Trust !


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
"I am God" might be a bit ... overdramatic

...

It was the seventies.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Actually the XP tables were in the Player's Handbook way back in First Edition.

In 1st edition, the XP tables that told the DM how much XP any given monster was worth were in the DMG...

Shadow Lodge

I'm honestly not sure what is meant in this thread by "Trust." If you mean trust the GM to play fair, I can't understand why a GM would want to cheat. Any GM can beat/kill the PCs anytime they want. There's no challenge or fun to that. I have yet to meet a GM like that and I've been playing a long time with a lot of different groups.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Usual Suspect wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what is meant in this thread by "Trust." If you mean trust the GM to play fair, I can't understand why a GM would want to cheat. Any GM can beat/kill the PCs anytime they want. There's no challenge or fun to that. I have yet to meet a GM like that and I've been playing a long time with a lot of different groups.

It is not always about "Beating the PC's", but some GM's try to run the game like a novel and will do whatever has to be done to see that novel to completion. Another problem may be favortism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Technology isn't going away. If you have built your game over the years on a dearth of technology and players "staying in their place", you are going to be disappointed. Paizo and other companies have fully embraced technology and what it offers everyone at the table, so you're going to have to change your game. It's not entitlement or young turks, it's that we no longer use a horse and buggy to get from point a to point b or gas lamps to light the streets.


Rynjin wrote:

There's a whole lot of ignorant hostility and nostalgia tripping in this thread.

"Back in my day, men were men and gamers were gamers and everything was perfect and everybody and everything today is doing it wrong *Waves cane wildly*".

Get over yourselves.

Chapter and verse, and right on time to boot.


To be honest, I remember the rules lawyering discussions as even worse than the ones I've been through recently. Not only that, the "Why don't we get enough magical stuffz?", "should we really fight such creatures at our levels?" and discussions related to WBL and CR, were also worse back then. I'm old enough to call myself a grognard proudly, but really, things were worse in the bad old days.

Liberty's Edge

Rules will needed were not something that was usually fun or that we wanted to do at a table with older editions. As such discussions needed both DM and players to be level headed. A minimum amount of rules lawyering as well. We tried keeping rules discussions to a minimum because all we wanted to do is both run and play a game. Who wants to sit around a table and discuss what rule XYZ vs rule abc means. It's not to say that with Pathfinder and later editions it does not happen at our tables. Compared with 1E and 2E we have hardly had any problems with the rules. Nor is that a bad thing imo.

I also think the market has changed as well imo. Gamers want to play with RAW as much as possible instead of trying to figure out what a rule is trying to say. While it's all well and good to say play whatever you want. The system as it is really does not help certain concepts imo. Sure one can build a really smart fighter with low str and con. But if he expects to be as effective as a Fighter built the usual way. Good luck. Not unless the DM gives a helping hand. Or plays the smart fighter as staying out of combat. With other rpg systems such as Hero System and Gurps one can build both types of Fighters effectively.

Dump stats are more common know then they were in previous editions imo. Want to build a character with a low con go right ahead. Good luck coming back from the dead. Dex actual made a character harder to hit from missile weapons. I know some may not like being called Grognards but if you think that pre-third edition, pre-mmo was some kind of gamers paradise. I suggest you remove the rose colored glasses spray painted black and take a good hard look at that time. It was not a bad time to play rpgs. It's certainly not the unrealistic, stress free nostalgia utopia some make it out to be.

Rynjin wrote:

There's a whole lot of ignorant hostility and nostalgia tripping in this thread.

"Back in my day, men were men and gamers were gamers and everything was perfect and everybody and everything today is doing it wrong *Waves cane wildly*".

Get over yourselves.

Very much agreed and seconded. Then the same people wonder why no to little new blood is coming into the hobby. With all due respect insulting the younger generation and their liking of playing mmos and a proper set of rules is not exactly very welcoming. While I treat both players and dms with all the respect that is due. Having been on both sides of the screen I don't expect or demand it. Nothing makes me want to leave a table as a player faster than a DM pulling a guilt trip on how much more work they have to do. Been there, done that get over yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its funny how I dont remember the terms of use on these forums requiring me to only say the kinds of things people like to hear and blow smoke up people's butts.

I'm free to have an opinion and I'm free to voice it.

