From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Medieval Pain-in-the-Arse
Summary: I beg to differ...
Keywords: advocacy, dispute
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:23:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: charnel.1e970oINN3tq
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA writes:
>Philip R Hammar writes:
>> There is very little that irritates me more, either as a player or
>>as a GM than a player whose sole purpose is to have a character, who by its
>>very existance, must dominate game play.  

I'll (belatedly) agree with Mr. Hammar's assertion above.  I'd rather the
character have a reason for existing that is consistent with the game world
than have a pot-luck hero.  If the player must play a 'different' character,
then perhaps the player needs the attention.  I feel less than obliges to
see to his/her needs at the expense of everyone else's.  If that is not the
case, and I can attend to the attention-hungry one without neglecting the
remaining 4 or 5 participants, then I will do so.

In this case in particular, the orignal article was in reference to one who
evidently was of the mindset of, "My GM wants to run a historical campaign,
I don't want to play it, so I'm gonna join with as screwy a character as I
can and trash it so he can run something I like."  This I have no sympathy
for.  If the rest of the players are enjoying the game, why attempt to ruin

>Hm. Well, nothing burns *me* more than a GM who has the audacity
>to assume that (s)he, merely by being the GM, somehow has more
>say in what tone the campaign will have than *anyone* else. 

I will beg to differ.  I feel the GM shoulders most of the blame in any
situation where the campaign suffers, so the GM should be empowered to
preserve the campaign within reason.  The campaign is a mutual creation
of both the GM and the players, but the GM seems often the one resp-
onsible for policing and protecting the creation.

Moreover, as a (suppossedly) impartial mediator-type, the GM is the
only one to know all the character's conceptions and secrets.  Players
should always work with the GM, and the GM should always work with 
players.  The GM should subtly nudge character concepts to better work
and live together, and failing that, nix any concept that will disrupt
the other player's enjoyment.  Imagine a paladin kabooom'd through time
and space into a ShadowRun world as a PC concept.  It may work, but in
my game, I'd toss it outright.

>the GM is just another (small "p") player, and the game is
>for the amusement of both the GM and the Players. 

For semantics sake, I will establish that I mean player when I say
player, GM when I say GM, and both when I say participant.

Also, I will assert that I run for the enjoyment of the players.  I
get a vicarious thrill out of seeing them enjoy themselves in a game.
I do not run directly seeking my own enjoyment.

What follows are various assumptions that I cannot let stand:

>If the GM picks
>scenarios that he knows some or all of the players will not be
>able to enjoy roleplaying in, it is the GM's obligation to either
>drop the scenario or allow a radical departure from what had been
>planned! 

No one is denying this.  The given situation is that the player
just didn't like the concept, and was not willing to a) run his own
game, or b) take it like a mature individual and sit out.  We don't
bomb the TV station when a show we don't like is on, and the one we
like is coming on in an hour, we wait for it to come on.  At most, we
organize campaigns to notify the station of our discontent, but we do
not resort to outright sabotauge. (sp?)

>     Any GM who writes the script for his players, and constrains

Agreed as well, but the person was not complaining about a 'railroading'
game.  If the GM attempt to railroad one of my characters, I (and most 
of the group) will have a talk with said GM.  This usually works, but is
not necessarily the case here.  Please don't be so quick to judge Mr 
Hammar or Mr. Peanut's referee.

>I think players *should* be allowed to play bizarre characters:
>it is artificial to do otherwise. 

I feel it is moreso artificial to introduce a character solely designed
to annoy the referee.  Characters should be consistent with the game
world.  They should have some background that ties them with the game
itself.  They should not be pot-luck heroes, produced without any thought
for the work the referee has placed in the world.

>Moreover, if players want to deviate from the plot and start their own 
>adventure, why should they not be allowed to?

Again, you are expousing on a point that a) I agree with and b) the 
first author did not establish to be the case.  Please refreain from
this in the future.

>     The most disgusting perversions of free-spirited roleplaying
>have got to be:  [...] "historically accurate" campaigns, where the 
>PCs have to all be of allowed social classes and backgrounds and 
>follow the general thread of real history. 

I don't know about you, but I enjoy roleplaying to experience the
'realities' of a fantasy world, that the street urchins can die in
the cold and wet seasons, when the markets close down.  That women
were subject in most genres, that illiteracy was common, and washing
after wiping was not even thought of.  I would like to have the 
character's experience be as close to the 'reality' of the world as
possible ('reality' in this case denoting genre, not 'realism.')  I
find it makes for a stronger sense of identity.

>If the GM can't deal with it, it is a sign *he* is a terrible GM.

Final point.  I feel if the GM allows a ill fitting character in, and
does not fashion the game or the character to eventually mesh with
the other PCs, then that is the sign of a bad GM.  I reject characters
on grounds of character interaction.  If it goes contrary to the group
and mood I am trying to run, I will say so to the player.

Then again, I do not run games that snare the player first, then change
in their feel.  I inform the players of what I am trying to do, and 
expect them to help me, not hinder me or blindly insist on thier sacred
character conceptions.  Sir, were you to be in one of my games, I fear
you will find it to your liking, and such 'constraints' nearly imperc-
eptible.


-- 
Pascal, n.:
	A programming language named after a man who would turn over in
his grave if he knew about it.