything to do with preventing the dice from falling where they may, and letting the abilities and personalities shape the story. It has everything to do with what abilities are appropriate for the game in the first place.

It's a scale. On one extreme is the player wanting to do everything and anything. The other extreme is the DM going ban happy on everything and anything. At some point a player being a whiny baby because he can't play his cool thing becomes the DM is being a controlling donkey cavity. What you want is the glorious middle where a player accepts he can't do something and the DM allows for a player's idea he didn't originally think about just because the player will have fun with it.

[Quertus]

I thought I explained thoroughly, but I'll try a little deeper. The concept of "the DM can include/exclude whatever they feel like and/or are familiar with" is context. The actual flag is the player complaining that they "can't do anything" because a request was shot down. The DM lays out the parameters. The player asks to go outside those parameters. The DM says no. The player responds by whining and exaggerating the situation, playing the victim to use harsher terminology. This is all assuming the players are either familiar with or have had explained to them what the scope of the DM's content is (most games I'm aware of do this, to varying degrees of detail. If you don't, I strongly recommend you do). None of that has anything to do with preventing the dice from falling where they may, and letting the abilities and personalities shape the story. It has everything to do with what abilities are appropriate for the game in the first place.

Reading comprehension is not my strong suit. I think I completely misread half of your ideas, which was why I couldn't make sense of the other half. :smallredface: Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense than what I read.

[137beth]

I wonder how such a DM handles people who are agender or genderqueer or anything that is not a static binary? The obvious answer is, of course, "badly," and I'd avoid getting involved in a home game with someone with that attitude - very likely they would take significant issue with who I hang out with and date if they found out, and I don't keep my friends and dates a secret.

Yea, that's part of what would make me hesitant to play with someone who says they don't allow anyone to play someone of a different sex.

I also know some people on this forum have said they tried playing characters of varying genders as a way of trying to understand their own gender better. I understand that not everyone wants their RPGs to be about self-discovery, but I personally like that aspect of RPGs. So, for me, personally, someone saying they restrict the gender of PCs based on those of players is at least a warning.

[Calthropstu]

So, I've been thinking about this. I agree - strongly - that it gets old. In fact, I'll add "GM cannot handle competent PCs, and requires pants on head stupidity" to my list of red flags.

But how to deal with this particular role-playing deficiency?

Clearly, "GM made up the monster" is an optimal solution. But when your character wouldn't know what you yourself do? Do you just excuse yourself from the decision-making process? Advise (OOC) the players whose characters would know? Or can you always make sufficiently broadly knowledgeable experts in your systems of choice that this just doesn't come up?

I'd say it depends. If you know what it is, and your character doesn't, but someone else's character does I see no reason you can't advise that player. Simply have your character act at that player's character's knowledge. If no character has that knowledge, "hyar, have at thee" with normal equipment, learning by trial and error in character is probably appropriate.

And if you eat a few special abilities that hurt a lot and have to retreat, ok.

[Gnoman]

I wonder how such a DM handles people who are agender or genderqueer or anything that is not a static binary? The obvious answer is, of course, "badly," and I'd avoid getting involved in a home game with someone with that attitude - very likely they would take significant issue with who I hang out with and date if they found out, and I don't keep my friends and dates a secret.

That is an entirely separate issue, one that is only likely to arise (outside of pure ignorance) if the DM in question already has unfortunate attitudes toward gender in the first place. Which is, of course, a red flag itself, but an entirely different one.

[OverLordOcelot]

That is an entirely separate issue, one that is only likely to arise (outside of pure ignorance) if the DM in question already has unfortunate attitudes toward gender in the first place. Which is, of course, a red flag itself, but an entirely different one.

No, it's not a separate issue at all, it's an issue directly raised by the fact that the rule assumes static gender and (most likely) solely binary gender. The refusal to acknowledge even the bare existence of non-binary gender is part of that rule, not some ancillary point.

[Luccan]

No, it's not a separate issue at all, it's an issue directly raised by the fact that the rule assumes static gender and (most likely) solely binary gender. The refusal to acknowledge even the bare existence of non-binary gender is part of that rule, not some ancillary point.

If you wanted to be "fair" about it, then nonbinary, genderqueer, and genderfluid people would be forced to play characters like themselves. Which I think has its own issues. If you trust your players, you shouldn't be forcing them to play characters in any particular way, gender based or otherwise. If they're new to you, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. If you don't trust them because you've seen them play characters of different genders poorly/offensively in the past, then there's probably other issues going on that need to be addressed OOC before you even consider sitting down to play.

[Mr Blobby]

It may not be 'refusal to acknowledge'. It could be 'not wishing to touch the third rail' - having tried to in the past and getting torn to shreds by someone [rightly or wrongly]. May be 'this is a historical game and I'm trying to be semi-accurate'. How about 'gender has mechanical elements in the game system'? Lastly, what about the good old standby of 'I do not care and is irrelevant in this game'.

[RifleAvenger]

It may not be 'refusal to acknowledge'. It could be 'not wishing to touch the third rail' - having tried to in the past and getting torn to shreds by someone [rightly or wrongly]. Maybe 'this is a historical game and I'm trying to be semi-accurate'.Then if the player asking can provide even one historical example of a third gender or atypical individual, as is rather easy in most cases, the GM should be ok with it.


How about 'gender has mechanical elements in the game system'?Homebrew something in 5 minutes with the player.


Lastly, what about the good old standby of 'I do not care and is irrelevant in this game'.If it's truly inconsequential, then they shouldn't have an issue with the player writing what they want into gender box. It won't matter after all.

Aggressive apathy is a sign that the GM DOES actually care in a manner that is biased against the non-binary or genderqueer character or player. It doesn't need to be actively malicious, but it is at the very least rooted in the opinion that the player's concerns are foolish or nonsensical.

So still very much a Red Flag.

[Jama7301]

I have no problems with people playing different genders. I am a bit hesitant at the group being used as an unwilling/unknowing therapy aid. Like, if this was someone I knew and trusted, cool. If it's some random person who I never played a game with, I'd have a nagging feeling at the back of my neck, but ultimately, I wouldn't block If it went well for a session or two, fine, cool. But I'd still be on a bit of alert for those first few sessions.

[The Kool]

If it's truly inconsequential, then they shouldn't have an issue with the player writing what they want into gender box. It won't matter after all.

How telling is it that my current custom designed character sheet has a description section for obvious physical and relevant things like height and weight... but I keep realizing I forgot to add a gender line and keep forgetting to?

[Delta]

I am wary of GMs who don't want players to play a character of the other sex because they claim that "no one can do this well".

I didn't want to bring that up because in the last discussion about exactly the same topic this escalated to pretty ridiculous levels. But yeah, this is one of my pet peeves to and I'm immediately wary about GMs who come up with "reasons" like that.

[JoeJ]

If it's truly inconsequential, then they shouldn't have an issue with the player writing what they want into gender box. It won't matter after all.

I don't have a problem with somebody with wants to play a gender or sex* that they aren't in real life. If somebody can pretend to be a Klingon or an elf, pretending to be a different sex or gender shouldn't be an extraordinary challenge.