If you don't like the sound of what I'm critiquing... its probably you.

If you don't like the label, don't fit the label.

Sovereign Court

Yes, and we are also free to criticize your opinion and consider it wrong.


You are indeed. But you still fit the label. Here's your sign.

Call it a 'badge of honor' if it makes you feel better


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

Its funny how I dont remember the terms of use on these forums requiring me to only say the kinds of things people like to hear and blow smoke up people's butts.

I'm free to have an opinion and I'm free to voice it.

If you don't like the sound of what I'm critiquing... its probably you.

If you don't like the label, don't fit the label.

Thank you for your necessary, and very unobvious statement that you are one of the chosen few who are allowed to state their opinion on this forum.

It was certainly something that you needed to post, because nobody else here is aware that a forum is in fact a place where everyone can state their opinions, and discuss them among each other.

Truly.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Its funny how I dont remember the terms of use on these forums requiring me to only say the kinds of things people like to hear and blow smoke up people's butts.

I'm free to have an opinion and I'm free to voice it.

If you don't like the sound of what I'm critiquing... its probably you.

If you don't like the label, don't fit the label.

The same applies to you.


Hey. I figure it goes one of three ways


  • I'm not accurately describing you. You are not the thing I dont like. Its not as bad as I think it is... Which is good for me.
  • I'm accurately describing you and you dont like it... You want to change it. I have enlightened someone and thus improved the hobby in some way. This is good for me.
  • I'm accurately describing you and you're fine with it. You double down that its just a fine way to game. You fit right into the bucket I put you in and thus my analysis is true. This is good for me.


Must be interesting to be so deluded that you think any label you apply to someone is automatically correct, and that if someone doesn't like it that means they want to change, not that they're annoyed at you labeling them in the first place.

I should try that one day. Walk up to a random person and say "Hey! You're an a+~@~##, your entire life is pointless, and I hate your shoes."

If they get offended, I mean, it must be because they actually ARE a useless, fashionless a%~!+#~, right?

Liberty's Edge

Your more than free to post what you want on a forum. Just like others are free to respond to it as well. In a positive or negative way. I'm getting tired of posters coming here. Verbal barrels ablazing. Then when it gets a negative reaction cry foul and act like a victim.


I don't know Rynjin... Which one of the three do you think is you...

If one of the three isnt you, then what are you instead? I promise whatever your answer is that I agree with you. I will probably find it 'interesting'.

Thankfully I've grown pretty indifferent to how people feel about their playstyles being examined.. Thats kinda what the forums are for. Welcome to the online community.

I agree that everyone shouldnt look at my posts and feel like a victim and cry foul.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hmm. Well, I can't think of any GMs that I don't trust. Just ones I don't like.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Yep. Again my experience isn't the one truth... YMMV...

The only way you could think of yourself as a victim is if my analysis is accurate and you know its wrong but you do it anyway. But even that is fine. Game how you want to game and, as picard would say, 'if you're going to be damned, be damned for who you really are'.

This thread is about trust. I trust you know what kind of gamer you are... Balance of probabilities is that its one of the three I just listed. Which is good for me.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hmm. Well, I can't think of any GMs that I don't trust. Just ones I don't like.

Thats pretty good actually. I will admit that I've discovered that even playing in games that are ran in a way I don't like by people I dont like can still be quite fun, rewarding, and educational.

Either as a way to step outside my comfort zone, gain insight into other gaming methods and figure out if I like them or not, or at worst, learn what not to do. I expect there's at least a few posters in this very thread who think I could use a lot more experience learning what not to do. :P

Sovereign Court

Vincent Takeda wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Yep. Again my experience isn't the one truth... YMMV...

The only way you could think of yourself as a victim is if my analysis is accurate and you know its wrong but you do it anyway. But even that is fine. Game how you want to game and, as picard would say, 'if you're going to be damned, be damned for who you really are'.

This thread is about trust. I trust you know what kind of gamer you are... Balance of probabilities is that its one of the three I just listed. Which is good for me.

I actually don't know anything about your playstyle. I was just responding to your comment.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't necessarily mean you're right. You might be. But you also might not.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Yep. Again my experience isn't the one truth... YMMV...

The only way you could think of yourself as a victim is if my analysis is accurate and you know its wrong but you do it anyway. But even that is fine. Game how you want to game and, as picard would say, 'if you're going to be damned, be damned for who you really are'.

This thread is about trust. I trust you know what kind of gamer you are... Balance of probabilities is that its one of the three I just listed. Which is good for me.

The same applies to you getting offended when Rynjin called out:
Quote:

There's a whole lot of ignorant hostility and nostalgia tripping in this thread.

"Back in my day, men were men and gamers were gamers and everything was perfect and everybody and everything today is doing it wrong *Waves cane wildly*".

Get over yourselves.

Obviously, if you didn't recognize yourself in that, you wouldn't have responded.


The problem here is deciding, somehow, that one person or another is doing something "wrong".

I don't particularly have a problem if you don't like the way I do something, but it's the way you say it that belies the fact that you don't like PEOPLE based on how they choose to do something.

"You are/are not the thing I don't like" instead of "You do/don't do the thing I don't like".

Nobody reacts well when you say "I hate you", though people tend to react better when you say "I hate this thing you do". The former in this case implies you pass judgement on a person's entire character from the way they enjoy their hobby which is kind of a silly thing to do.


I wouldnt want to make that statement. Let me clarify then. I do not like the playstlye of shameless metagaming, game the game, requiring that one must know immediately when his character has experienced something that could have consequences in the future when immediate knowledge of said thing is both not relevant, not possible for his character, and immersion breaking. I do not like the playstyle where having a crystal clear perspective on everything that's happening to his character at all times is non negotiable. I do not like the playstyle where characters are even capable of having tacit numerical and mechanical knowledge of their opponents.

I would go on to say that such behaviors becoming acceptable and habit has made the gaming experience worse for me and that such behaviors, in my experience, are either inentionally or unintentionally born of systems built on the d20/3e/4e/3.p/pathfinder or at the very least these systems attract this kind of player like a drop of blood in the shark tank.

Those gamers are probably awesome people but I will not play in that playstyle and actively encourage playing in other ways. If you like that playstyle you're still probably an awesome person but that gaming style makes me sad in my pants and I wish people would play that way less. I followed up those non person specific comments with 'my way isnt the one truth... everyone's free to game the way they want to game' so I thought I was being pretty clear and avoiding personal insult. If, on the other hand, I'm called 'ignorant nostalgiac grognard' for my opinions I will light the thread on fire because that's making a judgement against me, not my opinions.

If you go back and read my posts I think I was doing a fantastic job avoiding language that anyone could 'take personal'... But suddenly the ignorant nostalgic grognard barb came out, which doesnt seem to apply to any other posts but mine, and suddenly its the most quoted quote in the thread. Three cheers for the guy who used the personal insult against me.

If that's not ragebaiting I dont know what is. The paizo threads are the only threads where this kind of behavior keeps happening again and again and again... not on other forums so its not just a me problem... so forgive me if I'm starting to feel like there's something particularly different about a paizo player or pathfinder player...

If you read my threads and took it as a personal insult, thats not a me problem, thats a your problem. Calling me ignorant nostalgiac grognard' makes it a me problem. I tried to let it slide, and suddenly its the one thing in the thread everyone supports. Yes. Burn the grognard heretic.

I never started out with these averse opinions... They have grown in me as a result of having the exact kind of experience I keep having on threads exactly like this one.


thejeff wrote:
The same applies to you getting offended when Rynjin called out:
Quote:

There's a whole lot of ignorant hostility and nostalgia tripping in this thread.

"Back in my day, men were men and gamers were gamers and everything was perfect and everybody and everything today is doing it wrong *Waves cane wildly*".

Get over yourselves.

Obviously, if you didn't recognize yourself in that, you wouldn't have responded.

Indeed I am perceptive. Kudos to you for noticing. You are equally perceptive. I can feel my comment here being interpreted as snarky sarcasm (not by you specifically) so i'm going to say right now that it isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Must be interesting to be so deluded that you think any label you apply to someone is automatically correct, and that if someone doesn't like it that means they want to change, not that they're annoyed at you labeling them in the first place.

I should try that one day. Walk up to a random person and say "Hey! You're an a%#~+#~, your entire life is pointless, and I hate your shoes."

If they get offended, I mean, it must be because they actually ARE a useless, fashionless a*%%#%&, right?

I hate your shoes. So much.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

I wouldnt want to make that statement. Let me clarify then. I do not like the playstlye of shameless metagaming, game the game, requiring that one must know immediately when his character has experienced something that could have consequences in the future when immediate knowledge of said thing is both not relevant, not possible for his character, and immersion breaking. I do not like the playstyle where having a crystal clear perspective on everything that's happening to his character at all times is non negotiable. I do not like the playstyle where characters are even capable of having tacit numerical and mechanical knowledge of their opponents.

I would go on to say that such behaviors becoming acceptable and habit has made the gaming experience worse for me and that such behaviors, in my experience, are either inentionally or unintentionally born of systems built on the d20/3e/4e/3.p/pathfinder or at the very least these systems attract this kind of player like a drop of blood in the shark tank.

Those gamers are probably awesome people but I will not play in that playstyle and actively encourage playing in other ways. If you like that playstyle you're still probably an awesome person but that gaming style makes me sad in my pants and I wish people would play that way less. If you call me 'ignorant nostalgiac grognard' for my opinions I will light the thread on fire because that's making a judgement against me, not my opinions.

If you go back and read my posts I think I was doing a fantastic job avoiding language that anyone could 'take personal'... But suddenly the ignorant nostalgic grognard barb came out, which doesnt seem to apply to any other posts but mine, and suddenly its the most quoted quote in the thread. Three cheers for the guy who used the personal insult against me.

If that's not ragebaiting I dont know what is. The paizo threads are the only threads where this kind of behavior keeps happening again and again and again... not on other forums so its not just a me problem......

I've probably been playing almost as long as you. I haven't seen the kind of shift in playstyle you're talking about. If anything, metagaming (of a slightly different kind) is far less tolerated than in the early days of D&D. Partly why it was so important back then to keep things out of the players hands.

I can't really speculate on why you see this change and I don't. I've seen some bits of it here and there throughout my gaming and heard complaints of similar things going back as far as I can remember.

Maybe you just had really good players back then. Maybe time has hidden some of the bad stuff.

Regardless, your original posts really did come off as an attack on modern gamers in general and PF in particular. When you start claiming things about "the average gamer" and saying PF "was actually making my players worse gamers", you don't really seem to be going out of your way to avoid causing offense.


Rynjin, vincent, drink each other's milk and make up.


Yeah. Rynjin could have said 'I'm happy to say my experience with pathfinder hasn't matched your experience with it'... But he didn't...

Lots of posters could have said hey, lets not call the guy ignorant, what he says is actually pretty true among the guys I game with... But that didn't happen either.

What happens instead is what ALWAYS seems to happen instead.. Someone looks at my posts and says 'how dare he not like how I do things!!!' and then the most quoted quote in the thread is 'yeah YEAH!!! How DARE HE!'

which I believe was a sentiment I bolded in my original series of posts... I cant disagree with how you play.. HOW DARE I?

Go back and read it... For the player at my table it wasn't 'ooh. thats an interesting different take on how things should go...' Instead it was 'How Dare I?'

Thats my experience with these threads and folks who play this system... How Dare I? How dare I examine your methods. How dare I dislike your deal. Its tantamount to disliking you. How dare I not like you. How dare I say it. How dare I not reflect upon it.

I don't TRUST paizo and palladium gamers because I experience this kind of thing... this kind of thread... all the time... every time.

No wrongbadfun is just an illusion... Deep down its all about 'different playstyle and perspective than me? HOW DARE HE!' Time and time again.

If it isnt true then how come it keeps happening. And only here in these specific threads. And so MUCH like this in so MANY threads here. But not in any others. My opinions are a product of my experience and my experience has been a whole lot of this thread right here.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Yeah. Rynjin could have said 'I'm happy to say my experience with pathfinder hasn't matched your experience with it'... But he didn't...

Lots of posters could have said hey, lets not call the guy ignorant, what he says is actually pretty true among the guys I game with... But that didn't happen either.

What happens instead is what ALWAYS seems to happen instead.. Someone looks at my posts and says 'how dare he not like how I do things!!!' and then the most quoted quote in the thread is 'yeah YEAH!!! How DARE HE!'

which I believe was a sentiment I bolded in my original series of posts... I cant disagree with how you play.. HOW DARE I?

