Trust !


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I've read on a number of posts that player's seem to have trouble trusting there D.M to be fair and consistent in his running of the game.
And I was just wondering how meny players do trust there D.M,s to play fair as I've only ever had one D.M that I didn't trust and I've been a player for 34 years.
Is this problem as widespread as it seems or is it just a vocal minority

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mostly those that don't trust have either been burned badly once. Which is no excuse.

If I didn't trust my GM I wouldn't play with him.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This is going to come off as "get off my lawn", but... It is an attitude problem, not just for people who got burned. So many on these boards have an attitude that if a GM steps out of the rule-covered areas in the least, they would leave the game, and any situation that would require GM adjudication is to be avoided at all costs. It is a deep divide in gaming style, and I don't see it changing.


hmm.

I think I kidna ride the line between the two, sissyl.

I like rules for eveeything, but I have no problem making new ones for special situations-
So long as it says consistsnt in the future.

Thoguh, I am guilty of fudging hp, simply beause I lose track of how much damage has been done. (Play by posts are slow.)

Sovereign Court

I never commit to long term campaigns until i've had some one shot experiences with a GM. Over the years about half my gaming group likes to GM and I trust any of them at this point.

Grand Lodge

While I really only play Society, my experiences have been great overall. If I have gotten the shaft, it was because I wasn't better prepared.


I must have lived a sheltered life in the past twenty years of gaming, but I don't think I've ever had an issue with a GM and trust. Mine usually come from other gamers than the GM. They are trying to weave a story and if they have to fudge a few things to keep it on the rails than so be it. Then I always fall back on the time tested truth of "It's a game!"


For about 33 years of game play (D&D off and on and other games in between), I haven't had any issues with GM trust. Lots of GMs, some friends, some strangers. But there was never an issue of 'hey I don't trust this guy'.


Neither have I, IRL, Skype, Play-by-Post, never any problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, it isn't a matter of trust. It's probably my gaming background talking, but I look at a campaign as belonging to its GM. If a GM is gracious enough to take on the labor and responsibility of running a game, I as a player of that game have the responsibility of respecting the GM's way of doing things.

That includes whatever interpretation of the rules the GM uses. It's the GM's game, not mine. Trust doesn't enter into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

About 90% of the time, I am the DM.

But can I trust myself?


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

For me, it isn't a matter of trust. It's probably my gaming background talking, but I look at a campaign as belonging to its GM. If a GM is gracious enough to take on the labor and responsibility of running a game, I as a player of that game have the responsibility of respecting the GM's way of doing things.

That includes whatever interpretation of the rules the GM uses. It's the GM's game, not mine. Trust doesn't enter into it.

I think this applies to many people until the GM takes thing to far, and yes I know "too far" is going to vary by person. :)

I do think some trust is needed. You likely trust the GM to put together something fun for you, and you a fair chance at success, even if your PC might die. If you knew(or felt) the GM was going to be do things that you did not like then it is sensible to not trust him.

However in that case you(general statement) would likely not sit at his table. However some people are friends with the GM so stepping away from the game without it causing real life problems is actually a problem so they come to the boards for solutions.

PS: This is not really directed at Jerry Wright. I was just using his post to present why this can be a problem, even for players who are not demanding of a GM.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
For me, it isn't a matter of trust. It's probably my gaming background talking

I know everyone's backgrounds and experiences are different, but not that long ago, all I needed to say to a perspective player was: "Hey, you want to play some D&D?" And that was it! I did not have to hand the players a packet containing the house-rules I used, nor give them a syllabus outlining the upcoming campaign... We just played...

For example, the campaign might have started in the Forgotten Realms, and then during an adventure, the characters tripped a portal, and it sent them to some far off outer plane, and the characters had adventures while trying to get home to the Prime Material Plane, but when they did... It's wasn't Toril they ended up on, it was...

And the players didn't get mad, or annoyed, or frustrated; they just rolled with it and had fun doing it.

But like I said, that has been my experience with gaming, and I know other people have had other experiences shape the way they game...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tony gent wrote:

I've read on a number of posts that player's seem to have trouble trusting there D.M to be fair and consistent in his running of the game.

And I was just wondering how meny players do trust there D.M,s to play fair as I've only ever had one D.M that I didn't trust and I've been a player for 34 years.
Is this problem as widespread as it seems or is it just a vocal minority

There isn't a single issue on this message board that is as widespread as it's posters make it out to be.

