From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Medieval Pain-in-the-Arse
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:04:19 GMT

In article <16NOV92.13366977.0088@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L000) writes:
>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.
  If the GM has a particular story or type of story he wants to do,
then he automaticly has more say in what the tone of the campaign is.
> I
>mean, the GM is just another (small "p") player, and the game is
>for the amusement of both the GM and the Players. 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!
  If it's a group that meets regularly, then I agree. If it's someone
looking for players in something that's just starting out, I really
disagree. If you don't like the scenerio, don't play.

> I am a "career GM", and I *still* agree with this, and
>have no problem when my players decide it's time to go crazy and
>bend the plot.
  It depends on what they're doing. If the adventure's going to be a
quest, then it should be a quest. I'd have problems with the characters
abandoning it in the middle just because they wanted to be pirates, or
go found their own dynasty.

>     Any GM who writes the script for his players, and constrains
>them to playing "approved" characters in an "approved" manner, and
>only allows the PCs to act within the scope of the planned
>adventure, is killing the spirit of roleplaying in his group. I
>think players *should* be allowed to play bizarre characters:
>it is artificial to do otherwise.
 I don't think so. If you're playing in a certain setting, then the 
characters should be appropriate, and behave appropriately. If you
want to play a bizarre character that fits, fine. However, the GM is
under no obligation to accept any character you feel would be fun to
play, or tailor the adventure so that your character will be useful. 

> Moreover, if players want to
>deviate from the plot and start their own adventure, why should
>they not be allowed to?
  I dunno. If the GM decides to change a player's character in the middle
of the adventure, why should he not be allowed to?

>     The most disgusting perversions of free-spirited roleplaying
>have got to be: "quest" campaigns, where the campaign can only
>continue if all the PCs pursue the quest, despite the ludicrous
>assumptions that makes about human nature; "prophecy" campaigns,
>where the actions and role of the PC are predestined, and the
>player has no option but to accept the given role; and "historically
>accurate" campaigns, where the PCs have to all be of allowed social
>classes and backgrounds and follow the general thread of real
>history. Yawn.
  But then not all of us play free-spirited campaigns. Our Ars Magica
campaign's set in Scotland in the 11th century, and a number of the players
have taken the trouble to find out what's going on. It's kind of interesting
to be in a setting with a flow of history, and not have the PCs be the
center of the universe.

>     Games which share any of the elements above basically force
>players into certain roles, and then force them to play the roles
>in certain ways, expecting the players to respect the GM's wishes
>and plans without requiring the GM to adapt to what his players'
>may be!
  So? AD&D forces characters into restrictive classes and alignments. You
can't be a Drow in a standard CoC adventure. Most Star Trek adventures require
the PCs to be members of Star Fleet. I doubt that there are many Darth Vader
PCs in Star Wars.
  If the GM decides to run an adventure in a certain setting, that's his
perogative. If you don't like his choice, don't play in the campaign.

>     To the original poster: try playing a Zoroastrian magician,
>or an African tribal doctor, or something equally weird. It's
>not a sign that *you* are a bad roleplayer! (Contrary to the
>response above.) If the GM can't deal with it, it is a sign *he*
>is a terrible GM.
Hardly.

>From Kromm, who plays murderous necromancers who have no respect
>for the laws or people of *any* fantasy world he plays in!
  That kind of attitude can get you very dead.



-- 
Mike Swaim            | Canada will become the next world power
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | and they will work to ENSLAVE all the nations
Disclamer: I lie      | of your planet. -Ricardo
Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hasdtr yy['u [{}_+