Anti-session zero sentiments

[zinycor]

Yeah, I always do session 0, helps to have the group meet each other, and set my limits (Which I have many) also I use the X card so having everyone learn about those is nice.

Also, I go over my style of Gming and I teach whoever isn't very knowledgable about the game.

[dafrca]

Yeah, I always do session 0, helps to have the group meet each other, ....

Just curious, do you play a lot of games where the players don't already know each other?

I am asking as a serious question. Other than one-off games at conventions I have not played very many games where the players didn't already know each other. Yes a few new joiners once in a while but almost never timed just right to be in a session zero per say.

So yes, I am being curious.

[zinycor]

Just curious, do you play a lot of games where the players don't already know each other?

I am asking as a serious question. Other than one-off games at conventions I have not played very many games where the players didn't already know each other. Yes a few new joiners once in a while but almost never timed just right to be in a session zero per say.

So yes, I am being curious.

Yeah, Since the pandemic I really got into playing through discord so I have lots of games where most players don't know each other.

[dafrca]

Yeah, Since the pandemic I really got into playing through discord so I have lots of games where most players don't know each other.

Interesting, I bet that is a double edged sword. I can see it would be fun having different folks and thus different ideas and characters, but I imagine it also could bring lots of different issues as well.

I can see where a session zero would be more important in those kinds of situations.

[HidesHisEyes]

By "portfolio", I mean bringing more than one option to the table.

Maybe Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named) isn't suited to your murder mystery (by virtue of being too good at solving murder mysteries). Maybe Armus isn't suited to your challenge of riddles (by virtue of being too good at riddles). Maybe Cendur isn't suited to your pants-on-head game (by virtue of, you guessed it, being too good at wearing his pants on his head (and I'm really starting to question the wisdom of this technique for disqualifying characters)). But if we all bring multiple options, to show the extent of what we can do - a portfolio of our range - we can make an informed decision regarding what combination of characters and adventures might be really fun.

Maybe that answer is Colonel Mustard in the space station with the garden gnome. Maybe that answer is Quertus Hears a Cthulhu. Maybe that answer is Monster ♥s Armus vs van Helsing.

But we're more likely to find a combination that works if everyone brings more than one option to the table.

To continue your line of thought, the degree of confidence we can have in our decision is directly propositional to - or at least increased by - the extent to which the character is a known quantity.

So, to pick characters I've probably (darn senility) never mentioned before, to help illustrate this concept, can you guess which of Victor, Survivor, VSH, Brother Smudge, the Engineer, or Rita would be most likely to fit into your most recent game, with no information on who they are?

Ah ok, gotcha. So yeah, if the GM already has a campaign planned then it’s better to bring a bunch of characters and choose the most appropriate one than to bring one character, for sure.

But as I said, in my ideal session zero the group is working together to determine what the campaign is even going to be. So rather than fit a character (whether it’s your only one or picked from a pool) to a campaign concept that already exists, you’re tailor-making a character for a campaign concept that you and the group are creating collaboratively. In fact, ideally, each player thinks of their character as part of the campaign concept. The whole group is working on one big creative project together.

So I can’t guess which of your characters would be the best fit for my most recent game. But if you were to play in my next game (in the style I like) I could guarantee you that your character would fit that one, because you’d be custom making the character for the campaign and we’d be custom making the campaign together.

[Telok]

But as I said, in my ideal session zero the group is working together to determine what the campaign is even going to be. So rather than fit a character (whether it’s your only one or picked from a pool) to a campaign concept that already exists, you’re tailor-making a character for a campaign concept that you and the group are creating collaboratively. In fact, ideally, each player thinks of their character as part of the campaign concept. The whole group is working on one big creative project together.

Question: how does that work if the DM is running a sandbox with just a couple short intro hook adventures prepped?

That's the way I tend to run games. Some form of sandbox, certain npcs moving some long term plans along that will effect a series of changes likely to pick up the party somewhere along the way, and usually a person/group or two in need of expendable/deniable assets with contacts in likely adventuring party areas. Then build a couple or four short short intro adventures to accomidate a variety of party/pc types.

[Reversefigure4]

Question: how does that work if the DM is running a sandbox with just a couple short intro hook adventures prepped?

That's the way I tend to run games. Some form of sandbox, certain npcs moving some long term plans along that will effect a series of changes likely to pick up the party somewhere along the way, and usually a person/group or two in need of expendable/deniable assets with contacts in likely adventuring party areas. Then build a couple or four short short intro adventures to accomidate a variety of party/pc types.

Well, you don't need to do a lot to fit a basic DM hook of "Adventurers wanted"... Although it still disqualifies several characters concepts, like "Wookie", "CR17 dragon", and "Wants to earn enough to buy back his father's 200gp farm then retire".

AND you still need the players on the same page, because a group of characters who are Kleptomaniac Rogue, LG Paladin, Necromancer who wants to harvest pretty dead women, and Chef Bob are all going to want to take different hooks and don't have a lot of reason or cohesion to work together. Even an initial hook that links them "You're all shipwrecked together!" won't hold up into adventure 2.

[Telok]

Well, you don't need to do a lot to fit a basic DM hook of "Adventurers wanted"... Although it still disqualifies several characters concepts, like "Wookie", "CR17 dragon", and...

Um, not what I was asking about. I was asking about HidesHisEyes thing of trying to tailor make a group to the campaign when there isn't a planned/plotted campaign.

