From: news@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Medieval Pain-in-the-Arse
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:53:23 GMT
Organization: McGill University


In article <Bxtrr7.ExF@rice.edu> swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:

In response to my post....

>  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.

What an archaic attitude. I guess my group are a bunch of
liberal lefties or something, eh? I mean, we actually assume
that the GM should be answerable to the players.

>  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 have an established group, and always have, within about a
month of arriving somewhere. We always meet regularly. Maybe
I am just lucky? Or maybe I am liberal enough in my GMing
style that people actually *want* to play in my games?

>  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.

I see. What if the players get sick of the quest? Fifty
play sessions down the road, even the most die-hard
player will be yawning unless you are a *truly* exceptional
GM. More to the point, it is human nature to have at least
a shred of curiousity, and to want something for oneself.
Why should all the PCs be unrealistically selfless
morons?

> 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.

Well, I *only* play characters who would be fun to play.
As a GM, furthermore, I would rather have *every* PC be
fun but a bit hard to fit into my world, than have all the
PCs "appropriate" but the players yawning.

>  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?

I *have* done this! "You have a new enemy" or "You've just
sprouted twisted horns" or "The Elder powers have transformed
you" happens in my campaign. Key thing is, the players know
to expect this and I know to expect their efforts to bugger
my plots. Mutual reapect, lots of fun!

>  But then not all of us play free-spirited campaigns. Our Ars Magica

Pity, that. What's gaming without free-spirits? (Shiver.)

>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.

Heh, heh. You've called me wrong. The PCs are *not* the centre
of th universe in my campaign. They just have the right to
choose thir own fate, to an extent. Why force them to follow
the tide of your world as you see it? Wanting to be a bandit
and not a hero hardly makes you the "centre of the universe"!

>  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.

My opinion of AD&D is pretty poor because of this. Likewise Star
Trek and Star Wars. I wanted to play an evil Jedi the one time
I did play SW. I gave up because the GM insisted on PC purity.
Ho-hum. As for CoC: well, *I* have played mad, evil sorcerers.
If your GM does not permit that, you're missing out on a world of
evil, humourous fun.

>  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.

Like I said, we always have an established group, with players
and GMs who have established styles. We recognize and respect
that. We do not exclude our friends, or expect them to exclude
themselves, on these bases. We accomodate them. I **HATE** the
"GM is God" attitude. The GM is a rules arbiter, storyteller,
referee and sometimes-adversary. *NOT* God. If yo feel the GM
*is* God -- go to email right now, before I flame in public.

>>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.

I usually like to start out dead. That prevents death from
being an issue. Barring undead, I prefer to put my soul
somewhere inaccesible, so that bodily death is a minor
inconvenience. Of course, a repressive GM could just squash
me anyhow....but, then, that's my point, isn't it? ;->

>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 [{}_+

_______________________________________________________________________
|  "Did you have intercourse with  | More of what you want, for less! |
|              Mary?"              |  *** Roach Powder, 50% off! ***  |
|       "Yes...yes, I did."        |    *****  Ask for Bill. *****    |
|               ___                |----------------------------------|
|  "Oh! You are sick, aren't you?" |  Kromm is CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA  |
|        -from Eraserhead.         |        -->Who are you?<--        |
|__________________________________|__________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy