Player's adding to the world is not a bad thing

>>53364081
You're right, but to a lesser extent, a player who forces this opinion on someone is no better.

>>53364081

That's a given OP.

A stubborn DM who refuses to let the players play around in their world or a player who goes to outlandish and refuses to back down
examples inurgashPlayer:i quote the philospher urgash to unspire the soldiers
DM: REEEEE
DM:Im sorry jim, but your character can't be a magical japanese fox girl from the future armed with an anti tank rifle this setting is set in the crusades
player:REEEEE

>>53364081
No, fuck that. You just shoving things in means you don't want to consider anything but some pre-built backstory you probably reuse in every game.

You want to make the setting, you run the game.

File: you honestly believe that - that's so stupid.jpg (30KB, 379x202px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 379x202px

>>53364400
Why disallow something if it would fit in your setting? If you don't want any input from players, write the novel you've probably been planning for the last decade rather than playing a collaborative game.

>>53364400
That's bullshit laddo. I've had some say in the lore and setting of a current game to make a character idea I've never used before work, and it's made things more interesting for all involved.
To use OP's example, instead of saying "no villages have been attacked by orcs" the GM would say "alright, but orc attacks are really unusual, so we'll have to go over what happened there".

>>53364081
Communication and compromise is important!
To take your example, perhaps in the GM's version of the world Orcs are an unknown threat from the remote regions of the world. Having a pc's village attacked by them might not work for the plot the GM has planned, so the two should discuss whether the story would still work if the hero's village was attacked by human bandits instead. If the player really feels that Orcs in particular are what works for this character, then the GM can modify the story to fit that.
Still, you're right, and I really wish my players felt more free to toss up little extra details in my games. I usually find myself adding weird little details that they then capitalize on, but I'd like it they just suggested weird stuff more often.

A big part of what makes RPGs fun is immersion. If a player ruins the coherence of the game universe with something totally wacky and out of place, then the immersion is broken. I'm not a canon lawyer, but there are limits.

>>53364445
>>53364478
Not him but collaboration is a two way street faggots, if I'm not telling you how to play your character, you shouldn't be telling me how to run my setting. If I say that orc villages don't happen in this setting, either remake your backstory or GTFO.

>>53365036
>A big part of what makes RPGs fun is immersion. If a player ruins the coherence of the game universe with something totally wacky and out of place, then the immersion is broken. I'm not a canon lawyer, but there are limits.
This. I run a detailed and logical world, where things are interconnected and there's almost always more going on than the players are aware of. This is not because there is some conspiracy to keep them in the dark, but because they find out things stuff by dealing with them, and there's deeper history and such that nobody has investigated (and nobody wants to sit through an hour-long lecture of the realities of trade in the western kingdoms unless it has some direct significance to them -- and probably not even then). While I'm not theoretically opposed to more than minor player contributions on campaign setting development, they rarely seem to put much thought or care into things. They don't have to be autistically devoted to detail (that's my job), but they need not to decree illogical shit that clashes with the order of things or that subverts the tone of the game.

>>53364081
>Player: I was born in a village that was attacked by orcs
>GM: NO VILLAGES HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY ORCS REEEEEEEEEEE
Usually, an orc attack is pretty reasonable, though there may be some areas on the map where it wouldn't fly (in which case I'd suggest that it was goblins, or bandits, or whatever). This one, at least, doesn't seem very hard to accommodate.

>>53367915
This

Maybe in this setting Orcs dwell in caves and are more similar to trolls, or perhaps Orcs and other humanoids get along with each other making such a random orc attack something that couldn't possibly happen. Oh but nevermind you already decided the character you wanted to play in the DM's setting without attempting to understand his reasoning or go through with any kind of discourse beforehand. It's really inconsiderate for any player, DM or otherwise, to spring new information on the rest of the group without giving a little explanation first.

Or I'm just wrong and the DM is just acting like an autist.

>>53364081
>Player: So yeah, my character is a Kitsune.
>DM: What's that?
>Player: It's a fox-girl from this anime-
>DM: No, there are no "fox-girls in this setting"
>OP: I'M GONNA GO WHINE ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET, REEEEEEEE-

Here is your (you).

File: 3662902-9099375565-24986.jpg (50KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 750x600px

>ITT: No reasonable examples of either side whatsoever.

>>53364081
While I play the way you recommend- taking player ideas and integrating them into the world.

It's stuff like when the players enter a new town, or meet a character from their character's past, I ask them about the character.

>"Ashleigh, you recognize the halfling- he's an old friend your past. Tell me about him."
Or something like that. In situations where they want to do something silly- like make a kitsune character- I usually try to convince them otherwise.

Then I bend over backwards, though strange races definitely get more attention paid to them. It got to the point where a Sirene character actually made themselves up to look more like a blue dragonblood (A much more common race in the setting), since she had blue scales and everything.

>>53364445
>no letting the players basically write your novel for you.

>>53368274
This. Give players the outline of the world and let them build stuff for you. Gives them something to do and takes a little of the forever DM edge off.

File: 402.jpg (99KB, 703x516px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 703x516px

>Right Party: Hey, I'm being reasonable and calm.
>Wrong Party: AND I AM UNREASONABLE AND WRONG REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I wonder how much of this thread comes down to inherently different viewpoints when it comes to gaming, and how much of it comes down to different experiences in play (one side with autistically uptight GMs who see reasonable player contributions to the setting as a threat to their authority, and the other with self-involved players without any awareness of or respect for the internal workings of the setting).

In my last game of M&M I wanted to play a black jazz singer who had the angel metatron imbued in his body against both their wills (his and Metatron's).
The GM calmly explained to me that in his settings the biblical angels and thus do no exist exactly like that so we just worked it out into a similar concept that still worked and it also helped him into making a deeper, more interesting lore that affected all characters equally and we all enjoyed.
Aren't things easy when people just talk stuff?

>>53364081
Do DMs really keep their players from adding to the world in some way? Why would you ever do that? If something's within reason within a setting I let it go. Hell I'll build off it if need be.

>My character was not always a fearsome warrior. He had a brother once, but he died in a great battle to defend our home from a powerful death knight, only to suffer a mortal wound and perish days later.
>Later in the story the antagonist, a powerful enchantress, has sent forth her knight, who has been given the very same sword that landed that mortal wound on the characters brother.

Allowing your players to participate in world building engages them and gets them invested in the context of the game, and as a DM it lets me create an experience that's more interesting to the player and the story.

>>53370348
>Do DMs really keep their players from adding to the world in some way? Why would you ever do that? If something's within reason within a setting I let it go. Hell I'll build off it if need be.
Because 9 times out of 10, it isn't within reason within the settings, and is just stupid crap made up on the spur of the moment.

I've only ever heard of this kind of thing happening on /tg/'s word.
Do people not just ask for key details on the setting background, come up with a first draft and get feedback from that? Or is that uncharacteristically reasonable?

>>53364308
>mfw my gm is fine with half animals
>Can play my foxgirl or guy whenever i feel like it
Feels good playing in a group of friends.

>>53368147
It's 4chan. We don't do logical explanations and nuanced critiques, we assume the person we're debating with is a knuckle-dragging imbecile and take everything they're saying in a way that the worst possible light seem flattering by comparison.

>>53370426
>Because 9 times out of 10, it isn't within reason within the settings, and is just stupid crap made up on the spur of the moment.
Even when it isn't within reason an acceptable middle ground can be reached in all of 10 minutes.

>>53364081
As a player, you should start an adult communication with your GM about elements you might want added to the world, and be prepared to negotiate for some alternatives.

>I want to have my character's village burnt down by orcs
>this world does not feature orcs
>okay, is there another type of bad guy that could work? trolls perhaps?
>yeah, I was thinking, human soldiers of XYZ nation might have gone through that area and committed some atrocities during the Great Fire War
>okay, so my character hates the Grand Duchy of XYZ and not orcs? Hm, I could make it work..

And also have these conversations long before the first session, ideally as soon as you think of it. When it can be avoided, GMs generally don't want to bend over backwards literally mid-game to rewrite their whole worlds over one piece of backstory. You're likely to get better results by giving your GM as much time as possible to consider what you want.

File: IMG_0961.jpg (31KB, 418x405px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 418x405px

>>53367915
>collaboration is a two way street so listen to me or get the fuck out

>>53368011
>making such a random orc attack something that couldn't possibly happen

DM could always roll with it and come up with a reason for the attack, or if it really is impossible offer the player some guidance to keep the basic backstory but replace the orcs with something that makes more sense in context.

>>53364081
I do this with my DM all the time but we've been friends for over a decade and he'll make it work somehow, either my information is inaccurate or he'll tweak things or just leave the truth ambiguous.
>>53364308
I'd allow the fox girl. But the gun has no ammo, and she has to hide her disfigurements or be burned as a witch

ITT: GMs with no friends

>>53370773
>I'd allow the fox girl. But the gun has no ammo, and she has to hide her disfigurements or be burned as a witch
You seem like a really cool guy.

File: why the bard isn't allowed to learn speak to animals.jpg (53KB, 480x693px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x693px

>>53364081
Nigga, my setting's timeline is basically adapting what happened during past campaigns as Cycles.

The very first players are now the cultural heroes which defied fey dominance and pulled mortals out of the Lithic Cycle.

>>53367915
That's not what you said though, idiot. Nor did I imply you can just insert whatever you want into the setting.

>>53370426
If your setting cannot handle a player inserting a minor detail then it wasn't very good to begin with.

>>53367915
So what you're really saying is "collaboration is a one-way street." Yes?

>>53371196
To play the doubles advocate, it could just be because they want to nip the behaviour in the bud before it gets damaging.
Saying no once and letting everyone know where you stand is much better than a grudging yes that gets taken too far and results in a potentially heavy handed resolution.

>>53371577
*devil's advocate

>>53371596
It's doggy dog world, anon. You have to get used to people having different expressions, because they're practically a diamond dozen.

>>53371619
You are just putting my leg.

>>53370726
If you're unwilling to compromise and change your backstory to fit the setting, you're no better than the morons who try to insert their kitsune waifus into a political campaign.
>>53371400
This isn't a 50/50 partnership here, it's more like 80/20, with the GM being the one who does most of the goddamned work. The only thing that you're expected to do as a player is show up to game on time and not be disruptive while I have to deal with literally everything and anything that could happen within the setting, up to and including whether or not orc raids are a thing or not.

If you can't respect my setting by creating a backstory that fits, why should I respect your presence when it's obvious that you're only here to push your snowflake at the cost of everything else?

>>53370747
read >>53367915
>either remake your backstory or GTFO.
Nobody said that you couldn't remake your backstory to fit within the context of the campaign, but if you're going to be a stubborn dick about it then you can pack your shit up and leave.

>>53370985
ITT: Players who can't handle the word "no."

>>53371858
A good DM looks for a way to say yes.

>>53372225
>How many years ago was the Elven-Human alliance forged, DM?
>Yes.

>>53372256
Altenatively-
>Hey DM, can I come over to your house and fuck your sister?
>Yes.

>>53372225
And sometimes, you can't find a good way to say yes, and you have to say no. When the players want to do something retarded, you don't humor them, you put the foot down and move on as quickly as possible.

>>53372225
No, a good DM looks for a way to say 'yes but' or 'yes and'.

>>53372225
You mean a shit GM, right?
A GM who is simply a yes man will produce whiny, spoiled players like OP who can't take no for an answer, who go on to ruin other games with their childish bullshit.
A GM's job isn't to fellate you.

There are lines.

If I'm running a game like Beyond The Wall And Other Adventures, I expect my players to contribute. I expect them to offer thoughtful ideas to build the setting, because that's part of the game. When somebody sits there and shrugs shoulders and does nothing, I try to encourage them with ideas. I know my group; some of them have trouble with stuff on-the-spot, and need a couple starters to get going.

By the same token, if I'm running a setting I spent hours making, something intended to be a large-scale campaign, I don't expect the players to offer up major campaign details and invent massive new structures of power I have to account for. Now, I'd like to think I'm pretty good at winging it, so sometimes I don't mind this, but a lot of the time what players offer is just unworkable, and I tell them so.

The greatest gift I ever gave my players, though, was when I learned how to improv. It makes working with any of the stupid, pants-on-head ridiculous bullshit they come up with a hundred times easier. I co-opt what I can use and I scrap what I can't and if they give me a "but that's not how I imagined it" I give them a quiet look over my glasses and frown at them. Learning how to improv means being able to steal the workable and discard the unworkable at a moment's notice. It means every contribution has some merit except the blatantly stupid ones.

Sometimes, also, players eager to contribute actually want to be DMs, and just need some encouragement. Don't forget that an idea not working for your setting doesn't inherently make the idea bad, and sometimes it's a good idea to tell the player "man that's pretty cool; it won't work here but it sounds like the basis for a good campaign."

It's happened! I've instilled in one of my players a deep-seated desire to GM with this very method. He still hasn't worked up the confidence to stand up and start talking, but he's getting there.

File: DAW5bKsUMAEbjAF.jpg (58KB, 640x854px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x854px

>>53364081
fucking hell I know that feel

>playing human warlock
>want my character to be in his 90's but due to the nature of his pact has an extended life span which leaves him looking like he's in his 20's
>DM: no humans can't live that long, I'm not going to let your character live for ever just because you're a warlock
>tell him it's just fluff and it doesn't really change anything
>rule 0, you can't be 90 and still look young

why, what is the difference. why do people do this.

another same DM different campaign

>tell DM that my character is looking for a heir but can't have children himself.
>he tells me thats weird and he's not going to allow it

again why

>>53374640
>humans can't live that long
>fuckin humies you cant live that long reeeeeeeeeeeee
>bow down to superior elven seed.

Lol

>>53374640
Also what is so weird about cant having children? That is the problem of most couples from time immemorial.
I think your dm has more problems than what is apperent in the surface

>>53374640
The first one is just a case of autism and an inability to allow anything outside of the books.
The second one is probably a kneejerk reaction to what they felt could/would devolve into magical realm, or thought you'd try to find an heir over helping the party do whatever.

I do that kind of thing all the time and I've never had a GM sperg. I've even written whole countries worth of political intrigue without issue. Obviously it depends on the game, but if it's appropriate I've never had to deal with autistic tantrums.

I love collaborative world building, conceptually, I really do, but in effect at the table it seems to always turn into "over those hills there is a town where my character is the most important person" or, even more commonly, "in those mountains is a super special magical item that's relevant specifically to me"

>>53371809
In my opinion GM doing most of the work is doing it wrong. GM's job is to parse the player actions into the game mechanics, and to keep the pace of the game flowing steadily, but otherwise he shouldn't interfere with the players doing their thing in their world too much.

>>53364081
But what if my player wants to be the last surviving prince of a dragon born kingdom that was destroyed by another kingdom when the setting does not have dragonborns and the kingdoms he wanted were not one of the twenty in the setting? And he has a secret surviving powerful brother helping him.

A player of mine actually wanted that. As a level 1 character. I did not know what to do so I denied it. It was just going to be a campaign more about exploring mysterious dungeons that led to the dwarves secret kingdom.

>>53370332
Yes but we're autistic and polarized; talking and compromise not only are impossible, they are a sign of weakness.

File: 1411645127062.jpg (63KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 256x256px

>>53364081
> NO VILLAGES HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY ORCS REEEEEEEEEEE

yet another orc war crime denial thread?

>karak eight peaks=not true
>hellblasters=war crime
>humies killed more
>sigmarite propaganda
>no humie rape happened
>humie lies
>humie
>HUMİE

>>53374796
I usually see
>Here's something of which you don't know all the answers just yet
>THE ANSWER IS X! I HAVE DECREED IT!

>>53374864
The only part that isn't going to work is the dragonborn in a setting where none exist, the rest is just gravy because it means the character is in deep shit and his enemies are very powerful. Also, turns out it was the brother who betrayed the kingdom and led to its destruction in the first place (he has daddy issues or something) and him being nice is just an act.

File: 1493089860690.gif (124KB, 95x79px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 95x79px

My last backstory was that as a teenager my character fell in virgin love for one of those water nymph things that drown you but she wasn't interested even in killing him because he was too hideous. That really hurt his feelings and so he became mute, covered his face, and went adventuring because no one cared who he was until he put on the mask. Also he still loves the nymph because of oneitis.

Rate and complain.

File: 1493940183107.jpg (134KB, 496x496px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 496x496px

>>53374902
>tfw I love orcs
>mfw my character was an orc rape child
>mfw I have to pretend like my parents were happly married both in game and out as not to make people uncomfrotable.

>>53371809
I too like to make sure my players don't get very invested in the games I run

>>53374964
I wish that I could have used his character because he was really earnest in using it, but at the time I really did not know what to do.

Besides, in another one off I let him brew the game and be a water elf from a sunken kingdom with his own pet Kraken, and most of the session devolved into really interesting ways of getting a kraken to storm an inland castle.

>>53374820
>In my opinion GM doing most of the work is doing it wrong.
Well your opinion is "wrong." Consider for a moment all the players have to do...
>Show up on time
>Not be disruptive
>Understand the rules relating to their character.
vs. all the shit the GM has to do
>Create/Run a setting
>Roleplay every NPC the players interact with
>Play the various enemies they fight
>Describe the outcome of every decision a player commits to
>Understand the rules, both from the player's perspective and from the perspective of the GM.
>Maintain consistency
>Maintain the narrative in a way that's railroading but not
Among other things.

I mean, a good group will make the job much easier to manage but it still doesn't change the fact that most of the work is being done by the GM.

File: 1340433133399.jpg (103KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 384x313px

I think that letting the players have some hand in the world definitely helps with buy-in, but with big, general setting aspects it's entirely within the GM's realm to exercise some veto power.

If the GM says there's no dragonborn in his world, for example, I really can't conceivably come up with a way where trying to browbeat the GM into letting you play a dragonborn isn't being a dick.

>>53375082
If you lose investment just because the GM tells you that an element of your backstory wasn't relevant to the campaign, chances are you weren't all that interested in getting invested in anything beyond your character in the first place.

See, and this is why I built a system that adds onto just about system that is meant to let players add world details. You put rules in place and the autists calm down.
It basically goes
Player declares a detail.
Gm interprets the detail, or gets to deny it.
No fucking whining about "that's not what I meant!"
Stuff like
>p: my character is a noble!
>gm: fine, but you're fourth in line, as your older siblings are being kept safe at home. They're jealous that dad will let you adventure.

>>53372225
A good DM will know when to put his foot down and stop players from acting like spoiled children.

>>53364081
Players contributing to the story is not a bad thing
GMs saying "no to some players contributions is not a bad thing
Players shaping the whole setting is not a bad thing
GMs having complete control of the setting is not a bad thing

IT
DEPENDS
ON
YOUR
GROUP
PLAYSTYLE
AND
INDIVIDUAL
PREFERENCES

>>53375242
>Create/Run a setting
This is something the GM shouldn't be allowed to do on his own. Everybody around the table makes the setting together as they play.

>Describe the outcome of every decision a player commits to
This, too, is wrong. The possible outcomes of actions are negotiated between the GM and the player before rolling, and the result is sacrosanct.

>Understand the rules, both from the player's perspective and from the perspective of the GM
These are the one and same. There are no 'player rules' and 'GM rules', just the game mechanics that are transparent to everyone around the table.

>>53375337
A good GM knows to influence the game as little as possible.

>>53374640
The odd thing is that when designing 5e, they definitely thought of immortality as end game. Druids get 10x slower aging as an 18th level feature and clone is an 8th level spell which requires 3000gp in material components. The only way to be really immortal or at least ageless is to spend a fucking epic boon on immortality.

>>53375715
immortality has never meant a damn thing in DnD.
elves live for up to 850 years.
that means that means an old elf in our world could tell me what naval combat was like before cannons.
a middle aged elf in our world would be able to tell me what it was like when queen elizabeth the first was on the throne.
an adult elf could tell me what everyone thought when the new world was discovered
a young elven adult could tell me what the wild west was like and tales of the oregon trail
and a teenaged elf could tell me what the great war was like.

>>53375968

Immortality is overrated.
It is better to die with a satisfied smile on your lips than curse at the cruel universe when the light of your star has dwindled.

>>53375715
>>53375968
From the sound of it, the guy wasn't even asking for immortality, just extended lifespan. Appearing 20 while 90 is easily elf lifespan or even half of that.

That's not really that drastic when he probably sold his soul to get it, has to watch everyone he knows die, and has to do all sorts of whatever in service of his patron.

I could understand the GM not wanting to deal with it, but its not exactly a balance concern

>>53372225
>>53374210
Go fuck yourself. My job as GM is to make sure everyone at the table has a good time. That means we agree as a group what kind of feel we want for the game. If we decide "medieval fantasy," I'm NOT fucking saying yes to the retard who wants to play a fucking terminator. I'm so sick and fucking tired of hearing this stupid drivel be praised like it's written on golden tablets shat out by God himself. There are multitudes of valid reasons to say FUCK NO to a player, because players are fucking children who don't think about other people's fun half the time.

>>53376338
well seeing as humans reach "adulthood" at 16 and elves reach "adulthood" at 100 half sounds about right.

one thing to take into consideration though is that it's not just biological it's also cultural. elves phsyically mature at the same rate as humans do but mentally develop very slowly. meanwhile gnomes mature at the same rate as humans and live to 450-500 and yet are only expected to act like adults at 40 so who knows exactly when elves actually fully mature mentally.
no one could say that a 16 year old is mentally mature so it's hard to really say when elves mature based on the short sentence the PHB gave us.

Here, lemme boil down people's major arguments against each other!
>if it's a small detail and I discuss with dm, is fine, no?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DAMN NO SENSE SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE HUGE CHANGES

There's a scale to this stuff. I believe that determines how accommodating the DM should be.

>>53375080
>mfw I have to pretend like my parents were happly married both in game and out as not to make people uncomfrotable.
Does this seriously happen? It's a game, it's make-believe, how does mentioning rape make people uncomfortable when they may well be committing genocide all the live long day in-character? I just don't understand.

>>53376548
god I agree with this.

heres a little story, I'll green text it to make it short.

>DM invites friend to play 5e
>friend hates fantasy games
>DM says he'll try to fluff him a jedi knight
>gets a completely broken character
>all the melee benifits of a fighter, all the utility benifits of a monk including + wisdom to AC without being limited to armorless
>mystic like spells but all way more powerful, again rolls off wisdom
>cherry on the cake is he can add his wisdom to his weapons attacks as well as his dex
>spends the whole game pretending it's a space opera
>tries to mind trick absolutely everyone despite my character being high charisma enough to convince most NPC's
>DM goes to far and changes his mind trick from the suggestion spell at will to a perminate plus 10 to persation and plus 5 to intimidation not including his charisma and profissancy modifer.
>guy ends up quitting because he can't trick himself into ingoring the fantasy theme

there has to be a moment where the DM says no.
where I draw the line is when brand new classes and races come into it.

using a race from the Monster manual is acceptable but coming up with a brand new special snowflake race is horse crap and the DM has every right to ignore it, the same goes for classes. in my book classes like artificer and mystic could have easily been subclasses of rogue/bard in the case of artificer and monk/soccerer in the case of mystic.

File: EXCUSE ME NIGGA.gif (234KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 500x500px

>Not letting your player be a half dragon/ lycanthrope
>not using that mere race mix to write an entire side quest for the players to tackle down the road.
fuck sakes this place is full of shit DMs

>>53376838
yes this happens. someone left the campaign I was running just because during an after game drinking party I said that half orcs would be a lot more common than half elves due to that the fact that nomadic human tribes would often get raided by orcs and orcs would take human slaves.

File: sosmug.gif (2MB, 533x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 533x300px

I generally let my players run as far afield with backgrounds and such as they like, but I restrict them to one.

It helps a lot that many games have codified the "One Unique Thing" characteristic now. Because realistically, there ought to be one unique thing about any hero, even if it's as mundane as "hates copper coins." For the ones who go big "I'm a fallen star" you reward them by hooking the shit out of that.

Congratulations Fallen Star, you're now the most wanted being in the entire world. Kingdoms will go to war to control you. But in better news, your type is now Construct.

Narrative-default games (like Fate) handle this natively, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you from welding these sorts of things onto D&D. Frankly, given the mess that D&D and alikes are, your players are unlikely to even know you made that shit up.

>>53376990
>your type is now construct

but why not celestial.....?
As in stars, angels, and heaven......?

Cause you're a fallen star

>>53376877
Seems like you had a liberal at the table who couldn't handle that life hasn't always been sunshine and rainbows and shit like murder, death, war and rape were rather common before the modern era

>>53377066
Because that is a /template/ with level adjustment in virtually every D&D-alike, whereas construct just means he can't be critically hit by mundane weapons, automatically succeeds at death saves, and doesn't require a ton of extra bookkeeping from me.

>>53377140
oh

Now the question is was he a white dwarf? A yellow sun? Was he big enough to go supernova? Could he collapse into a black hole?

Oh god, could he actually collapse into a black hole?

File: 1487233373587.png (80KB, 211x244px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 211x244px

>>53375648
>influence the game as little as possible.
>while controlling literally every aspect of the game that isn't a PC.

>>53377171
No. This is a fantasy world. No need to concern yourself with facts.

Go full Republican.

>>53377171
>roll a fort save to not collapse into a black hole and consume the party
I mean I'm in a game where a player has a cursed gauntlet where he has to make a will save whenever he looks at women for the first time each day (Female DM, won't tell me what happens if he fails so i assume its some rape fetish shit) and then another save to suppress the gauntlet summoning demons (failed it last session and we had to fight 6 bearded devils )

>>53375596
>This is something the GM shouldn't be allowed to do on his own.
Says who?
>This, too, is wrong.
Says who?
>There are no 'player rules' and 'GM rules', just the game mechanics that are transparent to everyone around the table.
Oh, you're an idiot, gotcha.

>>53377171
>Oh god, could he actually collapse into a black hole?
No reason for him to. If you're allowing players to play fallen fucking stars just because you're scared of hurting their feelings then your campaign has already collapsed into a black hole on its own.

File: IMG_0761.jpg (142KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1280x720px

Players adding to the world is great.

Its DM fodder for future encounters.

File: ichiban kek.jpg (43KB, 604x531px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 604x531px

>>53377247

File: KoboldSpearman.jpg (53KB, 603x355px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 603x355px

>>53364081
My GM fucking loves when we come up with shit for him.
>"Hey is this background for my kobold cool?"
>"Dude I have literally nothing in my setting about kobolds yet. Whatever you do is canon from here on out."

>"He asks you how you and your people came to embrace and control your lycanthropy. Gimme a Shifter creation myth."
>"Neat."

>"So here's my idea for the Paladin order I'd like to run with."
>"Hey this is a really cool system, it's informing the creation of an entire region I hadn't touched yet, thanks."

>>53377296
Legacy characters are the biggest load of shit in a tabletop RPG campaign. They're always stronger than you, always more influential to the plot, cannot be beaten no matter how many levels you gain, and they only exist as fanservice to players who may or may not even be players in the campaign anymore.

Things like Red showing up in Gen 2 only works in vidya, because vidya doesn't have to deal with 2-6 other players being bored out of their skull while the GM trades winks and nods with another player about how badass their character is.

>>53370726
I like this post
This is a good post

I've made up loads of shit for the last couple of d&d characters I've played and the GMs have loved it. I played a minotaur character in 4th edition and ended up writing a lengthy document about the species' social structure, their religion, everything and it ended up getting woven into the story. The key is to make it useable for potential plothooks and realtively vague.

>>53371831
Are you so autistic you can't see the difference between
>let me help you fit that better to this campaign
and
>either remake your backstory or GTFO

File: tmp_31659-I_am_silly!-43389097.png (42KB, 810x800px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 810x800px

>>53369113

>>53370682
But if we communicated our needs like adults and discussed things with thought and rationality acknowledging one another as equals what would we shit post about?

File: common-sense-motivational-deadpool-super-power-comic.jpg (43KB, 551x758px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 551x758px

>>53364081
How about we just shorten the advice to "Please don't REEEE. At all. For any reason."?

>>53364125
fpbp

>>53364521
This post is far too reasonable to get replies.

Have a (you) and the knowledge you posted well, friend.

>>53375080
>>53376838
See, in my game, if you wanna be a half-orc rape baby, that's fine.
Just don't really bring it up or mention it.
Because adding rape to the game only adds rape, nothing else.

I wouldn't reeee or whatever if a player tried to insert(giggity) rape into my game, I'd just deny it with a simple "No."

>>53376548
You don't seem to respect your players much. Maybe you shouldn't play with them.

>>53376548
>players are fucking children who don't think about other people's fun half the time.
>>53379185
>You don't seem to respect your players much.
Not that anon, but that's not disrespect, that's just accepting reality.

File: TWO SCOOPS.png (824KB, 1190x595px) Image search: [Google]

824KB, 1190x595px

>>53375408

>>53370499

People show up with complete characters who they then try to jam sideways into an unrelated plot and setting *all the time*. People who actually want to create something consistent and believable are on the rare side and most of them end up in the GM's chair. In any given RPG group of about five or six people, one or two of them will have actual inclination towards long term planning. One of them will be the GM, which means that at any given table there is *maybe* one guy who will use power over the setting to make it better instead of setting long term usability on fire in order to write whatever shiny thing has caught his fancy this week, then have forgotten all about it next week when he will instead use whatever worldbuilding authority he's been granted to write in whatever video game he happens to be playing or anime he happens to be watching right now.

Unless you happen to be lucky enough that your RPG group consists mostly or completely of people who are actually good at setting details, you can either tell players no or you can kick them from the group until you eventually land on a full party of people who can be trusted to add setting details without destroying the setting.

>>53378070
Are you so autistic that you can't read between the lines? If you're willing to change your backstory to better fit the campaign, you don't have to leave.

>>53379476
Not the guy you're responding to, but

>tfw try to do this, only to actually offend certain GMs, whom I suspect of not having any setting actually crafted beyond generic genericville

>>53379590
>>tfw try to do this, only to actually offend certain GMs, whom I suspect of not having any setting actually crafted beyond generic genericville
I once joined a game where the GM was so unprepared, he expected the players to make the world for him. It was the most baffling thing ever, asking him what locations exist so I could base my character from them and receiving the previous for a response.

>>53379590
This is a trend I noticed, sometimes even with my self (but I do try to control myself).

If the GM has spent a considerable time worldbuilding and has an extensive setting prepared and you suggest an addition to the world as your backstory, they'll either be able to fit it into the world, suggest appropriate changes if it doesn't fit, or at the very least have a good explanation for why your addition is not possible. These people rarely get offended.

On the other hand, if the GM has an idea for a world but hasn't spent much effort building it, and he has certain ideas (orcs don't attack villages in my setting) and you suggest a backstory addition to the world contrary to those ideas, you're likely to get a straight up dismissal and the GM might be offended, because their world isn't developed enough to provide meaningful discussion and they've been caught with their pants down.

>>53371809
you sound like a shit gm.
>hurr i do all the work
>buckle up and enjoy my story

>>53375715
Don't forget that Oath of the Ancients paladins essentially stop aging at level 20. Sure, by then they're essentially demigods, but that means they could potentially live forever.

>>53364081
You are wrong and I disagree with you.

>>53380278
>I should be able to inject whatever I want into your setting regardless of how well it fits.
>Also fuck you, how dare you tell me that muh backstory needs to change, you should be more willing to change your established setting to allow my backstory to fit by default, that's how compromise works.
This is what you sound like.

>>53379895

Why not having a "world" premade in any arbitrary selected detail should be a blame on the GM?

File: women's doubles.jpg (347KB, 1715x1141px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1715x1141px

>>53371577
>doubles advocate

>>53377242
And you are self-contradicting twat, mr. "Collaboration is two-way street unless I want it to be one-way street". Thank you for adding to my red flag collection.

>>53381203
see >>53381045

Also, it's funny how so many special snowflakes ITT got triggered by my post when I clearly stated that if you're willing to change your backstory, you don't have to leave.

>>53381045

Motherfucker you aren't George Lucas, this isn't your grand cinematic universe known for all time. Even George Lucas didn't give a fuck. You're a random GM making a setting so that three to five other people can distract themselves for a few hours on friday night. If one of your people, that is to say 25% of the audience that will ever actually play this game, wants something different, you can either accommodate them or shut down and piss them off.

If your plot flat out can not accommodate this thing because it's in a totally different direction, like some guy being a secret agent fighting terrorists when the enemy was always aliens, that's one thing and even then you can probably work with it. But to say "you can't have this one thing that's offscreen and never comes up" is the height of GM cuntery.

>>53381267

You seem to have the wrong idea.

If you piss off your players, they WILL leave. And it probably won't just be that one guy if you try to exert petty authority over the group. Your game will implode and you'll be stuck either bumming around a hangout or in an online LFG forum all over again looking for a replacement.

>>53381284
>Even George Lucas didn't give a fuck.
No kidding?

File: jar jar binks.jpg (278KB, 640x692px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 640x692px

>>53381284
>>53381321
Forgot to add pic related

>>53379097
well ironically we circle back to the issue OP had.
I picture orcs as violent and backwards but I wanted to put more reason behind it. I wanted to be a representation of a good orc, even if i was a half orc without pretending that orcs are just as well mannered as every other race.

the character went though a fantastic character arch too. due to his hatred for orcs he tried to act as human as possible yet hated human even more due to them not accepting him. in the end he found a war weary orchish camp and finally got a glimse of the more "human" side of orcs and hated them less.

>>53381304
If they ask for outlandish things and don't back down, then I don't want them. If the other players are siding with the guy wanting outlandish things, then it might not be so outlandish.. or they're also wrong, and I don't want them either. Don't bring a samurai to a medieval fantasy game, don't bring a kitsune to a gritty realistic game, and sure as shit don't think you get to dictate the reality of the setting unless the GM lets you. The concept of a player dictating shit to a GM is nonsense. If you don't like it, find another game or run one yourself.

>>53381321

Half the jedi in the prequels were either other people's characters or other people's ideas. Mace Windu was totally different before Sam Jackson decided on an entirely original lightsaber design. Aayla Secura was some guys character from tie-in stuff until George thought it was cool enough to be in the main films, and she wasn't the only one. Vast quantities of the setting are literally just "some guy had a cool idea, George ran with it over what he had before". People forget he didn't even direct two thirds of the OT and his script ideas THERE were crossed out and rewritten by everyone else onboard consistently.

>>53381335

Jar Jar, Watto, and most of the CG creatures were all george. You want to talk about a GM taking autistic notes and sticking by him, that's what that was. A GM who pulls this shit is literally Jar Jarring his players.

>>53381347

You sound like someone who burns through a lot of players. I think we all know why.

Besides, in what universe do you expect to dictate to players and then they'll magically care?

>>53379476
> One of them will be the GM, which means that at any given table there is *maybe* one guy who will use power over the setting to make it better instead of setting long term usability on fire in order to write whatever shiny thing has caught his fancy this week, then have forgotten all about it next week when he will instead use whatever worldbuilding authority he's been granted to write in whatever video game he happens to be playing or anime he happens to be watching right now.

That's not entirely bad, but certainly not something 165% adult GMs will like.

>>53381304
It is YOU who has the wrong idea pal.

As someone who has run and played in multiple groups over the years, the fastest thing that implodes a group is a whiny, dickless GM who allows his players to inject whatever fucking stupid idea they want into the campaign with no regard for either consistency or balance.

If you want to inject whatever the fuck you want into the setting without anyone veto'ing your shit, you're more than welcomed to sit down and create your own setting and run your own campaign, but don't try and dictate to me what I should and shouldn't allow into my setting just because you're too attached to a concept to compromise a bit.

>>53381304

This is the opposite of how it works. Not only is culling self-absorbed players the only reliable way to turn a PUG into a halfway decent group, even GMs who are 100% power-tripping assholes still regularly maintain groups for years. GMs are so much more rare than players that even very low quality GMs can rely on there always being more people ready to sign up. The only time a GM will ever want for players is if they have an extremely demanding (for better or for worse) vetting process.

>>53381383
Even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't change the fact that the prequels as a whole were a confusing mess of plot holes and inconsistencies, which is ultimately what happens when you decide to let everything through without putting forth some degree of quality control.

All I'm saying man is that if you can't change your backstory to suit the campaign, you can pack up your shit, go home, and create your own campaign with as much black jack and hookers as your little snowflake heart can handle.

>>53375596
>>Create/Run a setting
>This is something the GM shouldn't be allowed to do on his own. Everybody around the table makes the setting together as they play.
Too many cooks spoil the broth. If everybody contributes majorly to the setting, you're likely to end up with a lowest-common-denominator mishmash of conflicting tones and possibly even starkly incongruent paradigms.

>>Describe the outcome of every decision a player commits to
>This, too, is wrong. The possible outcomes of actions are negotiated between the GM and the player before rolling, and the result is sacrosanct.
Negotiated? Seriously? I don't have time for that shit. Besides, it would kill immersion. Ideally, the player to describes what he's trying to do (sometimes in great detail), and the GM interprets and describes the results.

>>Understand the rules, both from the player's perspective and from the perspective of the GM
>These are the one and same. There are no 'player rules' and 'GM rules', just the game mechanics that are transparent to everyone around the table.
In my view, rules are a tool the GM uses but is not ultimately bound by. To him, they're more like conventions he chooses to follow in order to provide consistency and stability so that the players can better come to terms with the way the world works. Yes, the GM has a responsibility to run a campaign that seems consistent and fair (and most of all: fun) to the players, but he's the master of the game rather than a subject of the rule book and can change things on a whim if he feels it would lead to an improved result.

>>53381399
There is a much higher volume of (shit) players than there are GM's. People go on about THAT GM on here but you'd be surprised at how much shit players will deal with after finding someone who is actually willing to sit down and run games for them, especially in a system that doesn't see many players.

File: witnessed and checked.jpg (12KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 384x384px

>>53371577
>doubles advocate
>those digits

This is really what it comes down to. It's nice if GMs can accommodate players ideas, since they give the player more opportunity to be connected to the setting, and so long as it isn't huge game changer stuff there should be a place somewhere in the world for them. If the GM can't do this, be it that the world is already fleshed out in such a way that there just isn't room for it, the players idea comes off as stupid or changes too much, or just that they feel they need to assert their role as the final say as to what is in the setting, then it's better they say something. If it changes the nature of the world in a way you don't agree with, just say no. Either way, there's no need to start a fight, or passive aggressively complain on a Zambian copper mining board. The players and the GM should cooperate in session 0 and go over their ideas first. GM has last say on the setting just like players have last say on their characters, but characters should be made to fit with each other and the setting, and that means they all have to work together and make some slight concessions.

>>53381284
>the aliens are funding terrorists now
God damn that sounds like a sick campaign.

>>53381534
>>Too many cooks spoil the broth. If everybody contributes majorly to the setting, you're likely to end up with a lowest-common-denominator mishmash of conflicting tones and possibly even starkly incongruent paradigms.

You probably didn't try it, right?
(there is another possibility, but this is the most probable)

>>53381584
>the aliens are funding terrorists now
That's half the plot of XCOM: Enemy Within.

>>53377102
>Seems like you had a liberal at the table who couldn't handle that life hasn't always been sunshine and rainbows and shit like murder, death, war and rape were rather common before the modern era
Please don't bring politics into this. It could just as easily have been a conservative who was morally offended by such unchristian / unfamily-like talk. Honestly, the latter is more likely where I'm from, but not everybody lives deep in the bible belt.

>>53381415

Then you can play without players. If you as a GM are so attached to a concept that you can't see what someone else at the table wants then you'll be dealing with random recruitment forever.

I've had to veto shit myself, very rarely. When I do it's entirely because they want material to appear I just flat out do not have time to integrate. If your player wants to be a foreign samurai in a game of knights then let them. Usually in a scenario like that it winds up that the GM is wanking over his original noble houses the players just won't care about. Because you can dictate all you want, it doesn't mean anyone will care.

>>53381422

If you keep going through players you'll invariably go through a lot of shit ones. Literally every GM I've ever worked with who ever tried this shtick was an overbearing asshole and their games deteriorate regularly.

>>53381586
>You probably didn't try it, right?
Not him but that's pretty presumptuous of you to say.

When you have a group of 3-7 people (GM included) you're going to end up in a situation where people want to inject their favorite things into the campaign while lessening the elements that they don't agree with to a manageable level. It's a danger with collaboration, especially when you're collaborating with people who aren't familiar with the concept of compromise, or the idea that not every idea is going to survive the cutting room floor.

So either you put your foot down and maintain consistency or you end up with a horrible mess that barely resembles the sum of its parts because people tried mixing gumbo with bubble gum and coconut water.

>>53381584

Yeah, but you forget the negative side to that. You treat player engagement like a nice afterthought. If you dictate to players and say they can't do something, they won't care. They may go along with it, but they still won't care about your OC or setting.

Then about two weeks later the GM is going to whine about THAT GUY because some player doesn't care about a setting that doesn't actually offer much he wants to engage with.

>>53377345
Now he's a PUSSY who doesn't control his GAGGLE OF MANCHILDREN like a SANE, RESPONSIBLE GM should.
Where he not that TOUCHY-FEELY about PUTTING his FOOT DOWN and SAYING NO, he could, perhaps, qualify as a RESPECTABLE GM worthy of LISTENING TO.
Alas, he's not. He's just a PUSSY. And you are a PRECOCIOUS CHILD usurping his NARRATIVE CONTROL.

>>53381728
>Then you can play without me.
FTFY
>If you as a GM are so attached to a concept that you can't see what someone else at the table wants then you'll be dealing with random recruitment forever.
If you as a player are so attached to a concept that you're unwilling to change it to fit within the context of the campaign, you'll be leaving groups in a huff forever.

Btw, I have a solid group now and it wouldn't have happened if I didn't cull the morons early on and became all inclusive like you want me to be.

>>53381734
>So either you put your foot down and maintain consistency or you end up with a horrible mess that barely resembles the sum of its parts because people tried mixing gumbo with bubble gum and coconut water.

The metaphor itself proves why you're wrong. Gumbo isn't a strict recipe where only one way can be correct. It's literally a type of food based around just throwing shit in and seeing what works. You can throw in fish, or pork, or beef, or shellfish, or what the fuck ever. It's a gumbo, it'll work either way. Shit, bubblegum is probably on the narrow list of ingredients that WON'T work in a gumbo.

>>53381771
>If you dictate to players and say they can't do something, they won't care.
They weren't going to care regardless if they're that easily turned off by a little bit of adversity. I mean what, you think I've never had an idea that got veto'd before? It hurts a bit but after I got over myself, me and the GM changed a few things around and my character became more fleshed out because of it.

You act like the rough draft is the only draft that matters.

>>53381771
It's nice that you brought up player engagement.

Players who must have things their way, like that proverbial player who plays a samurai among knights or a guy who brings a kitsune character to a mostly human settings are those that don't engage with the campaign and the world at all. They simply don't give a fuck about anything but their special snowflake and will throw a fit and leave when things don't go their way.

On the other hand, people who work with the GM to make characters that fit and learn about the world care a lot more about its fate and get involved with stuff.

>>53381801
>Btw, I have a solid group now and it wouldn't have happened if I didn't
Find the most spineless yes-men with tastes vaguely resembling my own

>>53381801

I've had a solid group of players for like a decade. After a certain point you have to acknowledge that yes, players want things that weren't planned for and yes, sometimes you have to say no. But demanding that, as the original example in the thread said, no villages can be attacked by orcs or equivalent monsters because it doesn't match your charts and screaming about it makes you a shrieking autist.

Ideally yes, you should have a session 0 or whatever equivalent you want and talk about it but if you flat shut down people it won't matter. That's not a discussion, it's an ultimatum.

>>53381399
No way buddy. I do reject idiots like you out of hand, however, which leaves me with a core of players that appreciate consistency instead of letting them be a half-kobold-vampire homebrew bloodwitch or some dogshit like that.

>>53381816
>Shit, bubblegum is probably on the narrow list of ingredients that WON'T work in a gumbo.
And that's my point. Even with the near limitless possibilities that tabletop gaming gives us, there are still some elements that won't work in every single campaign and trying to force that element in anyways will only ruin the overall concept as a whole.

>>53381870
>spineless yes-men with tastes vaguely resembling my own
That sounds like the kind of GM you want to run your games for you so your snowflake can be the center of attention.

>>53381868

And the reverse is also true. If you're a GM who insists everything be exactly your way you're just as much a cunt.

The rebuttal isn't even a rebuttal of that, it's "well there are more players so I can be as much of a cunt as I want".

>>53381870
>Find the most spineless yes-men with tastes vaguely resembling my own
That sounds more like the criteria you look for in your GM's than anything resembling anyone in my group.

>>53381877
>But demanding that, as the original example in the thread said, no villages can be attacked by orcs or equivalent monsters because it doesn't match your charts and screaming about it makes you a shrieking autist.
Sure mate, I'm the screaming autist, not the people who are so stubborn that they outright refuse to change their concept as to not include orc attacks in favor of something else.

Whatever you say buddy.

>>53381894
>That sounds like the kind of GM you want to run your games for you so your snowflake can be the center of attention.

If I wanted to help the GM whack off to his GMPC I wouldn't even make a PC that could do anything.

Which is the point. In situations like this what almost invariably happens is some GM writes up a bunch of pages of shit about how cool this or that group is and then they throw the PC's in to deal with them, and expect the players to care about it as much as they do.

>>53381904
> If you're a GM who insists everything be exactly your way you're just as much a cunt.
I'm not telling you how to play your character, so why are you feeling like you have a right to tell me how I should run my game?

>>53381937
>If I wanted to help the GM whack off to his GMPC I wouldn't even make a PC that could do anything.
Not him but who said anything about having a GMPC ? How about you dislodge the head from your anus and focus on the actual argument?

>>53381904
>well there are more players so I can be as much of a cunt as I want
Nowhere did I mention that or even attempt to make that point in my post.

But it is a good point. GM are allowed to get away with more because there are more players than GMs.

A GM can be all kinds of cuntish and autistic and he will eventually find a group of players who tolerate his particular brand of autism and enjoy his game. On the other hand, a player will have a harder time finding a GM that fulfills their particular wants.

So yeah, for every GM out there, there is a group of players willing to play and enjoy their game, it's just a question of finding them.

>>53381950
>I'm not telling you how to play your character

That's exactly what the argument is about. The GM vetoing any concepts that don't match their ideas. Read the fucking OP again.

>I'm not saying how to play your character. I'll veto a bunch of details and say you can't do it this way or that way, but I'm not saying it.

>>53381890
>But I'll still let them be 6 multiclass polymath, it's in the rurus.

>>53381734
>>53381734

Eh. I receive IRL this "objection" from people that don't do that.

The only real caveat is that you shouldn't mix normal adventuring (or... whatever the character do, really) with "worldbuilding".

Also, 7 people? What are you smoking? 5 is most of the time the upper limit.

>>53381982

Except of course, that's not really an argument here. We aren't in a LFG forum or on Roll20 looking for a group. Nobody in this thread has to swallow it and not call a cunt a cunt.

>>53382009
>that's not really an argument here
Yes, that's why I didn't make it an argument in the first place.

>>53381986
Vetoing a character concept before play is not the same as going "okay Fred, Orgath the Barbarian attacks this guy and activates Rage."

The fact that you equate them as such tells me more and more why a player like you wouldn't last long as any but the most spineless of GM's tables.

>>53382000
read >>53381734
>(GM included)
So 2-6 players, plus the GM.

>>53382037
>>>53382009

No. 5 people including the GM. 4 players tops.

The rest is mostly insanity. Maybe 5 players, anything above is for highly specialized RPGs like The Final Girl.

>>53381905
Oh, what a wonderful self-deception. When was the last time your players actually disagreed with you on the matter of character concepts or elements of your setting?
Wait, that's exactly what you controlled for, the question is meaningless! Wow!

>>53382071
Really depends on the players. If all the players are familiar with the system and you can trust them to do the bookkeeping of their character and not lie about it, then you can usually squeeze in 5 or 6.

>>53382000
>The only real caveat is that you shouldn't mix normal adventuring (or... whatever the character do, really) with "worldbuilding".

As a general rule if whatever the PC's do is considered normal, and you play it straight faced, you've failed already. Normal people don't get into life or death fights on a daily or weekly basis.

PC's are by their baseline already highly unusual cases. They aren't generic individuals. Which is why it's ok to be a samurai in a knightly setting, your character is by default going to be an unusual individual and focus of the campaign. Saying that this guy with a sword and armor is slightly different from the other guys, but in a way that's mostly cosmetic, shouldn't be a problem.

>>53382098

No. I tried it many times in those situations. At the very most simpler games with no bookeeping could have the most "dangerously overcharged" tables.

>>53382113

I was clearly meaning "normal for the game". In DND, perhaps 50-70% of the time it's fighting, so it's normal for the characters to do.

File: tism.jpg (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

This entire fucking thread is strawmen arguing against strawmen. The answer is spelled out in OP's title, though he's too much of a faggot to realize it.

Players ADDING to the world is not a bad thing. Players CONTRADICTING the world, is. If your GM has a setting where orcs don't exist, or where orcs are not just rampaging Chaotic Evil murderers, or where every village has an anti-orc bubble around it, and that is part of his setting, fuck you for expecting it to change. You're an entitled piece of shit who has no respect for the amount of time and passion your GM has poured into the campaign world for your enjoyment.

If however, your campaign world says nothing at all on orcs, and adding that element would not contradict existing ones, then you should absolutely allow it.

For example, in my campaign currently I had a player who rerolled recently as a bloodthirsty ex-soldier who saw the error of his ways and became a paladin. The kingdom he wanted to be from hadn't had any wars in his lifetime, so we talked about it and now his character's from another landmass off to the east, which I hadn't fluffed out yet, and his backstory can inform what happens when I do. His initial backstory didn't work in the setting, but because we're both adults and not autistic raving manchildren, we talked about it and found a solution that preserved both what he wanted to do with his backstory and my established campaign setting.

Basically grow a pair of balls and talk to your GM/player instead of anonymously crying about it on here.

>>53377102
>>/pol/

>>53382156
Did you make the paladin guy an ex-conquistador?

>>53382156
>strawmen arguing against strawmen
Welcome to /tg/. Eventually you will learn to enjoy your anger.

>>53382156

True dat, but the question is: should GMs by allowed by default to do the worldbuilding by themselves?

Operating word here: default.

>>53382080
>When was the last time your players actually disagreed with you on the matter of character concepts or elements of your setting?
Actually, something like that happened recently. Basically, I had an idea of adding an island that used a sort of magic energy that turned out to be siphoning energy from magical creatures that were eldritch abominations and coming in contact with this energy could cause you to gain magical powers (assuming you didn't die).

I ran the idea by a player who wasn't related to my first group (so as not to ruin the surprise) and that led to a three hour discussion on the nature of horror elements and some recommended reading for stories that included magic and technology together.

So I mean, I'm sorry to break the strawman but I'm not a draconian figure, I just won't back down when idiots think that they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want without even being willing to meet me halfway on shit.

>>53375596
Holy shit you sound absolutely insufferable and I pity anyone who has to play with you. Although tbf you probably just lurk /tg/ rather than actually forcing your shit ideas upon any real groups, so that's something.

>>53382199
>should GMs by allowed by default to do the worldbuilding by themselves?
Only if players should be allowed by default to play their characters the way they want without the GM assuming direct control.

In a word: Yes

>>53382225

But then we go back to square one, if we assume the worst possible strawmans. The GM writes up fifty pages of wankery, and the PC makes his kitsune ninja wizard anyway.

>>53371809
You win the prize to the most autistic comment of the day. Congrats I can smell the cheeto breath from here.

>>53382199
>should GMs by allowed by default to do the worldbuilding by themselves?
Here's how it works usually: The players and the GM decide on the type of game they want to play and the system they want to use. Then the GM goes off and prepares the campaign, including any necessary worldbuilding suitable to the agreed before type of game. The players then build their characters to fit the world and type of game (because they all agreed beforehand).

>>53382242
At the end of the day, you don't have to play at a table if you don't like the GM's setting but the group can easily replace your kitsune waifu ass if you end up being a disruptive piece of shit.

>>53382225

You know, this is the old conundrum.

A GM is supposed to be many things, but no, being the worlduilder no, he's not supposed to be.

Case in point: published settings. Hell, take The One Ring. Do you think the motherfucker could make Elrond a robot ninja maid and not be thorn into pieces by the group?

Worldbuilding is one the things that OFTEN the GM does, but not by any means something he should do by default.

>and no, the players aren't really that free many times, even. You do chargen at the table with the other guys, right?

File: 1485490137140.jpg (49KB, 564x470px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 564x470px

>>53382275

>>53382199
Yeah, of course. The only issue with the GM doing all the worldbuilding is if they get super attached to their setting and won't budge, but if you just let your worldbuilding inform you, there's no issue. Like, I have a rough timeline of the past 1000 years of the main kingdom's history in my setting, but my players don't know about it, and if I or they think of something cool, I can just change it. I just use it to give me a sense of what kind of shit has gone down in this world, and am open to it changing.

The only exception is if you're building something intrinsically tied to a player. I have a monk in my campaign who's from some briefly described reclusive order, and when/if they show up in the game I'll have to develop them with him beforehand, to make sure they match the version of them he has in his head.

>>53382278

It's something that should be discussed beforehand.

>>53382309

So, you will not even try to explain why. Well, at least you're being honest.

>>53382291
>A GM is supposed to be many things, but no, being the worlduilder no, he's not supposed to be.
Says who? I'd rather play in a setting that the GM took time to flesh out than an amorphous void that only exists as far as our current position in space. It at least shows that the GM gives a shit, even if it's not always the most well written thing in the world.

>>53382338

The rules.
He can be, but he can also not be.

Also, I tought it would've been obvious, but if he isn't, it means the group as a whole is.

>>53382358
>The rules.
I don't know what kinda rules you're using but most DMG's (or their equivalent) gives the GM tips for worldbuilding their own settings mate. Hell, it's one of the few aspects of D&D that I can say isn't complete dogshit, even PF pulls this off well.

>>53382199
Why not? If you don't like their setting, you find another one. I can't say that I've two decades of GMing under my belt, but most players I've seen either wouldn't bother or make a shitland where everything is both flavorless pastiche and badly researched, inconsistent shlock.

>>53382201
Was he your player from the team B?
Eh, I just feel there's a place for more cooperative world-building than 80/20, despite of my experience. I'd like to try that sometime. RPGs are very diverse, I'm sure there is something just like that.

That said, if someone tried to bring incongruent shit into my own pwecious babby homebrew setting, I'd say "No" quite firmly.

>>53382291
Even if the GM is running a campaign on an existing setting, he must still do a certain amount of worldbuilding, the only difference is that his ideas must fit with the existing setting.

The only time I can think of the GM not needing to do any worldbuilding at all is when they're running a module or something where everything is already done for them.

That said, I worldbuild as a hobby and I don't always run the settings myself. Other GMs have run games in a setting I built.

There's a trap that many GMs fall into when worldbuilding, though. They write out this large wiki and draw up some cool maps and make up a whole history, and then they try to hand it out to the players. What worldbuilders needs to realize is that all those materials you're writing, they're not for the players, they're for the GM to use as reference for running the game. Sometimes the GM happens to be the guy who built the world, but that's not important.

>>53381728
>Literally every GM I've ever worked with who ever tried this shtick was an overbearing asshole and their games deteriorate regularly.

Then the problem is you. While assembling groups for play I've seen players demand entire kingdoms answering to them which they left behind just for the thrill of adventure, explicitly state that their character is completely uninterested in the plot hook, demand that I figure out why their character should be interested in the ongoing plot of a group they were joining mid-campaign instead of figuring out their own character's connection to the story themselves (am I supposed to railroad my group into dealing with their sub-plot just so they can meet this new guy, who might end up flaking out anyway?), assign themselves clearly mid- or high-level accomplishments while still level 1-5, a character who was tortured by bad guys so that they'd lash out with their sorcerous powers at the bad guys' enemies (an ability that the bad guys controlled...how?) and who is now an unstable psychotic, players who used a specific vaguely-Catholic church by name in their backstory and who therefore clearly read the background summary but who apparently think their personal hang-ups are more important than the clearly stated fact that this church is the center of knowledge and learning in the center and not a bunch of oppressive luddites who want to quash science, characters who are literal to the point of starting actual violent fights because they don't understand that "pick your poison" is a metaphor and who demand that the party come up with a reason not to immediately ditch the violently unstable stranger they met yesterday, characters who became high-ranking officers in the BBEG's army but then deserted because, apparently, he woke up one day and decided that being evil was bad, and characters who tried to join mid-way through a campaign with a backstory that rewrote actual events in the campaign that players had been present for.

>>53382334
Why what? Why the GM should do the worldbuilding? Because its his job? That's like asking why the GM should run the NPCs, who the fuck else is going to do it? Sure players can inform and contribute, but at the end of the day you are building the world because the players showed up to play and you showed up to simulate their playground.

You can play games where everything is done by committee and group consensus, but they're very much the exception.

I didn't 'explain why' the GM does the worldbuilding because I assumed you'd actually played an RPG before and were familiar with how they normally work. Do you go up to people on the street, say 'should people be allowed by default to drive?', they say 'yeah, barring certain circumstances like if they've been convicted for dangerous driving' and you go 'oho, you didn't even try to explain why people should drive!'. It's the cultural norm motherfucker, people assume you aren't retarded.

>>53382404

There's more, but I ran into the character limit just explaining all the stupid character backstories I've gotten the last couple of years.

If you don't vet these kinds of players out of your group, you have two choices: Refuse to let players meddle with the setting because a significant number of them are self-aggrandizing assholes, or accept that your setting is going to be quicksand underneath your player's feet and that it will be impossible for anyone who is actually taking things seriously to build anything on that foundation. You can't build a meaningful kingdom for your character when everyone else feels entitled to backstory one into existence at-will and does so regularly.

>>53382389

It's pretty rare, actually. I'd say only DND does that, vs "creating NPCs and situations" (which is something older RPGs do assign to the GM)

>>53382395

Try them. Try going out with a map to partially fill with them. Ask the elf what the elves do, and so on.

>>53382400

See first reply here. Worldbuilding is distinguished from "preparing the encounter".

>>53382408

No, it isn't. It's not written anywhere, generally speaking.

That's of course not counting the games where the default is collective worldbuilding, like PBTAs.

>>53382476
The problem is that you're seeing this from the lens of D&D, where a world mostly exist and the game is a "series of encounters" to you.

And even then, you still have to decide, for example, who is the local Lord, what goes on in the local cities, the context for those encounters and the basic motivation behind the campaign. All that is worldbuilding. Granted, it's a different level of worldbuilding than designing the entire world, it's races and it's maps, but it's worldbuilding nonetheless.

As for your other point, as soon as you leave the D&D-like bubble, plenty of systems include a chapter or two (sometimes entire books in case of generic systems like GURPS) dedicated to building a setting for the campaign.

>>53381284
>you can either accommodate them or shut down and piss them off.
>ITT: everyone thinks these are the only two options

>>53381345
This is great.
And rape wasn't mentioned once.

>>53364081
Play Drama System with another RPG of your choosing to deal with this

>>53382526

I actually didn't play DND in the last... I dunno, 5 years?

>And even then, you still have to decide, for example, who is the local Lord, what goes on in the local cities, the context for those encounters and the basic motivation behind the campaign. All that is worldbuilding. Granted, it's a different level of worldbuilding than designing the entire world, it's races and it's maps, but it's worldbuilding nonetheless.

I see that you are grasping what I am talking about (not sarcastic).

But GM really has to do the ecounters and a part (well, maybe most, if secrets are a big deal) of what goes on in City X. Why not ask the cleric what gods are worshipped in the city, for example? Or, in a vampire setting, not asking the Ventrue who is the prince there?

I don't really think there is any reason to ask inputs only a larger scale.

>>53364521
/thread
Now let's get back to shitposting.

>>53370726
>collaboration is a two way street
So stay on your goddamn side of the road, motherfucker.

>>53368011
The orcs could have been bandits, or soldiers from a nation or tribe they were at war with. The character was probably like 10 when it happened, he didn't know why the orcs attacked only that they did.

File: women's doubles advocate.png (910KB, 548x583px) Image search: [Google]

910KB, 548x583px

>>53381118

>>53376548
>If we decide "medieval fantasy," I'm NOT fucking saying yes to the retard who wants to play a fucking terminator

>What are Warforged
>Who is Pelinal Whitestrake

You can totally play a fucking Terminator in medieval-esque D&D if you want and aren't trying to break the setting too hard.

Just don't be a cunt, whether you're a player or a DM, and everything will be fine.

File: 9f659e756233606d62d732982ca23e32166952164727357f1e72fe4bfaecb05e.png (39KB, 552x558px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 552x558px

Lotta sperg GMs in this thread.

Maybe, y'know, GMs and Players SHOULD talk and compromise, so everyone has fun. Y'know, put the Game in Game Master, put the Play in Player, that happy shit. That's fun.

Maybe if you're someone who's rigidly uncompromising, GM or Player, then you're the energy-sapping force.

Honestly, as long as a Player makes a character that uses approved mechanics and they aren't going to be That Guy (say, they do make the Kitsune Waifu, but the character actually behaves as a reasonable person and party member), then the GM should just let it slide.

So many games on /tg/ are just so...ridiculously out there in terms of character creation and settings that I'm pretty sure this is a troll thread anyway, but eh. That's my piece.

>>53381586
>You probably didn't try it, right?
I've been role-playing for three decades, dude. I've done freeform collaborative storytelling as the plot of a cooperative war game, and purely as its own thing. It's not that it can't be done well, but it's very hit or miss, and as you get more people, the chance of having a successful meeting of the minds decreases at a dramatic rate.* In role-playing games in particular, it decreases immersion, and undermines the strengths of having one guy who's in charge and can fit everything together and maintain a consistent tone.

*Somebody is always going to be significantly sillier or more uptight than you are. An order / integrity vs. unbridled creativity / anything goes struggle is almost assured at some point. I'm decidedly on the side of the former and lose all interest in a setting if it's a discordant hodgepodge of everything anybody could think of haphazardly thrown together with the kitchen sink.

>>53382967

I'm not talking about freeform.

>>53382395
>Was he your player from the team B?
He was a player from another group that I play with who is unaffiliated with the players from my other group. Calling them "team A" or "Team B" is a disservice because I value both groups equally for their own individual reasons.

>>53383024
>I'm not talking about freeform.
I wasn't trying to imply that you were. My point is simply that that is about as collaborative as you can get, and I'm no stranger to it.

>>53382707
Warforged only exist in Eberron, where magitek is not only common but a part of the setting's identity as a whole.

I'm not going to let you play a terminator in a "medieval fantasy" no matter how much you cry or scream or beg because not every setting needs a goddamned terminator!

>>53364081
My favorite NPC I have in my current game came from me asking a player if they had any connections in the city. They said yes, and I asked for a name. The rest is history. He's like hedonism bot, the rhakshasa. It's kinda incredible

>>53383061

So... basically I am right, you didn't try what I was thinking about?

>>53382712
A lot of people ITT are getting held up on the tone and missing the overall point of the message.

If the DM says that something about your backstory doesn't work, change it up so that it does.

That's all people are saying, but the message is lost because people can't help but be aggressive.

Dont know if this is relevant at all, but im a first time gm, still building up the world, barely got a map and want to take my time on things.

I mainly started to make this campaign to let my gm play some, so he didnt end up a forever gm.
yesterday i asked him for his backstory, specifically how he got into contact with the guildmaster (we are playing a casual mission-oriented game, or so i planned)

Appariently he didnt care about that, but he had a sister, a brother, a father a mother, grandparents on either side, all with different specifications of magic, and an entire town buildt up apariently. And said town did not fit on my map, according to him.

Am i just too much a pussy, and like to take things too slow to appreciate what he is trying to do, or is he too eager, trying to impose things into my game?

Please givie me your opinions

>>53383237

Why is he saying that his town doesn't fit on your map? One town is a small enough deal that you should be able to find room for it in practically any setting.

File: Aliss-Local.png (75KB, 775x626px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 775x626px

>>53383285
Thats what i said too. He disagreed.
To be fair, i have a rather tiny map, since i was told to ''start small'', since i have a bad habbit of starting something.. and working on it endlessly, never really getting satisified with it, so small map it was.

>>53383318

Wait, do you think per se the village would fit?

>>53383318

So what does he expect you to do, scrap your setting and start over building out from his one specific town? If so, that's completely unreasonable, and if not, then what does he expect you to do?

File: halforc.jpg (327KB, 630x900px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 630x900px

My problem with spur-of-the-moment changes is that I they often get in the way of my plans as a GM, and I don't mean the grand "plot" or anything like that, but something as simple as their spur-of-the-moment change fucking up my planned game session and making me either incorporate the change with my notes or veto them at the table.

I don't mind if players want to world-build on an idea. Talk to me between sessions and we'll grab a coffee and hash something out I can work into a coming session, where the creative process for GMing belongs. I'm likely to be cool with 95% of what you're proposing unless you're a "That Guy" or using the game to roleplay some fantasies you should be paying someone to roleplay with you.

A good example of this (which is when I put my foot down on this bullshit) is a haunted house-style adventure I was about to run. The players all arrive at a gleaming seaside town shining in the sun, and I give a basic description as they stroll in.

Fucknut Player decides that this is his PC's hometown and it's going to be great for the rest of the party to meet them. Well, congrats buckaroo, because you just got your family killed a week ago when the town got invaded by sea monsters who killed everyone and replaced them with dopplegangers. I'd already dropped hints at the end of the previous session that things were not okay in town.

So I had to choose between killing off the PC's entire family, scratch-building a new 8-hour session from the smoking remains of my notes for what COULD have been happening during that time, or I could break character and immersion by vetoing the family idea, pissing off the player in the short-term and allowing them to sniff out the non-kosher town far earlier with metagaming.

That's how I had a guy get so angry he almost flipped a table on me and that's why I tell players they need to clear additions to the world in advance and not spring them on me mid-session.

>>53383457
Im sorry, but im not really sure i got that?

>>53383464
We talked it over, and i told him that if he wanted to, he could instead be from a metropolis not far away from the map border. We came to somewhat of an agreement, since we both thought that fit a bit more considering his backstory

>>53383493
So what happened?

Did he get mad because you told him that he couldn't have been from that hometown or was he pissed off that you killed off his family?

>>53383495

He's saying that his town doesn't fit, but do YOU think it fits?

>>53383638
Oh like that!
I mean it could have been placed in the outer part of the forest region, since there is space there, but he had some requirements about the placement.
So instead we found another solution

>>53383613
Killed his family, the entire lot of 'em. Including a little sister in magic training who he'd actually been building a character sheet for, for when he could take her on as a cohort under the rules.

There were a bunch of dire warnings in the previous session about how the next town they were traveling to "wasn't right", according to a merchant caravan. The caravan specifically mentioned that there were strange sounds at night and that several of their guards and other employees had gone missing during their stay, which is when they cut and ran after just a couple days rather than the week they'd spent there.

I wasn't going to burn through half my notes figuring out how his family would survive a town otherwise infested with monsters, nor was I going to break character and veto it, as I hadn't had to do that in the campaign before.

He got mad because I didn't warn him, and it's like... Dude.

At the end of every session, I recap what they've done from a cue card, important NPCs they've interacted with and important tasks they've accomplished. I read back the same cue card at the beginning of the next session. He knew he was walking into something spooky when he made the call to make the place his home town.

The only thing I can think of was that he was angling to get his sister as a cohort before he'd have to spend the feat to obtain her, maybe with him "forgetting" to take the feat a session or two down the line when he would have gotten it.

File: IMG_0043.png (86KB, 192x187px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 192x187px

>>53364081
I always feel bad trying to add in something like that during my current game. I've been playing an Elan and in My DM's current setting magic and anything that remotely resembles it is basically outlawed so backstory wise so as a result their kind built an underground city with a very small population.

I'd like to bring stuff up about it in game, but I've been hesistanr to do so since I don't want to force my own ideas for it on his setting. Especially if he has nothing planned as of yet, which I'm certain that as of now he doesn't.

>>53364081
If you let the players control the setting, it's an entirely different kind of game.

Personally, I'm a roleplaying purist: the players shouldn't even participate in character creation, including the fundamental motivation of the character. All of their decisions should be presented to the player from the character's perspective. The player takes the role of the character. They're not just trying to win, they're trying to achieve what their characters would regard as a win.

>You are three farmers, the father, brother, and fiance of a bride snatched by forest elves while she was bathing for her wedding. You all wish to get her back, but the father doesn't want to also lose his son trying, the brother is secretly more excited for the adventure than horrified for the possible loss of his sister, and the fiance entertains a fantasy of balancing the scales by stealing an elf girl.

Compared to the usual, "we meet in a tavern, where a guy has something for us to do", look at how much more satisfying the set-up can be when the DM designs the party, how much clearer it is what motivates the characters when they start out as part of the story.

>>53385287
That sounds like a fun one shot.

>>53385287
Sounds like you want to play a single player DM game.

>>53383116
I mean, he's not wrong. It isn't a hard concept to fit into fantasy settings even without going for warforged.

Golems exist in plenty of settings. A vengeful undead in plate armor could fit a similar theme with a more fantasy tone. Even in the most plain and down-to-earth medieval europe simulator you could still do it justice by having a particularly hardy knight with a skull-shaped helmet to intimidate his foes.

But no, you've assumed that no compromise can be reached, and your player is a Strawman that will only accept being a literal futuristic killer robot.

>>53364081
>You thought they were orcs but they were actually using illusion magic to hide they fact they were drow

There, everybody's happy

>>53385287
>The literal opposite of a role playing purist

>Midway through a battle that was going to shit, I decided that my character and another character were in a platonic relationship and had an adopted daughter from another race (we're two different races)
>He went with it because he thought I was dying
>Several sessions later, she now has a name, personality, and we're journeying across the world to spend some time with her before setting off on our next adventure

>>53385553
The original premise of bringing up the terminator was that it's ok to say NO when someone wants to play a time-traveling, gun-slinging, metal man from the future in a medieval fantasy game, you unbelievable twat. You yourself have outlined options that are a hard NO to this concept as well.

File: 1491899782770.png (207KB, 754x554px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 754x554px

>All of this sperging over things that can be solved by just talking

Was today "Act like a retard" day?

>>53364081
Fuck you. If I say there aren't any orcs in my setting, then that's the end of it.

>>53383237
>Appariently he didnt care about that, but he had a sister, a brother, a father a mother, grandparents on either side, all with different specifications of magic, and an entire town buildt up apariently. And said town did not fit on my map, according to him.
Yeah, he has WAY overstepped the boundaries of good manners.

>>53364081
There's a word missing from your thread title, OP. It's the word "necessarily", and it needs to go between "not" and "a".

Player contribution to the world is generally a good thing, yes, as it helps to invest them in the game and the setting. However, if something a character contributes directly contradicts an established fact of the setting (say, in 40k, an individualistic Tyranid that isn't a Genestealer or a synapse creature), then the GM is entirely within their rights to say no.