Go back and read it... How Dare I?

Thats my experience with these threads and folks who play this system... How Dare I? How dare I examine your methods. How dare I dislike your deal. Its tantamount to disliking you. How dare I not like you. How dare I say it. How dare I not reflect upon it.

I don't TRUST paiso and palladium gamers because I experience this kind of thing all the time... every time.

No wrongbadfun is just an illusion... Deep down its all about 'different playstyle and perspective than me? HOW DARE HE!' Time and time again.

Yeah, he could of.

But you really did come off as "All of you Pathfinder gamers are ruining gaming!"

It's not that you're saying "I don't like to play the way you guys do", but you're saying "You guys play like this" when that's not how they see themselves playing. But you really did make it a broad enough slur that it's hard not to take offense.


Its not a slur... Is it how you game or isnt it?

Me having an opinion about a large group of people who truly do play that way is not a slur. Its an opinion about a fact.

An opinion folks particularly here dont seem to want me having or expresssing for any reason ever.

Liberty's Edge

There is nothing wrong with having a difference in playstyle. It's when others hear and elsewhere insult a certain playstyle. A good example is a person playing mmos automatically means the person playstyle and mindset at the table is geared to that and only that. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. One gets tired of being lumped into a certain group or playstyle. Nor does it do anyone favors here or elsewhere. Why would I want to play under a DM who has such a dismissive attitude to my playstyle or my hobbies.

As well terms like Grognard get thrown about because somehow before third edition. Their never was any problems or problem players. Somehow minimaxers/optimizers etc suddenly came into being once the 3E PHB was printed. All I'm going to tell you guess again. We had all that with 1E and 2E. No one I played with almost never wanted to play a Paladin. From the alignment restriction to the absurd stat requirements. It's not exactly easy to roll a 17+ on 3D6. Being told that unless one is going to play a certain way and only that way will some in the hobby even consider playing with others again does no one here or outside of the forums.

How exactly does that help a person imo. I could never play with someone who has such a onetruwayism and only that was as a phiosophy. Respect it sure but never play with a person like that. Their too much of my view and only my view in the hobby. It's not to say I don't sometimes do the same but it's rare. I consider myself a enlightened grognard. Their certain views on rpgs and non-rpgs that I will never change. I also know that change is not always bad. Or that the generation who plays mmos and computer games and later editions of D&D are not hopeless souls because they refuse or never played any pre-third edition of D&D.

Finally if one mind is made up on a topic please refrain from posting here. It's really starting to bother me how some come here expect validation or "atta boy" comments on what they post. Not get that and get very defensive and insulted. While I try to be polite when I can and not always succeed. If for example one asks if they were being a bad DM and they were. Then get the majority of people telling them that they are and get angry and defensive then don't bother asking for feedback. If all one wants to hear is that no they are the worlds greatest DM then save yourself the trouble and time. That being said some here could be somewhat more diplomatic in their responses as well. But were also adults as well. I will be polite when I respond to a poster. I'm also not going to sugercoat what I say either.

Liberty's Edge

Vincent Takeda wrote:


Its an opinion about a fact.

Again your not doing yourself any favors. It is by no means a fact. In your opinion and only opinion that Pathfinder gamers are ruining gaming. I played with enough 1E and 2E players and DMs who did not ruin the game but made it a pain to be in the hobby. Does that mean that 1E and 2E players factually ruined the hobby not in the least.

Shadow Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what is meant in this thread by "Trust." If you mean trust the GM to play fair, I can't understand why a GM would want to cheat. Any GM can beat/kill the PCs anytime they want. There's no challenge or fun to that. I have yet to meet a GM like that and I've been playing a long time with a lot of different groups.
It is not always about "Beating the PC's", but some GM's try to run the game like a novel and will do whatever has to be done to see that novel to completion. Another problem may be favortism.

I guess I've mostly been lucky. Only ever had one really bad GM, and his problem wasn't railroading stories. It was that he let players do terrible things to each other in game, thought it was funny when they turned on each other, then just shrugged and told us to suck it up if anybody complained. There was some serious favoritism there and some horrible players (not bad role players, but honestly people that were horrible) so I left. In 30+ years only having one group I could not handle playing with is pretty good; especially as much as the military moved me around.