Also, "disqualifies character concepts" is dependent on the system. I've played games where the party was a blind acrobat, d&d dragon, drunk werewolf, and psychic cowgirl. It worked fine. Maybe D&D can't handle that, but disparate character concepts isn't a big issue in most of my games.

[HidesHisEyes]

Question: how does that work if the DM is running a sandbox with just a couple short intro hook adventures prepped?

That's the way I tend to run games. Some form of sandbox, certain npcs moving some long term plans along that will effect a series of changes likely to pick up the party somewhere along the way, and usually a person/group or two in need of expendable/deniable assets with contacts in likely adventuring party areas. Then build a couple or four short short intro adventures to accomidate a variety of party/pc types.

Yeah so the way I run a game once it gets going probably isn’t hugely different from what you do. But the way I like to set that up, ideally, is with everyone at the table working collaboratively. Then those potential quest-givers can be characters from the PCs’ backstories or at least people or groups suggested by what we came up with together. It’s not that we decide in session zero to do a campaign about a specific thing - as I’ve said and I probably sound like a stuck record by now, I don’t want to have any idea what specific sequence of events is going to happen. I just want to start from a base line - comprising a setting and player characters - that we all sat down and worked on together.

[dafrca]

I've played games where the party was a blind acrobat, d&d dragon, drunk werewolf, and psychic cowgirl. It worked fine.

Bad enough as a GM having to deal with a party like that, but then you realize that is the party that you will be GMing for in your Solo game.... LOL

[Telok]

It’s not that we decide in session zero to do a campaign about a specific thing - as I’ve said and I probably sound like a stuck record by now, I don’t want to have any idea what specific sequence of events is going to happen. I just want to start from a base line - comprising a setting and player characters - that we all sat down and worked on together.

So really just chargen and attaching characters to the setting for the first mission then? Ok, that makes more sense.

Bad enough as a GM having to deal with a party like that, but then you realize that is the party that you will be GMing for in your Solo game.... LOL

Why would it be a bad party to DM? All the point buy supers games are designed to deal with that sort of stuff, and they've been chugging along for decades selling books and having successful campaigns. Even hoary old AD&D had the infamous "young balrog" thing going. Sure D&D 3+ which gave us "angel summoner vs bmx bandit" may not cope well, but those games are pretty intentionally designed for 3-5 humans (rubber ears optional) fighting 1-10 random monsters and not much else.

[dafrca]

Why would it be a bad party to DM?

I didn't say it was a bad party, I think it would be a lot of extra details to deal with though with such an interesting and crazy mix. And the joke (yes my post was an attempt at a joke and failed as it might have been) is that if played in a solo game you are all five. The four characters and the GM.

[HidesHisEyes]

So really just chargen and attaching characters to the setting for the first mission then? Ok, that makes more sense.

Well, and creating the setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

So I'm asking the playground: In your real life, in person, TTRPGs, do you really have a session zero where the players all come in without completed character sheets, talk to each other about making their characters fit the game & party, the GM lays out the tone & house rules, backstories are swapped & adjusted, and that's pretty much the whole 3-5 hour session?

First off you are making some unwarranted assumptions about session zero, which will vary in form, but explicitly, the "show up without a character sheet." Who requires that?
As OldTrees1 pointed out:

It is okay for a Session 0 to conclude in time to start Session 1 on the same day.

But the bolded part (emphasis mine) isn't necessary.
In the electronic age, there is a hell of a lot of "session zero" style activity that can be done by email, text, discord/VTT/Chat or even a *gasp* internet forum like GiTP. But that's with players who have played before.

For a group of totally new players, walking people through Char Gen is a best practice.
For any group of players, Making Sure that Their PCs fit the DM/GMs game world is a best practice.

As to your bit about player attitudes that you brought up.

Bottom Line: you can bring me a back story but if it doesn't fit the world that I am GMing we will sit down, the player and I, and massage it (keeping as much as we can) so that it does fit the world I am running.

If that bugs you, and you consider that DM/GM 'Interference' then my line is very simple: "You need to find another GM, and I am glad we found this out before we, as a group, started play that you are unwilling to work with me."
I am volunteering my time, and my fun matters too.
I don't need someone taking a Player Versus DM stance before we even began the first adventure.

As a player, I am eager to make my character fit into the DMs/GMs world. I ask a lot of questions about the world, the setting, other stuff, before I make a PC for any game since I want to feel as though the character belongs in that alternate reality.

When I play in real life, I usually: {snip list}
Is this an a-typical way to create a campaign? Yes but I find it is very helpful in getting the players to buy into the concept and make characters that suit the needs of the pitch.

*golf clap* That's a keep in my "good ideas" folder.

I'm presuming that a lot of the contention around the idea isn't about the idea, but rather the terminology being used as something of a shibboleth.

A Shibboleth is a CR 11 Creature that does psychic damage during social encounters. It is usually found with its pet, a The-Saurus, which uses words as weapons.

Yes. Session 0 is like the pirate code, a guideline more as a harden rule.

This pirate playing person agrees.

I do find Session 0 to be important. That's when you work out major issues. It's how I learned to accept Gritty Realism resting in 5E. I hated it on paper, but talking it over with a DM I learned my issue was really about the ratio of long rests per game session. I played his campaign, as a Sorcerer, with Gritty Realism using an acceptable long rest ratio and had a blast.

I see what you did there.

I prefer to roll in front of somebody just in case I really do get an 18(00). I want people to know I really rolled it.

Me too. (Best I ever got was an 18(98) and I was so stoked!

