My best friend is a star wars nut, he is extremely into the expanded universe, and pretty much has the entire timeline more or less memorized, as well as the broad strokes of what each individual (major/medium) faction is doing at any one point in time. So naturaully, he bought all of the rule books go play the Saga Edition RPG (it's pretty much starwars D&D.)
We tried to do a campaign a year ago with about 6 characters, and had about 3 or 4 sessions before we stopped playing. We decided to revisit it, and have 8 players for the new campaign, which hasn't starred yet.
I'm trying to role play a noble who wants to eventually make a "by the books" crime syndictate that has intergalactic influence, specializing as a sscurity force (as a front). That means creating a structure for the organization, having members and aquiring funding to be able to provide equipment to organization members, and having personal body guards for my character.
I am not making anything up as far as rules goes, all of the rules and templates for those things exist in the rules and are actually laid out for the player. Getting these things in order would actually take a pretty large number of levels, so its not like im being very overpowered in the early game. If anything, my character is as much as possible non-combat oriented, which means the early levels are actually extremely dangerous for me.
My GM vehemently dislikes the idea for where I'm taking the character, specifically having the organization at all, or the idea of me having body guards (which are supported in multiple ways in the rules).
Another reason he's opposed to the idea is because one of the thingd that I want to dp to turn a larger profit, and that I think would be in character for the character I'm designing, would be to be able to buy all of the materials/items (including rare, military, and illegal items) for the other players in the group at a much cheaper price than what they would be able to get from a vendor, but for slightly more than what it would cost me. I would also spot players money in return for favors. Again, all of this is completely allowed for in the rules, instead of taking combat bonuses I'm taking bonuses for influencing people/having connections/buying items for markedly cheaper.
The gm doesn't like it because he feels like it bypasses his level of control over what items and gear we have access too, even though the system to do what I want to has its own built-in balancing and limiters. Another reason is becauae he has a very carefully laid out campaign that falls into the established timeline in starwars of when our campaign ks set. He actually dislikes what I'm doing so much that he has asked me to cease and decist, and has implied that if he feels like I'm getting out of hand he'll specifically try and kill off my character.
What should I do? I've tried talking to him, and tried expressing to him that the point of am RPG like D&D isn't to make the character revolve around your campaign you constructed as a GM, it's to provide a sandbox for the players to try and do what they want to with their characters, not micromanage your players into doing what you want them to.
I understand he feels like that I'm dropping to much on him for his first actual campaign, but my feeling is that by the time we get to the point where I could get started really doing what I want to, he should start to really have the hang of it.
He is my best friend, so part of me feels like he may be right and I might be being selfish about it, as I'm pretty attached to the idea of this character. However, 2 of the other players in the group have agreed with the DM on the matter, which is also frustrating but again making me consider that I could probably be wrong and am too close to the situation.
So the way I see it, my two options are I could just reroll my character and do something different, something he wouldn't be quite so opposed to. (Our 8 man party doesn't have a dedicated healer, so I could do that, I'm not opposed to the idea, I enjoy support classes in other types of games) or I could stick with the character I want to make and hope he just adjusts to the idea of the character as we have our sessions.
Which should I do? Or is there other options that I'm not considering?
As a point of rules, the GM's word is final. He is the conflict resolution system; that's his whole role in the roleplaying game. Now, a good GM will entertain arguments from the players before giving his final word, and it sounds like your GM has done that. In cases of extreme disagreement, players can always walk away from the game, but forcing something into the game against the GM's wishes -- well, it just isn't going to happen. So if, after hearing you out, your GM still maintains that you need to cease and desist, then you need to cease and desist.