It is certainly not my only opinion.


Sissyl wrote:
To be honest, I remember the rules lawyering discussions as even worse than the ones I've been through recently. Not only that, the "Why don't we get enough magical stuffz?", "should we really fight such creatures at our levels?" and discussions related to WBL and CR, were also worse back then. I'm old enough to call myself a grognard proudly, but really, things were worse in the bad old days.

Honestly, the rules arguments could get alot more heated back then, simply because there wasn't an easy way to seek consensus or verify rules questions. It came down to people insisting that they were right by virtue of "I said so", and sometimes led to groups splitting or friendships ending. Think about how often posts in big rules debates on here read like the person is standing on a chair, red-faced and shouting, then think about being there in person while someone does that. Those were the days...

If anything, technology and both rules and developer access have helped to mitigate and temper rules arguments.


Usual Suspect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what is meant in this thread by "Trust." If you mean trust the GM to play fair, I can't understand why a GM would want to cheat. Any GM can beat/kill the PCs anytime they want. There's no challenge or fun to that. I have yet to meet a GM like that and I've been playing a long time with a lot of different groups.
It is not always about "Beating the PC's", but some GM's try to run the game like a novel and will do whatever has to be done to see that novel to completion. Another problem may be favortism.
I guess I've mostly been lucky. Only ever had one really bad GM, and his problem wasn't railroading stories. It was that he let players do terrible things to each other in game, thought it was funny when they turned on each other, then just shrugged and told us to suck it up if anybody complained. There was some serious favoritism there and some horrible players (not bad role players, but honestly people that were horrible) so I left. In 30+ years only having one group I could not handle playing with is pretty good; especially as much as the military moved me around.

Yeah. I've been in some groups that really liked pvp. I think if the players liked it, then as a gm I'd allow it, but as a player I wouldn't participate in it. Not really my thing.

Shadow Lodge

Vincent Takeda wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
...
...
...
Yeah. I've been in some groups that really liked pvp. I think if the players liked it, then as a gm I'd allow it, but as a player I wouldn't participate in it. Not really my thing.

Yeah, it really sucked. Especially since the GM would set up a game where we were supposed to be the good guys/heroes; and the same player always played what he said was a CN character that he played pretty much like the Joker or crack. But the GM never called him on his crazy, abusive, even murderous habits against other players; let alone NPCs. Now that I'm thinking about it; yeah he would be the one GM I would never trust again.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back to the original topic.....
In life I generally give a degree of trust unilaterally to everyone. I tend to take people at face value and assume they aren't actively out to screw me over. As those people perform actions in life around me I give or take away trust depending on the action. The initial degree of trust is usually rather low and grows or shrinks rather quickly.
I follow a similar method with D&D/Pathfinder GMs. When I GM a game tell the players the rule that are available and how I run a game. I tell them that I roll in the open and the dice fall where they fall. I explain that they are the stars and I am setting the stage for them to tell a story.
When I am a player I come to the table with expectations that I am part of a team of people trying to have fun and create a cool story.
I have seen GMs that after several sessions I realized that they are telling THEIR story, not a story of the characters, and there was no variation from their plotline or deviation from how they wanted things to play out. This has shown up as on-the-spot-rules to de-power a player or empower a bad guy that MUST make his showing, or in GM fiat that eliminates a player's action.
I have seen 4-5 bad GMs in my gaming life of around 34 years. I usually figure out after a few sessions what a GM is like and then I decide if I can adjust to their style or not. I have been blessed with long-term groups in the past with good GMs, and I love GMing so it usually works out well but before those and now recently I am finding that since I moved away from long-time group, there are some bad GMs out there.
Currently my tolerance level is lower than usual but I still portion out the trust and try to back that up with privately voicing concerns with GMs if there is something going on that I don't particularly like. If they choose to totally ignore my concerns then I can see that there is a gap between our play styles that either I have to bridge or I have to walk away and find a new game.

I am currently in a game where the GM is using some vague houserule for passing through ally's squares, perception checks for looking past allies into a combat and random ridiculous checks for stuff that is covered in the rules but doesn't fit his view of things and when approached about it was dismissive and showed no concern for my opinion (which mirrors most of the other player's). The group is planning to split shortly with me and another player going to alternate GMing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

The real complaints seem to have more to do with breaches of social contract than they do anything else, and that is a trust issue.

I'd be in Usual Suspect's camp, for instance, in the case of a party that PVPs a lot. Vincent, on the other hand, seems like he'd be ok with it, even if he wouldn't necessarily prefer it.

I don't think that it has anything to do with the PF's ruleset or the proliferation of technology or anything else. It's just coming to terms with the fact that various groups want various things. I've been in groups that were ok with metagaming, and others that weren't. I've been in groups that were ok with powergaming, and groups that weren't. People that expected serious commitment to the game and group, and beer and pretzels tables.

I'm not going to say that any of these are objectively better than others. I have my preferences, but I don't want to force them on anyone. I think a major problem arises when groups don't communicate those preferences or, in a worse scenario, when individuals assume that their subjective preferences are objective truths. In such a case, a GM who, for instance, allows lots of PVP in the game isn't just going against a hypothetical player's personal preferences, they are possibly, in that player's eyes, perverting the hobby itself.

It's the same thing that most of these threads come down to. Talk with the people you play with. Try, if it is possible, not to play with people that you wouldn't share a beer with. Express your desires in calm, respectful ways, and seek the input of others in a similar manner.

Or, you know, just don't be a jerk.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Its not a slur... Is it how you game or isnt it?

Me having an opinion about a large group of people who truly do play that way is not a slur. Its an opinion about a fact.

An opinion folks particularly here dont seem to want me having or expresssing for any reason ever.

I think it's that you're accusing a large group of people of playing that way, when the rest of us don't see it.

Especially when you talk about "the average gamer" or how PF ruins gamers, PF players who think they're pretty much like the other PF players they've seen can be forgiven for thinking you're attacking them.

And no, I don't play like that. And I don't think the average player does these days either - though I've seen some and I've seen some back at least in 2E days. I play PF and I don't think it pushes me to play like that either. Maybe it's something about the way you (or your group?) run PF.


Are we talking about the internet?

The internet, and trust?

I think I'm confused

It's hard enough just to find people willing to pay with me on these forums, not working to establish their trust that I will try my best to give them a game they can enjoy, is not an option.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what is meant in this thread by "Trust." If you mean trust the GM to play fair, I can't understand why a GM would want to cheat. Any GM can beat/kill the PCs anytime they want. There's no challenge or fun to that. I have yet to meet a GM like that and I've been playing a long time with a lot of different groups.
It is not always about "Beating the PC's", but some GM's try to run the game like a novel and will do whatever has to be done to see that novel to completion. Another problem may be favortism.
I guess I've mostly been lucky. Only ever had one really bad GM, and his problem wasn't railroading stories. It was that he let players do terrible things to each other in game, thought it was funny when they turned on each other, then just shrugged and told us to suck it up if anybody complained. There was some serious favoritism there and some horrible players (not bad role players, but honestly people that were horrible) so I left. In 30+ years only having one group I could not handle playing with is pretty good; especially as much as the military moved me around.
Yeah. I've been in some groups that really liked pvp. I think if the players liked it, then as a gm I'd allow it, but as a player I wouldn't participate in it. Not really my thing.

Not generally fond of it. It's rarely worked well in D&D for me. I particularly hated thieves back in the old days - And GMs who wouldn't let us do anything unless we caught them red-handed.

OTOH, I've played and loved Amber, though I prefer there to at least be something going on in addition to the Throne War.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow. I go do something else for a while and... wow.

Takeda, I think there are people on this thread who are going to dissect your statements for any negativity they can find, and attack you for it. If I was capable of apologizing for the community, I would.

I agree with some things you have said. I think there's a trend in modern gaming that diverges from the old school, and that makes my style of GMing clash with players of later versions of the game. But I still GM in my own style. And I still have players who play my games.

As far as the insults thrown your way are concerned... Well, I don't think being called a Grognard is really an insult, since it underlines literally decades of experience at gaming that younger players have not yet achieved. I am reminded of a lion basking in the sun while cubs chew on his tail. Eventually they'll get big enough to know better.

Everybody has a gaming style, and everybody thinks that style is the best way to play. Learning to agree to disagree is a big step forward. I wish more people would take it.