However, if a player keeps trying to make a big deal about their character's gender or sex, even after I've told them that whatever they want to play is fine, that's a bit of a red flag.

(*Coming from a background in anthropology, those two terms mean different things. Sex refers to the biology of reproduction. Gender refers to the social roles that are judged to be masculine, feminine, or whatever categories a particular culture recognizes.)

[Delta]

As a DM, this is a tricky thing to respond to. Sometimes, we simply fail at designing something that actually presents a challenge, and sometimes this completely wrecks the adventure we had planned. "Oh, you grab the bars and bend them? You're strong enough for that? you... you are. Okay. Uh....." This isn't so bad. It's not the player's fault, and with experience we can overcome this and even work with it (and the answer isn't just 'higher DCs'). Often though, the phrase 'able to actually do anything useful' is a code phrase for a vast difference in expectations.

Then tell your players exactly that and work out the problem. If you understood me to mean a GM should never be able to limit PCs or whatever, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Communicate what you're comfortable with and what not, if you're afraid a certain character might become so strong that designing combat encounters that challenge him without wiping out the whole group becomes a problem, say that.

My problem is when the GM just hide behinds the "No powergaming!" shield, which in my experience is just shorthand for "I don't want <thing>, so you can't do <thing>!" without giving any reason or even an opportunity to discuss things (because discussing why you can't do <thing> would immediately make you a big, bad "powergamer"), which is just not how I like the relationship between GM and players to work so that is and remains a red flag to me.

[JoeJ]

My problem is when the GM just hide behinds the "No powergaming!" shield, which in my experience is just shorthand for "I don't want <thing>, so you can't do <thing>!" without giving any reason or even an opportunity to discuss things (because discussing why you can't do <thing> would immediately make you a big, bad "powergamer"), which is just not how I like the relationship between GM and players to work so that is and remains a red flag to me.

I consider "I don't like this" to be a perfectly valid reason to not have something in your game. Just be up front about it so players know ahead of time not to expect that thing.

[The Kool]

Then tell your players exactly that and work out the problem. If you understood me to mean a GM should never be able to limit PCs or whatever, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Communicate what you're comfortable with and what not, if you're afraid a certain character might become so strong that designing combat encounters that challenge him without wiping out the whole group becomes a problem, say that.

My problem is when the GM just hide behinds the "No powergaming!" shield, which in my experience is just shorthand for "I don't want <thing>, so you can't do <thing>!" without giving any reason or even an opportunity to discuss things (because discussing why you can't do <thing> would immediately make you a big, bad "powergamer"), which is just not how I like the relationship between GM and players to work so that is and remains a red flag to me.

Yeah communication is key and if communication is all working well then no issues are had. Sadly, some people are just bad at communication.

Speaking of, there are cases when the DM can see why something shouldn't be allowed to work, but can't explain it. I've been there. Of course, I've also been the 'no fun' DM but I'm trying to work past that, and to be fair the player was trying to weasel their high-op plethora-of-sources style of gaming into an average mid/low-op campaign and play it off like they weren't, so things that everyone else at the table understood when I said 'nah that's a bit much' they just went 'but why???'.

[Delta]

I consider "I don't like this" to be a perfectly valid reason to not have something in your game. Just be up front about it so players know ahead of time not to expect that thing.

Well, it depends. If a player feels like he's arbitrarily limited for no discernible reason, that's not a good thing in general and can easily lead to a grumpy player.

But I agree that "I just don't like <thing>, okay?" is a much better justification than making up one that's pure bs.

[Mr Blobby]

Thing is, if character creation starts with the demand/request to play a non-binary character can be a red flag to the GM - in the sense that the player might be really touchy and intense regarding this topic and/or make a character who revolves just around this one aspect.*

This is something the GM may not feel equipped to handle and/or does not want to make the game about say gender identity and suchlike 'cos it's much more about [something else] and they don't want to make it really serious. Or merely has 'standing rules' that current RL political/religious/cultural controversies are to remain in RL and not enter the world on the table.

*Though I'd say making any character around a single aspect is usually a small red flag in itself.

[Delta]

Yeah communication is key and if communication is all working well then no issues are had. Sadly, some people are just bad at communication.

Well, that's why I said the "No powergaming!" GM is a red flag for me, because in my experience, the vast majority of them just use "powergaming" to describe everything they don't like so they can argue it's something objectively bad, which makes communicating about the issue pretty difficult, because then it's suddenly not a matter of taste or opinion, but one of "I'm right, you're wrong"


Speaking of, there are cases when the DM can see why something shouldn't be allowed to work, but can't explain it. I've been there. Of course, I've also been the 'no fun' DM but I'm trying to work past that, and to be fair the player was trying to weasel their high-op plethora-of-sources style of gaming into an average mid/low-op campaign and play it off like they weren't, so things that everyone else at the table understood when I said 'nah that's a bit much' they just went 'but why???'.

That's why as you said communication is key. When a player knows I'm usually one to speak plainly about issues and try to be transparent about why I do what I do, I find they're much more willing to once in a while give me the benefit of doubt and say "Okay, if he thinks it's better that way, just run with it", it's always a give and take.

[Pex]

I consider "I don't like this" to be a perfectly valid reason to not have something in your game. Just be up front about it so players know ahead of time not to expect that thing.

Valid, perhaps, but it can still be a red flag if I disapprove of what the DM doesn't like to the point I don't want to play with the DM.

[Arbane]

If you wanted to be "fair" about it, then nonbinary, genderqueer, and genderfluid people would be forced to play characters like themselves. Which I think has its own issues. If you trust your players, you shouldn't be forcing them to play characters in any particular way, gender based or otherwise. If they're new to you, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. If you don't trust them because you've seen them play characters of different genders poorly/offensively in the past, then there's probably other issues going on that need to be addressed OOC before you even consider sitting down to play.

And you can't play an elf unless you are one in real life.

[The Kool]

Valid, perhaps, but it can still be a red flag if I disapprove of what the DM doesn't like to the point I don't want to play with the DM.

I consider that less of a red flag and more of a clearly communicated difference of expectations, if done right. It becomes "Well, looks like this isn't actually the style I was looking for guys. Have fun though"

[Quertus]

I am a bit hesitant at the group being used as an unwilling/unknowing therapy aid.

Pretty much all of my characters are designed first and foremost as psychology experiments - if I start with this background, and attempt to emote this way, will the character turn out like X?

And, from the stories that I remember, the "lifesaving" and otherwise important ones were "therapy" unbeknownst to the player themselves.

So, I guess, on those days when I value human life, I'm against such rules on principle. That said, I've seen it done cringeworthy poorly, and I've seen it done "make the game about it" poorly. So I'm not opposed to spot-bans, or, you know, one-shots before deciding what party will work for this group.

[JoeJ]

I am a bit hesitant at the group being used as an unwilling/unknowing therapy aid.

If I found out that a player is using the group as a therapy session, or for that matter doing psychology experiments on the other players, without informing everybody ahead of time and getting their consent, that wouldn't be a red flag, it would be an immediate ban.

