|
OK, the theme I'm seeing from the "DM picks setting, take it or leave it" people is that no one else is ever willing to DM; one person always has a monopoly on the job. Is that actually the case? In my last group, out of 7 players, six of them (houstonderek, TOZ, silverhair2008, Jess Door, Psychicmachinery, Mundane) were also accomplished DMs with one or more of their own campaigns. I have never been in a situation in which only one person is willing to run a game.
Who was the seventh? Because Cyzzane was a GM before she was a player.
Ok, so far:
Aranna: 1a, 2a, any other response is a unique outlier.
Me: 1c, 2b.
knightday: 1a, 2b.
LordSynos (implied): 1a/b.
Others?
Who was the seventh? Because Cyzzane was a GM before she was a player.
I stand corrected! Seven out seven players were also DMs. Which is obviously impossible, because I'm unique, so there can't possibly be seven other people in the same situation that we can name off the top of our heads.
OK, the theme I'm seeing from the "DM picks setting, take it or leave it" people is that no one else is ever willing to DM; one person always has a monopoly on the job. Is that actually the case? In my last group, out of 7 players, six of them (houstonderek, TOZ, silverhair2008, Jess Door, Psychicmachinery, Mundane) were also accomplished DMs with one or more of their own campaigns. I have never been in a situation in which only one person is willing to run a game.
Arnwyn tells me that this is "almost wholely unique" (although it's true of pretty much all of the gaming groups I've been in, across 30 years and 6 states, so I'm inclined not to believe that continued assertion). So, am I the only person? Let's get some more data here -- please sound in, everyone!
Survey:
1. Which of the following best describes your experience:
(a) Only one person is ever willing to be a DM.
(b) At least two people are able and willing to DM a game at any given time.
(c) Most of the players in a given group are also DMs at times.2. Which of the following best describes your attitude on setting:
(a) What the DM says goes, no discussion. Take it or leave it.
(b) What the moajority wants will generally influence what direction the DM allows.
(c) All players must be allowed to play anything.My guess is that question 1 will have more than one person to answer other than "a." I also predict that there will be a strong correlation between 1a and 2a answers.
1) When running a public game, I am the DM. Even if 5 people showed up who could be a DM that is irrelevant. I've posted a campaign, a timetable, and filled the player slots. There's no option to switch it up.
2) When running games in my local group, we have a few other people who could be DMs (and have in the past) but they prefer to play so much so that they will acquiesce to my campaign rules rather than put together their own campaign.
So:
In any interaction with my group of friends none of the strawman scenarios even applies as we are all reasonable human beings.
In public games I'm the DM and the game is the game. No discussion needed. If a true problem player showed up insisting on not abiding by the campaign I would just ask him to leave.
Again, let me post the initial conditions: this is a home game, not some sort of public sign-up thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who was the seventh? Because Cyzzane was a GM before she was a player.I stand corrected! Seven out seven players were also DMs. Which is obviously impossible, because I'm unique, so there can't possibly be seven other people in the same situation that we can name off the top of our heads.
Na, Houston has a lot of GMs. Back many many years ago when I lived there, we had a number of people willing to do so. Once I moved off from such a big city, the number of willing contestants dwindled.
Na, Houston has a lot of GMs. Back many many years ago when I lived there, we had a number of people willing to do so. Once I moved off from such a big city, the number of willing contestants dwindled.
Yeah, above I posited that DM-says-players-listen-or-leave is correlated with the ratio of willing DMs to players in a given area. That would explain my stance vs. some others'. However, I was immediately told that I was unique, that no one else ever had multiple people willing to DM in the same area/group, and therefore any comparison of the two was automatically a false premise and should not be entertained. I suspected otherwise, and you seem to be confirming that suspicion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Survey:*snip
1b/1c and 2b.
Anyway, not only has my experience been that a significant number---if not most players---have DMing experience, but I've also found that people who haven't DMed before can pick it up quickly. Most of what a DM does, after all, is very similar to what a player does. You may create and roleplay more characters, but you already have experience doing that as a player. The stuff that isn't similar to being a player (mostly organization/logistics stuff) is easy to learn and if some of your players are DMs, you have an easy source of aid if you need it.
Edit: I've noticed a trend (to be clear, I'm not talking about this thread) of people who think that DMing is a singularly difficult task that few can do, but in my experience, that's very far from the case. If you've played tabletop roleplaying games before and enjoyed it, you probably have most the skills and all the drive/motivation needed.
Na, Houston has a lot of GMs. Back many many years ago when I lived there, we had a number of people willing to do so. Once I moved off from such a big city, the number of willing contestants dwindled.Yeah, above I posited that DM-says-players-listen-or-leave is correlated with the ratio of willing DMs to players in a given area. That would explain my stance vs. some others'. However, I was immediately told that I was unique, that no one else ever had multiple people willing to DM in the same area/group, and therefore any comparison of the two was automatically a false premise and should not be entertained. I suspected otherwise, and you seem to be confirming that suspicion.
I'd say having seven people both able and willing to immediately DM a game is quite rare.
I'd say having seven people both able and willing to immediately DM a game is quite rare.
That's probably true; 7/7 is a pretty extreme ratio. However, at least two, vs. one only, isn't "nearly unique." In fact it seems to be fairly common.
|
Throughout virtually all my school years: 1a
During college: 1c
Since mid 1990s: 1b
Oh, hang on, it's not about experience, but able and willing to run a game.
Which means that given the demands of work or parenthood (two of the three parents in our group having a disabled child), it tends more toward 1a than 1b.
There have been times I have had to say "I am under too much pressure right now. I need a break." and someone may say "I could run something.", or we play boardgames for a bit.
But I've rarely had to duel for the privilege of the GM chair.
I'm not the only GM in my current group, nor have I always been the only GM in most of my previous groups.
But I have seen a vast spread in the investment some players are willing to make to a group.
Even in the groups where I wasn't the only GM, there may have been one or two more people with prior GM experience, and several others who had never held any intention of running a game. And never would.
And even when another person was known to GM on occasion, it might only be for short periods, and doesn't mean I ever experienced it.
Player 2: There is Razor Coast!
GM: Ok I will run Razor Coast if you let me borrow it.
GM proceeds to run a lackluster game.
Players complain that GM isn't very good.
The End.That's one possibility. Here are two more:
(2) GM reads up on Razor Coast, puts the work into implementing it, and runs a fantastic game. Said GM might even (gasp) find that he enjoys the setting!
(3) Player X says, "That's OK, I'm willing to GM it if you're not."
In order to claim your scenario is "The End," you have to first demonstrate that neither of the alternatives I've provided are possible. I'm open to evidence, but not blind assertions.
Are those even relevant? This was an example of a group where the charismatic leader is in a players seat and doesn't want to put in the work of running himself. The others aren't charismatic and regardless of which uncharismatic player takes the GM seat they will constantly be steamrolled by Bob and his followers while gaming. This IS how a so called democratic game ends up if the big charisma guy won't sit in the GM chair. Charisma IS power in a social scene. And power corrupts. Even if Bob starts out shutting down uncharismatic GM for everyone's initial benefit it won't be long before Bob is just in the habit of shutting him down even if he doesn't realize he is ruining GMs fun.
I'd say having seven people both able and willing to immediately DM a game is quite rare.That's probably true; 7/7 is a pretty extreme ratio. However, at least two, vs. one only, isn't "nearly unique." In fact it seems to be fairly common.
I think it's also common for players (even those who could DM) to just shrug and say "okay" when the DM announces a no-elf campaign.
This whole concept of a player who is so married to a race/class that they absolutely must play it now and in this campaign seems flawed.
I think the unique (or very rare) thing about your group is that someone would say, "I find your campaign unacceptable so I will instead run a game". That just has never happened in any of the groups I've seen.
This was an example of a group where the charismatic leader is in a players seat and doesn't want to put in the work of running himself. The others aren't charismatic and regardless of which uncharismatic player takes the GM seat they will constantly be steamrolled by Bob and his followers while gaming. This IS how a so called democratic game ends up if the big charisma guy won't sit in the GM chair. Charisma IS power in a social scene. And power corrupts. Even if Bob starts out shutting down uncharismatic GM for everyone's initial benefit it won't be long before Bob is just in the habit of shutting him down even if he doesn't realize he is ruining GMs fun.
That's true only if Bob is either oblivious or an outright dick. Also, Charisma isn't binary.
|
|
I have never been in a situation in which only one person is willing to run a game.
Arnwyn tells me that this is "almost wholely unique" (although it's true of pretty much all of the gaming groups I've been in, across 30 years and 6 states, so I'm inclined not to believe that continued assertion). So, am I the only person? Let's get some more data here -- please sound in, everyone!
Maybe you simply inspire other people to GM?
Edit: I've noticed a trend (to be clear, I'm not talking about this thread) of people who think that DMing is a singularly difficult task that few can do, but in my experience, that's very far from the case. If you've played tabletop roleplaying games before and enjoyed it, you probably have most the skills and all the drive/motivation needed.
I agree, it isn't an impossible or difficult task that only a few elite can do. That said, it seems (from my own experiences at least) a task that many seem to believe is beyond them or would require more time than just showing up to play.
I've tried over the years to recruit more people to the GMing pool by reminding them that it is just the same thing you do as a player: tell a story. The other players are usually more than willing to help with the rules if you are willing to tell the story.
This whole concept of a player who is so married to a race/class that they absolutely must play it now and in this campaign seems flawed.
I agree. I have never disagreed. What I've always said is, if the player wants one race/class, and the rest of the group also wants for him to be able to play that race/class, it's sort of gauche for the DM to shut them all down without discussion.
I think the unique (or very rare) thing about your group is that someone would say, "I find your campaign unacceptable so I will instead run a game". That just has never happened in any of the groups I've seen.
No one says that -- in part because I don't do that. All the players know I'll use their input to design the campaign, and that I'll go out of my way to make reasonable accommodations. However, I've had players in the past (on more than one occasion) say something like, "I admire your skill, but you and I have different styles of gaming; I'm going to bow out so I can focus on my own campaign." No harm, no foul.
This whole concept of a player who is so married to a race/class that they absolutely must play it now and in this campaign seems flawed.I agree. I have never disagreed. What I've always said is, if the player wants one race/class, and the rest of the group also wants for him to be able to play that race/class, it's sort of gauche for the DM to shut them all down without discussion.
I don't think that has ever been part of the discussion. The added bit of "and the rest of the group also wants..." changes the picture dramatically.
The point made by most on the DM "side of the aisle" is that it is a lone player insisting on something contrary to the campaign and with no backing support from the other players.
I believe that a lone player insisting on having their way is more rude than a DM insisting on the integrity of his campaign. Only if the entire group of players felt the DM was in error does the picture change.
In the decades I've been playing, the most common situation is:
1) The DM will build a world and hit the players with a "treatment" of the campaign.
2) The players agree to play with all the constraints, knowing that the DM has a story he is passionate about telling
3) The game is played just as the DM planned and prepped
On rare occasions there is a:
2a) One player isn't interested and so bows out for that particular campaign.
I think I've seen this twice in 36 years. And there were no hard feelings. The DM ran the game he liked and everyone who played bought in fully.
I agree, it isn't an impossible or difficult task that only a few elite can do. That said, it seems (from my own experiences at least) a task that many seem to believe is beyond them or would require more time than just showing up to play.
I've tried over the years to recruit more people to the GMing pool by reminding them that it is just the same thing you do as a player: tell a story. The other players are usually more than willing to help with the rules if you are willing to tell the story.
Yeah, I certainly think that part of why people are hesitant to try to DM is because they don't think they have that special DM skill. It's a common enough trope that it's easy to believe if you've never DMed before. I know I had a period of time (before I had ever DMed) when I thought this.
Ok, so far:
Aranna: 1a, 2a, any other response is a unique outlier.
Me: 1c, 2b.
knightday: 1a, 2b.
LordSynos (implied): 1a/b.Others?
Wow you DO realize it is the height of rudeness to not only talk FOR someone else BUT to lie about what they have been saying... Wow. You do like to be the bully don't you?
To state the correct numbers for me is 1b locally (although in college it was clearly 1a) I have never seen 1c. And my response is NOT in the part two list at all... 2a & 2c are strawman outliers, obviously designed to make Kirth's position in 2b look like the ONLY reasonable option all other unlisted opinions are clearly wrong/bad right Kirth?
all other unlisted opinions are clearly wrong/bad right Kirth?
Assume that choice (d) is "other: fill in the blank" for both questions.
2a & 2c are strawman outliers, obviously designed to make Kirth's position in 2b look like the ONLY reasonable option
Interesting, given how many people have directly espoused 2a, and how many people keep claiming that 2c is the only alternative to it.
The point made by most on the DM "side of the aisle" is that it is a lone player insisting on something contrary to the campaign and with no backing support from the other players.
I take exception to the implication that most of the people who disagree with you aren't DMs. The conclusion to of course be drawn from this is that the people who disagree with you don't know anything about DMing and so their opinions can safely be discounted.
Most of this thread has been people---on both sides on the issue---talking from the perspective of their DMing experience.
I don't think that has ever been part of the discussion. The added bit of "and the rest of the group also wants..." changes the picture dramatically.
That's been my ENTIRE discussion, despite misrepresentations to the contrary.
The point made by most on the DM "side of the aisle" is that it is a lone player insisting on something contrary to the campaign and with no backing support from the other players.
That player is a dick. We all agree. There's no argument about that because I don't think anyone disagrees.
This was an example of a group where the charismatic leader is in a players seat and doesn't want to put in the work of running himself. The others aren't charismatic and regardless of which uncharismatic player takes the GM seat they will constantly be steamrolled by Bob and his followers while gaming. This IS how a so called democratic game ends up if the big charisma guy won't sit in the GM chair. Charisma IS power in a social scene. And power corrupts. Even if Bob starts out shutting down uncharismatic GM for everyone's initial benefit it won't be long before Bob is just in the habit of shutting him down even if he doesn't realize he is ruining GMs fun.That's true only if Bob is either oblivious or an outright dick. Also, Charisma isn't binary.
I never claimed charisma was binary.
And NO Bob doesn't have to be either oblivious or a dick. It's just human nature. Bob has a group at his back willing to say he is always right. He usually starts to believe it in spite of himself. Bob right or wrong starts to assume his followers like it his way.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And NO Bob doesn't have to be either oblivious or a dick. It's just human nature. Bob has a group at his back willing to say he is always right. He usually starts to believe it in spite of himself. Bob right or wrong starts to assume his followers like it his way.This was an example of a group where the charismatic leader is in a players seat and doesn't want to put in the work of running himself. The others aren't charismatic and regardless of which uncharismatic player takes the GM seat they will constantly be steamrolled by Bob and his followers while gaming. This IS how a so called democratic game ends up if the big charisma guy won't sit in the GM chair. Charisma IS power in a social scene. And power corrupts. Even if Bob starts out shutting down uncharismatic GM for everyone's initial benefit it won't be long before Bob is just in the habit of shutting him down even if he doesn't realize he is ruining GMs fun.That's true only if Bob is either oblivious or an outright dick. Also, Charisma isn't binary.
That's called being a oblivious dick.
Bob right or wrong starts to assume his followers like it his way.
Kind of like some of the DMs we've been discussing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, the theme I'm seeing from the "DM picks setting, take it or leave it" people is that no one else is ever willing to DM; one person always has a monopoly on the job. Is that actually the case? In my last group, out of 7 players, six of them (houstonderek, TOZ, silverhair2008, Jess Door, Psychicmachinery, Mundane) were also accomplished DMs with one or more of their own campaigns. I have never been in a situation in which only one person is willing to run a game.
Arnwyn tells me that this is "almost wholely unique" (although it's true of pretty much all of the gaming groups I've been in, across 30 years and 6 states, so I'm inclined not to believe that continued assertion). So, am I the only person? Let's get some more data here -- please sound in, everyone!
Survey:
1. Which of the following best describes your experience:
(a) Only one person is ever willing to be a DM.
(b) At least two people are able and willing to DM a game at any given time.
(c) Most of the players in a given group are also DMs at times.
I'm going off the board with (d)
(d) 85% of the time, there is only one person willing to GM, and the other 15% of the time the person who is willing to take over flakes out after 2-3 months and the original GM has to take back over.
I moved to Texas 2 years ago, and it's the first time in 12 years where I've had someone else willing to GM on a regular basis.
2. Which of the following best describes your attitude on setting:
(a) What the DM says goes, no discussion. Take it or leave it.
(b) What the moajority wants will generally influence, if not determine, what direction the DM allows.
(c) All players must be allowed to play anything.
My guess is that question 1 will have more than one person to answer other than "a." I also predict that there will be a strong correlation between 1a and 2a answers.
Again, going off the board with (d)
(d) The GM generally offers 2-4 things he's willing to run, and the players debate over which they'd rather play, then the GM gives them a framework and approves characters (this is especially true for open ended systems like Hero or GURPS). Very tightly restricted systems (like Shadowrun) are usually 'build whatever', while inbetween systems (like D&D/PF) are usually 'Here's the house rules for this one'. Then the players make characters within those parameters (sometimes problem players try to make shadowrun cyber goons for D&D/PF and get shot down repeatedly, usually by the whole group).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My own experience is some where between 1b and 1c (if you like to pass on your venerable wisdom, you can go from 1a to 1c with the same group) and, while mostly 2b, I've run (played, actually :P) the gamut of 2 possibilities.
(God, Kirth, I can't believe you phrased your questions as multiple choice rather than essays: "Please illustrate why only dick DMs disagree with me; no less than 300 words.")
2a & 2c are strawman outliers, obviously designed to make Kirth's position in 2b look like the ONLY reasonable optionInteresting, given how many people have directly espoused 2a, and how many people keep claiming that 2c is the only alternative to it.
Could you list these people? I don't recall any.
Even TOZ who seems to be 2c said he banned a certain race recently. Either he is a hypocrite or he really isn't 2c.
Bob right or wrong starts to assume his followers like it his way.Kind of like some of the DMs we've been discussing?
Exactly, DM or player it ISN'T about democracy it is about charisma.
It's usually 1b/2b for me. Since I hate banning stuff unnecessarily and don't think even half the stuff people claim to be OP is in fact OP, it also ends up being 1b/2c most of the time, although I'd rephrase 2c to "All players are very often allowed to play anything" rather than "...must be allowed...".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On #2 I am almost identical to mdt
(d) The GM generally offers 2-4 things he's willing to run, and the players debate over which they'd rather play, then the GM gives them a framework and approves characters (this is especially true for open ended systems like Hero or GURPS). Very tightly restricted systems (like Shadowrun) are usually 'build whatever', while inbetween systems (like D&D/PF) are usually 'Here's the house rules for this one'. Then the players make characters within those parameters (sometimes problem players try to make shadowrun cyber goons for D&D/PF and get shot down repeatedly, usually by the whole group).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff about GM-ing I've edited for space.
It's a bit off track (at least from the exotic race question), but I think you're absolutely right.
About a million years ago, some "how to play" primer described rpgs as a novel where the players control the main characters and the GM provides the setting, and that (movies more recently) has been the go to metaphor since, but it's just a godawful one. Any GM who comes to the table trying to control the story the way a writer does is going to to be very, very railroad-ey.
Edit: Y'know, DM of the Rings was a pretty awesome webcomic.
Could you list these people? I don't recall any.
Start with Democritus and Sissyl, then keep reading. I was tempted to lump you in, but then remembered that your contributions have been merely to try and undermine anything I say regardless of what it is, and have not until now seen fit to actually take a position yourself.
Could you list these people? I don't recall any.Start with Democritus and Sissyl, then keep reading. I was tempted to lump you in, but then remembered that your contributions have been merely to try and undermine anything I say regardless of what it is, and have not until now seen fit to actually take a position yourself.
I don't recall Democratus saying such a thing? Could you link it?
As for Sissyl, he clearly stated he listens to what his players want and that most of his comments have been aimed at that player who demands to get his way, to paraphrase. So you are wrong about Sissyl.
I don't recall Democratus saying such a thing? Could you link it?
As for Sissyl, he clearly stated he listens to what his players want and that most of his comments have been aimed at that player who demands to get his way, to paraphrase. So you are wrong about Sissyl.
(a) I'm assuming you can read for yourself. Please do so.
(b) Sissyl is an example of a person who claimed that the only alternative to absolute DM authority was 2c. Again, see above.Again, "The player who demands to get his own way," regardless of what the group wants is a dick. That's a non-issue; no one disagrees. The only disagreement is whether the will of the group as a whole should influence the DM's decisions regarding allowing races, etc. You and others have consistently tried to paint that, in various ways, as always being 1 player vs. the DM, because that's an easier argument to make.
And I have made my position clear right from the start... most people (like you apparently) just choose to ignore it in favor of attacking my use of terms or some such.
What I remember of Democratus's posts seem reasonable... I may have missed something but I am not going to do hours of reading to defend YOUR assertion if that's even possible. If you want it to hold true you should probably do the effort to quote something yourself.
Sissyl was trying to throw others logic back at them...
What I remember of Democratus's posts seem reasonable... I may have missed something but I am not going to do hours of reading to defend YOUR assertion if that's even possible. If you want it to hold true you should probably do the effort to quote something yourself.
This is probably somewhat petty of me to bring up, but do you remember this exchange earlier in the thread where you had been careless in reading others' posts? I don't think you are in a position where you can just appeal to your memories of this thread as an argument.
Possibly TOZ there have been plenty of straw men.
This is probably somewhat petty of me to bring up, but do you remember this exchange earlier in the thread where you had been careless in reading others' posts? I don't think you are in a position where you can just appeal to your memories of this thread as an argument.What I remember of Democratus's posts seem reasonable... I may have missed something but I am not going to do hours of reading to defend YOUR assertion if that's even possible. If you want it to hold true you should probably do the effort to quote something yourself.
I am not infallible. And it is sometimes hard to remember a specific point when reading two pages at a time. I did thank you for the link did I not? And while you never convinced me of much you did get me to stop using gaming ideology terms since it only seemed to be confusing my points.
it's the strawwidows and straworphans that I worry about . . .