Now, we weren't using 3d6, so an 18 wasn't unreasonable, but the GM really wasn't expecting 18(100)&18(99) in the party.

Did you name them Hanz and Franz?

(I have a very strong preference for relationships actually forged during the game; prefab relationships invariably feel artificial by comparison IME - and, often, cause games to fall apart.)

I've experienced the same.

Just curious, do you play a lot of games where the players don't already know each other?

Yes.
I am DMing for a game where I met the group as a stranger on the internet. Four years later, we (well, me and three others) are still playing together and I brought in two others whom I'd not met other than sharing stuff on line through RPGSE.
I am a player in a game where I had met nobody. PhoenixPhyre is our DM.
The other Game I play/DM in is my brother's world; I've know all of them forever.
Another game I play in Max Wilson (of GiTP) has been Dming (play by post) and two other playgrounders still remain after RL took a couple of the others away from us.

I am asking as a serious question. Other than one-off games at conventions I have not played very many games where the players didn't already know each other.

Lucky you.
On the bright side, I have made some new friends.

[kyoryu]

A Shibboleth is a CR 11 Creature that does psychic damage during social encounters. It is usually found with its pet, a The-Saurus, which uses words as weapons.

Well, I thought that was a common term, but the point is that it's a verbal indicator of belonging to a certain group - the word "shibboleth" itself has two different pronunciations, which can indicate which of several groups a person belongs to.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, I thought that was a common term,

It is, I was making a joke.

And I actually did run into a thesaurus monster in a D&D game in 1981. Forget which magazine it was from (might have been an RPGSA module or something from White Dwarf) but a thesaurus was a threat to the party because when we ran into it it would shout a word at us, and if we did not shout back a synonym, we took damage. I think I may have a copy of that somewhere in a file, not sure.
The DM loved that little encounter, the players mostly rolled their eyes until it was over ...

[kyoryu]

It is, I was making a joke.

Ah, cool! Couldn't tell if it was that or "nice using big word that people won't understand" so I decided to err on the side of clarity :)

[dafrca]

Lucky you.
On the bright side, I have made some new friends.

Yes, I can see that would be one of the largest benefits to playing in new groups where not everyone knows each other. So I am unsure which of us is luckier.

[Eldan]

Um, not what I was asking about. I was asking about HidesHisEyes thing of trying to tailor make a group to the campaign when there isn't a planned/plotted campaign.

Also, "disqualifies character concepts" is dependent on the system. I've played games where the party was a blind acrobat, d&d dragon, drunk werewolf, and psychic cowgirl. It worked fine. Maybe D&D can't handle that, but disparate character concepts isn't a big issue in most of my games.

We kind of that that, recently. The DM basically said "This will be set in *wild lawless mountain area* and it's going to be sandboxy" and the party came up with the idea that they were the third son of a noble family out to make his fortune and his retinue, consisting his old tutor who came along to chronicle his deeds, his sister who was running away from an engagement and also wanted to practise her magic without social stigma and a locally hired ranger guide.

I consider that a tailor-made party for the plothook.

[Quertus]

Ah ok, gotcha. So yeah, if the GM already has a campaign planned then it’s better to bring a bunch of characters and choose the most appropriate one than to bring one character, for sure.

But as I said, in my ideal session zero the group is working together to determine what the campaign is even going to be. So rather than fit a character (whether it’s your only one or picked from a pool) to a campaign concept that already exists, you’re tailor-making a character for a campaign concept that you and the group are creating collaboratively. In fact, ideally, each player thinks of their character as part of the campaign concept. The whole group is working on one big creative project together.

So I can’t guess which of your characters would be the best fit for my most recent game. But if you were to play in my next game (in the style I like) I could guarantee you that your character would fit that one, because you’d be custom making the character for the campaign and we’d be custom making the campaign together.

Yeah so the way I run a game once it gets going probably isn’t hugely different from what you do. But the way I like to set that up, ideally, is with everyone at the table working collaboratively. Then those potential quest-givers can be characters from the PCs’ backstories or at least people or groups suggested by what we came up with together. It’s not that we decide in session zero to do a campaign about a specific thing - as I’ve said and I probably sound like a stuck record by now, I don’t want to have any idea what specific sequence of events is going to happen. I just want to start from a base line - comprising a setting and player characters - that we all sat down and worked on together.

Well, and creating the setting.

I find your overconfidence disturbing.

There's clearly some business principles i need to teach you. unfortunately, I don't have fancy names or cool stories for the most relevant concepts, so you're stuck learning about stretch goals.

Basically, there's things which are well within your reach, and things that you maybe could do, if you stretch - with hard work, and a little luck, they could happen.

Well, I worked for a company dumb enough to teach the term, then promise shareholders something along a timeline that required every department to reach stretch goals.

Can you guess how that turned out? Even one department falling means that the project fails. Nearly every department failed.

For me, "creating a character I'll enjoy" is a stretch goal. My track record says that, statistically, I'll need to roll a "20" to get an acceptable character.

So… maybe the character workshopped together would actually fit (senility willing, maybe I'll add my classic commentary about just how well that actually works in practice with new characters). But, odds are, even if they do, they won't be worth playing.

Also… the GM needn't have "one campaign planned" for bringing a portfolio of characters to be useful.

Heck, everyone could bring just one character each, and the GM bring a portfolio of possible adventures, or even adventure seeds, and it still be a "portfolio" scenario (even if, generally speaking, a suboptimal use of this tech (although "existing party, GM just died / moved" could produce a valid reason to expect that might work)).