Liberty's Edge

Some of us don't agree with VT posts. Do I also need to apologize for doing so now as well. If some posters on this forum want a echo chamber tell me. I probably won't alter my posts to accomdate that kind of forum. I can respect his point of view even if I don't agree with it. Again people come here write topics and/or posts that are guaranteed to get a negative reaction. Then simply expect no reaction by doing so. I love the double standards but pretty much the usual for this forum.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Wow. I go do something else for a while and... wow.

Takeda, I think there are people on this thread who are going to dissect your statements for any negativity they can find, and attack you for it. If I was capable of apologizing for the community, I would.

I agree with some things you have said. I think there's a trend in modern gaming that diverges from the old school, and that makes my style of GMing clash with players of later versions of the game. But I still GM in my own style. And I still have players who play my games.

As far as the insults thrown your way are concerned... Well, I don't think being called a Grognard is really an insult, since it underlines literally decades of experience at gaming that younger players have not yet achieved. I am reminded of a lion basking in the sun while cubs chew on his tail. Eventually they'll get big enough to know better.

Everybody has a gaming style, and everybody thinks that style is the best way to play. Learning to agree to disagree is a big step forward. I wish more people would take it.

Wow, there are a lot of passive-aggressive attacks in there.

You don't know how long any of the "cubs" here have been playing, unless they tell you. I can promise you Vincent doesn't have decades of experience on me. I just fundamentally disagree with his assessment of gamers these days. Of course, I was never particularly "old school", even back in the day. Things change, but bemoaning the state of gaming and blaming it on cell phones and PF ruining gamers is a lot more like the old man ranting about "kids these days" than like the "learning to agree to disagree" you preach.


memorax wrote:
Some of us don't agree with VT posts. Do I also need to apologize for doing so now as well. If some posters on this forum want a echo chamber tell me. I probably won't alter my posts to accomdate that kind of forum. I can respect his point of view even if I don't agree with it. Again people come here write topics and/or posts that are guaranteed to get a negative reaction. Then simply expect no reaction by doing so. I love the double standards but pretty much the usual for this forum.

echo chambers happen quite readily, as this is the internet. Ever been to a rogue gripe session/paladin falling/wbl thread? It happens.


thejeff wrote:
I can promise you Vincent doesn't have decades of experience on me.
thejeff wrote:
My first game was AD&D 1st edition at summer camp back in mumble mumble.

Yeah. We're in about the same neighborhood game experience wise.

thejeff wrote:
I just fundamentally disagree with his assessment of gamers these days.

Oh really? I wonder if you'll disagree with this guy then since I promise you he has as much gaming experience as the both of us...

thejeff wrote:

I hate the build game - even when it sucks me in.

Pathfinder is built on the "build game". That's a large part of what made it and 3.x in general so popular.
It's not what I like about the system, but I do understand that many people do.
Too much of their fanbase is hooked on the never-ending stream of new build options.
The whole "Build game" of 3.x doesn't really exist in BECMI, 1E or even core 2E. It really started with the 2e splat books.
The mindset is different.

But hey. Thats just talking about gaming the game...

I wonder if its as bad as i make it out to be... Lets see...
memorax wrote:


One might as well blame the donut shop for selling donuts to a raging diabetic who should know better

What a curiously poetic, emotionally charged, and curiously specific choice of words to describe the 'modern' gamer... These guys really sound like they know whats up. This seems like a pretty significant issue.


And as an aside I'd like to mention that yes, indeed sometimes people do come to forums to hear an echo chamber of like minded individuals. Part of the hobby and the online nature of the hobby (and a good part of it I might add) is reaching out to other gamers to share your experiences and find folks who are like minded in their perceptions of the game as it is and as they'd like it. Its the only reason I still come here and the only reason I continue to endure the ire of my critics.

To argue that you're getting sick of people expecting to find it in the forums is pretty much saying 'I wish this place wouldn't ever let people find like minded gamers for anyone else but me.' or worse, its saying 'The forums should only be a place for spirited debate... A shooting gallery where I'm free to mow down other peoples opinions with impunity...

Nobody was complaining when the only thing you had to complain about was your joint irritation at me expressing my opinion that contradicts yours... Is that the only brotherhood of opinions that's allowed here?

Its just foolishness.

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Trust ! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.