Okay. That's the rules Nazi perspective out of the way. Now, you have to understand that what you're proposing is a really big ask. Tabletop RPGs conventionally run on the paradigm of "one player, one character". A lot of GMs would balk at the idea of a PC who runs around with bodyguards and minions, essentially multiplying the number of characters that player controls. Add onto that the extra resources provided by a criminal organization, and I hope you can see how this concept falls pretty far outside the boundaries of what most players and GMs expect from a PC. It doesn't matter that the game has rules for doing this. The rules in an RPG are tools that the players and GM use for resolving actions, not irrevocable permission to perform the action. If I recall correctly, the SWSE rules you're referring to are basically identical to 3E D&D Leadership. Well, lots of DMs disallow Leadership. And in fact the writers of the game seem to have anticipated that these particular rules would be especially contentious, because they did not put Leadership with all the other feats in the Player's Handbook, but rather in its own special section in the Dungeon Master's Guide, effectively stating, "This one is extra optional". So it's not like you're saying "I want my character to be left-handed" and your GM is saying "no". This is an extraordinary request, and it's not unreasonable for the GM to refuse.
It's not a matter of GM experience, either. GMs of all experience levels sometimes say no to Leadership. Even if it were, though -- you say you think your GM should be ready to run the rule by the time you get going with it, but shouldn't it be he, not you, who decides what he is and isn't ready to run? You're concerned that he's being too demanding of you, but consider what you're demanding of him.
Really, it sounds like what needed to happen here was a conversation much earlier in the campaign planning stage where the players and GM all discuss what they want out of the game. You want a sandbox, and that's fine, lots of groups run sandbox campaigns, but it's not correct to say sandboxing is "the point of an RPG". An RPG doesn't have a point, except what the players give it. If lots of groups run sandbox campaigns, lots of groups also run different styles of campaign, and they're not somehow playing the game wrong when they do it. Because there are so many different expectations and approaches for RPGs, it is so important to talk about them when planning a campaign. Players tell the GM what sorts of characters they want to play and what they want to do, the GM tells the players the sorts of stories he wants to tell, they build a consensus, and then the GM plans the campaign in a way that everybody is satisfied with. When the GM plans the campaign first and the players come in with their characters later, the players are unfortunately much more constrained.
So maybe you don't get to play the character you wanted. But not every character is suited for every campaign, anyway. Just remember: there's always the next campaign.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As a point of rules, the GM's word is final. He is the conflict resolution system; that's his whole role in the roleplaying game. Now, a good GM will entertain arguments from the players before giving his final word, and it sounds like your GM has done that. In cases of extreme disagreement, players can always walk away from the game, but forcing something into the game against the GM's wishes -- well, it just isn't going to happen. So if, after hearing you out, your GM still maintains that you need to cease and desist, then you need to cease and desist.
Okay. That's the rules Nazi perspective out of the way. Now, you have to understand that what you're proposing is a really big ask. Tabletop RPGs conventionally run on the paradigm of "one player, one character". A lot of GMs would balk at the idea of a PC who runs around with bodyguards and minions, essentially multiplying the number of characters that player controls. Add onto that the extra resources provided by a criminal organization, and I hope you can see how this concept falls pretty far outside the boundaries of what most players and GMs expect from a PC. It doesn't matter that the game has rules for doing this. The rules in an RPG are tools that the players and GM use for resolving actions, not irrevocable permission to perform the action. If I recall correctly, the SWSE rules you're referring to are basically identical to 3E D&D Leadership. Well, lots of DMs disallow Leadership. And in fact the writers of the game seem to have anticipated that these particular rules would be especially contentious, because they did not put Leadership with all the other feats in the Player's Handbook, but rather in its own special section in the Dungeon Master's Guide, effectively stating, "This one is extra optional". So it's not like you're saying "I want my character to be left-handed" and your GM is saying "no". This is an extraordinary request, and it's not unreasonable for the GM to refuse.
It's not a matter of GM experience, either. GMs of all experience levels sometimes say no to Leadership. Even if it were, though -- you say you think your GM should be ready to run the rule by the time you get going with it, but shouldn't it be he, not you, who decides what he is and isn't ready to run? You're concerned that he's being too demanding of you, but consider what you're demanding of him.
