| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran into this article and wanted to link it in the snowflake thread but it has been recently locked. Thought it was an interesting read.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Civil discussion in the comments, too. I don't see anyone telling the author he has no imagination, play another game if you want to say no, blah blah blah.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good article indeed. It makes the same points that were made in the locked thread about three dozen times by at least two dozen commenters.
I don't think the problem with that thread was that nobody proposed a reasonable approach to the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that this is just the Snowflake Thread II: Kobold Edition.
Unsurprisingly, I approve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A nice article that didn't end in a fight.
I'm not one of the dissenters, naturally.
|
I thought this in the comments on another link from that article was spot on(and I would add paizo to the mix as well, not just WOTC:
One of the biggest problems, starting a bit with 3rd and moving head on into 4th, is WoTC insistance of putting 'core' on everything and having editorials talking about giving the players everything they want, being the 'yes' GM.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have always told my players that I am not a "yes" or a "no" GM. I'm just a GM who tries to create a fun and engaging gaming experience for ALL of my players as frequently as possible. Sometimes that means saying "yes" and sometimes it means saying "no." The "art" to this endeavor is figuring out when to say "yes" or "no" based on what makes the overall gaming experience better for everyone.
Including me. Yeah, I said it. My fun counts too.
Excellent article.
The snowflake thread got locked, huh? Actually, I'm surprised it lasted that long, considering all the animosity it and its cousin threads were kicking up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Including me. Yeah, I said it. My fun counts too.
Yes. Yes it does.
You know, I once had a player tell the whole group at the beginning of a session that the only thing that mattered was their fun, and that it didn't matter if I had fun at all because I was only there to serve their good time.
He has since changed his philosophy on this. But he really meant it at the time.
Thry locked the snowflake thread? Did all the special snowflakes and special snowscapes get out in time?
It's always ok to say no to a campaign you don't enjoy playing/running as long as you're willing to live with the consequenses of saying no (free to not play/run). That's true if your reason for not enjoying it is that it's too restrictive or too unrestrictive.
however....
Stated another way, "if you're free to not like my playstyle then I'm free to not like yours..."
It's how you position the discussion that seems to make all the difference, but at the end of the day it's the same discussion either way. I'm not going to tell you that you have to play in a game you don't like but I'm not gonna let you tell me that I'm wrong for not liking your playstyle. Your/my playstyle is a valid playstyle and your/my feelings about it are valid feelings.
Its when people start saying I can't have my own playstyle or even opinions on other playstyles that turns a thread from one page to 20. There was a lot of heat in the other thread that danced around very closely to 'you're wrong for not liking my restrictive style' and 'you're wrong for not liking my unrestricted playstyle.' There were a lot of these guys in the previous thread and a lot of them are still here in this one. I'm not going to name names but we all know who they are.
Saying I don't like your playstyle or people who play that way isn't saying its not a valid style or that those people are bad people.
Saying I'm wrong or bad for not liking your playstyle or those people and that I shouldn't have that choice or the freedom to have and exercise those opinions is entirely the problem.
No matter which side of the actual argument you're on.
A lot of people are fine with the idea that we're free to play what we wan't to play, so nobody argues when the conversation is positioned that way. But watch how bad things get when you start saying 'it's not ok for me to not like things your way.' Even though its the exact same conversation.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vincent, I saw a lot of negative stuff on the locked thread, but I never saw "you're wrong for not liking my restrictive/unrestrictive playstyle."
What I did see was something along the lines of "you're wrong for not sufficiently accommodating my personal playstyle" and "you're wrong for demanding I be more accommodating of your personal playstyle." That seemed, to me, to be the core of the debate.
Just using words like "restrictive" tends to polarize the debate. I have boundaries to my campaign world, but I do not view myself as having a "restrictive" playstyle. What I have are standards of quality for the background, history and verisimilitude of my campaign world and I'm not willing to ignore them on a whim. I am willing to expand them, given time and opportunity to do so, but I am far more likely to expand them to accommodate a player who is willing to work within the parameters of my own game design goals. When a player starts telling me how my own world should act, and why I'm all wrong about how the world operates, my desire to accommodate them shrivels rather drastically. And since it is my own time and effort that is invested in modifying my world to accommodate their request, pissing me off is a poor strategy for getting their way.
I have one general rule I like to think of; you play with the play style you agreed to. If I recruit four players for a campaign that has certain boundaries that are hard boundaries, if they agree, I think its kinda cool if they follow through on that agreement. Or at the least not presume that any restrictions will just disappear the moment they are pushed upon. Is someone who plays anything goes wrong? Gosh ... No. Sometimes you want to just play that. Sometimes ~I~ just want to gm that. Or anything inbetween. But I do reserve the right of refusal at my own table. I don't think your wrong for anything you do at your own table unless its like .... Illegal or abusive or something. Whatever floats your boat.
And ... What AD said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play something I disagree with why should I be forced to allow it
If you want to run something I disagree with why should I be forced to play in it
And the answer to both is no... If 20 pages got us a unified concensus on this then I'll be so happy to see these folks pleasantly disperse...
And yet another thread about the same subject seems to give me the indication that one side or the other (or both) of the conversation hasn't gotten the message yet. The thread was locked. The conversation is over. The points were made.
I'm hard pressed to believe that the 'freedom lovers' and the 'restriction lovers' would still have further need of personal validation, and yet here we are with yet another thread about the same darn thing. And we all know where it's gonna go. We're all just waiting for it to go bad.
I say we turn a corner for a change.
We see a thread that says restrictive play is ok?
We see a thread that says unrestrictive play is ok?
