You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs.Then it's not the trap killing them.
If it is monsters and then traps finish them off, the traps did indeed deal the finishing blow.
That is okay. You don't have to get into an argument with me about traps. You clearly don't know much about them or how to make them a challenge (that yes, can indeed kill players).
You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs. If you don't think it can work, please go and try it. Then come back and post.
Out of healing and trapped with traps that reset is another dangerous set up. That killed a pc a year back. It happened in a short pathfinder adventure I was running. It had a trap filled pyramid, some really good traps in there too, like invisible swarms. Or are they all house ruled and not at all official? LOL!
Respect the trap, and don't complain if it kills you, don't try to present the dm as a ba**ard for using them. That is just whining and an attack on dangerous excitement being in the game. Or, only play safe games where the traps aren't a challenge (and avoid all pf adventures that do put effort into death traps or trap and monster combos).
Let's change tack from whether CRB traps are deadly. Instead, I'm curious as to why you seem so giddy over the prospect of killing PCs with traps.
Let me let you in on a secret: it's not an accomplishment as a DM to kill PCs. You hold all the cards. You can arrange the cards so they lead to PC death relatively easily. It doesn't even take much creativity. Just look at your party's average level, multiply it by 3 and add 4, then make an encounter of that CR! If that doesn't kill them, then don't ever give them a chance to rest or to control the pace of encounters. Limit their access to limited-use items so they often run out of healing. "Forget" to ask them for perception checks. Etc.
What's the enjoyment in seeing how many PCs...
A swing and a miss!
It isn't about me killing the players with traps, it is about making dangerous and challenging dungeons. The pay-off being, if the players triumph there is a deep satisfaction and actual thrill at emerging out the other side (and of course the thrill of danger while progressing through the dungeon).
Yeah, it's the sudden loss of hit points.You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs.Then it's not the trap killing them.
Ha ha, yeah.
You can also play with saves, so monsters may lower saves, traps then test those saves. Or vice versa.
If only my reflex hadn't been drained!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where the player crossed the line in that exchange was when the GM and players agreed to not have constructs in the game, and then the player went back to the GM and tried to do so anyway.
Yes, I was worried you were driving at this, but you must admit it's a bit of a misdirection. You added a parameter (the previous establishment of a certain rule, in this case not playing constructs) that was not being discussed before. When I (and probably most of those who did) responded, I wasn't really sure whether to address this or just stay on point, so I chose the latter hoping to minimize the already tangential nature of the conversation. Can you see how I now feel a bit manipulated, especially since I asked you, at the time, to clarify where you stood on your hypothetical conversation?
Also, I'm curious whether, when you say that the rule was "agreed upon," you really mean simply that it was stated by the GM at some point (which, considering the long-running nature of many campaigns, could have been months or even years in the past) and not specifically argued with at the time.
I maintain my call for greater overall patience and more comprehensive understanding on the part of GMs. I do not direct that specifically at AD or Shallow or anyone else. When I say "greater patience," I mean greater than the average level that I have personally experienced as a player. And, again, please bear in mind that the far greater balance of my total gaming time has been spent as a GM.
At least in my case its been repeated constantly. You dont even get to the point of making characters until the parameters are in place. That happens when you pick which presented campaign you wish to play in or present one yourself. The restrictions and such are listed right there in the blurb.
If you start creating a character before THAT has been decided its at your own risk. Why would you create or select a character before knowing anything about what world or setting they were being put in anyway?
|
Vivianne, I believe you have this exactly backwards. Ciretose is not reading what you are saying wrong, you are saying exactly what Ciretose says you are. Why you aren't aware of what you are saying is the big mystery.
I linked to it when you said this before...No one thinks that you've not linked to posts before. Rather, people don't think the posts say what you claim. One of the posts you linked was mine. I can tell you from the privileged position of being the person who wrote it that what you read into it is not what I was saying.
The way this works is, I can only see what you type.
So when I link to something you type and you say "That isn't right" that isn't my fault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where the player crossed the line in that exchange was when the GM and players agreed to not have constructs in the game, and then the player went back to the GM and tried to do so anyway.