Really, it sounds like what needed to happen here was a conversation much earlier in the campaign planning stage where the players and GM all discuss what they want out of the game. You want a sandbox, and that's fine, lots of groups run sandbox campaigns, but it's not correct to say sandboxing is "the point of an RPG". An RPG doesn't have a point, except what the players give it. If lots of groups run sandbox campaigns, lots of groups also run different styles of campaign, and they're not somehow playing the game wrong when they do it. Because there are so many different expectations and approaches for RPGs, it is so important to talk about them when planning a campaign. Players tell the GM what sorts of characters they want to play and what they want to do, the GM tells the players the sorts of stories he wants to tell, they build a consensus, and then the GM plans the campaign in a way that everybody is satisfied with. When the GM plans the campaign first and the players come in with their characters later, the players are unfortunately much more constrained.
So maybe you don't get to play the character you wanted. But not every character is suited for every campaign, anyway. Just remember: there's always the next campaign.
As a side note, the bodyguard talent I mentioned is a class ability for a prestige class in the core rulebook, so I wouldn't get the bodyguard until level 7, and the feat that allows you to start an organization is a class feat for nobles in another book that I wouldnt be able to obtain until level 3. I would have to design and layout the organization per the rules for player-made organizations, and then give the GM a copy of the sheet. He's said the bodyguard would be controlled by me only as far as giving orders, then he controls movement and who the bodyguard attacks and all that. Also, if my bodyguard dies, I basically lose the talent.
As for the conversation in the earlier planning stages, we are in the early planning stages, he isn't set to start the campaign for about 4 weeks, which is why it wouldn't be too big of a problem to change to a dedicated healing character, which I know he was hoping the group would have.
It sounds like I'm stubbornly not seeing that I am the problem, so I'm just going to reroll the character into a healer. It'll probably be best for the group at large anyways and I'll probably still have fun
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We tried to do a campaign a year ago with about 6 characters, and had about 3 or 4 sessions before we stopped playing. We decided to revisit it, and have 8 players for the new campaign, which hasn't starred yet.
I'm trying to role play a noble who wants to eventually make a "by the books" crime syndictate that has intergalactic influence, specializing as a sscurity force (as a front). That means creating a structure for the organization, having members and aquiring funding to be able to provide equipment to organization members, and having personal body guards for my character.
I am not making anything up as far as rules goes, all of the rules and templates for those things exist in the rules and are actually laid out for the player. Getting these things in order would actually take a pretty large number of levels, so its not like im being very overpowered in the early game. If anything, my character is as much as possible non-combat oriented, which means the early levels are actually extremely dangerous for me.
My GM vehemently dislikes the idea for where I'm taking the character, specifically having the organization at all, or the idea of me having body guards (which are supported in multiple ways in the rules).
Another reason he's opposed to the idea is because one of the thingd that I want to dp to turn a larger profit, and that I think would be in character for the character I'm designing, would be to be able to buy all of the materials/items (including rare, military, and illegal items) for the other players in the group at a much cheaper price than what they would be able to get from a vendor, but for slightly more than what it would cost me. I would also spot players money in return for favors. Again, all of this is completely allowed for in the rules, instead of taking combat bonuses I'm taking bonuses for influencing people/having connections/buying items for markedly cheaper.
The gm doesn't like it because he feels like it bypasses his level of control over what items and gear we have access too, even though the system to do what I want to has its own built-in balancing and limiters. Another reason is becauae he has a very carefully laid out campaign that falls into the established timeline in starwars of when our campaign ks set. He actually dislikes what I'm doing so much that he has asked me to cease and decist, and has implied that if he feels like I'm getting out of hand he'll specifically try and kill off my character.
What should I do? I've tried talking to him, and tried expressing to him that the point of am RPG like D&D isn't to make the character revolve around your campaign you constructed as a GM, it's to provide a sandbox for the players to try and do what they want to with their characters, not micromanage your players into doing what you want them to.
I understand he feels like that I'm dropping to much on him for his first actual campaign, but my feeling is that by the time we get to the point where I could get started really doing what I want to, he should start to really have the hang of it.
He is my best friend, so part of me feels like he may be right and I might be being selfish about it, as I'm pretty attached to the idea of this character. However, 2 of the other players in the group have agreed with the DM on the matter, which is also frustrating but again making me consider that I could probably be wrong and am too close to the situation.
So the way I see it, my two options are I could just reroll my character and do something different, something he wouldn't be quite so opposed to. (Our 8 man party doesn't have a dedicated healer, so I could do that, I'm not opposed to the idea, I enjoy support classes in other types of games) or I could stick with the character I want to make and hope he just adjusts to the idea of the character as we have our sessions.
Which should I do? Or is there other options that I'm not considering?
Okay. That's the rules Nazi perspective out of the way. Now, you have to understand that what you're proposing is a really big ask. Tabletop RPGs conventionally run on the paradigm of "one player, one character". A lot of GMs would balk at the idea of a PC who runs around with bodyguards and minions, essentially multiplying the number of characters that player controls. Add onto that the extra resources provided by a criminal organization, and I hope you can see how this concept falls pretty far outside the boundaries of what most players and GMs expect from a PC. It doesn't matter that the game has rules for doing this. The rules in an RPG are tools that the players and GM use for resolving actions, not irrevocable permission to perform the action. If I recall correctly, the SWSE rules you're referring to are basically identical to 3E D&D Leadership. Well, lots of DMs disallow Leadership. And in fact the writers of the game seem to have anticipated that these particular rules would be especially contentious, because they did not put Leadership with all the other feats in the Player's Handbook, but rather in its own special section in the Dungeon Master's Guide, effectively stating, "This one is extra optional". So it's not like you're saying "I want my character to be left-handed" and your GM is saying "no". This is an extraordinary request, and it's not unreasonable for the GM to refuse.
It's not a matter of GM experience, either. GMs of all experience levels sometimes say no to Leadership. Even if it were, though -- you say you think your GM should be ready to run the rule by the time you get going with it, but shouldn't it be he, not you, who decides what he is and isn't ready to run? You're concerned that he's being too demanding of you, but consider what you're demanding of him.
Really, it sounds like what needed to happen here was a conversation much earlier in the campaign planning stage where the players and GM all discuss what they want out of the game. You want a sandbox, and that's fine, lots of groups run sandbox campaigns, but it's not correct to say sandboxing is "the point of an RPG". An RPG doesn't have a point, except what the players give it. If lots of groups run sandbox campaigns, lots of groups also run different styles of campaign, and they're not somehow playing the game wrong when they do it. Because there are so many different expectations and approaches for RPGs, it is so important to talk about them when planning a campaign. Players tell the GM what sorts of characters they want to play and what they want to do, the GM tells the players the sorts of stories he wants to tell, they build a consensus, and then the GM plans the campaign in a way that everybody is satisfied with. When the GM plans the campaign first and the players come in with their characters later, the players are unfortunately much more constrained.
So maybe you don't get to play the character you wanted. But not every character is suited for every campaign, anyway. Just remember: there's always the next campaign.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As a side note, the bodyguard talent I mentioned is a class ability for a prestige class in the core rulebook, so I wouldn't get the bodyguard until level 7, and the feat that allows you to start an organization is a class feat for nobles in another book that I wouldnt be able to obtain until level 3. I would have to design and layout the organization per the rules for player-made organizations, and then give the GM a copy of the sheet. He's said the bodyguard would be controlled by me only as far as giving orders, then he controls movement and who the bodyguard attacks and all that. Also, if my bodyguard dies, I basically lose the talent.
As for the conversation in the earlier planning stages, we are in the early planning stages, he isn't set to start the campaign for about 4 weeks, which is why it wouldn't be too big of a problem to change to a dedicated healing character, which I know he was hoping the group would have.
It sounds like I'm stubbornly not seeing that I am the problem, so I'm just going to reroll the character into a healer. It'll probably be best for the group at large anyways and I'll probably still have fun