From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Medieval Pain-in-the-Arse
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:22:55 GMT

In article <17NOV92.12841182.0062@VM1.MCGILL.CA> news@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca writes:
>
>In article <Bxtrr7.ExF@rice.edu> swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>>  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.
  Really? We assume that if the GM's got a story, then the players
should at least try to take part in it. If a player wants a story where
his character goes out and does something, he should get together with
the GM and work out the details, not just spring it on the GM. (That's
what most of our stories these days are.)

>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?
  Many of us aren't full time GMs. I run stories only when I've
got a story I want to run, or someone else wants me to run a story. I've
been in a lot of ad-hoc adventures that were one shots.


>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.
  Why don't you just tell the GM? That's a lot better than just
abandoning the quest without prior warning.

> 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?
  Presumably they're going to get something out of the quest.


>> 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.
  Being fun to play shouldn't be the only criteria! The character should
realisticly fit into the scenerio. Superman would be fun to play, but
I wouldn't let someone play him with a group of first level AD&D characters
in an AD&D setting.
>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.
  Why do your characters have to be odd to be interesting? One of the
characters in our campaign's a thief. He embellished the character by
making him into "The Black Hand of Inverness." How is this less fun than
playing a Shinto Priest or Samurai?

>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!
  How about- "You are now a pacifist," "You're now deeply in love with
X, and can't live without her," "You pick up the dagger, and plung it into
his back."  
 
>
>>  But then not all of us play free-spirited campaigns. Our Ars Magica
>
>Pity, that. What's gaming without free-spirits? (Shiver.)
  Gaming where the members of the troupe respect each other and don't feel
the need to constantly one up each other aparantly.

>>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"!
  You misunderstand me. In our campaign, characters get caught up in
historic events. If they try hard enough, they *might* be able to change
events, but it's not guaranteed. (We did end the Schism war, and there's a
fairly important naval battle nearby coming up in a few years that we might 
change.) Our characters are set in a world where there's a lot going on
around them. In that sense, they aren't the center of the universe. Our
characters world will change regardless of what they do.


>>  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.
  The GM has the responsibility to treat the players fairly, and
attempt to provide them with an interesting adventure. The players
have a responsibility to respect his attempt. I consider a player going 
outside the genre for novelty value to be a sign of disrespect.

>
>>>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? ;->
  I've got a character from my "you have to pass for human" campaign
who'd love to meet you for lunch.
-- 
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 [{}_+
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy