Everything above, plus he should be able to run his games and make rulings at his table however he wants. Nothing about that makes him a obtuse or a buzzkill.

Never said he couldn't. Just said it sucks. Everything about his approach makes him an obtuse buzzkill imo. Obtuse meaning ignorant, and buzzkill meaning he who ruins people's fun for the sake of it.

The first two paragraphs, of the first CRB, in the section on selecting a species, use language like "billions of worlds" and "unlimited possibilities" as well as "the only limitation is imagination". This is what a PC reads and then Capt Party Pooper comes along with his Phasers set to "NO" and won't even have a conversation? Sorry you can think what you like LD, I stand by obtuse buzzkill, he is pouring a bucket of urine on his PC's heads for the sake of it, because the CRB is telling him the exact opposite.

Ima an obtuse buzzkill who sucks, that's a new one.

Let me quote you something from the CRB under Recruiting Players pg.288

"...Gms and players should try to recruit others that they get along with and mesh well together. It's helpful if they enjoy similar play styles and have similar expectations about the game and how it will be played"

Sounds like at your table as long as it's your play style, otherwise the answer is no.

Well, that got ugly quickly. These boards aren't as good to read as a year or two ago.

For me it's not about 'believability'. It's about 'verisimilitude'. I write a particular world and I spend a lot of time making it internally cohesive, with plots that the players will be able to affect. I am happy with players becoming powerful and influencing my world, but they will do it as an inhabitant of that world, not by making a little corner of it as their own. Too many players playing GM ruins campaigns.

Throwing different genres and fandoms into a campaign makes it an unappetising stew for me. The moment you allow My Little Ponies or sparkly vampires in Star Wars, you're running a parody of your own game, and should you want to run a serious or horror story in it, you've made it pretty much impossible. As I said before, samurai, steampunk, and hobbit wizards might make fine characters in some games, but you're not playing them in my One Ring game, sorry, because I want to stay strongly to the concepts Tolkien created. You're not playing anime characters in my SW game or clerics, drow or dragonborn in my Dragon Age game.

In our Star Wars games, I have a bunch of reasons for disallowing many concepts, all of which I explain to the players, and anyone who doesn't like my style of play is free to make their own games or go elsewhere. A Gamorrean Diplomat might be a fun character in some games, but it might be the ruination of the game in others, depending on what you want to shoot for. Ewoks and Gungans have too much baggage for me, and giant green rabbits being playable would in no way enhance my game, so they (and many other concepts) are not allowed. The players know the races that are permitted when they start the game and can choose to participate or not.

I find the main problem with letting players create their own thing is twofold. One, it might be overpowered. Even something that seems innocuous might have adverse affects on the campaign world or just ruin the atmosphere you're trying to create. Two, it separates the player from the rest of the characters and the rest of the world. Let's say the player wants to make his own species that's a cross between a fish and a dog. Even if it's balanced, all he'll ever be doing is his own FishDog stuff in a corner, unconnected to the rest of my world. If you play a wookiee, that makes you a part of the world with certain assumptions from NPCs in the world - other characters will assume you're an emotional, violent ex-slave who hates the Empire, even if you're not. Play a twi'lek female and everyone will assume you're a dancer even if you're a tough bounty hunter or something. Does the character resent these stereotypes, or play along to get an advantage? Either way, a wookiee or a twi'lek gets to be a part of the world in a way the FishDog doesn't.

That's how I do it, and 30+ years of being a gamer have taught me that works for me. I don't claim to have the One True Way and plenty of people wouldn't enjoy my games, and that's fine. If you want to play an anything-goes game, that's fine too.

For me, 'crushing the players dreams for the sake of it' is bad GMing. 'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is not.

I agree with everything you said MT

For me, 'crushing the players dreams for the sake of it' is bad GMing. 'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is not.

For me, 'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is the number one rule.

I think the answer should be they should discuss it with the player. No guarantees on a yes.

I have not been insulted by anyone disagreeing with me. Maybe I just use too many exclamation marks and things have been taken out of context.

We are having a discussion and disagreeing. That`s all good

Namecalling sucks! If "killing player creativity" was rude or harsh, I apologize, I just used it as an expression.

I posted this open question to challenge myself too, I had no clear yes or no attitude, but I found myself being more on the "why not" side.

I was also very curious what others in the community thought. And forums are about disagreeing and discussing, right? Doesn`t mean we don`t like eachother!

Before I would have a hard time saying yes and found no a little too easy. I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players

more power enriches MY game. Doesn`t mean other things can`t be fun too. I still feel I should be able to ask "why" if I feel the poster doesn`t give a reason.

Still, not insulted, just like to ask why, might use too many exclamation marks and might use expressions wrong in the english language.

Peace

I have not been insulted by anyone disagreeing with me. Maybe I just use too many exclamation marks and things have been taken out of context.

We are having a discussion and disagreeing. That`s all good

Namecalling sucks! If "killing player creativity" was rude or harsh, I apologize, I just used it as an expression.

I posted this open question to challenge myself too, I had no clear yes or no attitude, but I found myself being more on the "why not" side.

I was also very curious what others in the community thought. And forums are about disagreeing and discussing, right? Doesn`t mean we don`t like eachother!

Before I would have a hard time saying yes and found no a little too easy. I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players

more power enriches MY game. Doesn`t mean other things can`t be fun too. I still feel I should be able to ask "why" if I feel the poster doesn`t give a reason.

Still, not insulted, just like to ask why, might use too many exclamation marks and might use expressions wrong in the english language.

Peace

"I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players more power enriches MY game."

What's awesome about it?

What happens when 2 players have different opinions, wants, needs? Or 3 players? Or 4 players?

What happens when 1 players starts using this giving players more power enriches MY game, to their own advantage? Or to the advantage of another player? Or is deliberately blocking the efforts of another player?

I have not been insulted by anyone disagreeing with me. Maybe I just use too many exclamation marks and things have been taken out of context.

We are having a discussion and disagreeing. That`s all good

Namecalling sucks! If "killing player creativity" was rude or harsh, I apologize, I just used it as an expression.

I posted this open question to challenge myself too, I had no clear yes or no attitude, but I found myself being more on the "why not" side.

I was also very curious what others in the community thought. And forums are about disagreeing and discussing, right? Doesn`t mean we don`t like eachother!

Before I would have a hard time saying yes and found no a little too easy. I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players

more power enriches MY game. Doesn`t mean other things can`t be fun too. I still feel I should be able to ask "why" if I feel the poster doesn`t give a reason.

Still, not insulted, just like to ask why, might use too many exclamation marks and might use expressions wrong in the english language.

Peace

"I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players more power enriches MY game."

What's awesome about it?

What happens when 2 players have different opinions, wants, needs? Or 3 players? Or 4 players?

What happens when 1 players starts using this giving players more power enriches MY game, to their own advantage? Or to the advantage of another player? Or is deliberately blocking the efforts of another player?

Why does it matter? It's his game, just like yours is yours. It doesn't impact you at all.

"I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players more power enriches MY game."

What's awesome about it?

What happens when 2 players have different opinions, wants, needs? Or 3 players? Or 4 players?

What happens when 1 players starts using this giving players more power enriches MY game, to their own advantage? Or to the advantage of another player? Or is deliberately blocking the efforts of another player?

"What happens when 2 players have different opinions, wants, needs? Or 3 players? Or 4 players?"

- We roleplay, have fun and the game gets interesting and exighting.

"What happens when 1 players starts using this giving players more power enriches MY game, to their own advantage? Or to the advantage of another player?"

- We are telling the story together and having fun together. OUR game. I want them all to take advantage of it. We all share the story and the power of the narrative. It`s fun:)

"Or is deliberately blocking the efforts of another player?"

- Then they are definitely not playing fair or by the rules of cooperative storytelling and the"Yes And..."-rule at all, they are shooting down eachothers ideas,

that is the very opposite of "Yes And..".

But we are all adults in our game, so this hasn`t happened yet.

I agree with everything you said MT

For me, 'crushing the players dreams for the sake of it' is bad GMing. 'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is not.

For me, 'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is the number one rule.

For me having fun is the number one rule, and generally that involves involving everyone and not exerting my will over them.

I have not been insulted by anyone disagreeing with me. Maybe I just use too many exclamation marks and things have been taken out of context.

We are having a discussion and disagreeing. That`s all good

Namecalling sucks! If "killing player creativity" was rude or harsh, I apologize, I just used it as an expression.

I posted this open question to challenge myself too, I had no clear yes or no attitude, but I found myself being more on the "why not" side.

I was also very curious what others in the community thought. And forums are about disagreeing and discussing, right? Doesn`t mean we don`t like eachother!

Before I would have a hard time saying yes and found no a little too easy. I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players

more power enriches MY game. Doesn`t mean other things can`t be fun too. I still feel I should be able to ask "why" if I feel the poster doesn`t give a reason.

Still, not insulted, just like to ask why, might use too many exclamation marks and might use expressions wrong in the english language.

Peace

"I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players more power enriches MY game."

What's awesome about it?

What happens when 2 players have different opinions, wants, needs? Or 3 players? Or 4 players?

What happens when 1 players starts using this giving players more power enriches MY game, to their own advantage? Or to the advantage of another player? Or is deliberately blocking the efforts of another player?

Why does it matter? It's his game, just like yours is yours. It doesn't impact you at all.

Well it must matter some to you or you wouldn't be responding in this manner.

RC asks why, but never explains his side. So I asked Why back.

"I have discovered the awesome power that is "yes and..." and how giving players more power enriches MY game."

What's awesome about it?

What happens when 2 players have different opinions, wants, needs? Or 3 players? Or 4 players?

What happens when 1 players starts using this giving players more power enriches MY game, to their own advantage? Or to the advantage of another player? Or is deliberately blocking the efforts of another player?

"What happens when 2 players have different opinions, wants, needs? Or 3 players? Or 4 players?"

- We roleplay, have fun and the game gets interesting and exighting.

"What happens when 1 players starts using this giving players more power enriches MY game, to their own advantage? Or to the advantage of another player?"

- We are telling the story together and having fun together. OUR game. I want them all to take advantage of it. We all share the story and the power of the narrative. It`s fun:)

"Or is deliberately blocking the efforts of another player?"

- Then they are definitely not playing fair or by the rules of cooperative storytelling and the"Yes And..."-rule at all, they are shooting down eachothers ideas,

that is the very opposite of "Yes And..".

But we are all adults in our game, so this hasn`t happened yet.

You asked Why a ways back.

My answer

- We roleplay, have enjoyment and the campaign gets interesting and exciting.

- We are experiencing the story together. OUR game. I want them all to take advantage of it. We all experience the story and the cinematic nature of the system. It`s enjoyable:)

- Then they are definitely not playing fair or by the rules of cooperative storytelling and the"Yes And..."-rule at all, they are shooting down each others ideas,

that is the very opposite of "Yes And..". But we are all adults in our game, so this hasn`t happened yet.

What happens if players have opposing goals in your cooperative storytelling sessions? or what happens if Billy is supposed to take the egg back to the Chicken Lord and Willy is supposed to cook and eat the egg to gain it's power?

I agree with everything you said MT

For me, 'crushing the players dreams for the sake of it' is bad GMing. 'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is not.

For me, 'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is the number one rule.

For me having fun is the number one rule, and generally that involves involving everyone and not exerting my will over them.

Sounds like you haven't come to the realization yet that fun is not universal. What is fun for one person might be sophomoric for another. Sorry to inform you of this, but it is what it is.

You appear to have this impression of me sitting on my throne of bones whipping my players into submission.

What does the CRB say about

'Being clear about expectations and insisting on something that fits into the campaign you are creating' is the number one rule.

Character Creation pg289

"The GM should work with the players as they create their characters. Before beginning, the GM needs to convey the type of story anticipated in the session . This includes the starting location, time frame, backstory, and other details that would influence the selection of character class, species, and background.

The players will have their own ideas about the characters they want to play. If the GM finds that their character concept significantly conflicts with the intended plot line, or doesn't mesh well with the rest of the group, it is his call whether to allow the character in the adventure or campaign."

Is the book wrong?

For me having fun is the number one rule, and generally that involves involving everyone and not exerting my will over them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I run very focused games and players who join know they have to fit into that vision. You're welcome to do otherwise at your table, as is anyone.

But nobody's playing Ponies in my StarWars games or Jedi in One Ring at my table.

There are plenty of other opportunities to be 'creative' within the paradigm of my campaign world. Works for me.

exactly MTaylor.

Who knew that a boundry stops all creative opportunities.

What happens if players have opposing goals in your cooperative storytelling sessions? or what happens if Billy is supposed to take the egg back to the Chicken Lord and Willy is supposed to cook and eat the egg to gain it's power?