Yes, I was worried you were driving at this, but you must admit it's a bit of a misdirection. You added a parameter (the previous establishment of a certain rule, in this case not playing constructs) that was not being discussed before. When I (and probably most of those who did) responded, I wasn't really sure whether to address this or just stay on point, so I chose the latter hoping to minimize the already tangential nature of the conversation. Can you see how I now feel a bit manipulated, especially since I asked you, at the time, to clarify where you stood on your hypothetical conversation?
Also, I'm curious whether, when you say that the rule was "agreed upon," you really mean simply that it was stated by the GM at some point (which, considering the long-running nature of many campaigns, could have been months or even years in the past) and not specifically argued with at the time.
I maintain my call for greater overall patience and more comprehensive understanding on the part of GMs. I do not direct that specifically at AD or Shallow or anyone else. When I say "greater patience," I mean greater than the average level that I have personally experienced as a player. And, again, please bear in mind that the far greater balance of my total gaming time has been spent as a GM.
At least in my case its been repeated constantly. You dont even get to the point of making characters until the parameters are in place. That happens when you pick which presented campaign you wish to play in or present one yourself. The restrictions and such are listed right there in the blurb.
If you start creating a character before THAT has been decided its at your own risk. Why would you create or select a character before knowing anything about what...
Yes, wouldn't that truly be to put the cart before the horse?
Or should any created char be respected and allowed in? That I do not agree with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's almost never what happens in the real world. Here is what happens.
GM: "I know that it might not be popular, but for very important story reasons my campaign world is one where PCs just can't be constructs of any sort."
PLAYERS: "OK, that's cool."
Later....
PLAYER1: "Hey, I know you don't allow constructs in your campaign world, but I've got this cool concept about a Pinocchio type character and he'll only be a 'construct' for a few levels, so would that be cool?"
GM: "Well, that sounds like an interesting concept, and I hate to ever say 'no' to a player, but there are just certain.... reasons that won't work in my campaign world."
PLAYER1: "Well, I understand that you don't like the idea, but I think you aren't really getting my proposal here. If you can give me some more details about why you don't allow constructs, I'm sure we can work something out."
GM: "I'm already a bit nervous about telling you 'no' and letting you know there are story reasons behind it. That's information your characters would not have already. Let's just go with a 'no-construct PC' approach and I can run a game later where you play a construct."
PLAYER1: "Well, I've already put two full days into this concept, and I really want to play it. I think you are being too narrow-minded here and should work with me to help make this work."
GM: "Hmm... well, I can't say I appreciate being called "narrow-minded" but I'll try to overlook that and just say that there are always some limitations to every game. You can't play a god, or a rock, so I don't see what the problem is with choosing a concept that is not a construct. This is my world, after all. I've spent a lot of time on it."
PLAYER1: "Well, how about if my character is like a construct but isn't really one. I mean he would mechanically be a construct but for game purpose we'll just say he's an odd sort of undead. The important thing is that the character is soulless."
GM: "I've got my hands full getting ready for the first session, and I just don't have time right now to try to work in what you are asking for in a way that satisfies my expectations for my game world. So let's just move on, OK?"
PLAYER1: "I never realized that you were so close-minded about simple things. I think you're better than that. Let's give this one more try."
GM: "ENOUGH! Go find another game. You aren't playing in this one."
PLAYER1: "Jerk-ass controlling, narrow-minded idiot! I'll never play with you again!"
If the idea of this is to identify mistakes in the scenario in order to learn to avoid them, then I'll take a stab at it.
Here is how it appears to my mind with regard to your scenario:
First, player moderate misstep (Although this may be partly scenario-enforced timing rather than realistic - within the scenario, the player's timing is less than ideal, and his later approach also offers almost nothing helpful to the GM's understanding)
Second, GM major misstep (handling with minimal communication, responses designed to stifle communication rather than to get things back on the communicative track that might have led to resolution)
Third, player major misstep (chose to escalate to petty insults and baiting rather than get things back on the communicative track that might have lead to resolution)
In this scenario the largest problem seems to me to be that both player and GM - while they may have been communicating in a technical sense - focused their communication on cementing the problem and batting it into the other court, rather than on solving it. Lack of useful communication.
Neither GM nor player made much effort to get into the other's head. The GM was the first to actively slam that door, but the player made no effort to make it easy to walk through, and approached the GM as if approaching an obstacle to be overcome, which the GM in turn was only too glad to become.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is monsters and then traps finish them off, the traps did indeed deal the finishing blow.You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs.Then it's not the trap killing them.
This one time I told the players of a party of 15 level characters that I could totally kill their characters off by throwing a CR 1/4 kobold at them. They laughed and said, "Yeah right." So I dropped the mountain that the kobold was living on, on them. Totally killed them with a CR 1/4 kobold.
At least in my case its been repeated constantly. You dont even get to the point of making characters until the parameters are in place. That happens when you pick which presented campaign you wish to play in or present one yourself. The restrictions and such are listed right there in the blurb.If you start creating a character before THAT has been decided its at your own risk. Why would you create or select a character before knowing anything about what...
I understand why this procedure seems all well and good from a GM's point of view, but to many players it is far from ideal. In my experience, players are interested in telling the story of this particular character they have in their head, and they don't really care what world they tell that story in. It's GMs who care about the setting, but we have to acknowledge that often the players really don't give a damn about it. All they're thinking is "Ah, good, an opportunity has come along to play this character I've been wanting to play since forever." They figure some variation on their idea should be able to exist in most game worlds, and they really aren't interested in your (the GM's) made up reasons for preventing that. This is not to say that they won't get excited about the setting, but their excitement will always be primarily about the ways in which this particular character they want to be will interact with that setting, more than some overall aesthetic appreciation of the setting itself.
And that is not an unreasonable way to approach the game. For many, many players, it's the only way they know how to approach it. So for a GM to adopt a stance that specifically precludes the entire approach of a large percentage of players seems to me ultimately unsupportable. The idea that players aren't going to be thinking about their character until you come along and give them a campaign is just not remotely realistic for a huge percentage of players.
Most of the GMs I hear talking in this thread are completely disregarding the importance of the players' interests in this regard. You have to accept that they very possibly are not playing the game for the same reasons you are running it. Nothing you say or do will ever change that. You simply have different goals, and that's ok. You may still be able to get roughly what you want from one another through communication and compromise.
Also bear in mind that as GM, you are going to get 95% of what you want out of the campaign setting whether the player cooperates with you or not. The player, on the other hand, cannot get anything he wants unless you cooperate with him. That is the reason that players often hold their desires as being more important than those of the GM. The GM only has to give up a little of what he wants in order to give the player everything that they want, and many times the GM's refusal to do so is rightly seen as, frankly, selfish.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put another way,
"I understand why this procedure seems all well and good from a players's point of view, but to many GM's it is far from ideal. In my experience, GM's are interested in telling the story of this particular setting they have in their head, and they don't really care what players they tell that story with. It's players who care about the character, but we have to acknowledge that often the GM really don't give a damn about it. All they're thinking is "Ah, good, an opportunity has come along to play this setting I've been wanting to play since forever." They figure some variation on their idea should be able to exist for most characters, and they really aren't interested in your (the players) made up reasons for preventing that. This is not to say that they won't get excited about the character, but their excitement will always be primarily about the ways in which this particular setting they want to be will interact with that character, more than some overall aesthetic appreciation of the character itself."
See what I did there.
The GM actually doesn't have to acknowledge they don't give a damn.
The GM can run for people that do, and leave those that don't on the sidelines.
But why would you choose to be like this? In my experience, players who are more interested in the character that they want to play than the campaign setting that they are going to play that character in represent somewhere around 50%-75% of the total player base.
Put another way,
"I understand why this procedure seems all well and good from a players's point of view, but to many GM's it is far from ideal. In my experience, GM's are interested in telling the story of this particular setting they have in their head, and they don't really care what players they tell that story with. It's players who care about the character, but we have to acknowledge that often the GM really don't give a damn about it. All they're thinking is "Ah, good, an opportunity has come along to play this setting I've been wanting to play since forever." They figure some variation on their idea should be able to exist for most characters, and they really aren't interested in your (the players) made up reasons for preventing that. This is not to say that they won't get excited about the character, but their excitement will always be primarily about the ways in which this particular setting they want to be will interact with that character, more than some overall aesthetic appreciation of the character itself."