Bottom Line: you can bring me a back story but if it doesn't fit the world that I am GMing we will sit down, the player and I, and massage it (keeping as much as we can) so that it does fit the world I am running.

If that bugs you, and you consider that DM/GM 'Interference' then my line is very simple: "You need to find another GM, and I am glad we found this out before we, as a group, started play that you are unwilling to work with me."
I am volunteering my time, and my fun matters too.
I don't need someone taking a Player Versus DM stance before we even began the first adventure.

Did you name them Hanz and Franz?
I've experienced the same.

No, not Hans and Frans, although I cannot say offhand what their names were (darn senility).

I find your other ideas disturbing.

I've yet to have a GM "help" that didn't ruin the character (that I recall - darn senility).

Would you, as GM, accept my help changing ("massaging") your world to make the character fit?

Why do you view this as "player vs GM"? That's… a really odd take on this behavior, and *not* something I've seen as a motivation for such behavior in my 4 decades of play.

If you've experienced how artificial "pregenerated" relationships often feel… do you massage the character into the world, just to never run any of those background NPCs? That seems… an odd use of time for someone seemingly concerned about their temporal investment.

All that said… I used to try to help people "massage" their character concepts into my more developed worlds. As I never had the combination of "as picky and detail-oriented as me" and "me running their background acquaintances upon whom they've hung their personality defining moments", I'll claim it wasn't a parallel to my horror stories of GMs attempting the same. But it still (if I read them correctly - nobody ever said anything (that I remember - darn senility)) occasionally threw some of my players, when they learned details of organizations that they thought they knew.

So, personally, I don't really do that anymore.

My developed worlds are for me to make my PCs, and others to Explore as outsiders. My less developed worlds are for others to build characters in, and Explore. And if they need to build things for their backstories in one of my less developed worlds, well, they can. Because the world's big enough to accommodate anything any of my players have ever needed.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, not Hans and Frans, although I cannot say offhand what their names were (darn senility).

Too bad, but not everyone is an SNL fan.

I find your other ideas disturbing.

In the words of Sgt Helka: Lighten up, Francis.

I've yet to have a GM "help" that didn't ruin the character (that I recall - darn senility).

My experience and yours do not match. I've had good luck working with a DM or a GM to get my character to fit their world. (in fact, it was necessary for me to consult with the GM when we played Fellowship a couple of years ago, a Dungeon World thing, since I was not comfortable with the lack of initial input. Thanks to our collaborative efforts the experience went quite well. It made my experiences better.

Would you, as GM, accept my help changing ("massaging") your world to make the character fit?

Depends.
Propose a change, and I'll consider it. It's a process of dialogue.
I 've had great input from some players, and garbage input from other players.
I take what I like and I discard the rest. The worldbuilder gets to do that.

Why do you view this as "player vs GM"?

Because it is.

If you've experienced how artificial "pregenerated" relationships often feel… do you massage the character into the world, just to never run any of those background NPCs? That seems… an odd use of time for someone seemingly concerned about their temporal investment.

Word salad needs dressing. By the way, that bolded part is you making stuff up that I didn't write.

[HidesHisEyes]

I find your overconfidence disturbing.

There's clearly some business principles i need to teach you.

Erm, I think I’m good actually…

unfortunately, I don't have fancy names or cool stories for the most relevant concepts, so you're stuck learning about stretch goals.

Basically, there's things which are well within your reach, and things that you maybe could do, if you stretch - with hard work, and a little luck, they could happen.

Well, I worked for a company dumb enough to teach the term, then promise shareholders something along a timeline that required every department to reach stretch goals.

Can you guess how that turned out? Even one department falling means that the project fails. Nearly every department failed.

For me, "creating a character I'll enjoy" is a stretch goal. My track record says that, statistically, I'll need to roll a "20" to get an acceptable character.

So… maybe the character workshopped together would actually fit (senility willing, maybe I'll add my classic commentary about just how well that actually works in practice with new characters). But, odds are, even if they do, they won't be worth playing.

Well ok, if that’s been your experience fair enough. But it sounds like you’re assuming that my earlier posts were pure theorycrafting, since you seem to want to set me straight on how it works in practice. Trouble is, they were based on experience. It does work, for me. I’ve done it, it’s my preferred play style.

What I’m mainly confused about is the idea that you have some kind of standard for a good player character, which has to be met when you make the character (and apparently is only met 1 in 20 times ??? Have I misunderstood that part?) in order for the campaign to be a success. Am I reading you wrong? If not, can you describe the standard your character has to meet in order to be “worth playing”?

Because to me a character is worth playing almost by definition, as long as it fits with what the rest of the group is doing. That really is the only standard. Hashing out what the game is going to be, and making characters together as part of that process, makes it easy to meet that standard.

Also… the GM needn't have "one campaign planned" for bringing a portfolio of characters to be useful.

Heck, everyone could bring just one character each, and the GM bring a portfolio of possible adventures, or even adventure seeds, and it still be a "portfolio" scenario (even if, generally speaking, a suboptimal use of this tech (although "existing party, GM just died / moved" could produce a valid reason to expect that might work)).

Yeah I wasn’t suggesting that the portfolio of characters thing is only useful if the GM has one campaign planned, I meant the portfolio suggestion sounds like it assumes the GM has something planned (one campaign or a portfolio of possibilities) before you get as far as character creation. In what I’m describing, both players and GM skip the portfolio stage and go from “nothing” to “everything we need to start the campaign” in one night. (Essentially anyway. In reality people do generally bring some ideas to the table and that’s fine, what’s important is that no one brings a complete piece of the campaign and demands that it be fitted in wholesale.)

