edit: after much thought I've removed much of the profanity. Profanity has a way of enhancing the inflammatory tone of this argument, so I loath to remove it. However, in retrospect I realized it limited my target audience.
We've all been there. You start a game, and the game master wants a backstory to rival the Iliad. Every time, these folks insist that it's integral to the game, and every time they are dead wrong.
Good flavor can make a game playable. After all, if all you loved was numbers you'd be a mathlete. Bad flavor ruins games and the internet is full of echo chambers for cock-knockers who make bad games with their crappy home-brew campaigns.
1. Backstories suck, and they're ruining tabletop games.
Have you ever gone to a convention? There's always a few people that insist on telling you about their epic character, and all their awesome shenanigans. They think you should be enthralled by their masterful command of the game, but instead, it feels like a visit to Mrs. Pain, and you for forgot your safe-word.
No one will appreciate your backstory because no one has experienced it. Your story is just a telling of how your character should be. But often players assign these great back stories to less than great characters, and, well, the result is a character who “this never happens to.”
The fix: Characters should start with minimal backstories. Absolutely nothing epic, until the campaign begins. The story hasn't started yet, and because of this, no character is the focus of attention. Players should work with each other to establish storylines that they enjoy, that intertwine, and that everyone experiences.
2. Game Masters restrict character creation, because of their crappy preferences.
No one cares that you want an authentic dark ages campaign setting. Absolutely no one. I don't care if it “enhances” your story, the fact is players are only limited by your “vision” because you lack the imagination to deal with anyone who steps outside of the box... of a fantasy game. Where fantasy happens. Why are you limiting my character creation options?
I’ve been in a bunch of games with bad, or flawed game masters. I can smell the hacks a mile away. It always starts with strictly enforced creation rules. Someone has to play a healer. You can’t have two of that class. Can’t choose this option, or have this item.
The fix: Reskin, or modify my options, so that we both can do what we want. If your setting is strictly human, and I want to play an orc, let me play the most orc-like human ever. Call him a human, you can probably even ding me some racial abilities, and I won't care. If your story needs a healer or a certain class, then you should have an NPC ready to fill that role. If an option is broken, give me another similar option that isn’t.
Mostly good players don’t care about the specifics but they want to play a certain way. Removing options drastically reshapes the game in unpredictable ways. Limiting magic often affects mobility later. Teleport, Fly, and alternate forms of travel are all pesky to deal with tactically, but if you limit them you might find your players have to deal with the monotony of movement. I’m a level 20 warrior who has slain dragons, or Wizard who can bend reality to my will, do you think managing my movement over the mountain range will entertain me? By limiting my character choices, you're making the game less enjoyable, for virtually no reason.
3. By insisting on stupid flavor rules, you create a new breed of min/maxers.
This guy thinks he's being clever. He's always looking for that story short-cut, and you indulge him, because you're a bad game master, and because “it just makes sense.” Then this asshole buys a case of vodka, and next thing you know, he's tossing Molotov's around like candy at a parade. Firey candy.
You rule that all of the summoners summoned creatures are incarnations of the same creature. Cool right? Until he sends a summon to go scout, and when it dies he summons another to get the information from it. Ring of feather fall only prevents falling damage to the player wearing it. Not the poor sops he lands on. Next thing you know, you’ve got a party of maniacs leaping off tall buildings to squish their enemies. All of this could be cool, or it could rail road the game. More often than not everything goes off the track because the weak part of your brain that said it was ok once is too weak to confront your players and change the rules.
The fix: So indulge these guys a couple of times, for each idea, but only if it's entertaining. Let them know it only works because you’re allowing it this time. Engage the party. Ask do your other players enjoy the idea, or are they tired of these end run-arounds?
4. By changing rules you don't understand you're breaking the game.
I once played in a game in which, on the tactical movement map, one square cost 5 feet of movement diagonally or orthogonality. As some of you may know, the rule is orthogonal movement costs 5, and diagonal cost 5 and 10 every other square. This is because, due to math magic you may not understand, the diagonal distance traversed is actually 1.41 ish squares. If we round this bad boy up, we get 1.5, or 3 squares every 2 squares of diagonal movement. By changing the rule, he made characters faster along the diagonals and created weird optimizations of movement.
The fix: If you don't understand it, don't change it. Take time to think about why you're changing it, and if it enhances the game.
5. Story trumps rules, every time... If you can't GM.
First, if you ever had to utter this sentence in defense of what you are doing, you already screwed up. This is the mantra of every hack who ever mastered a game or dungeon. What has happened is that a player tossed you a curveball you didn't expect, and you're dumb ass couldn't think of a way out. So you veto the action, so you can tell your sub-par story.
Become familiar with what happens with a game without rules. Ever play make-believe as a kid? I did, and there was this kid George, who was always indestructible. Don’t be like George. The rules exist as a negotiation between the players and the Game Master on how things should behave. When violate that social construct you disenfranchise your players. Why would they be part of a story when they have no input, and how will you run a game without players?
The fix: Know what is going on. If a player beats you, have an out prepared. As a game master you should always think about what could happen and how you deal with it. Work around their willful rejection of your plan. If you muck it up, let the player win, and think up a way out. You have until next game session, and even you should be able to think your way out by then.
You need to make your game playable and fun for all of those at the table, and as such some customization and flavor is in order. Just don't change things you don't appreciate, like game mechanics, just because you don't understand them.
Keep those games rolling
The Game Mechanic
We've all been there. You start a game, and the game master wants a backstory to rival the Iliad. Every time, these folks insist that it's integral to the game, and every time they are dead wrong.
Good flavor can make a game playable. After all, if all you loved was numbers you'd be a mathlete. Bad flavor ruins games and the internet is full of echo chambers for cock-knockers who make bad games with their crappy home-brew campaigns.
1. Backstories suck, and they're ruining tabletop games.
Have you ever gone to a convention? There's always a few people that insist on telling you about their epic character, and all their awesome shenanigans. They think you should be enthralled by their masterful command of the game, but instead, it feels like a visit to Mrs. Pain, and you for forgot your safe-word.
Did you catch the safe word? neither did I...
No one will appreciate your backstory because no one has experienced it. Your story is just a telling of how your character should be. But often players assign these great back stories to less than great characters, and, well, the result is a character who “this never happens to.”
The fix: Characters should start with minimal backstories. Absolutely nothing epic, until the campaign begins. The story hasn't started yet, and because of this, no character is the focus of attention. Players should work with each other to establish storylines that they enjoy, that intertwine, and that everyone experiences.
2. Game Masters restrict character creation, because of their crappy preferences.
No one cares that you want an authentic dark ages campaign setting. Absolutely no one. I don't care if it “enhances” your story, the fact is players are only limited by your “vision” because you lack the imagination to deal with anyone who steps outside of the box... of a fantasy game. Where fantasy happens. Why are you limiting my character creation options?
Guess I'm playing a 14th century European monk
I’ve been in a bunch of games with bad, or flawed game masters. I can smell the hacks a mile away. It always starts with strictly enforced creation rules. Someone has to play a healer. You can’t have two of that class. Can’t choose this option, or have this item.
The fix: Reskin, or modify my options, so that we both can do what we want. If your setting is strictly human, and I want to play an orc, let me play the most orc-like human ever. Call him a human, you can probably even ding me some racial abilities, and I won't care. If your story needs a healer or a certain class, then you should have an NPC ready to fill that role. If an option is broken, give me another similar option that isn’t.
Mostly good players don’t care about the specifics but they want to play a certain way. Removing options drastically reshapes the game in unpredictable ways. Limiting magic often affects mobility later. Teleport, Fly, and alternate forms of travel are all pesky to deal with tactically, but if you limit them you might find your players have to deal with the monotony of movement. I’m a level 20 warrior who has slain dragons, or Wizard who can bend reality to my will, do you think managing my movement over the mountain range will entertain me? By limiting my character choices, you're making the game less enjoyable, for virtually no reason.
3. By insisting on stupid flavor rules, you create a new breed of min/maxers.
This guy thinks he's being clever. He's always looking for that story short-cut, and you indulge him, because you're a bad game master, and because “it just makes sense.” Then this asshole buys a case of vodka, and next thing you know, he's tossing Molotov's around like candy at a parade. Firey candy.
eat flame candy, you little shits
You rule that all of the summoners summoned creatures are incarnations of the same creature. Cool right? Until he sends a summon to go scout, and when it dies he summons another to get the information from it. Ring of feather fall only prevents falling damage to the player wearing it. Not the poor sops he lands on. Next thing you know, you’ve got a party of maniacs leaping off tall buildings to squish their enemies. All of this could be cool, or it could rail road the game. More often than not everything goes off the track because the weak part of your brain that said it was ok once is too weak to confront your players and change the rules.
The fix: So indulge these guys a couple of times, for each idea, but only if it's entertaining. Let them know it only works because you’re allowing it this time. Engage the party. Ask do your other players enjoy the idea, or are they tired of these end run-arounds?
4. By changing rules you don't understand you're breaking the game.
I once played in a game in which, on the tactical movement map, one square cost 5 feet of movement diagonally or orthogonality. As some of you may know, the rule is orthogonal movement costs 5, and diagonal cost 5 and 10 every other square. This is because, due to math magic you may not understand, the diagonal distance traversed is actually 1.41 ish squares. If we round this bad boy up, we get 1.5, or 3 squares every 2 squares of diagonal movement. By changing the rule, he made characters faster along the diagonals and created weird optimizations of movement.
just stop
The fix: If you don't understand it, don't change it. Take time to think about why you're changing it, and if it enhances the game.
5. Story trumps rules, every time... If you can't GM.
First, if you ever had to utter this sentence in defense of what you are doing, you already screwed up. This is the mantra of every hack who ever mastered a game or dungeon. What has happened is that a player tossed you a curveball you didn't expect, and you're dumb ass couldn't think of a way out. So you veto the action, so you can tell your sub-par story.
NOOOoooo...
Become familiar with what happens with a game without rules. Ever play make-believe as a kid? I did, and there was this kid George, who was always indestructible. Don’t be like George. The rules exist as a negotiation between the players and the Game Master on how things should behave. When violate that social construct you disenfranchise your players. Why would they be part of a story when they have no input, and how will you run a game without players?
The fix: Know what is going on. If a player beats you, have an out prepared. As a game master you should always think about what could happen and how you deal with it. Work around their willful rejection of your plan. If you muck it up, let the player win, and think up a way out. You have until next game session, and even you should be able to think your way out by then.
You need to make your game playable and fun for all of those at the table, and as such some customization and flavor is in order. Just don't change things you don't appreciate, like game mechanics, just because you don't understand them.
Keep those games rolling
The Game Mechanic
I see where you are3 comming from, but in the same token, if I am running a game full of Vikings and a player wants to play a full blown Samurai from Japan, the answer is no. . .
ReplyDeleteThat said, if they turn around and say I want to use the Samurai class as a template for a 'duelist ' type character, then by all means.
The fact of the matter is this, take the stick out and move along. . .
In otherwords, there is just as much onous on the player as there is a the GM to 'have imagination' to deal with this sort of thing, dont put it all on bad GM's.
DeleteWhy can't there be a samurai in a story mainlining vikings? They existed in the same era, and ships were lost at see all the time.
DeleteWhy limit your opportunity to create an interesting story with your group by slamming the "No!" button without considering the posibilities?
Someone never saw the 13th Warrior....
DeleteWell, actually... there were 'sort' of Samurai in the 900 CE, but not the same as the samurai everyone thinks of from the 1300-1600s. Japan was a VERY VERY insular society until the mid-1800s. You'd practically never find a Japanese person beyond China or other neighboring regions.
DeleteAlso, the 13th Warrior wasn't a Samurai, Ibn Fadlan was ARABIC. And the Middle-East is a hell of a lot closer to Scandinavia than Japan. The Vikings, as par as we know, traveled as far as Turkey, maybe Syria. Most likely they traded well into what is now Russia. (Russia is named for a Nordic tribe, the Rus, but they were NOT 'vikings.') Vikings traveled as far as the New World in the West, but never, to my knowledge, have any Far Eastern goods ever turned up in Scandinavia or vice versa.
It is absolutely, in my opinion, acceptable for someone to forbid Samurai in such a campaign. I certainly would, if my group was shooting for a historical campaign, and I'd make it clear from the start.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei can understand the need to preserve the feel of a setting; but there aren't a lot of GM's who know how to preserve the feel while allowing the majority of the character options.