[RifleAvenger]

Thing is, if character creation starts with the demand/request to play a non-binary character can be a red flag to the GM - in the sense that the player might be really touchy and intense regarding this topic and/or make a character who revolves just around this one aspect.*Only if the GM, or another player they've chosen to invite to the game, has an attitude that biases them against having a queer character that is, in fact, played as such. If they don't, if there's no expression of anti-queer attitudes at the table, why would touchiness come up? I even have an issue with people of a frequently discriminated against minority being called touchy, because too often it's used to set up the assumption that ANY grievance voiced is unreasonable or irrational.


This is something the GM may not feel equipped to handle and/or does not want to make the game about say gender identity and suchlike 'cos it's much more about [something else] and they don't want to make it really serious.I have two gay men, a bi man, and three straight men in the group I GM for. Some of them have wanted to have significant others in their backstory or even in active play. I cannot really handle ANY intimate romantic relationship well because I'm aromantic and possibly asexual, I see the entire thing as a waste of time and effort that too often people fret, judge, or even hate others or themselves for. I still allow them those backgrounds. I still try at portraying those relationships (using what I think is the closest analog I have, best friends), and often how the players approached the situation gave me a route to playing out the scene. In situations where I just really can't (as in, I've actually tried rather than pulling the "NO" trigger) fit an NPC or an arc in, I'm not going to to tell them their PC can't be or even that the NPC doesn't exist. I just warn them it's unlikely to come up in play, and are they ok with that?

Oh, and none of the games were about those relationships. They were about stuff like surviving an apocalypse scenario or a supernatural murder mystery. Adding queer people or relationships to the game doesn't suddenly make the game about LGBTQ+ rights any more than the seemingly mandatory straight love interest in a TV show makes that show about heterosexual relationships. Acting otherwise presumes that the mere existence of such people is somehow a controversy, which it really, [I]really isn't (or shouldn't be).


Or merely has 'standing rules' that current RL political/religious/cultural controversies are to remain in RL and not enter the world on the table.I think you'll find they will anyways. Our beliefs and worldviews do not just disappear when we play pretend. If anything, they become more obvious without the nuance of reality to get in the way.

[OverLordOcelot]

It may not be 'refusal to acknowledge'. It could be 'not wishing to touch the third rail' - having tried to in the past and getting torn to shreds by someone [rightly or wrongly]. May be 'this is a historical game and I'm trying to be semi-accurate'. How about 'gender has mechanical elements in the game system'? Lastly, what about the good old standby of 'I do not care and is irrelevant in this game'.

It most certainly is refusal to acknowledge, because the rule is explicitly about the relation of the PLAYERs gender to the character's, and fails to account for what happens if the player has something other than a static binary gender. If a DM considers acknowledging the mere existence of such people a "touching the third rail" issue, that is a significant problem for me and is certainly a red flag.

I have no idea what claiming it's a historical game has to do with anything - limiting the sexes or genders allowed within the game is completely separate from the issue of limiting what players are allowed to play. Note that if there are strict gender or sex limitations in the game system, then you're significantly limiting the class/role that players can take on, and for 'adventure' type games are probably hugely limiting female players with such a rule; in general if you're telling players that they can't play certain classes/jobs/backgrounds/archetypes in the game because of their real-world gender, you're probably causing a significant game play issue. It's probably explicitly against the code of conduct at better gaming stores and cons to restrict players mechanically in-game based on their real world gender.

As far as "I do not care and is irrelevant", that would move it out of the case being discussed, as someone who doesn't care and considers it irrelevant would not see any need to make a rule limiting players to playing characters that match their real life gender.

[OverLordOcelot]

This is something the GM may not feel equipped to handle and/or does not want to make the game about say gender identity and suchlike 'cos it's much more about [something else] and they don't want to make it really serious. Or merely has 'standing rules' that current RL political/religious/cultural controversies are to remain in RL and not enter the world on the table.

But the situation you describe is the exact opposite of stating that current RL political/religious/cultural controversies are to remain in RL, as it is explicitly placing the controversy into the game. If 'keep the controversy out of the game' was genuinely the rule, then the GM would tell people not to object to the 'controversial' character as the controversy doesn't exist in the game world. And, as I've said before, if any person (including a GM) thinks that the mere existence of people that I'm close to is a 'controversy' then why on earth would I want to game with them? "This person wishes my boyfriend was not allowed to exist" is pretty solidly in 'giant pulsating red flag with a red spotlight on it' territory. You can bet I'm "really touchy and intense regarding" the topic of whether my friends should even be allowed to exist.

[The Jack]

I feel settings need a certain amount of bigotry. It makes them more realistic but it also makes them more satisfying.

You can completely go over board with this. So long as it doesn't seem like a real-life projection onto a character, it's fine.

You need to remember it's fun to hit the bigot. It's also fun to satirize the bigot. A lot of games nowadays call for safe spaces; I think that's bull****, you just need to not be an IRL *******. There's some merit to safe spaces, I don't want to lay on thick layers of child abuse if it's going to upset someone, but I think they should only be a measure for an extreme problem.

It's more fun to fight things you don't like than to pretend they're not there.

[Delta]

Sorry, I can't completely agree with that. As always, it completely depends on the players and the situation. Yes, demanding an RPG setting has to be an utter and complete "safe space" is dumb, in the end, that would leave you pretty much without conflict in the setting, and a setting without conflict is boring. But I feel it's a very valid request for certain factors to not be a part of it.

To put it like this: If I want to play a gay character facing problems because of his sexuality, yes, please give me a homophobic setting. But it's just as valid to say "I'm facing pretty much daily problems in my real life because of <thing>, can we please not make <thing> a thing in this setting?", the same way you maybe don't want to fight orcs in every single game, you don't want to fight the same societal injustices in every game. It's quite reasonable to say "Okay, for this campaign, sexism and homophobia (or whatever else) aren't a thing in this setting", it's not like that means taking out all the conflict out of the setting, there's still plenty of room for that.

[Mr Blobby]

So many issues...

- Some people are as prickly as hell. Being right and/or a member of a minority does not make them immune from being blinkered, acting like a jerk or subjecting everyone to intense monologues at the drop of a hat.

- When someone brings up the aspect as the *very first thing* they mention. This can often mean the whole character is around this one aspect. Hell, I'd be equally wary if they mentioned a [human] race, gender or religion first too - it often means I'm about to encounter a straw character. Said character may end up giving us semi-OOC lectures about it repeatedly.

- Historical settings are important. I've seen games where the morals of frankly, middle-class Westerners in 2019 were forced upon Classical Rome, medieval French and Victorian England settings. I, personally are okay with characters who don't conform, but I make it clear they'll suffer a bit of difficulty at times due to the fact they're going 'against the grain' of society in general.

- I never said, ever that I agreed the gender played should be limited by the gender of the player. I merely offered a relative 'innocent' reason why a GM might put in such a rule. I as a GM have never needed to do it, or even considered it.

- Some GMs may 'not wish to deal with this' not that they're bigots, not that they 'wishes my boyfriend was not allowed to exist', but the fact that they've tried to handle this in an adult manner before but got their fingers figuratively broken with a hammer wielded by someone in the first / third points? That they do not want the group to be ripped apart by identity politics arguments which frankly *can* boil down to variants of the old ones regarding angels and pin-heads? That they've had a situation in the past where a former player was unable to divide IC and OOC and it caused a complete screw-up of the group?

- Everyone has 'sore points' - issues we know we can't be subjective about. That it's too sensitive/serious/close for us to be able to differentiate between OOC and IC. A good player realises this and does not put this aspect they are OOC struggling with into an IC character. It's simple as that.

[Elvensilver]

(...)

4. When a PC is an obvious ripoff of a character from a movie, anime, video game, etc., to the point where they haven't even changed the name.

Yes, a human male fighter named Valeros (signature fighter)in a Pathfinder game (that now after multiple sessions hasn't shown a speck of personality) should have been a red flag from the start.
So: not even trying to come up with a character.

[The Jack]

- Everyone has 'sore points' - issues we know we can't be subjective about. That it's too sensitive/serious/close for us to be able to differentiate between OOC and IC. A good player realises this and does not put this aspect they are OOC struggling with into an IC character. It's simple as that.

I got none.


For me, it's severity.
I'll concede when someone's been a victim of acute abuse.
But I don't want to actively skirt around everyday norms that a lot of people hold. I don't want my fictional hate groups to curiously have liberal standards for that one thing that bothers a player.



A red flag I find in source books is when you get weirdly out of tune moral judgments. I'm convinced VTM's Diamonion is fine and the baali aren't all that bad, because an Objectively Evil power/clan doesn't fit the context (but lies and propaganda are totally up there). It makes some sense in DnD because of the context, and in a lot of settings something can be subjectively evil. Alternatively, the moment a book says something in RL is good/bad, I'm really going to be skeptical of everything else the books are going to try and tell me.
I'm an armchair sociologist and survivor of literature/media studies; I can totally come up with more realistic possibilities to what seems dishonest or Inept. I've got grand conspiracy theories for stuff authors thought to handwave.

[The Kool]

I don't want my fictional hate groups to curiously have liberal standards for that one thing that bothers a player.

Well, which is more important to you: Making sure you adhere to consistency and realism in your fictional hate groups? Or making sure that your players don't get themselves negatively riled up, up to and including PTSD or anxiety attacks? The player is not asking that the fictional hate group be suddenly all love and acceptance in this one regard, with displays of equality and fairness. The player is asking that the topic just never come up. Is that so hard? I have never once had the topic of homosexuality come up in my games. Is everyone conservative, homophobic, liberal, inclusive, etc? We don't know and we don't care because it never comes up. If the player is taking the time to ask you not to bring up a topic, chances are they really mean it. Ignoring this is a great way to lose a player, if not a friend entirely.

[Delta]

But I don't want to actively skirt around everyday norms that a lot of people hold. I don't want my fictional hate groups to curiously have liberal standards for that one thing that bothers a player.

Turn it around: Isn't it only fitting for a fictional hate group in a fictional world to focus their fictional hate in a manner not necessarily based on real life everyday norms? I really don't see how having a non-homophobic (or whatever-phobic) society in your setting if your players prefer that, what's "curiously liberal" about that? I can very easily draw up a society in which there is absolutely no discrimination based on sexuality or gender that's absolutely anything but liberal with plenty of horrible stuff my players will want to rebel against.

[OverLordOcelot]

When someone brings up the aspect as the *very first thing* they mention. This can often mean the whole character is around this one aspect. Hell, I'd be equally wary if they mentioned a [human] race, gender or religion first too - it often means I'm about to encounter a straw character. Said character may end up giving us semi-OOC lectures about it repeatedly.

Or maybe it's just describing the character. Checking the wikipedia entry for several famous characters, Gandalf, Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese, Riddick, Ripley, Conan, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia, all have gender mentioned within the first or second sentence describing the character and in the info box as the second or third characteristic listed under information after 'name' (other than Gandalf who's info box is small). Princess Leia actually has her gender incorporated directly into her name with the word 'Princess', and many of the other names are strongly gendered.

Treating 'mentioning the gender of a character early in the description of said character' as a red flag is bizarre, since it is difficult not to mention gender by the second sentence at the latest because you'll typically want to use pronouns at that point. Remember, in English you can't use pronouns without either knowing the gender of the person being discussed or using the gender neutral 'they', and using 'they' instead of 'he' or 'she' is likely to be as controversial to the DM as making the character non-binary. You have to either establish the gender of the character early on or deliberately use gender-neutral language in order to converse about them normally - mentioning the character's name every time you refer to them is clunky, and may not even be possible as it's not uncommon to come up with a character concept before inventing a name that fits them.


- Historical settings are important. I've seen games where the morals of...

Again, this has nothing to do with rules forcing player gender and character gender to match and treating such as a red flag. And doing so actually creates significant problems when running such games.


- I never said, ever that I agreed the gender played should be limited by the gender of the player. I merely offered a relative 'innocent' reason why a GM might put in such a rule. I as a GM have never needed to do it, or even considered it.

You are here defending the rule and directly responded to my posts mentioning such a rule; the fact that you didn't state that you'd implement such a rule yourself or whether you have is an irrelevant sidetrack. As I've pointed out, your allegedly 'innocent' reasons are anything but.


- Some GMs may 'not wish to deal with this' not that they're bigots, not that they 'wishes my boyfriend was not allowed to exist', but the fact that they've tried to handle this in an adult manner before but got their fingers figuratively broken with a hammer wielded by someone in the first / third points?

If they don't want to deal with players who are anything but static, binary gender then they are bigots, and pretty clearly wish that static, non-binary gender people were not allowed to exist as they're refusing to even acknowledge them. Also, I find the idea that genderqueer people are coming into games, playing as a character of a gender that doesn't match theirs, and then figuratively breaking the fingers of a DM who has absolutely nothing against them to be... somewhat farfetched. This sounds more like someone imagining an online stereotype than a real situation.

[JoeJ]

To put it like this: If I want to play a gay character facing problems because of his sexuality, yes, please give me a homophobic setting. But it's just as valid to say "I'm facing pretty much daily problems in my real life because of <thing>, can we please not make <thing> a thing in this setting?", the same way you maybe don't want to fight orcs in every single game, you don't want to fight the same societal injustices in every game. It's quite reasonable to say "Okay, for this campaign, sexism and homophobia (or whatever else) aren't a thing in this setting", it's not like that means taking out all the conflict out of the setting, there's still plenty of room for that.

I'm prepping a Mutants & Masterminds campaign set during World War II and one of the things I've had to consider was how historically accurate to portray attitudes about race, sex, and gender. On the one hand, overcoming prejudice and proving people wrong can sometimes be fun to roleplay. But on the other, it's not fun for everybody or in every game, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to look for prefect realism in a superhero game.

So what I came up with is that if a player chooses Prejudice as one of their character complications (In M&M, characters are required to have at least 2 complications), then the character will have to deal with significant discrimination from NPC heroes and bystanders (the player can decide whether it's racial, sexual, or whatever else). If they choose a different complication they won't, even if they're playing a character that "realistically" would have huge problems (a half-black, half-Japanese lesbian in 1942, for example).

