Getting what you want.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,018 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM wrote:

They don't exist.

That is the only excuse at all needed. End of line.

Kthulhu wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...

But none on Players being flexible.

Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.

Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.

I posted an example drawn from a game I play in one of the previous iterations of these threads, and I want to link to it because not only is it an example of how compromise can mean compromise (and be mutually satisfactory), but it is also an example of why I am wary of the style advocated in RDM's post. Being willing to explain bans or refusals at a level beyond "because I say so" helps.

As a player, even something as simple as "no, because I just hate the hell out of gnomes" gives me a lot more help than "no, end of the line."


Coriat wrote:
RDM wrote:

They don't exist.

That is the only excuse at all needed. End of line.

Kthulhu wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...

But none on Players being flexible.

Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.

Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.

I posted an example drawn from a game I play in one of the previous iterations of these threads, and I want to link to it because not only is it an example of how compromise can mean compromise (and be mutually satisfactory), but it is also an example of why I am wary of the style advocated in RDM's post. Being willing to explain bans or refusals at a level beyond "because I say so" helps.

As a player, even something as simple as "no, because I just hate the hell out of gnomes" gives me a lot more help than "no, end of the line."

While saying, "Because I said so" is valid, "No, because ..." is almost always preferable.


Coriat wrote:
RDM wrote:

They don't exist.

That is the only excuse at all needed. End of line.

Kthulhu wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...

But none on Players being flexible.

Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.

Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.

I posted an example drawn from a game I play in one of the previous iterations of these threads, and I want to link to it because not only is it an example of how compromise can mean compromise (and be mutually satisfactory), but it is also an example of why I am wary of the style advocated in RDM's post. Being willing to explain bans or refusals at a level beyond "because I say so" helps.

As a player, even something as simple as "no, because I just hate the hell out of gnomes" gives me a lot more help than "no, end of the line."

Oh, its a good thing to SAY why. Its just not NEEDED as a reason. The only REASON needed is that they don't exist.


I was once playing a campaign where there was an NPC that was a wizard who employed us to handle some exploration. Some of the players did not agree with a the NPC being a powerful wizard who had rights to most of the loot we were hired to acquire so tried to rally the players to demand that the NPC be killed or half the party would stop playing. The DM quit.

The first time I tried to DM 3.5 upon the first hour of session zero one of my players slapped money on the table insisting that it be used to go to the store and "buy a better game" and play that instead. This eventually caused enough friction to where I did not attempt to DM for another three years.

Hen I did I got conflicted demands for NPCs to be/not be killed off because they hated/loved it. This was among a number of demands for what NPC could and couldn't affect the story. After that I didn't play or DM until pathfinder.

Take what you will from those stories.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that is ultimately where the dividing line is here. The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players. Those who are inclined to use the now corrupted term of entitlement (my distaste for this sort of comment is hard to quantify) are not going to compromise on this because they think that is their right, despite the fact that no one actually seeded any personal authority to them.

I don't necessarily agree with either position entirely here, but it does seem that the miscommunication seems to hing on this fact.

Also, regarding the comments about how much work dm's do. The yolk of campaign building is one that is taken up voluntarily and has, under no circumstances I've experienced, come with authority over players. The dungeon master is the final arbiter of conflicts of mechanics in my opinion, they don't get to tell a group of equals what they are going to play without input or discussion.


Well, its true. I could just decide not to GM if I am not GMing the thing I want, just like the player could decide to not play if they feel they can't play anything but something nonexistent in the campaign world.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players.

It's not a belief. He absolutely does, within the context of the game. It's critical that he not abuse said authority.

The players, on the other hand, have the ultimate power.

"Your game sucks, and you kinda suck, too. I'm outta here."

Functional veto defeats tyrannical GM every time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I was once playing a campaign where there was an NPC that was a wizard who employed us to handle some exploration. Some of the players did not agree with a the NPC being a powerful wizard who had rights to most of the loot we were hired to acquire so tried to rally the players to demand that the NPC be killed or half the party would stop playing. The DM quit.