ReplyDeleterules are important; but the big issue with concept based games, is characters will always pick the most effective character concept. meaning in that zombie apocalypse game, you are going to get that powergamer who plays a navy seal, because they want to kill zombies by the horde full because they picked a concept that provided skills that would otherwise be hard to justify.
in a zombie apocalypse point buy system. it would make sense that the navy seal template costs more points than the accountant template. which would balance out the navy seal compared to the accountant, and even the otaku. meaning more flaws would be needed to balance out the better templates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this entire article seems like it was written by a player that was radically hurt somewhere along the line. Almost every one of these are extremes with no gray area and there is ALWAYS a grey area or exception. Almost every instance you are talking about extremes and crappy DM's. Look at Critical Role and see how many times they break your idea of what is right because it is cool and advances the game. Hell, one of the main characters, because of your Rules theory shouldn't even exist because it isn't a valid rule in this system. But they broke the rules and made the gunslinger for 5th ed. Let's break this down a bit more shall we?
ReplyDelete#1 Backstories are the flavor a good DM uses to advance the plot FOR the players, not to force the players to his will. And a good player/GM combo sits down and has a session zero where they create characters and integrate normal acceptable backgrounds that pull from the different characters and joins them as a bunch of normals (And I mean normals in the sense that they were all farmers or bankers or bakers or blacksmiths to start with that may have had a tragic point or two. Tell Will Wheaton who created a whole slew of backstories for Titan's Grave that backstories suck. A good combo brings this all coming together for a common reason; A good story that the characters are invested in and participate in creating fully.
#2 So you are saying in a game like D&D, someone should throw open the doors to over 300+ books and just say have at it. The DM should allow you to play an android from the tech books in a campaign that is low level primitive Conan style and just let you have whatever you want for gear and feats? You are living a fantasy game not playing one.
#3 You were actually middle of the road on most of this one, giving options and not laying everything at the DM/GM's feet. This is again, however, a thing that the players need to understand as well as the DM. But this always leads into #5 below.
#4 This is probably the only one I fully agree with. However, this fall to the players as well. You shouldn't try to change something in your class or racial abilities because you think it is stupid. Roll with it and retrain it later if need be. You shouldn't change something just because you don't understand it. Learn it, try it, play it and then if you think you have a better idea, tweak and see what happens.
Finally, #5 which leads from #3 above... I have seen more often than not the player in #5 being the one trying to toss the rules out the window, not the GM, because they want to do something cool that isn't in the rules. They want to try something as stated in #3 like the Molotov cocktail trick and most often I have seen good GM's throw the rules out the window because of excitement and a cool story telling device. And for the very opening of your statement on #5, it is amazing how almost every game out there stressed story over everything else. In White Wolf you are a story teller. In 5th ed it specifically states that the story is the key over the rules. In Dark Heresy it tells you to weave a dark and ominous story. In Call of Cthulu ... do I even need to go on?
While I understand the attempt here, I seriously think you missed the mark. I would say to take a step back and realize it is a two way street to having fun. Everyone needs to participate, everyone needs to be involved and everyone needs to accept certain restrictions and compromises in order to make the game awesome. Again, turn to Geek & Sundry and watch some of the most awesome games that break almost every single one of these at some point or another because it is cool.
Edited for spacing issues from original post...
Thanks for your detailed response. You have a bunch of good points that don't fall into my original argument. I understand both that there is another side to this argument, and as long as everyone is having fun it's none of my business.
DeleteCan't say I agree. You should do what's fun for you. If thinking up detailed back stories is fun, do it. If moving diagonal is what you want, do it. The game rules are there, but you won't learn unless you experiment. And you won't have fun if you are negative about what others consider to be fun.
ReplyDeleteSo I do mention a couple times that the important part is that everyone at the table has fun. If everyone is having fun than I literally have nothing to say. This is just some common violations I see often, and that peeve me.
DeleteI think the "Story trumps rules" adage is meant to address that, they don't mean the DM's story or the player's story, they mean the entire package should trump the rules. Everyone is a storyteller at an RPG table, some just control more of the world. Story should trump rules to make a better story, not just to give the DM an out.
DeleteFlavor, in my games, trump rules most every time. Story is absolutely more important than rules for the kind of fun my friends and I like around our table.
ReplyDeleteIt really, really feels to me like you just need to find a different game.
If you're not having fun at the table you're at, just stand up and find a different table. Or, if you're brave, work together where you are to be sure that everyone is having fun.
I don't get why you need to be mean about it.
Different people play the game in different ways, and presenting your preferences as insults really doesn't do anyone any good, does it?
I'm a game master, I enjoy what I do, ergo I don't need a different game. Please see the article that references this one, why being a dick was the right choice.
DeleteBut, if you choose to never read that, I was using hyperbole to upset the status quo and generate discussion. Literary devices, friend.