I will be making it clear, however, that the above applies to bystanders and to other heroes. Villains are, well, villains, and it wouldn't feel like World War II if the bad guys didn't include a lot of bigoted a-holes. But prejudice in a villain is a vulnerability that PCs can exploit, and then they can enjoy beating the crud out of them.

[The Jack]

Turn it around: Isn't it only fitting for a fictional hate group in a fictional world to focus their fictional hate in a manner not necessarily based on real life everyday norms?

Nothing exists in fantasy that doesn't have some basis in real world values.
Kill the elves? Racism.
Ban magic? An analogue for power, or Fear of the other.
Born under the wrong star?

My fictional hate groups aren't always in a fictional world, and what kind of fictional hate do I apply to


I can very easily draw up a society in which there is absolutely no discrimination based on sexuality or gender that's absolutely anything but liberal with plenty of horrible stuff my players will want to rebel against.
Little? Sure. Absolutely? Not if I want a grounded setting. If you're dealing with humans it's sociologically near impossible.


Well, which is more important to you: Making sure you adhere to consistency and realism in your fictional hate groups? Or making sure that your players don't get themselves negatively riled up, up to and including PTSD or anxiety attacks?

It's not either/or.
An anxiety attack or PTSD isn't ok. However, A degree of discomfort, fear , offence or outrage perfectly acceptable and is good for roll-playing.
Some things are beyond hope, but I'd rather play with people who can deal with things they don't like in an emotionally mature way than people who'd rather hide than overcome.

[The Kool]

It's not either/or.
An anxiety attack or PTSD isn't ok. However, A degree of discomfort, fear , offence or outrage perfectly acceptable and is good for roll-playing.
Some things are beyond hope, but I'd rather play with people who can deal with things they don't like in an emotionally mature way than people who'd rather hide than overcome.

Perfectly acceptable if the players are willing to go along with it. Communication is key here. I have found that long-experienced DMs who get into heavy and dark stuff or controversial topics advise that you keep an eye on your players and come up for air if things get too much. This requires a keen awareness of your players and their limits, which can only be had through a talented level of observation or communicating with the players in advance about what works for them and what doesn't.

They key piece in this puzzle is when the player in question approaches you and asks you to change or exclude something. Now, it's possible this indicates a player with issues (I remember in my early days playing in a PERN game, where homosexual flings are more than just accepted they are expected, and my young self took some issue with that and made it known up front that he wanted no part of it) but generally you can easily spot those. If someone comes up to you and says, as was suggested by Delta earlier, "I'm facing pretty much daily problems in my real life because of <thing>, can we please not make <thing> a thing in this setting?" I think this is a pretty clear and straightforward example of someone who will not enjoy that topic in the slightest, so to include it against their express request is straight up disrespectful.

The point is, make it clear to your players if things are going to get a little heavy. Make sure they're OK with it. Some people enjoy being put in an uncomfortable spot like that. Some don't. Know which your players are. And check in on them to make sure it's still going well.

[JoeJ]

Perfectly acceptable if the players are willing to go along with it. Communication is key here. I have found that long-experienced DMs who get into heavy and dark stuff or controversial topics advise that you keep an eye on your players and come up for air if things get too much. This requires a keen awareness of your players and their limits, which can only be had through a talented level of observation or communicating with the players in advance about what works for them and what doesn't.

They key piece in this puzzle is when the player in question approaches you and asks you to change or exclude something. Now, it's possible this indicates a player with issues (I remember in my early days playing in a PERN game, where homosexual flings are more than just accepted they are expected, and my young self took some issue with that and made it known up front that he wanted no part of it) but generally you can easily spot those. If someone comes up to you and says, as was suggested by Delta earlier, "I'm facing pretty much daily problems in my real life because of <thing>, can we please not make <thing> a thing in this setting?" I think this is a pretty clear and straightforward example of someone who will not enjoy that topic in the slightest, so to include it against their express request is straight up disrespectful.

The point is, make it clear to your players if things are going to get a little heavy. Make sure they're OK with it. Some people enjoy being put in an uncomfortable spot like that. Some don't. Know which your players are. And check in on them to make sure it's still going well.

Some things are easier to remove than others, so the players also have a responsibility to pay attention to what kind of campaign is being suggested and not join a game that they are likely to be uncomfortable with. For example, it would be completely reasonable to ask that rape scenes not be included in a traditional dungeon fantasy game, but it would be completely unreasonable to ask that Nazi references be removed from a World War II superhero game. The player in the latter case is uncomfortable with one of the basic premises of the game, and they should therefore choose to play something else.

[Quertus]

I'm aromantic

That's a new one for me. Senility willing, I'll have to do some research, and build a character to help me explore this concept.


Well, which is more important to you: Making sure you adhere to consistency and realism in your fictional hate groups? Or making sure that your players don't get themselves negatively riled up, up to and including PTSD or anxiety attacks?

And this is why I reduce my enjoyment of the game by metagaming - because I hold that the players are more important.


Turn it around: Isn't it only fitting for a fictional hate group in a fictional world to focus their fictional hate in a manner not necessarily based on real life everyday norms?

Fully agree - so long as it's not billed as "historic X". Asking for the KKK to not be racist would be... odd.

[halfeye]

- Everyone has 'sore points' - issues we know we can't be subjective about.

Eh?

"Objective" is the opposite of subjective, and would be what was expected in that sort of sentence. Subjective is how you personally feel.

[Cluedrew]

Nothing exists in fantasy that doesn't have some basis in real world values.Sure, but that doesn't mean it is the same. Elves and dwarfs are at the end of the day almost always people with a bit of make-up on. Or a lot. But honestly to me, change things so they are different from the real world (but usually not so much that it is hard to see how it relates).

My favourite example of twisting the expected morals a bit was a religion that was homophobic and horribly sexist. They were however completely fine with transgendered people of either direction. I have never seen that combination in real life and it was interesting to see the set up that meant they did believe men are men and women are women and you had better act like the one you are even if you don't look like it.


[Aromantic is] a new one for me. Senility willing, I'll have to do some research, and build a character to help me explore this concept.Short version: not interested in falling in love. The <something>sexual designations refer to two you are sexually attracted to and usually this is the same as who you are romantically attracted to but not always. So there are a bunch of <something>romantic terms that cover that.

And if you make a character that you feel effectively explores it, I am actually very interested in hearing about it. I could also try rattling off a could fictional examples if you want... although if you go over to the webcomics sub-forum you could probably get tonnes of recommendations there.

[The Jack]

Sure, but that doesn't mean it is the same. Elves and dwarfs are at the end of the day almost always people with a bit of make-up on. Unless you take your setting with some semblance of seriousness and have assigned cultural values to each race.




My favourite example of twisting the expected morals a bit was a religion that was homophobic and horribly sexist. They were however completely fine with transgendered people of either direction. I have never seen that combination in real life and it was interesting to see the set up that meant they did believe men are men and women are women and you had better act like the one you are even if you don't look like it.