The first time I tried to DM 3.5 upon the first hour of session zero one of my players slapped money on the table insisting that it be used to go to the store and "buy a better game" and play that instead. This eventually caused enough friction to where I did not attempt to DM for another three years.

Hen I did I got conflicted demands for NPCs to be/not be killed off because they hated/loved it. This was among a number of demands for what NPC could and couldn't affect the story. After that I didn't play or DM until pathfinder.

Take what you will from those stories.

You should have tossed the money back to the person and told them to do it themselves and to GM as well.

Anzyr wrote:
It doesn't hurt that most GMs use "I don't like it." to justify their exclusion. Because a skilled enough GM can make anything work and should do so, even if they don't like it.

I've seen this sort of argument before in the Pony Wizard thread. It isn't a lack of skill or imagination that gets things excluded by GMs anymore than a lack of skill or imagination that causes Players not to colour within the lines -- that is, follow the world guide and player creation rules for the given campaign.

To answer Pan, I think, from a few pages back: no, people do not have problems starting games, or not to the level that you'd think from threads like this. It has become common, at least in threads like this, for the amount of exaggeration to go overboard so the term entitlement can get bandied about.

In my experience, as limited as it might be, people show up and game without the sort of drama displayed in these threads. I've seen it happen online, however, where people will stamp their feet that they aren't allowed to play a vampire in Shadowrun or a given race in Pathfinder or whatnot. The PFS area of the boards are full of threads where people are very very very ANGRY!!!! that they are not allowed to play blah and everyone and everything should pay for this oversight.

As a player, you are there to play a character and have fun. No where does it say or even imply that you should always get to play the exact character you desire, the exact race, or have the exact degree of fun that you believe you should. This is an idea that seem more prevalent in recent years or only exists on message boards and online games.


I honestly have a hard time finding groups. I have dmed only a few times not including pfs but as a player I've quietly seen numerous player drama ruin entire games until I'm at the point where I can easily find players among my friends but my friend don't play with each other so I have a small pool of people to play with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Because a skilled enough GM can make anything work and should do so, even if they don't like it. [Italics mine for emphasis—Jaelithe]

Perhaps you'd like to dig yourself a little deeper, Anzyr.

Let's go about this a little differently. Are you saying that a campaign played using the Pathfinder rules as a base, but specifically not taking place in Golarion and instead set in, say, the Israelite Empire during the rule of King Solomon, should allow an insistent player to portray a time-traveling ninja-gunslinger from 17th century Tokugawa Japan, simply because he or she wants one, even if the DM stressed that he or she is going for a strong period feel?


the gm adjudicates mechanics conflicts. No GM has authority over players. If you think you have authority over me, then you are running under a misconception.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A GM doesn't have authority over a player. But he does have authority over the game he's running. He may have a list of rules to play in his game; if you cannot abide by these rules, you are free to leave.

I can't believe I started off arguing for player choice in the beginning of this thread and then had to switch to gm power as my side of the argument went completely off the deep end


By no means am I suggesting that the gm doesn't have a right to adjudicate anything that occurs inside of the framework of the game. The thing is, this power ought to be exercised when there is a rules conflict. Everything else should be negotiable because that is the nature of cooperation. That said, when the group comes to a consensus about the game they want to play, then those themes or restrictions are in effect upon running the first game.


Trogdar wrote:
the gm adjudicates mechanics conflicts. No GM has authority over players. If you think you have authority over me, then you are running under a misconception.

Any player who doesn't acknowledge a DM's authority over the players as relates to the game should be tossed out on his presumptuous ass.


Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
the gm adjudicates mechanics conflicts. No GM has authority over players. If you think you have authority over me, then you are running under a misconception.
Any player who doesn't acknowledge a DM's authority over the players as relates to the game should be tossed out on his presumptuous ass.

That sounds very close to an ad hominem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
By no means am I suggesting that the gm doesn't have a right to adjudicate anything that occurs inside of the framework of the game. The thing is, this power ought to be exercised when there is a rules conflict. Everything else should be negotiable because that is the nature of cooperation. That said, when the group comes to a consensus about the game they want to play, then those themes or restrictions are in effect upon running the first game.

Looking at it again, I think we basically agree? I do think negotiation is in order, and that all such things need to happen before the game starts. Both the player and the GM have proper leverage, because if they come out of the conversation unsatisfied they can quit the game. If you're willing to adjust to the GM's demands, that's great. If you're able to explain to the GM why your idea should be acceptable and they agree to it then that is just as great. If neither party is willing to budge then someone's going to have to exercise their leverage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
the gm adjudicates mechanics conflicts. No GM has authority over players. If you think you have authority over me, then you are running under a misconception.
Any player who doesn't acknowledge a DM's authority over the players as relates to the game should be tossed out on his presumptuous ass.

Really? No, REALLY?? What makes a GM so powerful? What ever happened to impartial referee types? When did GM apotheosis occur? Not just over characters, BUT PLAYERS?

Here's a funny example: I play at my best friends house; that's right, I GM , he hosts; if I don't like the way things are going I can always quit running for them, but nobody bosses anybody. We reach a consensus. Players expecting not to get bossed around and having to Mother May I everything isn't presumptuous, it's common courtesy.


A good DM doesn't need to boss anyone around like some sort of martinet. He does, on occasion, need to assert his authority when troublesome, self-entitled players decide their needs, wants and desires should be met to the detriment of the other players and the game itself.

Perhaps, Jack Assery and Trogdar, you should stop equating the fact that someone rightly possesses and occasionally wields authority with the abuse of it. They're not remotely the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with the manner in which you run your games, Jack Assery. Consensus is always desirable, and you're quite right in saying that a DM who simply employs fiat without good reason rather than attempting to reach one is abusing his power. On occasion, though, when differences are irreconcilable, the buck must stop somewhere, with someone. That someone is the DM. Within game, he has the final say, and can close the discussion.

Insofar as ad hominem is concerned, Trogdar ... no. It's not remotely anything of the sort. Tossing someone out as I described would never occur unless a player had become quite belligerent, profane, or defiant to the point of disruption. A player always has the right to say, "Dude, I saw it this way ... how about that?" In response, a good DM will say, "Oops ... I made a mistake; how can we rectify it?" "Hmm ... don't see it that way, but perhaps a quick discussion might get us in synch again?" "No ... I've made a ruling. We can converse about it after the game." Any of these are valid. The last should be used rarely ... but when used, should be respected.

Like I said above, players have the ultimate power. They can say, "Man, you're inflexible, unreasonable, mean-spirited, and pissy. I'll find another game with a guy who isn't an a-hole."

The less a DM flexes his muscles the better, and keeping his players informed, happy, and engaged means flexure is rarely if ever necessary.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players.

It's not a belief. He absolutely does, within the context of the game. It's critical that he not abuse said authority.

The players, on the other hand, have the ultimate power.

"Your game sucks, and you kinda suck, too. I'm outta here."

Functional veto defeats tyrannical GM every time.

Why are all the players in these discussions always reduced to a hivemind? Its entirely possible that after Bob rants at the GM for a half-hour about what a s+%*ty GM he is and how they are firing him, that Steve, Luke, and Jim tell him they don't really care if he gets to play the crown prince of the non-existent Tengu race, and that he can leave if he wants, bit they want to play the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players.

It's not a belief. He absolutely does, within the context of the game. It's critical that he not abuse said authority.

The players, on the other hand, have the ultimate power.

"Your game sucks, and you kinda suck, too. I'm outta here."

Functional veto defeats tyrannical GM every time.