File: full.png (28KB, 682x530px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 682x530px

>Not throwing half-assed, barely detailed settings at your players
>Not using whatever backstories they make, whatever great nations they build, or villages to be sacked by orcs, or weird races you hadn't thought of at all yet, to fill the blanks on the map and in the history of the setting and in its present population

Are there seriously the sort of ultra-autists on this board who could build a complete world all on their lonesome, so well that anyone getting to play in it would have to be really careful with their backstory to not step on whatever lore you already made?

How can you even manage that? How'd you not get bored and quit about halfway through at most? And, perhaps most of all, did you really expect the players not to tear it all apart as soon as you showed it to them, the way they always fuck up all our intricately detailed plans in actual play?

>>53383155
>So... basically I am right, you didn't try what I was thinking about?
No. I'm saying I've played the spectrum. In my experience, having the players co-create the world leads to inferior results.

>>53386159
It's /tg/. It's always act like a retard day.

>>53388341
>No. I'm saying I've played the spectrum
Well you're certainly on the spectrum.

>>53367915
>if I'm not telling you how to play your character
But you are telling them how to play their character, you myopic turd. If you tell a player that the backstory they came up with is impossible because it has setting elements you won't allow to be in your story, you're literally telling them how to play their character.

>>53364081
ad hoc content rarely has the same quality as carefully preplanned and -designed content. your point is invalid.

>>53387741
>How'd you not get bored and quit about halfway through at most?
because pursuing an atmospheric, coherent vision of a setting is fun

>did you really expect the players not to tear it all apart
you mean I should let jerks be jerks? I expect players with average IQ to the feel for the setting and to make their characters fit into it accordingly. if anyone has anything worthwhile to contribute beyond that, sure! but I won't hold my breath for it.

File: 1488106554657.jpg (38KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x375px

>>53388679
>If you tell a player that the backstory they came up with is impossible because it has setting elements you won't allow to be in your story, you're literally telling them how to play their character.

>Telling people to change their backstory in session 0 is the same as taking their character sheet and assuming control of their character.

>>53389026
Moving the goalposts. You're not controlling their character, you're telling them HOW to play their character, like you, or he, originally said. It's hypocritical to say that you're setting clear boundaries for not infringing on your player's domain, so they shouldn't infringe on yours, if your description shows that you actually do invade a very important part of the player's role: creating a character backstory.

Now in real life, not in the bizarro one of the post I replied to, there is overlap between the role of the player and DM, and the two of them need to talk it out, and work out how the player's backstory fits in. But but they need to work it out so that the player's backstory generally fits in. If a DM says "No, that backstory just doesn't work, because there's none of that" That's pretty shit, and a good way to alienate people very quickly, especially considering there's no reason for that kind of autism before the players have even glimpsed the first session.

>>53388616
It's the standard way to play, dude. That doesn't necessarily make it the right way, but it does make it a bit silly to imply that proponents of it are autistic, since they outnumber the other folks. "Ha, ha! You're so autistic, doing things the normal way!"

I'm always amazed by the amount of That Guy or other stories that could have been solved in a matter of seconds if the group just discussed things like adults.
Then again, thats assuming anyone in /tg/ actually plays.

>>53386159
Welcome to /tg/, where people that haven't touched either a d20 or a human bean sperg over stupid shit in big boys make-believe.

>>53388679
>Okay, I want to play a robot with futuristic weapons
>Sorry anon, these don't exist/wouldn't fit in my setting
Telling you WHAT character to play (often acceptable)

>Okay, I'm going to save the little girl and let the painting burn.
>No, you don't, your character is selfish. You save the painting instead.
Telling you HOW to play your character (rarely acceptable).

>>53389139
>Moving the goalposts.
How?
>You're not controlling their character, you're telling them HOW to play their character, like you, or he, originally said.
Oh, you're just being stupid.

Here's the thing mate, telling someone that an element in their backstory doesn't work for the setting is not telling someone how their character should be played. When you're submitting a backstory to the GM, you're effectively giving them a rough copy, with the intention that the GM act as an editor who tells you what elements work, what elements don't work, and which elements can be improved upon.
> If a DM says "No, that backstory just doesn't work, because there's none of that" That's pretty shit, and a good way to alienate people very quickly, especially considering there's no reason for that kind of autism before the players have even glimpsed the first session.
Aside from the fact that it's the GM's setting and they're free to allow whatever they want to maintain consistency?

>>53390134
>Aside from the fact that it's the GM's setting and they're free to allow whatever they want to maintain consistency?

If the setting has any consistency in it to be maintained, you've probably been seriously overthinking and overfluffing it by that point.

>>53390180
>I have never made a setting before in my life but here's my opinion anyway.
Y'know, you don't have to play if you're unwilling to change your backstory a bit.

>>53387741
>Not throwing half-assed, barely detailed settings at your players
The fact that this statement seems to be made in all seriousness saddens me. I really don't get it. Do you guys think that the LGS shit-game, the one that goes nowhere, is full of lolrandumb humor, and fizzles out in 6-8 sessions is the height of tabletop?

>>53390362
>fizzles out in 6-8 sessions
You're severely overestimating the longevity of those types of games anon. 3-5 is more reasonable.

>>53390362
Better than it fizzling out in session zero because the autistic DM's speshul snowflake setting has no room for player backstories.

Probably would've been railroaded like shit anyway.

File: strawman.jpg (150KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 333x500px

>>53391044

File: 1377212806729.jpg (322KB, 1053x1070px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1053x1070px

>>53391044

>>53375266

If the DM hands you a map and you decide your character will be from some region that hasn't been developed and you make up a town to go there, within reason, and the DM tells you no without a good fucking reason? Fuck that dm.

>>53391054
Hey, you started it. Went on to make all manner of baseless assumptions about my campaign because I don't see the need to plug all the holes in my setting like some obsessive control freak.

>>53391286
Why would you decide to be from an area that isn't on the map though? Are you so much of a special snowflake that you couldn't pick an area on the map like everyone else?

>>53391414
>Hey, you started it.
Not him, but are twelve years old?

>>53375337

Yea trying to have an interesting backstory and build on what the dm has developed and make a denser world.. so spoiled

>>53391443

The map has like four towns, and all those towns have tons if info and baggage and we're probably going there. The dm can never tell me everything and I don't want to be constantly looking stupid because my character should have known a thing. Better to be from unimportant town and if it comes up I can improv what I know about it within reason and make my character look like a normal dude who has a past and is from a place.

>>53391414
Serious question. Have you EVER had a player point out the holes in your settings? Get upset that they're there? Because I have. Now, maybe, because of the groups you play with, that problem has never come up, but it's not really a good problem to have, especially since it could have all been avoided if you put more work in.

>>53391414
0/10
Would wake away from the table if this was my GM

>>53391548
>The dm can never tell me everything and I don't want to be constantly looking stupid because my character should have known a thing.
Why don't you ask for a primer? Why not talk to the GM between sessions so you have a better idea of what the town is like? Why are you so worreid about looking stupid in a game where a bunch of nerds are pretending to be Barbarians and shit?

I mean, you're worried about looking stupid, yet you go out of your way to draw attention to your stupidity?

>>53391505
You're spoiled because you believe that a) your backstory is more important than the setting that the GM has developed for you to be in and b) your needs should be catered to, even at the cost of everyone else's enjoyment.

If you can't gel with what's established in the setting, that's your problem, not the GM's.

>>53391550
The thing about holes is that the more you fill up of the setting, the more glaring and noticeable those holes become. The more shit there is already, the more likely it is they don't mesh well together at all. Hence, it's better to paint with the broad strokes and develop most of it in play.

If you've found a group that actually cares about your unique setting, your writing, and all the work you put in it, then congratulations. It seems to work for you fine. But mine are more concerned with how fun the game itself is going to be, not how fun it is to read about it.

>>53391650
Or maybe you could have the character come from elsewhere and learn about it in organic gameplay, allow the character to be as ignorant as the player to relate to them better?

>>53391765
>The thing about holes is that the more you fill up of the setting, the more glaring and noticeable those holes become. The more shit there is already, the more likely it is they don't mesh well together at all.
Maybe if you're a shitty writer with no quality control, sure that might be a problem.
>But mine are more concerned with how fun the game itself is going to be, not how fun it is to read about it.
You're right, it is easier to run games for snowflakes and children than adults, I agree 100%

>>53391765
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee
now get lost, asshole

>>53391788
>Or maybe you could have the character come from elsewhere and learn about it in organic gameplay, allow the character to be as ignorant as the player to relate to them better?
You're making an assumption that the areas outside the map are even inhabitable anon. Beyond that, it becomes very annoying to everyone else at the table when they have to explain every single convention within the setting twice just because you couldn't be arsed to learn more about the setting as a player and talk to the GM so that you know what to expect.

I mean, if you're character's from the area, why the fuck WOULDN'T you want to know as much about the setting as the character?

>>53391814
>Maybe if you're a shitty writer with no quality control, sure that might be a problem.
Then how come your players keep poking holes into your original setting and finding shit to get angry about? It doesn't sound like you're that good of a writer either.

>You're right, it is easier to run games for snowflakes and children than adults, I agree 100%
It's even easier if you're actually an adult yourself.

>>53391816
>a disparaging term for a project that has many designers involved but no unifying plan or vision
If the DM and his setting do not provide that unifying plan or vision, then you don't have much of a base for the game at all. If his vision grows into a tyranny where no one else is allowed to add in anything themselves, then there's too much of a base and nothing for the players to add in.

You're assuming I'm in the former camp for some reason, while to me it looks like you're in the latter. Wouldn't a bit of a middleground be nice?

>>53391876

Seriously, what's wrong with pointing to the plains and saying 'the farming town I lived in is around here.' ?

>>53391650
>>53391876
If your setting needs a "gazetteer" to understand fuck-all about it, then your setting is far too tight and completely unplayable.

I can explain the important points of mine in about two paragraphs. What's so special and important about yours that it'd take more than that?

>>53391896
>Then how come your players keep poking holes into your original setting and finding shit to get angry about?
They don't though. If there's an issue we usually talk it out and alter their backstory a bit so that it fits more with what's present within the setting.
>It's even easier if you're actually an adult yourself.
I'm not the one whining about the GM not altering their setting to suit my character's backstory though.

>>53391921
>Seriously, what's wrong with pointing to the plains and saying 'the farming town I lived in is around here.' ?
Because for all you know, there's something out there that may make living on the plains more hazardous than living within the boundaries of the map.

>>53392019
Well then maybe you should have it marked as hazardous on your map, Greg.

>>53391998
>They don't though.
You just said they did.

>I'm not the one whining about the GM not altering their setting to suit my character's backstory though.
Nor me, I just entered the thread wondering what sort of a person it takes to have the patience to such an obsessively complete and detailed setting, when surely they would have far more important things to worry about. No one's still answered me.

>>53391981
>What's so special and important about yours that it'd take more than that?
Beyond the fact that I actually sat down and fleshed out a setting rather than an amorphous blob that the players just kinda exist in?

>>53392076
That's cute, but how much does knowing every single village, which ones were razed by the orcs, and every single name in the royal lineage, actually add to the campaign?

>>53392065
How's anyone supposed to mark the area as hazardous if nobody has ever explored that area though?

File: dude im so high.gif (468KB, 245x118px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 245x118px

>>53387741
I've done a mix of both, I've dropped the players in a sandbox continent (there is a main quest and story that i ma trying to tell). Thier characters and stories were taken into character creation. I literally started the game by asking all the players, ok what kind of gmae do you want to play, surprise they voted save world from apocalypse. then i asked ok what kind of end of the world? Divine, zombie? Elemental? Surprise they voted elemental. FFS we even sat down and drew up a world map as a group.

>>53392073
>You just said they did.
When did I say that?
>I just entered the thread wondering what sort of a person it takes to have the patience to such an obsessively complete and detailed setting, when surely they would have far more important things to worry about.
Like what?

>>53391765
So, what? You're recommending that you leave everything a grey bland of mishmash, and hope that your players exhibit no curiosity whatsoever? I don't see how you get around needing to create details, unless your game is essentially just a roguelike with no more detail necessary than go to location X, kill monster Y, bring back the treasure, rinse and repeat.