The mythology can justify it but the interpretation of that mythology... Look, there's a reason you weren't expecting it; It's not very practical to shun homosexuals and be sexist but be completely fine with transgender*. They'd likely see going transgender a way to escape defined gender rolls, or they'd suffer thinking about what kind of relationships aren't homosexual when it comes to transgender. "can this person give me kids" tends to be a driving concern.

Most bigotries have a real or imagined practical purpose to them. Being pro-trans but sexist and anti gay is a very clearly impractical combination, it's not something that'll hold up and be a cultural mainstay. You can have a pro-gay pro trans culture, or a pro-gay no-trans culture, but you can't have a pro-trans anti-gay culture. I'd rather scrap a whole group than compromise it in a way that doesn't work under scrutiny.

*The one caveat to my protest here is that if your setting's culture had the means for a perfect sex change (you could become what you'd be if you were born the other gender; have all the working and correct primary and secondary sexual characteristics) though either magic or advanced technology, then there are no practical societal concerns and the Imagine the sexist/homophobic society could work smoothly. But at which point why would you remain physically X when you could just be the Y, other than maybe expenses?
Edit: Second caveat: If you've got a multi-racial society and a ruling species doesn't have homosexuals but does have transgender abilities it may make sense.


Now, Fictional racism's something you can actually be extremely varied with. The reds can hate the purples but not the blues. even though Reds are more different from the blues they see the purples as a bigger threat to redness. At the same time the reds could be accepting towards orange whilst hating the yellows and greens, because the oranges seem on their side and the yellows and greens are barbarians. But sex isn't race, different sexes need to interact by design.


I think, if you have a bigot-group and your players are sensitive to that particular brand of bigotry, make either the group or the players as outsiders; they're clearly separate from one another. That way players can enjoy fighting the power without necessarily being victimized by it.

[Pex]

I'm at the game to the play the game. I don't care what your politics or religion or any controversial thing in real life is. Help me kill the bad guys as we become heroes (and wealthy) is all that matters. If you can't get over yourself about such things that's a red flag. I have my own soap box preaching urge, but the game is not the place to do it.

[The Kool]

I'm at the game to the play the game. I don't care what your politics or religion or any controversial thing in real life is. Help me kill the bad guys as we become heroes (and wealthy) is all that matters. If you can't get over yourself about such things that's a red flag. I have my own soap box preaching urge, but the game is not the place to do it.

That's a style of game, yep. There are others, and a popular one is rife with intrigue and conflict and dark themes. For some people, struggling with politics and religion (in-game, not IRL) is what they love to do on game night. Just try to be aware of who is and isn't, so you can make sure you're in a group you like.

[The Jack]

That's a style of game, yep. There are others, and a popular one is rife with intrigue and conflict and dark themes. For some people, struggling with politics and religion (in-game, not IRL) is what they love to do on game night. Just try to be aware of who is and isn't, so you can make sure you're in a group you like.

Precisely. I play to become different people and I like to work within social systems that make sense so that I can better work with them.

Social systems are a mechanic. There are rules to work with. When you handwave exceptions then players can't trust the system and won't take advantage of it. It's a huge red flag.

[Delta]

Help me kill the bad guys as we become heroes (and wealthy) is all that matters.

You're making the point here, in the end, it's about wish fulfillment. Is it so hard to imagine that for some, that wish fulfillment contains something like "Hey, could I just not be bothered with <thing> in this campaign? That would be swell".

Now, as has been mentioned, it always depends. Someone asking for a fighting woman in a WW2 setting to not face any sexism can easily break suspension of disbelief for other players and the GM so there are valid reasons to be against that.

But if it's a completely fictional campaign setting, just adding a simple "Okay, homophobia isn't a thing in the region we're playing in" to the setting often doesn't pose any problems and doesn't break anything about the settin, so I don't see why it would be a problem for a player to ask for that.

To maybe try and make my personal opinion on the matter more clear: All I'm trying to say is that it's not a cut and dry issue where you can say "A player should NEVER ask for this!" or "The GM should NEVER do this!", it's just something that everyone should be able to communicate and find a resonable compromise about. To get back to the historical WW2 "soldier campaign" issue, yeah, by default probably most players will assume such a setting would be males only, but depending on the details, I'd find it quite reasonable if a player came to me and said "I'd like to play a woman" to find some way to accomodate that, there's more than enough examples of women fighting in WW2 even if it's not as part of a regular army unit (and depending on the specific nation your character are from, there are even enough examples of that), in an "Overlord" campaign, easy enough to include a french freedom fighter or something similar. At the same time, I'd very well warn that player that such a character would of course face sexism, would have to fight to be taken seriously and so on, because I'd consider that in integral part of the chosen setting.

[Mind's Eye]

They spend half the session looking at grain prices in the PHB to save a grand total of 5cp on bread.

[OverLordOcelot]

Now, as has been mentioned, it always depends. Someone asking for a fighting woman in a WW2 setting to not face any sexism can easily break suspension of disbelief for other players and the GM so there are valid reasons to be against that.

Going back to the bit I was talking about earlier, note how this interacts with the 'you can only play your own gender' rule. If you have such a rule, you're then saying that female players who want to play in the WW2 setting either can't play a fighting character, or have to play a game where they're subject to sexism from the person (99% chance it's a guy) running the game. Even worse for someone who's in the 'other' category, as they didn't exactly get good treatment in WW2 no matter what role they pick, but aren't allowed to decide "I'll just play a basic dude who's a grunt" by the rule.

(I'm pointing this out because there were numerous people arguing that such a rule is minor, innocent, and fairly meaningless, when we can see here that it has major effect especially when combined with another common style of play).

[Max_Killjoy]

I have no problem with players playing elves, aliens, vampires, etc. Why should I care if they play a different sex or gender?

What I do demand as a GM however is that they treat their character as a character (as in a multi-dimensional person-who-could-be-real) first and foremost, and with a degree of respect -- I have little tolerance for people playing up dumb stereotypes or tropes in their RPG characters. Sadly, and speaking of playing to their own bad stereotype... the most common instance I've encountered has been the socially inept dude playing a female character as an excuse to think about and talk about a "really hot chick" "doing it".

[Floret]

[QUOTE=The Jack;23806679]Look, there's a reason you weren't expecting it; It's not very practical to shun homosexuals and be sexist but be completely fine with transgender*. /QUOTE]

Counterpoint: Iran. The world is a weird place.

[Draconi Redfir]

rapidly approaching real-world politics and religion discussion here guys. remember the rules.

[The Jack]

Counterpoint: Iran. The world is a weird place.

An interesting read, but no; Don't mislead people. In the case of Iran both homosexuals and Transsexuals are victims of heavy discrimination, it just happens that they believe going Transgender is the lesser evil. 'less' is very clearly not 'none' in this case. My point still stands.