And instead of firing up 20 more pages of ire and talking past each other, instead we just let these threads die on page one with a pat on the head and a 'yes... you're right. Your playstyle is awesome for the people who love it. It's not awesome for the people who don't and it's ok for your playstyle to not be awesome for every single person on the planet... Move.... On....
The only problem with the article was that the author appeared to not have a lot of experience. They said here are a couple of types of players and here is the 'snowflake'. Umm, excuse me, but there are more kinds of players than what this article suggests. I have played all different kinds. I played Vast Deathmaster and Zoof and both were out of bounds in their own ways. Yet they still stayed within the rules of the game.
This doesn't address the "snowflake-ism". I have known several players who have played such characters and the GMs have learned to live with those players.
In fact, some games just are not fun without those players in them. As long as you keep your snowflake on the right kind of leash.....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, if we just placed a ban on these hypothetical arguments over made-up GMs and stuff, I think we might cut back a lot on this subforum's feuding...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, if we just placed a ban on these hypothetical arguments over made-up GMs and stuff, I think we might cut back a lot on this subforum's feuding...
Cletus!!! Git me ma shotgun an go call pa! This here lil' lizard's a'bin suggestin' we stops a feudin and a fightin, an that means nothin' ta do 'cept watchin' uncle Zeke paint tha' barn! I think we's gonna be eatin' lizard pie tonite!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if you went back in time to when Hitler was a baby and he was your GM?
I was avoiding this thread until I saw that this was the most recent post. I couldn't resist looking.
Lock the thread!!!! Lock it!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe not a record for godwinizing a thread, but pretty dang fast!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlock the old thread and consolidate it with this one! Add in the outlier threads!!! It shall be the moast EPIK SNOA-FLAYK that has evar fallen from the heavenz!!!!
Wait, are people seriously still trying to play with baby Hitler GM even though I made sure the Code of Hammurabi explicitly outlawed baby Hitler from GMing?!?
Grr, I may just have to change the Code of Urukagina now. No one disregards that.
Rule SS says that baby Hitler can GM as long as the rest of the group doesn't want to get invaded.
Good article.
*A tall, chilled figure steps into the warm cave, his cloak damp from the frozen wastes and chilly winds of lockedthread. The hood is pulled back to reveal a smiling, seemingly jovial hobgoblin, who sits down with a grin. He warms his hands and then speaks to the other adventurers taking shelter from the bitter cold*
Hello to all those travelers from lockedthread!
Yeah, I could not agree with this more. I especially liked this:
It boils down to this: I value a setting’s unique atmosphere much more highly than unlimited race and class options. If excising a few races and classes makes the world a more interesting place, then cut away.
Fine expression. Some may argue against this until they freeze to death, but it has a strong internal logic. Creation can involve destruction, removing the impediments to an idea being realised.
Including me. Yeah, I said it. My fun counts too.
Yes. Yes it does.
You know, I once had a player tell the whole group at the beginning of a session that the only thing that mattered was their fun, and that it didn't matter if I had fun at all because I was only there to serve their good time.
He has since changed his philosophy on this. But he really meant it at the time.
Ah yes, the one seeing themselves and their fun as more important than all others, as if only their fun matters.
You could have so much fun if the rest of the party were sadists, and when he said that, the group turned upon him with Jormungand smiles.
http://thecartdriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gg_Jormungand_-_01_382A 285D.mkv_snapshot_16.58_2012.04.12_10.09.37-460x258.jpg
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply not making caricatures of other peoples' preferred playstyles seems a solid way to go about things.
agreed. Also, holding on to lustful fantasies of what you would do if someone brought a pet peeve to the table is not going to help the situation either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lustful? I haven't played like that since . . .
Y'know what, never mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And instead of firing up 20 more pages of ire and talking past each other, instead we just let these threads die on page one
It would appear a lot of people from the other threads are trying to do this. Look at who posted in the other threads and you'll note that a lot from those threads (on multiple sides of the debate) aren't posting in this thread. Or they are posting here only to talk about things not related to the OP, such as kobold pies, Hitler as GM, or to respond to you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe not a record for godwinizing a thread, but pretty dang fast!
Can we please give it a rest finally with yelling "Godwin!" every time someone mentions Hitler or the Nazis? As a German and a historian I am kinda cross at this trope. Even though my particular combination of nationality and academic education practically gives me license to call up Nazis and Hitler whenever I damn feel like it, I think other people should be able to mention them whenever they want without someone waving the "Godwin!" placard about.
On saying no and killing something off to make space for another race, I almost used a Himmler quote. Surprisingly relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe not a record for godwinizing a thread, but pretty dang fast!Can we please give it a rest finally with yelling "Godwin!" every time someone mentions Hitler or the Nazis? As a German and a historian I am kinda cross at this trope. Even though my particular combination of nationality and academic education practically gives me license to call up Nazis and Hitler whenever I damn feel like it, I think other people should be able to mention them whenever they want without someone waving the "Godwin!" placard about.
I see what you did there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thread about locked thread? check
same participants as before? check
same result? check
Wotta supprize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thread about locked thread? check
same participants as before? check
same result? check
Well, I suppose everyone could switch sides and take a run at it from that angle?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I particularly liked:
... There’s a lot to be said in favor of “yes, but.” As GM philosophies go, it’s better than most.
It can, however, become a trap for the unwary or overly generous GM who’s trying to build a world with a strong theme.
Seems to me the article is about a word of caution to some GMs, if you can't handle "yes, but" GMing philosophy, you better stick with "No" GMing philosophy.
Seems to me the article is about a word of caution to some GMs, if you can't handle "yes, but" GMing philosophy, you better stick with "No" GMing philosophy.
<sigh> Aaaand this is what started all the arguing in the first place, someone assuming that a GM that said "no" was one that can't handle "yes, but". Please lets not get into all that again.