I hope I’m not coming off as hostile. If the approach I’m describing sounds bad to you that’s cool, but I promise you it can work, it’s not something I’ve just dreamed up.

[Satinavian]

For me, "creating a character I'll enjoy" is a stretch goal. My track record says that, statistically, I'll need to roll a "20" to get an acceptable character.

If you only enjoy playing about 5% of characters you are making, something about your character creation process is seriously messed up.

I've yet to have a GM "help" that didn't ruin the character (that I recall - darn senility).

Would you, as GM, accept my help changing ("massaging") your world to make the character fit?

Generally yes, that des happen. If one wants to be a noble, there needs to be a noble family they come from etc. "Making the character fit" generally does include small changes to the world as well as to the character. And there should be no unilateral changes. The GM doesn't change the character against the players wishes and the player doesn't introduce new elements into the world the GM is against. But if that is not enough to make the character fit, they can't be played.

My developed worlds are for me to make my PCs, and others to Explore as outsiders. My less developed worlds are for others to build characters in, and Explore. And if they need to build things for their backstories in one of my less developed worlds, well, they can. Because the world's big enough to accommodate anything any of my players have ever needed.

In not one of the campaigns i have run the last decade i would have accepted such alien PCs that care only really about a world beyond the scope of the game where they come from. I am explicitel not interested in your characters coming from your developed worlds and treating the campaign setting we are using as if they were tourists.

I probably would have demanded that you make new PCs grounded in this world or find a different group as well. You could make a local clone that is similar. You could (in most cases) make someone from a far of land who lacks local knowledge(Even theme groups can often allow one exotic stranger). But not some real outsider with all the baggage from some completely other setting i don't know.



I am not against everyone bringing an ensemble of existing ones and we choose which character fits best. But i do that onl if all those characters are explicitely part of the same setting. Which usually means using official settings and not changing them much.

[Lousifer]

It's weird. I am generally very pro session zero, but the group that I have gamed with recently who spent the most time doing 'session-zero' type things - communicating about what important party role gaps needed to be filled/etc was the most dysfunctional table I have played at in years.

Our player who chose to play the party leader didn't want to lead, few of the PCs shared their S0 story hooks with the party, several people were obviously multitasking through the whole campaign, the GM set an expectation of a high-op table and 3 of the 6 players had no more than a passing familiarity with the game rules, and the GM struggled both with virtual tabletop and with the game systems. The campaign definitely soured me on trying to game with new people and on session zero.

[dafrca]

It's weird. I am generally very pro session zero, but the group that I have gamed with recently who spent the most time doing 'session-zero' type things - communicating about what important party role gaps needed to be filled/etc was the most dysfunctional table I have played at in years.

Our player who chose to play the party leader didn't want to lead, few of the PCs shared their S0 story hooks with the party, several people were obviously multitasking through the whole campaign, the GM set an expectation of a high-op table and 3 of the 6 players had no more than a passing familiarity with the game rules, and the GM struggled both with virtual tabletop and with the game systems. The campaign definitely soured me on trying to game with new people and on session zero.

And this is why I think about half the threads in this section are really situational. A good GM, a good group of players, and the game works somehow regardless of the rule set or house rules. But a GM who struggles or a group of players who seem to not want to be there are do not care about the game and you could be playing the best rule set in the best module and it will still fail and suck.

The human factor is key to any real RPG session/campaign being a success or failure.

[Quertus]

Too bad, but not everyone is an SNL fan.

Perhaps I should clarify: a) decidedly not related, so wouldn't have worked; b) "Hans and Frans" were already taken (player wasn't in that game, but they were brother "god of the hill people" in previous a Supers game).

Depends.
Propose a change, and I'll consider it. It's a process of dialogue.
I 've had great input from some players, and garbage input from other players.
I take what I like and I discard the rest. The worldbuilder gets to do that.

Does the character builder get the same consideration, to take what they like, and discard the rest? To tell you that your idea is garbage?

Because it is.

Although I suppose this literally is in the form of an answer to the question I asked, it is not terribly helpful. So let's try again. In what way, in your opinion, is rejecting the GM changing a character "player vs GM"?

While we're at it, in what way, in your opinion, is or is not the GM rejecting player changes to the world "player vs GM"?

Well ok, if that’s been your experience fair enough. But it sounds like you’re assuming that my earlier posts were pure theorycrafting, since you seem to want to set me straight on how it works in practice. Trouble is, they were based on experience. It does work, for me. I’ve done it, it’s my preferred play style.

Lol. So, I started talking about my characters by name because when i just said, "you can", people would tell me it's impossible. Time and again, I was told my experiences were impossible, and I'd have to clarify, "no, I've done it". So I started saying, "I played Armus, who…". Which got confusing when I started talking about Quertus. Which is why "Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named" is now something of a Playground meme / drinking game.

Point is, no, actually, I figured/knew that you were talking from experience. I wasn't trying to discount your experience, only explain why/how your techniques might not be compatible with me. I was trying to give you the background in business to understand me, not to try to change your understanding of you (except in relation to "not everyone is you" and "your experiences may not translate to everyone").

Clear as mud?

What I’m mainly confused about is the idea that you have some kind of standard for a good player character, which has to be met when you make the character (and apparently is only met 1 in 20 times ??? Have I misunderstood that part?) in order for the campaign to be a success. Am I reading you wrong? If not, can you describe the standard your character has to meet in order to be “worth playing”?

Because to me a character is worth playing almost by definition, as long as it fits with what the rest of the group is doing. That really is the only standard. Hashing out what the game is going to be, and making characters together as part of that process, makes it easy to meet that standard.

Hmmm… this might be tricky to explain.

First: yes, you read right. About 1 in 20 characters I make is worth playing. (In part because I chase stretch goals.)

OK, imagine I tried to craft the personalities (and backstories and…) of Darth Vader, Palatine, Tarkin, Jaba, Luke, Han, Leia, Chewy, R2, Padme, Rex, Qui-Gon, Yoda, Mace, and Jar Jar. (In a universe where Star Wars didn't exist)

The group hates Anakin (stop PKing!) and Jar Jar (because Jar Jar).

I find I just can't pull off Han's wit or Tarkin's ruthlessness the way I want to.

R2 and Chewy are just annoying to play, because they need a translator.

About half of them, I didn't build right, and had to try again.

A lot of them, I just don't enjoy playing the character (I could built a perfect Padme, and find I don't enjoy the "politics and pretend" game).

Like a bad Scrabble setup, many of them just don't have proper personalities to hang things like "cool scenes" or "character growth" off of.

In the end, after trying them all (some of them twice), maybe I find that Yoda is the only character there that I enjoy playing, and is actually worth my time to play.

(Although it probably wouldn't be Yoda, because i don't know his backstory, I don't understand the why behind his actions.)

And… that probably wasn't as helpful as I intended, because it's… looking at the problem from a suboptimal angle. But maybe you at least get a feel for the shape of this piece of the elephant?

Yeah I wasn’t suggesting that the portfolio of characters thing is only useful if the GM has one campaign planned, I meant the portfolio suggestion sounds like it assumes the GM has something planned (one campaign or a portfolio of possibilities) before you get as far as character creation. In what I’m describing, both players and GM skip the portfolio stage and go from “nothing” to “everything we need to start the campaign” in one night. (Essentially anyway. In reality people do generally bring some ideas to the table and that’s fine, what’s important is that no one brings a complete piece of the campaign and demands that it be fitted in wholesale.)

I… seem to live in my own Bizarro World, where everyone is allergic to communication. "Building everything from scratch" is how we got the party of the Paladin the Assassin the Undead Hunter and his childhood friend the Undead Master (and my character).

I can use a clue-by-four to perform enough percussive maintenance to get people to talk meaningfully about nice, solid, already existing pieces.

But what you're describing is, for my groups, a pipe dream, since it would involve everyone rolling a "20" on communication simultaneously for it to work. Or, more like a "pipe nightmare", given that my talents and proclivities mean I'd hate my character 19 times out of 20.

But, at least now, I see what you mean, where you're actually drawing that line.

I hope I’m not coming off as hostile. If the approach I’m describing sounds bad to you that’s cool, but I promise you it can work, it’s not something I’ve just dreamed up.

Nah, you're fine, I'm the one coming off like a ****; happily, you're responding to my content rather than my poor delivery.

This piece:

So I can’t guess which of your characters would be the best fit for my most recent game. But if you were to play in my next game (in the style I like) I could guarantee you that your character would fit that one, because you’d be custom making the character for the campaign and we’d be custom making the campaign together.

I guess I wanted to ensure you understood that "guaranteed to fit" and "fit to play" were not synonyms.

Which, good thing, because it looks like "not fit to play" is a novel concept for you.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does the character builder get the same consideration, to take what they like, and discard the rest? To tell you that your idea is garbage?

They can always choose to play in a different world if they have your attitude about this. My experience trumps your abstraction.

So let's try again.

I don't think I'll waste further time with you on this. I will suggest that you do some more GM'ing and Dming in a game style that positions DM/GM as world builder. Jesse James doesn't fit in the Athens of Theseus. Not all games do this. Heck, Microcsope does collaborative world building as a game form.

I… seem to live in my own Bizarro World

To a certain extent, any rpg is played in Not Reality, so maybe we are all in our own instances of Bizarro World.

I am going to say this again: my (considerable) experience has shown me that a collaborative effort between the DM/GM and the player to fitting the character into the world is a best practice. You are free to tell your GMs that their world is garbage or that you don't like them. See how far that gets you. Dale Carnegie wrote a book about stuff like this.

[Quertus]

If you only enjoy playing about 5% of characters you are making, something about your character creation process is seriously messed up.

Lol, I can't really argue. I'm generally chasing stretch goals - kinda the opposite end of the spectrum from creating the same character over and over again.

If my goal was "success", I'd just play very samey characters.

Generally yes, that des happen. If one wants to be a noble, there needs to be a noble family they come from etc. "Making the character fit" generally does include small changes to the world as well as to the character. And there should be no unilateral changes. The GM doesn't change the character against the players wishes and the player doesn't introduce new elements into the world the GM is against. But if that is not enough to make the character fit, they can't be played.

In not one of the campaigns i have run the last decade i would have accepted such alien PCs that care only really about a world beyond the scope of the game where they come from. I am explicitel not interested in your characters coming from your developed worlds and treating the campaign setting we are using as if they were tourists.

I probably would have demanded that you make new PCs grounded in this world or find a different group as well. You could make a local clone that is similar. You could (in most cases) make someone from a far of land who lacks local knowledge(Even theme groups can often allow one exotic stranger). But not some real outsider with all the baggage from some completely other setting i don't know.



I am not against everyone bringing an ensemble of existing ones and we choose which character fits best. But i do that onl if all those characters are explicitely part of the same setting. Which usually means using official settings and not changing them much.