[Delta]

Going back to the bit I was talking about earlier, note how this interacts with the 'you can only play your own gender' rule. If you have such a rule, you're then saying that female players who want to play in the WW2 setting either can't play a fighting character, or have to play a game where they're subject to sexism from the person (99% chance it's a guy) running the game. Even worse for someone who's in the 'other' category, as they didn't exactly get good treatment in WW2 no matter what role they pick, but aren't allowed to decide "I'll just play a basic dude who's a grunt" by the rule.


I'd argue against the 99% because the number of female GMs I've encountered in my life may be small, but definitely much higher than 1%, but I don't think that's a big point here.

In short, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If the premise of the game is to play in a historically accurate setting, then unfortunately, sexism, homophobia and a lot of other stuff will be everywhere, because unfortunately human history was a pretty ugly place for a lot of people a lot of the time.

And that's totally okay, as long as all the cards are on the table and everyone is on board with it, I don't see any problem with that. And, for example, if it's a long running campaign and everyone really enjoys the "grim and gritty historical accuracy" or whatever, yes, it's a valid standpoint to say "I'm sorry, but changing such an integral part of the setting would kill my suspension of disbelief, I'd rather not have that" if a new player joins and wants to do ahistorical things. If you're totally not on board with that, then it may be better to find another game. If I don't want to go dungeon crawling but rather go pull Heat-style heists, I wouldn't recommend joining a D&D group either but look for or try to start a Shadowrun group. Not every group has to be every thing to every player.

Now, again, my whole point is that nothing should ever be completely set in stone. If you're starting out a new WW2 group, for example, and someone really doesn't want all the -isms in there, well, there's a huge selection of supernatural, superhero or whatever genre alternate history WW2 settings where it's totally accepted to play a female, genderqueer, racially or sexually diverse person without that being a problem because you're accepted to be the badass for whom the usual rules don't apply, that would be an alternative I'd suggest (honestly, that would be what I'd suggest from the start because a totally historically accurate setting of any kind sounds rather boring to me, but to each their own).

[The Jack]

I think -over- grimifying history is a deal in itself.

The medieval period was worse in most ways than what we have now. However:
People weren't caked in dirt. Houses weren't shacks. Fuedalism wasn't tyranical. Justice had to be seen as fair. European women were more equal than you'd think. Peasants had free time and the sense of community was stronger than what we have today.
It wasn't all that bad.


I'm wary of gms who want to do Viking themes or Japanese themes because it's almost always pop-culture nonsense.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think -over- grimifying history is a deal in itself.

The medieval period was worse in most ways than what we have now. However:
People weren't caked in dirt. Houses weren't shacks. Fuedalism wasn't tyranical. Justice had to be seen as fair. European women were more equal than you'd think. Peasants had free time and the sense of community was stronger than what we have today.
It wasn't all that bad.


That myth about post-Roman pre-Renaissance Europe as a stinking filthy 1000-year hole is so common it has a trope name -- "The Dung Ages".




I'm wary of gms who want to do Viking themes or Japanese themes because it's almost always pop-culture nonsense.


At least on the Japanese side, a lot of the mythology is the result of deliberate myth-making by Japanese governments from the 1800s to the 1930s. (I can't find my links to articles that explain it in detail, but so much that's "known" about "the samurai days" starts being built from whole cloth well into the time that the samurai were rarely engaged in combat inside a unified Japan.)

[OverLordOcelot]

I'd argue against the 99% because the number of female GMs I've encountered in my life may be small, but definitely much higher than 1%, but I don't think that's a big point here.

How many female GMs enforce a 'you must play a character the same gender as you' rule? I've only ever seen that from male DMs, and my "99% male" was referring specifically to GMs with that rule (and running a historical game, and using the 'prejudice level' discussed), not GMs in general.


In short, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If the premise of the game is to play in a historically accurate setting, then unfortunately, sexism, homophobia and a lot of other stuff will be everywhere, because unfortunately human history was a pretty ugly place for a lot of people a lot of the time.

Are you sure about that? That exactly what you're saying is you think that minority players (in this case, players who are anything other than male) have to play characters who are part of that group in campaigns, and tolerate roleplaying their character bearing the brunt of various sorts of prejudice, and that they shouldn't have the option of 'I'll just play a regular male soldier'. (Again, my comment was specifically about games with a 'you must play a character the same gender as yourself' rule).

EDIT to add the thing I forgot: As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to force a link between a real-world characteristic of the player and the type of character they are allowed to play, you lose the right to claim that anything directed against them for that characteristic is entirely 'in character' or otherwise just part of the game. The 'historical' nature of the game then becomes a fig leaf to cover that you're directing unpleasantness at the player on the basis of said characteristic. And someone indulging in such would definitely raise red flags for me.

[Delta]

How many female GMs enforce a 'you must play a character the same gender as you' rule? I've only ever seen that from male DMs, and my "99% male" was referring specifically to GMs with that rule (and running a historical game, and using the 'prejudice level' discussed), not GMs in general.



Are you sure about that? That exactly what you're saying is you think that minority players (in this case, players who are anything other than male) have to play characters who are part of that group in campaigns, and tolerate roleplaying their character bearing the brunt of various sorts of prejudice, and that they shouldn't have the option of 'I'll just play a regular male soldier'. (Again, my comment was specifically about games with a 'you must play a character the same gender as yourself' rule).

Okay now I'm confused, I never ever with one word mentioned anything about players being forced to play their own gender, some time earlier I explicitly agreed that that's another easy "Red Flag" for me. So feel free to ignore everything I've written if you feel it doesn't apply to you, I really didn't make that connection.

All I was talking about was how stuff like sexism and homophobia and so on can have a place in certain settings and it can be valid to defend having them.

[Cluedrew]

Unless you take your setting with some semblance of seriousness and have assigned cultural values to each race.Yeah and usually those are human cultural values. What else could we draw from, animal cultures?


It's not very practical to shun homosexuals and be sexist but be completely fine with transgender*.I agree with most of this. Practically speaking sexism is the first one you should drop (especially once infant mortality drops). I think I could come up with more exceptions if I could put my mind to it. But the main thing I have to disagree with the implicate assumption that people are only biased when it is practical. There are people involved they will make all sorts of weird seeming non-sense decisions. Especially if it is something that has built up over time and kind of is just taken as is often enough.

So you are correct, but I think you over-estimate bigots.

[The Jack]

It's not evidently practical, but it's perceived as necessary, rightly or wrongly, and there is a rational behind it.

A great deal of human culture revolves around doing things or not doing things to separate us from others. Hypothetically speaking -do not wear red on sundays- is just as valid as -Don't be nice to people with tattoos- or -don't speak english to tourists-.

-Exclusive groups are good for your position. The more people in the group the more competition. Creating seemingly arbitrary barriers of entry is good.
-If you allow exceptions, your specific things that keep your group exclusive are threatened, which will mean a flood of competition unless you can either oust the exception or create new barriers. The changing values of a group might also cause suck for you, because things you value and are valued for might become less desired by the group.


Bigotry has it's purpose. It's strategic even if the individual arguments seem irrational. It's particularly useful for underachievers. Better off-people tend to care less about what others think or say.