If there is anything you need to drill into your skull, it is the fact that this board is far from representative of the Pathfinder community, even it's PFS players. What the board represents, are generally the crankiest and most vocal segments of the population, with desperate needs to call attention to themselves. I don't exclude myself from that description.

The thing you'll generally find is that problems with "trust" "player" or "GM" issues come from groups which demonstrate a general lack of competence in social interaction. They come from people who can't see the process of GM/Player interaction in anything other than confrontational modes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back in my day (here we go) players never got to read the dm guide or the monster manual. You couldnt force your players not to, but we worked on what was called the 'honor system'.

Nowadays your average player would rather stab you in the face with a fork than be called dishonorable for pulling out the monster manual the moment you tell him whats behind door number 3.

I blame cellphones. Everyone's got an internet in their pocket so everyone's been conditioned to 'have all the answers told to them right now'... The skill of learning by doing is dead. Of course you only get experience for killing things when for a huge percentage of the modern gaming population, killing things is the only experience most players want to have.

But they'd rather stab you in the face with a fork than fight without completely understanding every facet of what they're up against ahead of time.

People don't like surprises. And a lohohohohot of them have no desire to interact with something they don't already understand completely and must then also be given time to prepare for said ill gotten specifics.

Its easy to win when you're well informed and well prepared. But that's not adventure.

Adventure is when you're ill informed, ill prepared, and manage to muddle through it anyway.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
People don't like surprises. And a lohohohohot of them have no desire to interact with something they don't already understand completely.

All the more reason to give them surprises, and to use homebrewed monsters. That's a lot of life training that has to be undone to turn them into good gamers.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
That's a lot of life training that has to be undone to turn them into good gamers.

That was actually one of the biggest reasons I walked away from pathfinder... What I discovered is that it was actually making my players worse gamers. One of them admitted he no longer holds himself to the idea that he's a great gamer anymore. And he's the one who when I first met him said he'd be willing to play any game any time. He was ready to venture out into the unknown and roll with the punches....

But something about the way pathfinder is written or how its talked about in the forums sort of worms its way into your brain and you start thinking not like an adventurer but like an engineer. At its core, pathfinder is more of a giant neboulous but rather basic math problem. Its mechanics play out like a collectible card game so people start playing it like its a collectible card game.

Here's my feat card. Here's my spell card. Here's my summoned creature card.

The nature of it is so far removed from what gaming used to be for me that I found it jarring. But when I realized it was TRAINING my players to get worse... I had to stop.

When I used to play it was the players that could improvise and think their way around a problem that created the best kinds of adventure and the most impressive and personally rewarding kinds of stories... d20 and 3.0 and 3.5 and pathfinder are written to encourage rules lawyering and spirited debate, but not improvisation and non linear thinking. You solve the puzzle by figuring out its mechanics then exploiting those mechanics.

Its such a completely different mindset and it was training my players to stop thinking in creative improvisational ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or you know, maybe it's that it doesn't make any sense to hide generic information like monster stats from the players, but we could rely on that same honor system to keep the players from using information their characters wouldn't know?

That was a pretty weird concept back in the day. You were expected to learn things from the way one character died and apply them to keep your next character alive.

Since the idea of players never reading the DMG or MM was pretty solidly dead even before 2nd edition came out, I strongly suspect it wasn't cell phones that were to blame.

And experience for killing things goes back all the way too. You used to get experience for gold too, which doesn't have anything more to do with learning than killing things does. PF also has rules for overcoming challenges without killing them and for accomplishing goals.
Nor do I ever recall "killing things" not being a damn big part of D&D.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
That's a lot of life training that has to be undone to turn them into good gamers.

That was actually one of the biggest reasons I walked away from pathfinder... What I discovered is that it was actually making my players worse gamers. One of them admitted he no longer holds himself to the idea that he's a great gamer anymore. And he's the one who when I first met him said he'd be willing to play any game any time. He was ready to venture out into the unknown and roll with the punches....

But something about the way pathfinder is written or how its talked about in the forums sort of worms its way into your brain and you start thinking not like an adventurer but like an engineer. At its core, pathfinder is more of a giant neboulous but rather basic math problem. Its mechanics play out like a collectible card game so people start playing it like its a collectible card game.