That's several ideas in there that I can respect.

Which, of course, means that, being me, I'll focus on the part that… well, not that I disagree with, but that I simply don't understand.

Honest question, take it literally: what advantage does a character who is a tourist from <exotic location off the map> have over a character who is from another world?

If multiple GMs were running the same setting? And at least one of them had the necessary skills to be able to let me make characters in that world? That would be awesome.

Can't say as I've really seen either half done well, let alone together. ::

They can always choose to play in a different world if they have your attitude about this. My experience trumps your abstraction. I don't think I'll waste further time with you on this. I will suggest that you do some more GM'ing and Dming in a game style that positions DM/GM as world builder. Jesse James doesn't fit in the Athens of Theseus. Not all games do this. Heck, Microcsope does collaborative world building as a game form.
To a certain extent, any rpg is played in Not Reality, so maybe we are all in our own instances of Bizarro World.

I am going to say this again: my (considerable) experience has shown me that a collaborative effort between the DM/GM and the player to fitting the character into the world is a best practice. You are free to tell your GMs that their world is garbage or that you don't like them. See how far that gets you. Dale Carnegie wrote a book about stuff like this.

I was going to reply differently, and then I realized: you misunderstood me, your reply doesn't actually match my post. And that's perfect!

So, when you misunderstand the character, and "massage" them in wrong, in a way that ruins the character, do you acknowledge your mistake, and work to fix it? Do you give the player the same courtesy you demand for yourself, to have ownership over what they create, and what does and did not fit with it?

Now, you're clearly too smart to be talking about Jesse James in the Athens of Theseus unless you've mistaken me for a complete duncewaffle. Since you've misread my post in general, I'll assume this is just part of your reading comprehension failure. "DC Quertus" is notoriously high.

I am curious about your comments about DM/GM as world builder. Given that I've been building worlds for the better part of 40 years (boredom would be my nemesis were I not constantly in my own head), I'm curious what you think I'd benefits from experiencing.

Lastly… IME, most GMs "world building" *is* garbage. Or, at least… Hmmm… what are you most likely to be able to hear? "Monochromatic" is too strong… maybe "painted with an incomplete pallet, indicative of their biases and blind spots"?

Look at it this way… assuming you know numerous GMs… actually, that may be a bad assumption. Fine. You've seemingly failed "DC Quertus" before, let's add in an extra step. Actors.

Who's the best actor you know for drama? Comedy? Character depth? Action? Facial expressions? Memorable characters?

Not all the same actor, right?

Well, "the best GM I know for…" isn't all the same GM.

IME, every GM has their strengths and weaknesses.

Some GMs have NPCs worth interacting with; others, not so much.

Some GMs handle difficult subjects well; others, not so much.

Some GMs understand concepts like "Rule of Three"; others, not so much.

Some GMs can handle slaying the princess and marrying the Dragon (or slaying then marrying the princess, or marrying then slaying the princess (to start a war with Guilder)); others, not so much.

Some GMs have world physics worth interacting with; others cannot think beyond, "the only way to…".

Some GMs (theoretically) have gods worth keeping around; I've yet to dig into an RPG world that didn't deserve deicide.

The GM's level of skill at personalities, history, lore, art, culture, "memes"/sayings, riddles/puzzles, psychology, sociology, economics… it all shows up in their world-building.

And when the group all come from different backgrounds, every player can, in their area(s) of strength, see just how weak the world-building is.

A IRL shopkeep once asked a gaming table, "what does it mean when a customer asks, 'how much is this?'?". I was the only one at the table to answer correctly.

Human psychology is hard. Most GMs fail miserably at it. And at every other aspect of works building - at least, from the perspective of an expert in that field.

So… yes, most GMs world building *is* garbage.

I prefer to focus on what they do well.

[Satinavian]

Honest question, take it literally: what advantage does a character who is a tourist from <exotic location off the map> have over a character who is from another world?

If your character comes from your world to the game world that means there is some connection between the worlds that a person could cross. That means that those worlds somehow have to fit in a greater cosmology and some common framework. It means that your character can transfer knowledge and technology and bring it into the setting. It means that the PCs could try to go to your world.

Being just a stranger from a far corner has similar consequences, but theya are more acceptable. Far corners of the world are established as part of the worldd. People being able to come from there go to there (with possible difficulties) is not new. The PC always could decide to visit the strange lands. There will also likely be no technology dissonance or if there is, there will be a reason established why no technology tranfer happens. The other place will also follow the same laws of nature and magic and share the same cosmology. People might know/explore other aspects of it or use it differently but the GM does not have to juggle competing universal truths, at worst it is competing beliefs that could be half-true.

And then there is the fact that a new character from far of lands is more of a blank sheet than an existing character and will more likely develop more attachment and engagement to wherever to the place the party is, to the NPCs and to the party members. Most of my campaigns are not about sightseeing and showcasing my world. They are about living there. And if i were to run some exploration campaign, that one would even more benefit from characters of a common background as that one would define what is expected and what is new or surprising.

If multiple GMs were running the same setting? And at least one of them had the necessary skills to be able to let me make characters in that world? That would be awesome.

For me that has been the most common setup over the years. Partly because many groups had rotating GMs but the same characters in the same place, partly because many of the most popular systems in the area like SR or TDE do come with a main setting that is played most. Partly because sometimes i have taken part in many GM open table style setups where all the action was supposedly in the same setting so that all the characters (of which each player had several) could easily switch tables.

So… yes, most GMs world building *is* garbage.

I prefer to focus on what they do well.

That is why taking some official setting and having several people expand on it is quite popular. I really don't know why in D&D the assumption is that the DM builds the whole setting alone and anew for every campaign. The results are rarely deep. Usually there is or maybe two interesting bits/twist and the campaign explores them but the rest is lackluster.
Not that all official settings are that good or convincing.

[Quertus]

If your character comes from your world to the game world that means there is some connection between the worlds that a person could cross. That means that those worlds somehow have to fit in a greater cosmology and some common framework. It means that your character can transfer knowledge and technology and bring it into the setting. It means that the PCs could try to go to your world.

Being just a stranger from a far corner has similar consequences, but theya are more acceptable. Far corners of the world are established as part of the worldd. People being able to come from there go to there (with possible difficulties) is not new. The PC always could decide to visit the strange lands. There will also likely be no technology dissonance or if there is, there will be a reason established why no technology tranfer happens. The other place will also follow the same laws of nature and magic and share the same cosmology. People might know/explore other aspects of it or use it differently but the GM does not have to juggle competing universal truths, at worst it is competing beliefs that could be half-true.

And then there is the fact that a new character from far of lands is more of a blank sheet than an existing character and will more likely develop more attachment and engagement to wherever to the place the party is, to the NPCs and to the party members. Most of my campaigns are not about sightseeing and showcasing my world. They are about living there. And if i were to run some exploration campaign, that one would even more benefit from characters of a common background as that one would define what is expected and what is new or surprising.

For me that has been the most common setup over the years. Partly because many groups had rotating GMs but the same characters in the same place, partly because many of the most popular systems in the area like SR or TDE do come with a main setting that is played most. Partly because sometimes i have taken part in many GM open table style setups where all the action was supposedly in the same setting so that all the characters (of which each player had several) could easily switch tables.


That is why taking some official setting and having several people expand on it is quite popular. I really don't know why in D&D the assumption is that the DM builds the whole setting alone and anew for every campaign. The results are rarely deep. Usually there is or maybe two interesting bits/twist and the campaign explores them but the rest is lackluster.
Not that all official settings are that good or convincing.

Yet another excellent post. Kudos!

As you may have noticed from my "highlighting", I have more questions and disagreements with this post.

So, first, an easy one: just a "me" thing, but I'm much more likely to form connections and otherwise care with an established character than with a blank slate. Like a good Scrabble board, an established character worth playing has much more… well, everything… to form connections. More motivations, more personality, more interests, more history. New characters, lacking that history-induced plethora of solid dangly bits, lack the toolkit to facilitate the creation of meaningful relationships and connections.

So, it's demonstrably very untrue for me, that blank slates are better for forming connections, so I'm curious why you think this way.

-----

Senility willing, I'll make a thread about this, but, canonically, that I'm aware of,

Many official D&D settings have connections to one another.

D&D is connected to… uh, AFB, but… Earth, and at least half a dozen other systems (completely different genres, like CP2020, Top Secret, etc)

Marvel (which is NI connected universes) has had crossovers with DC (which is NI connected universes), some other super hero setting whose name eludes me (darn senility), and Star Trek(!)

Rifts is based on this idea of connected universes, as is the homebrew Paradox.

I'd say that, canonically, many systems (especially the ones I play) already are more connected than most believe.

I have no objection to an objection based on true statements that there is no known canonical connection between the universes in question. It's a "rules don't say you can" vs "rules don't say you can't" mindset, and neither is inherently wrong. But most systems I play are rife with canonical connections.

So, if you were running a system with canonical (if perhaps obscure) connections between universes, would you agree that, like travel to a foreign land, it's already canonically possible?

-----

The GM juggling competing universal truths (or half truths)… that one's tough. Because… I think I totally get where you're coming from, because it's one of the reasons that I want my characters to be "not from around here".

Lemme 'splain.

Nobody agrees on RAW. Even if they did, most worlds have house rules.

It's how Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, realized he wasn't just "very lost", but actually on another world. And why he's developed such a vast array of analytical tools, to evaluate the nature of "reality".

My characters' history… is their history. Changing the physics invalidates their history, and thereby the character. I've tried to reconcile "my character's backstory took place on this world" before, and it just doesn't work. It's way too much to ask, every time the GM decides this spell or that action works sightly differently on their world, for me to have to redo the world-building to make the character's backstory make sense again, let alone maybe produce a character like the one I've been running.

I don't know if that makes any sense or not, but… chaos theory, butterfly flaps its wings differently, and it changes the entire character.

I'd rather not deal with that.

-----

That leaves us with the underlined bit.

I'm not sure what you think I mean when I say "Exploration". I'm not 100% sure *I* know what I mean. . Heck, the "forming connections" we're both so keen on is something I often file under Exploration, because you cannot form new connections if you're not meeting new people.

Huh. Angry called it "Discovery". Anyway, here's some of what Angry had to say about Discovery:

Discovery seekers like to explore and learn new things. They like to uncover things. They are just as happy discovering the history of the world, the nature of the gods, the answers to mysteries and puzzles, and the reasons why things work. They simply want to learn and understand everything.

Oddly, discovery seekers also seem to be drawn to self-discovery. The same players who get excited just discovering the secret history of Orcus that no one knows also get a thrill from confronting a difficult moral issue and learning about what they, themselves, believe. Moral dilemmas and social quandaries

So… do you still claim to run a world without Exploration, without Discovery? If so, can you explain what the content of your games looks like?