Why are all the players in these discussions always reduced to a hivemind? Its entirely possible that after Bob rants at the GM for a half-hour about what a s$&$ty GM he is and how they are firing him, that Steve, Luke, and Jim tell him they don't really care if he gets to play the crown prince of the non-existent Tengu race, and that he can leave if he wants, bit they want to play the game.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply the hive mind, Kthulhu. I think such a happenstance as you describe is entirely possible. I was referring to the personal veto of individual choice.

On the other hand, Bob would never rant for a half-hour at this DM. I'd suffer about 45 seconds before the aforementioned tossing him out on his ass would occur. I'm too old, too curmudgeonly and too interested in enjoying my downtime to tolerate anyone castigating me over something that is likely either a misunderstanding or something over which an accord may be reached so long as no flips the f**k out.


It happens that way a lot I bet, I remember I hated a GMPC a GM was running and when I brought it up, a couple agreed with me and a couple who the GMPC was tied to in background was totally against me. There was no consensus that day to be had lol.


Kthulhu wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players.

It's not a belief. He absolutely does, within the context of the game. It's critical that he not abuse said authority.

The players, on the other hand, have the ultimate power.

"Your game sucks, and you kinda suck, too. I'm outta here."

Functional veto defeats tyrannical GM every time.

Why are all the players in these discussions always reduced to a hivemind? Its entirely possible that after Bob rants at the GM for a half-hour about what a s$#~ty GM he is and how they are firing him, that Steve, Luke, and Jim tell him they don't really care if he gets to play the crown prince of the non-existent Tengu race, and that he can leave if he wants, bit they want to play the game.

Pretty much. Most times when a group disentigrated due to drama it was over crap I never had a problem with or was actually in favor of as a player. In some ways in those situations I felt robbed of being able to play because a player was persistent about wanting to do something off the wall and brought the whole game down rather than quit and join a group that was more into his playstyle. I've quit games for less reasons because we were not playing the kind of game I wanted to play. I left quietly after a talk with the GM, made sure my character left without leaving holes in the plot, no bad blood, no drama, no long winded argument.


Jack Assery wrote:
It happens that way a lot I bet, I remember I hated a GMPC a GM was running and when I brought it up, a couple agreed with me and a couple who the GMPC was tied to in background was totally against me. There was no consensus that day to be had lol.

Heh. That's going to happen at times.

The problem with GMPCs is that some (I am one of these) think that in certain circumstances they are invaluable, while others believe (wrongly) that they're never a good thing. When you have three on one side and three on the other ... not good.

What I've found is that players will often look askance at a GMPC until when, a few games in, it becomes obvious that he's just as clueless and vulnerable as the PCs, gets in trouble and his clock cleaned just as often, and has crap blow up in his face, too.

Then, suddenly, they're not "the GMPC" anymore. They're just a member of the party. Players literally forget that he's an agent of the DM in their midst. He's on their side.


Jaelithe wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players.

It's not a belief. He absolutely does, within the context of the game. It's critical that he not abuse said authority.

The players, on the other hand, have the ultimate power.

"Your game sucks, and you kinda suck, too. I'm outta here."

Functional veto defeats tyrannical GM every time.

Why are all the players in these discussions always reduced to a hivemind? Its entirely possible that after Bob rants at the GM for a half-hour about what a s$&$ty GM he is and how they are firing him, that Steve, Luke, and Jim tell him they don't really care if he gets to play the crown prince of the non-existent Tengu race, and that he can leave if he wants, bit they want to play the game.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply the hive mind, Kthulhu. I think such a happenstance as you describe is entirely possible. I was referring to the personal veto of individual choice.

On the other hand, Bob would never rant for a half-hour at this DM. I'd suffer about 45 seconds before the aforementioned tossing him out on his ass would occur. I'm too old, too curmudgeonly and too interested in enjoying my downtime to tolerate anyone castigating me over something that is likely either a misunderstanding or something over which an accord may be reached so long as no flips the f**k out.

I am little more tolerant than you I think...

He would get 5 minutes to vent.
Then asked if was done.
The other players would be asked who they agreed with.
If "Bob" is all on his own... well... "Bob there is the door; I hope you find the game you are looking for because apparently it is not here."


Damian Magecraft wrote:

I am little more tolerant than you I think...

Unquestionably so, DM.

I would refrain from kicking the guy's ass, though, so that's something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For all of those arguing that the GM and the players should all be equals at the table:

Five people sit down around the table to play a game, they are all equals and have equal input. Four people come up with an idea that the fifth doesn't really like and would not find fun. The four who have reached an agreement on how they would like to play inform the fifth that he is out-voted and can choose to leave if he doesn't want to conform to the group. Seeing no way around it, the fifth person bids farewell to the group and goes on his way to try to find another to play with. The four that are left are now sitting around trying to figure out what to do because the guy that just left was the GM.

And if you can't see that happening, you shouldn't accuse others of having a lack of imagination.


Fun story: the last campaign I was in (which I failed to stay in because-reasons) happened in the following pattern.

Person offers to GM Pathfinder, and mentions he wants to run in Eberron.

Rest of the party start brainstorming campaign ideas, and end up with 'pirates' (right down to being 'land pirates' [aka bandits with pirate style] until we could acquire a ship or air ship, whichever came first) as a theme, with four Evils, two Neutrals, and one Good.

GM is informed and responds something along the lines of "wait, what? When did we decide on pirates?"

GM runs the pirate campaign for the group.

Despite dropping out of it, I've been following the weekly summaries. I believe they've had six sessions or so, seems to be doing well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

I am little more tolerant than you I think...

Unquestionably so, DM.

I would refrain from kicking the guy's ass, though, so that's something.

well to be fair the 5 minute thing stems from my "5 Rules of Gamemastering"...

#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCS.

#2: Actions have consequences.
Pretty self explanatory... every action (even good ones) will produce some kind of result beyond the immediate. The Party Kills that NPC that had the secret information to defeat the Bad Guy? Now they do not have access to that information. The party chases a petty tyrant from a town? The tale of their good deed spreads. The town folk are grateful; etc...

#3: Events do not stagnate.
The Party chooses to ignore a plot thread? That villain is not going to wait for the heroes to "get around" to him; He is going to continue with plans. What could this mean for our heroes? The Big Bad Evil Guy might be bigger and badder than he would have been if they had followed it when it was first presented. Or it could be that another band of heroes defeated him stealing the players thunder.

#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with the GM they get 5 minutes to calmly and rationally (cannot stress that part enough) present their case. This does not mean the GM has to change their mind but they do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it calmly in further depth after the session is over.
Remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match.

#5: Have Fun.
Do I really need to explain this?


I am in the camp if hating GMPC's, especially the all-important ones. Lol I kept trying to ditch him, I even framed him for a crime; I had no idea he was the greek god (Assyrian?) Adonis either. It's just a tactic I don't use, and as you can probably tell by now, my PC life is influenced much by my GM life. I think GMPC's can be done well, but are best used infrequently or incompetently so the PC's can shine. Admittedly in my games I nerf NPC's to make them "on their own" or left to their own devices. The PC's never have to take a backseat (although I'm not accusing anyone of that) to an NPC or rely on them to do X.


So at what point does a character or 'toon' or whatever you want to call it cross from fleshed out NPC to 'DMPC' in your conceptions? Honest curious question. What constitutes the important dividing line?


RDM42 wrote:
So at what point does a character or 'toon' or whatever you want to call it cross from fleshed out NPC to 'DMPC' in your conceptions? Honest curious question. What constitutes the important dividing line?

I cannot speak for Jack but from what I have observed over the years it is the one attached to party while they adventure, gets a share of the treasure, participates in combat, etc...

It is dangerous territory no doubt...
The temptation to make them a Mary Sue must be guarded against constantly.
But...
The GMPC (I never call them that they are forever and always just NPCs) can be a useful tool however....
Shoring up a party's weak spot, a source of trouble (read that as plot magnet), a gentle steering mechanism (Plot driver) when the party strays too far off course, etc...


RDM42 wrote:
So at what point does a character or 'toon' or whatever you want to call it cross from fleshed out NPC to 'DMPC' in your conceptions? Honest curious question. What constitutes the important dividing line?

Spotlight time really; maybe clearly seeing the Deus Ex Machina in the character; adventuring with us is an important clue; needing their guidance to further the plot being another; party reliance on him being yet another. Basically if he's the only means to an end it is not cool to me as a player. Well made NPC's are actually a sign of a good game to me, but they should not have the PC's in the passenger seat, as that is the antithesis of player agency.


Damian Magecraft wrote:

I cannot speak for Jack but from what I have observed over the years it is the one attached to party while they adventure, gets a share of the treasure, participates in combat, etc...

Hmm. None of these things are true warning signs, in my opinion. Now if they're getting more than their fair share ...

Hell, I've had the players as a group decide to give the DMPC an enchanted weapon when it would just as easily fit into the hands of more than one of the PCs, because it was "fair."

I'd rather have a group that considers PCs and NPCs interchangeable than one that segregates and differentiates. It means they're not thinking of the DM as their adversary, but instead accepts him in every role he plays.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.

Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....

But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?

I agree, but I dont think they realize that they prefer their fun or that they are being close-minded. But if they did, I do agree they would not want to admit it.


That's the other side of the coin I forgot to elaborate on; in my games the PC's not having any competent help is kind of unrealistic in approach because many NPC's just aren't that way. Is it realistic that I have powerful NPC's that won't lift a finger to help the PC's in something they normally would? You bet, but I think it's more fun that way; maybe the mage college has its own dire threat they're facing while the PC's are dealing with something else, maybe the sheriff is incompetent and needs replaced, whatever it takes but their is no calvary.

Shadow Lodge

Simon Legrande wrote:

For all of those arguing that the GM and the players should all be equals at the table:

Five people sit down around the table to play a game, they are all equals and have equal input. Four people come up with an idea that the fifth doesn't really like and would not find fun. The four who have reached an agreement on how they would like to play inform the fifth that he is out-voted and can choose to leave if he doesn't want to conform to the group. Seeing no way around it, the fifth person bids farewell to the group and goes on his way to try to find another to play with. The four that are left are now sitting around trying to figure out what to do because the guy that just left was the GM.

And if you can't see that happening, you shouldn't accuse others of having a lack of imagination.

And on occasion, that odd man out is actually one of the players, and not the GM. And his version of fun shouldn't override that of the other 4, even if one of them is the hated GM that squashes everyone's fun by having the temerity to occasionally say "no".


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Fun story: the last campaign I was in (which I failed to stay in because-reasons) happened in the following pattern.

Person offers to GM Pathfinder, and mentions he wants to run in Eberron.

Rest of the party start brainstorming campaign ideas, and end up with 'pirates' (right down to being 'land pirates' [aka bandits with pirate style] until we could acquire a ship or air ship, whichever came first) as a theme, with four Evils, two Neutrals, and one Good.

GM is informed and responds something along the lines of "wait, what? When did we decide on pirates?"

GM runs the pirate campaign for the group.

Despite dropping out of it, I've been following the weekly summaries. I believe they've had six sessions or so, seems to be doing well.

This feels like a different thing altogether. I don't know anything about eberron but if it for some reason does not support land pirates well at all then before the game starts the DM knows that they dont' want to play his eberron game, so his options are to DM that or have someone else DM it. The DM can't force players to play his campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.

Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....

But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?
I agree, but I dont think they realize that they prefer their fun or that they are being close-minded. But if they did, I do agree they would not want to admit it.

I cannot speak for the others but the issue I am discussing is the one that comes up after I have set (and published for the players) the parameters for the game and that one lone (not the hive mind that so many are implying they speak for) player decides those parameters do not apply to him. If the other players are capable of "coloring with in the lines" why are you not? Do you not realize that by insisting that the GM bow to your every whim on this one point (and inevitably even more through out the course of the game) you are telling the rest of the table their fun is no importance?


Damian Magecraft wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.

Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....

But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?
I agree, but I dont think they realize that they prefer their fun or that they are being close-minded. But if they did, I do agree they would not want to admit it.
I cannot speak for the others but the issue I am discussing is the one that comes up after I have set (and published for the players) the parameters for the game and that one lone (not the hive mind that so many are implying they speak for) player decides those parameters do not apply to him. If the other players are capable of "coloring with in the lines" why are you not? Do you not realize that by insisting that the GM bow to your every whim on this one point (and inevitably even more through out the course of the game) you are telling the rest of the table their fun is no importance?

My original quote was based on honesty. As for your quote-->I agree that once a GM sets up the rules you have the right to not play. You(the player) do not have the right to be insistent on what you want.

Personally what I do is put forth a campaign guide with the rules for building the character, what sources are allowed and so on. Most of them(rules) are set in stone, but not all of them, and even the ones I think are set in stone can be worked around at times.

To go on if I tell a player no I always have a very good reason not to, and "I don't like it", is never my reason. I will allow a player to use options I don't like as long as they don't affect the story or they are not too mechanically imposing. I know it bothers some GM's to see things they don't like. I don't know why, but I know that it does, and that is why "I don't like it" is enough justification for them to not allow ____.


wraithstrike wrote:
I know it bothers some GM's to see things they don't like. I don't know why, but I know that it does, and that is why "I don't like it" is enough justification for them to not allow ____.

Because for some of us no matter how inconsequential you (the player) may think it is; Running something we do not like detracts from our fun.

And we are there to have fun right along with everyone else. Yes; the GM has shouldered more of the burden than the players... so of course he should be somewhat flexible. But when he says no. That should be sufficient.

A good GM should be able to freely use the following tools
Ok
Yes; But...
No.

When you (the player) ignore or question the third you make it all that much more unlikely that one and two will ever see the light of day at the table.


I actually rarely get into such conflicts with my players. I am usually pretty easy going, and when I run a game the goal is to build dreams.

However, I have the luxury of having over 20 players to choose from. (More if I lower my standards) If a player doesn't want to play in my game, I'll just find someone else. If I put a restriction on something, and a player whines, well too bad...

When I GM, I like to take on the persona of the GM on the cover of the Cyberpunk supplement "Listen Up, You Primitive Screwheads"

Liberty's Edge

Jaelithe wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
@ Jaelithe - Your problem is you believe that the GM has more say then any other player. One might call such a few "Entitled" even.

Spare me the egalitarian tripe, Anzyr.

It's not my belief; it's a self-evident fact to anyone without an agenda to impose one's self and desires on the guy/gal doing most of the work, and providing the framework in which one is privileged to run around doing make-pretend.

The DM does have authority and rights the players lack, and most properly. The fact that you wish to reconfigure The Way of Things is your issue, not mine.

This is GM's entitlement of the greatest order really. Kind of beautiful in its own way, I guess.

Shadow Lodge

I feel that the GM is entitled

...to have fun. He is every bit as entitled to have fun as the other players. Even if all the players want X, if having X would diminish his fun to the point where he doesn't feel like running a game with X, then hopefully the players have a plan for an alternate GM.

Conversely, each player is also entitled.to have fun. If they feel they simply cannot have enough fun in a game lacking X, they should feel free to leave the game. Maybe the other players will agree and leave as well, maybe they wont.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

I feel that the GM is entitled

...to have fun. He is every bit as entitled to have fun as the other players. Even if all the players want X, if having X would diminish his fun to the point where he doesn't feel like running a game with X, then hopefully the players have a plan for an alternate GM.

Full agreement here, as most posters too I think. No one should have to play when they cannot have fun anymore.

Quote:
Conversely, each player is also entitled.to have fun. If they feel they simply cannot have enough fun in a game lacking X, they should feel free to leave the game. Maybe the other players will agree and leave as well, maybe they wont.

Or maybe the GM and players can build together an acceptable solution. The "all or nothing" is not the only solution available.

Shadow Lodge

The black raven wrote:
Or maybe the GM and players can build together an acceptable solution. The "all or nothing" is not the only solution available.

You will notice that both of my scenarios say "if the player/GM cannot accept the presence/absence of X..."

Compromise is, of course, the best solution. Actual compromise preferred...not.a "compromise" where the GM gives up all his fun and thanks his benevolent player masters for permitting him to run a game he doesnt enjoy.


The G in my GM title stands for "Garden", since the setting is my garden, I tilled the soils and planted the seeds, and now tend its growth, I happily watch things blossom and come to fruition, but am just as willing to cut out dead sprouts, and pull any weeds that spring up.

and if my garden no longer gives me joy..I can always plow it under and start over.

Do I get to decide what each player does in my garden ..no, do I decide the fate of each..no, but I do get to decide what is planted there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
The DM does have authority and rights the players lack, and most properly. The fact that you wish to reconfigure The Way of Things is your issue, not mine.
This is GM's entitlement of the greatest order really. Kind of beautiful in its own way, I guess.

Almost as beautiful as the really quite entertaining idea that a DM who's not embarrassed to point out that he or she has a position of authority when running a game is somehow guilty of "entitlement."

To say you have a singular position when you do isn't "entitlement." It's simply an acknowledgment of the obvious. But, by the same token, having authority isn't an excuse to abuse it.


I am entitled. It's my campaign. I chose to offer to run it. I didn't have to offer to run it. I could have found another gm and payed. Or watched more movies. Or joined a chess club. If the players didn't want what I offered, they could do the same. And if that campaign doesn't have Tengu what have you ... Then just create something using one of the remaining nearly infinite combinations still possible and move on.


As a player who has never GMed before, I'm surprised at the level of player entitlement here. The GM is taking time to not only run, but also plan and prepare each and every session, and they have every right to restrict options, be it magic items, race, or class. Obviously no one wants to be told they've got to play a particular race/class/role, but enforcing restrictions, or banning certain classes or races because they don't fit with their vision of a setting is well within their right. I've had my DM ban gunslingers, for example, not because they're powerful, but because they don't like the idea of guns being widespread in golarion. At the same time, they've said they'd allow it in certain campaigns and adventures where it better fits. Again, although player choice is important, the DM is the final judge.


Jaelithe wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Because a skilled enough GM can make anything work and should do so, even if they don't like it. [Italics mine for emphasis—Jaelithe]

Perhaps you'd like to dig yourself a little deeper, Anzyr.

Let's go about this a little differently. Are you saying that a campaign played using the Pathfinder rules as a base, but specifically not taking place in Golarion and instead set in, say, the Israelite Empire during the rule of King Solomon, should allow an insistent player to portray a time-traveling ninja-gunslinger from 17th century Tokugawa Japan, simply because he or she wants one, even if the DM stressed that he or she is going for a strong period feel?

See here's the problem. You do realize Tengu and King Solomon are both myths that take place in the same world (namely ours) correct? Why do you find it so unbelievable that a Tengu could follow the Silk Road armed with some the east's strange "firepowder"? That makes perfect sense within the confines of the campaign which takes place a fantastical version Israelite Empire during the rule King Solomon. You know the guy who regularly summoned demons?

@ RDM42 - Your post is the very definition of entitled. It may be "your campaign", but it is not "your game".

@ Ricard the Daring - Don't be so dismissive of the work players put into their character. Your work isn't any more important and GMs that believe otherwise are literally the problem.

301 to 350 of 1,018 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Getting what you want. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.