Here's my feat card. Here's my spell card. Here's my summoned creature card.

The nature of it is so far removed from what gaming used to be for me that I found it jarring. But when I realized it was TRAINING my players to get worse... I had to stop.

I agree with you. It isn't just Pathfinder, though. It's the "rule for everything and the GM can't change them" attitude that I think causes the problem.

Mike Mearls wrote:
It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say. 4e is taking away from the DM, and that's where I worry because other types of games can do that better. I might as well play a board game, 'cause I'm just here enforcing the rules. Without the DM as the creative guy, what's the point?

It's about 4e specifically, but I think it handily applies to other games of this era.


thejeff wrote:

Or you know, maybe it's that it doesn't make any sense to hide generic information like monster stats from the players, but we could rely on that same honor system to keep the players from using information their characters wouldn't know?

That was a pretty weird concept back in the day. You were expected to learn things from the way one character died and apply them to keep your next character alive.

Since the idea of players never reading the DMG or MM was pretty solidly dead even before 2nd edition came out, I strongly suspect it wasn't cell phones that were to blame.

And experience for killing things goes back all the way too. You used to get experience for gold too, which doesn't have anything more to do with learning than killing things does. PF also has rules for overcoming challenges without killing them and for accomplishing goals.
Nor do I ever recall "killing things" not being a damn big part of D&D.

I started with becmi and then 2e back in the late eighties. My players were very good about not digging through the books they shouldnt have. They didnt even know about treasure tables and there wasnt a 'menu of magic items to choose from at the local vendor'. While they did only get experience for finding treasure and killing monsters, and that is indeed a lot of what the game was about, we did promptly switch to heroes and ninjas and superspies when it was clear tsr was becoming more interested in publishing for the sake of getting a book out the door than making a wonderful imaginative product. Palladium's experience system rewards you far and away by the things you do that aren't killing and in fact gives xp for your ability to AVOID unneccesary combat.

3.0 came out and it was not just a step back, but a step further back.

I dont discount your experience but its not the experience I had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:


I agree with you. It isn't just Pathfinder, though. It's the "rule for everything and the GM can't change them" attitude that I think causes the problem.
Mike Mearls wrote:
It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say. 4e is taking away from the DM, and that's where I worry because other types of games can do that better. I might as well play a board game, 'cause I'm just here enforcing the rules. Without the DM as the creative guy, what's the point?

Yeah. Between cellphones and pathfinder what had happened was it created in my players a sort of entitlement to know the mechanics of everything completely inside and out where such an entitlement never was before...

It got so bad that one of my best players, when presented with the fact that when something happened to his character and he didnt know when or why it had happened, instead of thinking of all the possibilities, and figuring out a solution, instead he was right on the edge of table flipping. Screaming, throwing his dice and packing up his stuff because something happened to him, but not to his face. And not using mechanics he was familiar with. (It was a curse delivered surreptitiously through an arm wrestling competition. The curse prevented him from running faster than 60 miles per hour. I didnt make him roll the saving throw until he tried running faster than 60 miles per hour. If i'd have made him roll the saving throw the moment he was cursed, he'd probably have killed everyone in the room just for making him have to roll a saving throw, even if he didn't know why.) Aesthetically he was ragequitting for not being given the opportunity to metagame. Suddenly this brilliant imaginative guy who'd been gaming for over a decade and handling anything life throws at him was reduced to a toddler tantrum. It was surreal.

That slow burgeoning growth within him that 'I will know everything that happens, how it happens, why it happens and from whom immediately as it happens came from pathfinder. And it wasnt a big deal until it was. His reaction wasnt that of a gamer surprisingly introduced to a minor inconvenience he had to solve and correct. His reaction was that of a man knifed in the ballz. Or through the soul.. or Like I'd knifed his soul in the soulballz.

Another one of my players very specifically said 'the only way I could possibly not optimize is if I rolled everything randomly and had no choice in the matter'.

Its like people who play mmo's but use combat loggers to analyze the numbers behind the game... They cant even consider the idea of playing it without knowing all the underlying math. They physically can't do it. The number one descriptor of fun in that system is not playing the game, but instead learning to skillfully exploit the mechanics... They're not playing the game anymore... They're gaming the game. Its not stormwind fallacy. Its fundamentally changing which game they are playing... The one they made characters for, or the math challenge behind it. It may not be the intent of how pathfinder is written, but it is clearly producing or attracting that kind of player, intentional or not.

Its not even a bad way to be in an mmo. There's usually only one story. In order to keep enjoying playing, you have to find some new thing do to or some new way to tackle that same one story. So gaming the game is encouraged. It's almost the only right way to keep enjoying it without changing games and starting all over.

This may not be a new problem, but its a new problem to my gaming table. The change in attitude from playing the game to gaming the system finally boiled over. Not letting him game the game revealed that he was HATING the inability to game the game and almost completely ignoring the actual game itself.

Its true I could have done such things as making a troll thats immune to fire and is destroyed by water to circumvent player knowledge and metagaming... But that verb tense is key... I could have. Way back in the day. I can't do that with anyone I know who says they like playing d20 or 3.0 or 3.5 or pathfinder. How dare I?


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:


I agree with you. It isn't just Pathfinder, though. It's the "rule for everything and the GM can't change them" attitude that I think causes the problem.
Mike Mearls wrote:
It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say. 4e is taking away from the DM, and that's where I worry because other types of games can do that better. I might as well play a board game, 'cause I'm just here enforcing the rules. Without the DM as the creative guy, what's the point?

Yeah. Between cellphones and pathfinder what had happened was it created in my players a sort of entitlement to know the mechanics of everything completely inside and out where such an entitlement never was before...

It got so bad that one of my best players, when presented with the fact that when something happened to his character and he didnt know when or why it had happened, instead of thinking of all the possibilities, and figuring out a solution, instead he was right on the edge of table flipping. Screaming, throwing his dice and packing up his stuff because something happened to him, but not to his face. And not using mechanics he was familiar with. (It was a curse delivered surreptitiously through an arm wrestling competition. The curse prevented him from running faster than 60 miles per hour. I didnt make him roll the saving throw until he tried running faster than 60 miles per hour. If i'd have made him roll the saving throw the moment he was cursed, he'd probably have killed everyone in the room just for making him have to roll a saving throw, even if he didn't know why.) Aesthetically he was ragequitting for not being given the opportunity to metagame. Suddenly this brilliant imaginative guy who'd been gaming for over a decade and handling anything life throws at him was reduced to a toddler tantrum. It was surreal.

That slow burgeoning growth within him that 'I will know everything that happens, how it happens, why it...

Gaming the game. That wasn't a concept I'd heard about in tabletopping until after so many MMOs and computer "RPGs" came into existence. It's the reason I won't play in a PVP game.

The general attitude this all engenders explains why so many players literally cannot grasp the concept of a GM owning his campaign, and being able to make rulings that go against them. They seem to believe that reading a rulebook entitles them to dictate events and actions in the GM's game. What they fail to grasp is that without the GM's input into the game-world, there IS no game.

At least, there isn't an RPG. There's just a bunch of people shuffling playing pieces around on a game-board and arguing about why they can do it. They might as well be playing Parcheesi.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep. Again my experience isn't the one truth... YMMV...

But my experience of it... For me... Is that in order to have good gamers gamers that are more interested in the game itself than the mechanics... I've tried to develop techniques for untraining them from gaming the game. I have found that doing this from within pathfinder never works for me. Ever.

Only in systems that are written less like a card game. Less rules. Less clear and easily definable rock beats paper. Less 'every troll has the stats of troll. here are the stats of a troll'.

Marathon runners don't bulk up with resistance training and powerlifters dont run marathons. So that's what I'm doin. I'm not giving up. I'm simply training to a different goal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I run a game-world, no matter the system. And to borrow a phrase, "Story trumps rules."

My way of battling the problem is to be a GM in spite of the whining and shouting. They settle down or they leave. Haven't had the meltdown happen yet, and I hope I never do.

One question, though. Running at more than 60 mph?


Yeah. We were playing in a not d20/pathfinder system that allows cyborgs. He was a cyborg with some impressive running legs. He could run at 50mph just fine, but 50 instead of the 60 he had on his character sheet without knowing why immediately spiked him.

If the character themselves wouldnt be aware that they're making a saving throw and wouldnt be aware that they are receiving a curse, there's no reason to tell them its happening unless you have players who can play without metagaming... His character wouldnt have any idea what happened until the issue actually came up... If he could play without metagaming then he wouldnt have been outraged at the lost opportunity to do so.

But my personal experience is that with a pathfinder player they typically expect to roll that save immediately as it happens, to know what its about immediately, and more often than not unrealistically react to it despite no in character evidence as to what has happened, how it happened or why. Not letting them know these things actually makes them angry.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vincent Takeda wrote:

Yep. Again my experience isn't the one truth... YMMV...

But my experience of it... For me... Is that in order to have good gamers gamers that are more interested in the game itself than the mechanics... I've tried to develop techniques for untraining them from gaming the game. I have found that doing this from within pathfinder never works for me. Ever.

Only in systems that are written less like a card game. Less rules. Less clear and easily definable rock beats paper. Less 'every troll has the stats of troll. here are the stats of a troll'.

Marathon runners don't bulk up with resistance training and powerlifters dont run marathons. So that's what I'm doin. I'm not giving up. I'm simply training to a different goal.

The system isn't the problem... the gamers aren't the problem... for the most part. It's when you have a microculture that's focused on "winning" and sees the game as a Players vs. GM modality. (and it's not always the players).

You don't need to keep your players off of the rulesbooks... you need to keep them off the messageboards.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I run a game-world, no matter the system. And to borrow a phrase, "Story trumps rules."

My way of battling the problem is to be a GM in spite of the whining and shouting. They settle down or they leave. Haven't had the meltdown happen yet, and I hope I never do.

One question, though. Running at more than 60 mph?

We have the technology....

We can rebuild him....

We can make him better.... stronger..... faster....

He just has to do all his running in slow motion.


LazarX wrote:
You don't need to keep your players off of the rulesbooks... you need to keep them off the messageboards.

Astutely valid point!


Digitalelf wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
For me, it isn't a matter of trust. It's probably my gaming background talking

I know everyone's backgrounds and experiences are different, but not that long ago, all I needed to say to a perspective player was: "Hey, you want to play some D&D?" And that was it! I did not have to hand the players a packet containing the house-rules I used, nor give them a syllabus outlining the upcoming campaign... We just played...

For example, the campaign might have started in the Forgotten Realms, and then during an adventure, the characters tripped a portal, and it sent them to some far off outer plane, and the characters had adventures while trying to get home to the Prime Material Plane, but when they did... It's wasn't Toril they ended up on, it was...

And the players didn't get mad, or annoyed, or frustrated; they just rolled with it and had fun doing it.

But like I said, that has been my experience with gaming, and I know other people have had other experiences shape the way they game...

I used to be that player, and I am still low maintenance now, but now that I am more experienced there are things that I won't accept from a GM.

I think one thing that changed was when I first had a GM that gave me a campaign outline with house rules. Now I died a lot, but he was fair so I never got mad when I died. I don't really need an outline, but I do ask about houserules so I dont 7 levels into a build and get told "I don't use/like that rule".

Some players are different like you said and probably would have preferred no outline and have the GM make sure they stay alive.

To this day if someone days you want to play D&D/PF I will likely just show up as long as they tell me what level to make the character. Normally if this happens it is not a long term game, so I dont worry too much about houserules.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Back in my day (here we go) players never got to read the dm guide or the monster manual. You couldnt force your players not to, but we worked on what was called the 'honor system'.

A lot of players today are GM's or they have at tried it. Also when 3.5 had the DMG separate from the player's guide that was a mistake since the game assumed you would have certain items to do well. Another problem was that going into a prestige class required pre-planned builds, so they players had to access some of that information. Also the SRD was put online by WoTC well before cell phones were being used so much, so no cell phones were really needed. If you want to blame something blame the OGL. Also I am not saying the DMG had top secret information. It just had information a player did not need to worry about such as the annoying XP table.

Quote:


Nowadays your average player would rather stab you in the face with a fork than be called dishonorable for pulling out the monster manual the moment you tell him whats behind door number 3.

I have not had that experience, and I think a good player can "not metagame". I don't even need to open the book for most monsters to have a good idea of how to fight them just because I GM so much, but I don't just say "Do ____ so we can bypass it's DR".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

It just had information a player did not need to worry about such as the annoying XP table.

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


The first question anyone in our group asks a GM starting a new campaign is "Any special creation rules?" The second is, "Are you using any house rules?"

We just assume that the game is going to be unique, and not RAW.

And even if there weren't any house rules, I still can't imagine making assumptions about the game world without asking questions. Even if every GM in the group was using the same setting, I would expect the game-worlds to all be different.


As a general rule I don't trust a GM who does not trust his/her players. Which is probably the root of the trust issue is it is two way street


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
That's a lot of life training that has to be undone to turn them into good gamers.

That was actually one of the biggest reasons I walked away from pathfinder... What I discovered is that it was actually making my players worse gamers. One of them admitted he no longer holds himself to the idea that he's a great gamer anymore. And he's the one who when I first met him said he'd be willing to play any game any time. He was ready to venture out into the unknown and roll with the punches....

But something about the way pathfinder is written or how its talked about in the forums sort of worms its way into your brain and you start thinking not like an adventurer but like an engineer. At its core, pathfinder is more of a giant neboulous but rather basic math problem. Its mechanics play out like a collectible card game so people start playing it like its a collectible card game.

Here's my feat card. Here's my spell card. Here's my summoned creature card.

The nature of it is so far removed from what gaming used to be for me that I found it jarring. But when I realized it was TRAINING my players to get worse... I had to stop.

I agree with you. It isn't just Pathfinder, though. It's the "rule for everything and the GM can't change them" attitude that I think causes the problem.

Mike Mearls wrote:
It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say. 4e is taking away from the DM, and that's where I worry because other types of games can do that better. I might as well play a board game, 'cause I'm just here enforcing the rules. Without the DM as the creative guy, what's the point?
It's about 4e specifically, but I think it handily applies to other games of this era.

Where are you finding these horrible players?

Everyone uses house rules so this does not make sense unless the GM is doing the "sudden houserule", and complaining that the players don't like it.

Many self professed grognards have said players have not really changed much. What has changed is that information is more readily availible so we can share experiences. Basically the same problems that exist now exist back in da day.

Basically players complained and rules lawyered back then also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You don't need to keep your players off of the rulesbooks... you need to keep them off the messageboards.
Astutely valid point!

I rather have them be here so they understand why they can't dump constitution down to 7 be a melee combatant and expect to live because it sounds cool. No, I am not saying you have to be super-optimized to survive in a game that I run.

............<more stuff in my mind that I won't type out unless questions are asked>


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*asks questions*


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The first question anyone in our group asks a GM starting a new campaign is "Any special creation rules?" The second is, "Are you using any house rules?"

We just assume that the game is going to be unique, and not RAW.

And even if there weren't any house rules, I still can't imagine making assumptions about the game world without asking questions. Even if every GM in the group was using the same setting, I would expect the game-worlds to all be different.

This is alien to me.

The first thing we ask are questions about the setting, where we're starting, what kind of characters he's looking for, generally what the campaign's going to be about. Sometimes we'll ask first what system it's going to be run in, if that wasn't clear. :)

House rules come later.

Or maybe we're just phrasing it differently. I don't think of any of that as house rules.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You don't need to keep your players off of the rulesbooks... you need to keep them off the messageboards.
Astutely valid point!

I rather have them be here so they understand why they can't dump constitution down to 7 be a melee combatant and expect to live because it sounds cool. No, I am not saying you have to be super-optimized to survive in a game that I run.

............<more stuff in my mind that I won't type out unless questions are asked>

Players don't need message boards to intimidate them, or get them into the mindset that the only valid character builds are those that end combats in one round or less, nor do they need to be poisoned with the mindset that the GM is their enemy, or infected with a fear of failure.

Thousands upon thousands of people learned to play and master roleplaying games without swimming in the vitriol-filled shark tank that is just about any gaming message board on the Internet.

The best classroom is the gaming table... the best teachers are the friends you game with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Players complained and rules-lawyered "back in the day", but they didn't assume that their carping was actually going to change anything. With 1e, differing interpretations of the rules were easy because Gygax had a style of writing that would make legislators envious (he worked in the insurance industry, after all).

2e clarified a lot of things, but made the assumption that everyone who played the game was 12 years old and therefore needed rules in simple language.

3e assumed that everything needed to be spelled out in black and white so there was no room for interpretation. And Pathfinder, improvement over 3e or not, continues that attitude.

The idea that the rules restrict the GM is what's different from the old days. That and the idea that the GM apparently needs restriction.

It is entirely possible this isn't the fault of the system or of the internet or even of the players, but it makes GMs who are used to absolute control over their game-worlds feel threatened. No old-style GM wants to run a game with the players continually correcting rulings, or getting angry when those "corrections" are ignored.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the style of a game changing "threatens" you, seek help immediately.


LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It just had information a player did not need to worry about such as the annoying XP table.

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

I never played 1st Edition.


LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You don't need to keep your players off of the rulesbooks... you need to keep them off the messageboards.
Astutely valid point!

I rather have them be here so they understand why they can't dump constitution down to 7 be a melee combatant and expect to live because it sounds cool. No, I am not saying you have to be super-optimized to survive in a game that I run.

............<more stuff in my mind that I won't type out unless questions are asked>

Players don't need message boards to intimidate them, or get them into the mindset that the only valid character builds are those that end combats in one round or less, nor do they need to be poisoned with the mindset that the GM is their enemy, or infected with a fear of failure.

Thousands upon thousands of people learned to play and master roleplaying games without swimming in the vitriol-filled shark tank that is just about any gaming message board on the Internet.

The best classroom is the gaming table... the best teachers are the friends you game with.

I dont have that experience with players. The ones I met here don't give me headaches, and they know the rules better than ones that do not come from here.

I also don't consider this to be a vitriol filled shark tank so I guess this place affects the people you play with differently than the ones I have met.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Players complained and rules-lawyered "back in the day", but they didn't assume that their carping was actually going to change anything.

Not true at all so let me restate my last post with a few extra words. Those grognards were saying that players complained and tried to get things changed. I kinda assumed you would automatically know they expected change. Did you really think I was saying people complained to the GM just to waste time?<--Serious question


wraithstrike wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Players complained and rules-lawyered "back in the day", but they didn't assume that their carping was actually going to change anything.
Not true at all so let me restate my last post with a few extra words. Those grognards were saying that players complained and tried to get things changed. I kinda assumed you would automatically know they expected change. Did you really think I was saying people complained to the GM just to waste time?<--Serious question

Obviously those grodnards don't remember the "I am the DUNGEONMASTER. My way or the highway." routine that was all too common back then.

Much to my shame I do recall telling an argumentative player "I am God. Shut the book and play."

Nobody really expected to bend the DM. Unless he was the wishy-washy type.

Rules clarification did happen from time to time. But for the most part, games went without much argument, once you figured out how a DM was doing things.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Players complained and rules-lawyered "back in the day", but they didn't assume that their carping was actually going to change anything.
Not true at all so let me restate my last post with a few extra words. Those grognards were saying that players complained and tried to get things changed. I kinda assumed you would automatically know they expected change. Did you really think I was saying people complained to the GM just to waste time?<--Serious question

Obviously those grodnards don't remember the "I am the DUNGEONMASTER. My way or the highway." routine that was all too common back then.

Much to my shame I do recall telling an argumentative player "I am God. Shut the book and play."

Nobody really expected to bend the DM. Unless he was the wishy-washy type.

Rules clarification did happen from time to time. But for the most part, games went without much argument, once you figured out how a DM was doing things.

I understand what you are saying, and that it was a futile attempt but that did not mean the players were not making a real attempt to change the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand what you are saying, and that it was a futile attempt but that did not mean the players were not making a real attempt to change the game.

Sorry. Misapprehended your point. I do agree that players were trying to get rulings changed, or were fostering different interpretations of the rules.

It is very probable that the same mechanism I speak about "these days" was operating then; GMs were feeling threatened because it seemed (to them) that players were trying to take over their games.

On reflection, that seems a probable explanation for the "I am God" thing.

<shuffles feet sheepishly, ducks head to hide embarrassment>


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand what you are saying, and that it was a futile attempt but that did not mean the players were not making a real attempt to change the game.

Sorry. Misapprehended your point. I do agree that players were trying to get rulings changed, or were fostering different interpretations of the rules.

It is very probable that the same mechanism I speak about "these days" was operating then; GMs were feeling threatened because it seemed (to them) that players were trying to take over their games.

On reflection, that seems a probable explanation for the "I am God" thing.

<shuffles feet sheepishly, ducks head to hide embarrassment>

Sometimes you have to pull authority to keep the game going. Shut down arguments and keep playing.

"I am God" might be a bit ... overdramatic, but sometimes you have to just pull rank. Hash it out later if necessary.

1 to 50 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.