[geppetto]

I limit male players to only playing same gender characters. The reason is very simple, every guy ive played with who played a female inevitably made it weird at some point. And most showed a propensity for derailing the game into various sex/gender politics related nonsense that I dont want to deal with. Also I am definitely not roleplaying flirting with a guy player. It makes me very uncomfortable.

On the other hand i dont care what female players play. 1 they seem to be better in general at not creating one dimensional stereotypes, 2 they almost never derail the game into sex/gender politics nonsense, 3 if they do want to RP a flirty scene I'm cool with that. No matter what they are playing I'm talking to a female IRL so its not weird.

Fair? Nope. I dont care. Neither is life.

Most of my settings are focused on having a darker tone so they do include all sorts of isms. I dont slap PC's in the face with them but societal norms are certainly present and enforced socially. If a player doesnt want their character to deal with a particular ism then its very easy. Dont create a character that would face it.

The exception being racism. Most societies historically had some degree of racism towards just about everyone else and since PC's travel a lot whoever you make is bound to catch some crap from someone eventually. Just like travelers in the real world often discover whether your on the top or the bottom of the racism coin depends on what country you happen to be in at the moment PC's will sometimes be part of the majority and sometimes not so much.

[Calthropstu]

That myth about post-Roman pre-Renaissance Europe as a stinking filthy 1000-year hole is so common it has a trope name -- "The Dung Ages".



To be fair, there was, in fact, a point in time where this was actually true. The "sewer" system was people emptying their chamber pots out the window and into a drainage network. It wasn't uncommon, or so I have read, to be walking along and get hit.

Running water hadn't been invented so going without bathing was regularly a necessity. "The unwashed masses" was quite literally a thing. But the worst of "The middle ages" that people hear about actually comes from serfdom via Romania and Poland. Nobles were given quite a bit of latitude with the people under their rule, and it was not uncommon for them to be mistreated and forced to endure things like being forced to go with just enough water to survive.

Also, there were specifically people who literally dealt with **** as it was used as fertilizer. They would buy and sell horse, pig and cow ****. Their carts were probably hideous smelling.

[The Jack]

I limit male players to only playing same gender characters. The reason is very simple, every guy ive played with who played a female inevitably made it weird at some point. And most showed a propensity for derailing the game into various sex/gender politics related nonsense that I dont want to deal with. Also I am definitely not roleplaying flirting with a guy player. It makes me very uncomfortable. .

Counterpoint: If the table's good for it I'll make my male character weird at some point.


Look, it's always your choice, but I'd alway advocate pushing your own comfort zones.

[Delta]

Counterpoint: If the table's good for it I'll make my male character weird at some point.


Look, it's always your choice, but I'd alway advocate pushing your own comfort zones.

I've written a really long response to geppetto's post but it boiled down way too much into me calling him sexist (because I very much think his post is pretty sexist, which is a different thing but I fear the difference might not have come out well) so I'll refrain from posting that.

But basically, if you fear a player making the game "weird" or whatever, I'd always think it's the more mature way to communicate that than to just say "No". And otherwise, what Jack said applies, what would stop me from making the game just as weird or discuss politics or whatever with a male character?

I don't really get how forbidding male CG characters would solve your problem in any way, suffice to say that a GM opening up session 0 with such a statement as he made would be a big red flag for me (not enough to pass on the game right away, but in my experience, in such situations there has almost always been enough other problematic stuff showing up soon after that have made me walk away)

[Cluedrew]

It's not evidently practical, but it's perceived as necessary, rightly or wrongly, and there is a rational behind it.I get that and historical analysis seems to suggest that a sexist homophobic society that is supportive of transgender people is unlikely. But that isn't to say impossible. So I'm fine with it.

And even if it was obviously impossible, I would rather accept it as a strange "what if" premise of the setting that make the other around the table uncomfortable by bringing in real life issues people are trying to escape from. At least this variety of real life issue.


Fair? Nope. I dont care. Neither is life.And whose fault is that?

The existence of a different problem is no reason to leave another problem unsolved. The trash that always seems to build but in the side road beside my house is nowhere near as big of an issue as child soldiers. The order of magnitude is completely different. But I'm only in a position to do something about one of these problems.

[Pex]

I limit male players to only playing same gender characters. The reason is very simple, every guy ive played with who played a female inevitably made it weird at some point. And most showed a propensity for derailing the game into various sex/gender politics related nonsense that I dont want to deal with. Also I am definitely not roleplaying flirting with a guy player. It makes me very uncomfortable.

On the other hand i dont care what female players play. 1 they seem to be better in general at not creating one dimensional stereotypes, 2 they almost never derail the game into sex/gender politics nonsense, 3 if they do want to RP a flirty scene I'm cool with that. No matter what they are playing I'm talking to a female IRL so its not weird.

Fair? Nope. I dont care. Neither is life.

Most of my settings are focused on having a darker tone so they do include all sorts of isms. I dont slap PC's in the face with them but societal norms are certainly present and enforced socially. If a player doesnt want their character to deal with a particular ism then its very easy. Dont create a character that would face it.

The exception being racism. Most societies historically had some degree of racism towards just about everyone else and since PC's travel a lot whoever you make is bound to catch some crap from someone eventually. Just like travelers in the real world often discover whether your on the top or the bottom of the racism coin depends on what country you happen to be in at the moment PC's will sometimes be part of the majority and sometimes not so much.

What do you do when the male player playing his male character wants to romance the NPC barmaid?

[Lorsa]

Fair? Nope. I dont care. Neither is life.

What does the intrinsic nature of life have to do with your behavior as a GM?

Do you believe that the unfairness of life justifies humans to act and treat others in an unfair manner (e.g. you are pro slavery)?

[Arbane]

In short, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If the premise of the game is to play in a historically accurate setting, then unfortunately, sexism, homophobia and a lot of other stuff will be everywhere, because unfortunately human history was a pretty ugly place for a lot of people a lot of the time.


"Historically accurate". :smallamused:

There's a red flag. People who get fixated on 'historical accuracy' when playing a game in a world where mythology is literally true, there's multiple intelligent nonhuman races, prayers get answered, and magic works.


Fair? Nope. I dont care. Neither is life.


Unless you're going to flat-out say "...and it SHOULDN'T be", so what? (And if you DO say that, think about your life.)

[Draconi Redfir]

I limit male players to only playing same gender characters.

could be missing out. Personally i find that when i play male characters, their personalities eventually just devolve into "me, but in D&D." When i make female charactrs though, they tend to develop their own opinions and personality, that extra degree of separation from them being female while i'm not helps prevent me from subconsciously putting a bad self-insert into the game.

[JoeJ]

"Historically accurate". :smallamused:

There's a red flag. People who get fixated on 'historical accuracy' when playing a game in a world where mythology is literally true, there's multiple intelligent nonhuman races, prayers get answered, and magic works.

They might not be playing in a game like that, though. Fantasy may be the most popular kind of RPG setting, but it's not the only one.

[Arbane]

They might not be playing in a game like that, though. Fantasy may be the most popular kind of RPG setting, but it's not the only one.

There are not a lot of actually 'historically accurate' RPG settings. Most of them crowbar in SOME fantastic elements, often then pretending that this wouldn't change much.