>The more shit there is already, the more likely it is they don't mesh well together at all. Hence, it's better to paint with the broad strokes and develop most of it in play.
That's still development. And the more you do shit on the fly, nevermind add in said development from multiple different sources, not all of whom are on the same page and several of whom might be deliberately trying to bend that to some sort of advantage, the more likely you're going to get an incoherent, inconsistent mess.

>If you've found a group that actually cares about your unique setting, your writing, and all the work you put in it, then congratulations. It seems to work for you fine. But mine are more concerned with how fun the game itself is going to be, not how fun it is to read about it.
That is completely irrelevant to what I've said, or what I do. All I do is make a world that meets the bare standard of internal coherence, that cause and effect actually and logically apply. And yes, it takes a lot more effort than a "half-assed, barely detailed setting". It doesn't imply that that the players will fuck it up, or that there are "intricately detailed plans".Yes, it takes some work, but hardly an onerous or impossible amount. It's usually just a nexus of locations and NPCs who have interests and abilities, and a rough sketch as to what will happen if the PCs do nothing of significance.

>>53392137
>When did I say that?
>Have you EVER had a player point out the holes in your settings? Get upset that they're there? Because I have.

>Like what?
Like the actual plot and how the player characters relate to it. Or maybe work or children or something.

>>53392110
>how much does knowing every single village, which ones were razed by the orcs, and every single name in the royal lineage, actually add to the campaign?
Because it gives the setting history and allows the players to feel more immersed in the world since the world will feel much larger than what's in front of their eyes.

>>53392159
>Have you EVER had a player point out the holes in your settings? Get upset that they're there? Because I have.
First off, that wasn't me, that was another anon who replied to your post.
>Like the actual plot and how the player characters relate to it.
And you don't think an established setting would factor into that somewhat? There's no point in having a plot if the setting is so half-assed that it doesn't carry any weight.

>>53392146
>So, what? You're recommending that you leave everything a grey bland of mishmash, and hope that your players exhibit no curiosity whatsoever?
No, but there's always room for a small village that got razed by orcs. I find it kind of silly that there wouldn't be.

>I don't see how you get around needing to create details, unless your game is essentially just a roguelike with no more detail necessary than go to location X, kill monster Y, bring back the treasure, rinse and repeat.
There's plenty detail, but it's better to relate it to them in-game rather than by making them read your hundred-page Player's Guide. If that means some little town got burned up by orcs because a player didn't know enough of the setting to be able to tell it wasn't going to happen, then that is a small sacrifice to make.

>And the more you do shit on the fly, nevermind add in said development from multiple different sources, not all of whom are on the same page and several of whom might be deliberately trying to bend that to some sort of advantage, the more likely you're going to get an incoherent, inconsistent mess.
Sounds like you either have terrible players or you -think- you're so much better than them.

> It's usually just a nexus of locations and NPCs who have interests and abilities, and a rough sketch as to what will happen if the PCs do nothing of significance.
How big is the Player's Guide? How many pages must they absolutely read in order to get into the setting at all?

>>53392118
Oh so now your shitty shoebox of a map is meant to be reflective of an in-universe one? Certainly can't tell from looking at it, what with the absolute lack of any character to it.

Protip, Greg: Maps made by actual people in an actual not-fully-explored world will have some sort of 'we don't know what's out here' indicator, not just empty space

>>53392243
>No, but there's always room for a small village that got razed by orcs. I find it kind of silly that there wouldn't be.
not him, but what if orcs don't raze villages? What if they are nomads that just try to survive on the plains?

>>53392178
I get much better immersed in the world by seeing and experiencing it, than falling asleep trying to read your precious hundred-page gazetteer.

>>53364308
Is unspiring the opposite of inspiring? Is the player character trying to demotivate the enemy by reading bleak, terrible philosophy?

>>53392243
>No, but there's always room for a small village that got razed by orcs. I find it kind of silly that there wouldn't be.
Not if, for instance, there are literally no orcs in the setting.

Shit it's not difficult: player can suggest, last word is DM's.

>>53392243
>No, but there's always room for a small village that got razed by orcs. I find it kind of silly that there wouldn't be.
Not something I've ever stated or implied. Irrelevant.

>There's plenty detail, but it's better to relate it to them in-game rather than by making them read your hundred-page Player's Guide. If that means some little town got burned up by orcs because a player didn't know enough of the setting to be able to tell it wasn't going to happen, then that is a small sacrifice to make.
Again, not something I've ever stated or implied. Irrelevant.

>Sounds like you either have terrible players or you -think- you're so much better than them.
No, it isn't. It isn't even a question of overall "Who is the best writer". It's about the more points of view you have, the less coherent a job it's going to be, even if every single one of us are award winning authors. You can't simultaneously have a gritty grimdarkish post-apoc setting and a glistening sci-fi noblebrifght one, and if you have people coming up with shit on the fly, you're running the serious risk of getting such inconsistencies applied on an equal footing.

>How big is the Player's Guide? How many pages must they absolutely read in order to get into the setting at all?
There isn't a player's guide. There's a set of notes I have to be shared with the players, there's a longer set of notes I have that I don't share with the players, mostly consisting of things that the PCs would have no way of knowing at the start of the campaign, and a session zero to fit concepts to world.

I don't know why, but you seem to be equating developing a detailed setting from a single point of view with drowning your players in irrelevant detail.

>>53392259
>Certainly can't tell from looking at it, what with the absolute lack of any character to it.
It's a fucking map. Do you want it to have sprinkles shit on top of it or something?
>Maps made by actual people in an actual not-fully-explored world will have some sort of 'we don't know what's out here' indicator, not just empty space
see
>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2400/2444/2444.htm

>>53392280
Cool, not all of us have untreated ADHD and are willing to put in a bit of research into the setting though.

I love how you're still here though when I already told you that you can leave since this group obviously isn't for you.

>>53392352
>see
>>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2400/2444/2444.htm

I see area that has actually been explored because how the fuck else would they have the rivers mapped. Try again Greg.

>>53392380
>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/1100/1184/1184.htm

>>53392405
Took you enough digging to find something that supports your case, and that still actually looks like a map someone actually made, instead of paint.net shitscribbles.

>>53392330
>I don't know why, but you seem to be equating developing a detailed setting from a single point of view with drowning your players in irrelevant detail.
While you seem to think that allowing player characters to decide largely irrelevant parts themselves equals the setting being a shapeless blob and giving all others the exact same creative freedom you get.

>>53392380
>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8500/8528/8528.htm
Are we quite done moving the goalposts yet?

>>53392372
>Cool, not all of us have untreated ADHD and are willing to put in a bit of research into the setting though.
I don't care how good a DM is, I'm not going to read a hundred pages of campaign notes before I even get to play.

>>53392468
>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8500/8528/8528.htm
>this is a reduction of a sketch of a part of a map
Are you even looking at these before linking them? It says right there on it that this is a simplification of a sketch of an actual map

>>53392472
>I don't care how good a DM is, I'm not going to read a hundred pages of campaign notes before I even get to play.
Then leave. Obviously the group isn't the right fit for you and you'd be happier looking elsewhere for a game.

>>53392518
Obviously. I just can't help but wonder how you have found players at all. I don't think being unable to read a hundred pages of boring bullshit equates as having an ADHD.

>>53392454
>While you seem to think that allowing player characters to decide largely irrelevant parts themselves equals the setting being a shapeless blob and giving all others the exact same creative freedom you get.

Don't move the goalposts.

>>53387741
>Not using whatever backstories they make, whatever great nations they build, or villages to be sacked by orcs, or weird races you hadn't thought of at all yet, to fill the blanks on the map and in the history of the setting and in its present population
You shouldn't be having weird races you haven't thought of yet. You shouldn't have blanks in the map, or the general history of the setting. And you sure as fuck shouldn't be building it from the backstory of someone who hasn't even shown up until you've done most of what should be that background work.
For a world to make sense, it needs to be consistent. That is generally only possible with one and only one creator vision. Unfortunately, that means someone needs to be final arbiter of what stays and what goes, and that means the GM does so, not the players.

None of that, by the way, involves bludgeoning your players with details that might or might not interest them before they start playing. None of that means you can't show things, not tell them, as play emerges. And none of that means that you reject a character simply because a detail is inconsistent, it means that during session zero, you explain what problems, if any there are with the character, and offer alternatives to make it fit. But no, if you're doing a classic RPG, with a constructed world, you will need one person building it to avoid a mess, unless you live in some kind of weird hive mind with your players. No, they don't get the same creative freedom. That's the big difference between players and the GM.

>>53392517

Original argument >>53392259
>Maps made by actual people in an actual not-fully-explored world will have some sort of 'we don't know what's out here' indicator, not just empty space
>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2400/2444/2444.htm
>>53392380
I see area that has actually been explored because how the fuck else would they have the rivers mapped. Try again Greg.
Response
>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/1100/1184/1184.htm
>>53392445
>Took you enough digging to find something that supports your case, and that still actually looks like a map someone actually made, instead of paint.net shitscribbles.
Response
>http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8500/8528/8528.htm

At this point, if you were a player, I'd just kick you out and replace you with someone else. Lord knows life's too short to deal with brats who have to ALWAYS have their way.

>>53392537
>I just can't help but wonder how you have found players at all.
see >>53392372
>not all of us have untreated ADHD and are willing to put in a bit of research into the setting though.

>>53392596
I'm just here to shitpost m80, enjoy your totally original setting that is most assuredly not Faerun with the serial number filed off.

>>53392649
>I'm just here to shitpost
Looks like I would've been right to kick you then.

>>53392670
I see you think you need to have the last word. GM red flag if I ever saw one.

>>53392538
Are you trying to write an award-winning novel or are you trying to come up with a setting for a bunch of neckbeards to have fun in?

If you're aiming for the latter, you can forget any manner of concistency or "artistic view". It's all going to be wrecked as soon as the party is set loose there anyway.

>>53392612
See >>53392537
>I don't think being unable to read a hundred pages of boring bullshit equates as having an ADHD.

>>53392718
>If you're aiming for the latter, you can forget any manner of concistency or "artistic view". It's all going to be wrecked as soon as the party is set loose there anyway.

Nah, if he wants to play out his novel, he'll play it out, player agency be damned.

File: 1454607119569.jpg (5KB, 234x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 234x230px

>>53392689

>>53392737
>How can anyone enjoy learning about lore in a fantasy setting? It's so boring >:( Just let me kill shit and show off how badass my character is already.
This is what you sound like.

>>53392745
It's true though. There's nothing at stake here, we're just two anons shitting on each other. But he needs to have the final word. He needs to WIN.

Typically, that sort of attitude lends itself to a heavyhanded do things my way or not at all GM.

>>53392718
>>53392741
Trick question, I don't play with neckbeards so there's rarely an issue.

>>53392718
>Are you trying to write an award-winning novel or are you trying to come up with a setting for a bunch of neckbeards to have fun in?
The latter, of course.

>If you're aiming for the latter, you can forget any manner of concistency or "artistic view". It's all going to be wrecked as soon as the party is set loose there anyway.
I don't see why. I've rarely had that problem, and usually when I did, it was one or two lolrandumb idiots who could be brought around.

Seriously, my last campaign was set on an archipelago, with lots of boat travel. I brought this up in session zero, and gave more XP to buy skill points than was normal for unranked characters, and suggested that they spend this extra stipend on a variety of boat and ship related skills. Now, none of my players tried it, but someone playing a desert dervish, who had never seen a body of water he couldn't step across and was scared of that sort of thing would be blatantly inconsistent within setting. That has absolutely nothing to do with players acting unexpectedly. It isn't even an "artistic view". And it certainly won't be wrecked if some loony tries to play someone who can't function around naval travel; it will, however, make their character pretty useless.

And it certainly isn't writing a novel.

>>53392801
>someone playing a desert dervish, who had never seen a body of water he couldn't step across and was scared of that sort of thing would be blatantly inconsistent within setting
And a lot of fun.