Then their characters get into a fight or an arguement and the other characters are forced to choose a side or stay neutral. The game gets more intense and exighting.

I actually sometimes take players, one by one, into the kitchen before a session and give them opposing goals based on their obligation or motivation or npc relationships.

We have lots of fun with that.

I set their obligations and motivations up against eachother and set up conflict between characters occadionally. The players play it out with their characters and the story takes unexpected turns.

For me having fun is the number one rule, and generally that involves involving everyone and not exerting my will over them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I run very focused games and players who join know they have to fit into that vision. You're welcome to do otherwise at your table, as is anyone.

But nobody's playing Ponies in my StarWars games or Jedi in One Ring at my table.

There are plenty of other opportunities to be 'creative' within the paradigm of my campaign world. Works for me.

I actually agree with both of you

I agree that it is very cool to keep things within the spirit of the setting, given concept and the game world! Atmosphere and theme enhance the game experience.

I also agree that everyone should be involved in creating that game experience and be allowed to take part in shaping the game world.

For me having fun is the number one rule, and generally that involves involving everyone and not exerting my will over them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I run very focused games and players who join know they have to fit into that vision. You're welcome to do otherwise at your table, as is anyone.

But nobody's playing Ponies in my StarWars games or Jedi in One Ring at my table.

There are plenty of other opportunities to be 'creative' within the paradigm of my campaign world. Works for me.

Never said anyone wasn't allowed to do what they like at their own table.

If I get invited to a Star Wars game, I shift gears to play Star Wars. I don't think I'm going to straight up play some medieval knight, or think I'll be building a klingon. I might think about playing a character in the style of, say, Psycho Mantis, but not thinking that Star Wars will morph into Metal Gear somehow. And at the end of chargen, I might have a character that resembles Mantis in the token sense, but diverged quite a bit. If I get invited to a Transformers game, I'll do the same, or any other kind of game I'm playing.

If the GM wants to run a primarily Hired Gun campaign, and we all agree to do that, WTH am I even doing building a Colonist/Politico with no combat skills of any kind, if I just agreed to play a game where we speak in 80s action hero oneliners and shoots everything? But if the GM lays out the session zero sheets, it would be within my power to play that Politico, or whatever, because that's kind of the point: we all get something we're asking for, including the GM.

I think if everybody at the table agrees to go with the GM's idea of running a Hired Gun campaign, then they have agreed to certain boundaries to work within. That's not rocket science. But if nobody wants to do that, it really doesn't hurt the GM to just move on and ask them what they want to do.

My take on this is yes, but it will checked for balance first.

Most of the time we re-skinned other species and my players so far have been pleased with the results (knocking on wood).

I'm also in the yes camp. The goal of all good GMs is to make sure the players have fun. Whilst sometimes that can mean convincing a player to change their mind about something because it will have a detrimental effect on the game overall and spoil the enjoyment of other players, in this specific case (a non listed species) it wont spoil any Star Wars game to let them be creative as long as you can steer them into something that fits the setting and the rules are balanced.

When I started my EotE game one of my players wanted to be a Zabrak (before F&D came out) so I said yes instantly and told them to build it using the human species. As it happens I got a look at the F&D Beta before the game actually started and I game them the choice to switch to using the Zabrak rules there, which they did. However if they'd wanted to create their own species that we have not yet heard of that would be fine too. Star wars is constantly adding new races, I remember when Chiss were new and exciting. No doubt we'll be seeing lots of new aliens in a few months time when we watch The Force Awakens.

Worst case if they really really want something that you absolutely cannot work into the Star Wars setting (although I can't think of an example off the top of my head) then you would need to have a chat with them about what exactly their underlying goals are so that together you can try and work out a compromise that keeps them happy but still lets you run the game. If at any point you are simply telling the players what they can and cannot do without giving them agency then you are doing it wrong; if you don't want your players to play then you should be writing a story not running a roleplaying campaign.

exactly MTaylor.

Who knew that a boundry stops all creative opportunities.

I agree. Bounderies absolutely does not hinder creativity, it can even boost it a lot of the time! Good point

But within those established bounderies that is Star Wars, the game system and the concept of the campaign,

I would use "no" as little as possible. As I said, "Yes And..." only works when everyone is playing fair and are not stepping out of the Scene.

There still is a lot of room for making new species to fit creative ideas and to let crazy and inventive ideas flow within this game.

Whatever you do, have fun!