See what I did there.
Yes, I see what you did. You excluded the second half of my post in order to create an argument that seems clever, but falls apart when you include it.
|
|
Yes, I see what you did. You excluded the second half of my post in order to create an argument that seems clever, but falls apart when you include it.Put another way,
"I understand why this procedure seems all well and good from a players's point of view, but to many GM's it is far from ideal. In my experience, GM's are interested in telling the story of this particular setting they have in their head, and they don't really care what players they tell that story with. It's players who care about the character, but we have to acknowledge that often the GM really don't give a damn about it. All they're thinking is "Ah, good, an opportunity has come along to play this setting I've been wanting to play since forever." They figure some variation on their idea should be able to exist for most characters, and they really aren't interested in your (the players) made up reasons for preventing that. This is not to say that they won't get excited about the character, but their excitement will always be primarily about the ways in which this particular setting they want to be will interact with that character, more than some overall aesthetic appreciation of the character itself."
See what I did there.
No, I pointed out the fundamental logical fallacy of your argument.
The GM has already asked the players if they want to come play in the setting.
The GM got approval.
Now the player is seeking approval. It does not have to be given to either.
|
|
But why would you choose to be like this? In my experience, players who are more interested in the character that they want to play than the campaign setting that they are going to play that character in represent somewhere around 50%-75% of the total player base.The GM actually doesn't have to acknowledge they don't give a damn.
The GM can run for people that do, and leave those that don't on the sidelines.
Why play with people who don't give a damn when you have the option not to?
If 50% to 75% of people don't give a damn, that means 25% do give a damn.
So I'll play with them and you can play with the rest.
No, I pointed out the fundamental logical fallacy of your argument.
Um, no. Though I like that you try, in this next bit, to illustrate for me what a logical fallacy is, presumably in order to drive your point home.
The GM has already asked the players if they want to come play in the setting.
The GM got approval.
Now the player is seeking approval. It does not have to be given to either.
When did the GM get approval? Obviously, if the player is asking to play something that isn't in the proposed campaign setting, the GM does NOT have approval. That is self evident, and is one of the major points I have been making this entire time.
|
|
No, I pointed out the fundamental logical fallacy of your argument.
Um, no. Though I like that you try, in this next bit, to illustrate for me what a logical fallacy is, presumably in order to drive your point home.
When did the GM get approval? Obviously, if the player is asking to play something that isn't in the proposed campaign setting, the GM does NOT have approval. That is self evident, and is one of the major points I have been making this entire time.The GM has already asked the players if they want to come play in the setting.
The GM got approval.
Now the player is seeking approval. It does not have to be given to either.
Player, singular.
That player does not want to play in that setting.
And they don't have to.
But if 4 other players do want to, the GM did get approval. From the people who will be playing in that setting.
It can happen without that player. Just as that player can take that concept to another setting.
What is wrong, for either, is to force the GM or the Player to play something they don't want to play.
Why play with people who don't give a damn when you have the option not to?
Because you can still have a perfectly good game with them if you are willing to compromise in the smallest degree, which was what I said in the second half of my post. Also, you are kind of selectively reading what I wrote. As I said, the player will give a damn and will engage with the campaign world, but his interest in it will be primarily about the way his character interacts with it. Why on earth should it be any other way?
|
|
You are fundamentally arguing the GM should compromise what they want because the other person won't be happy otherwise.
I am arguing if the other person won't be happy, they don't need to be in this game that is making the people in it, happy.
Because they apparently are unable to compromise and be happy.
Player, singular.
That player does not want to play in that setting.
And they don't have to.
But if 4 other players do want to, the GM did get approval. From the people who will be playing in that setting.
It can happen without that player. Just as that player can take that concept to another setting.
What is wrong, for either, is to force the GM or the Player to play something they don't want to play.
First of all, the scenario you are describing is usually not what transpires in reality. Usually, most if not all of the players have something, even if it's a small something, that they want worked into the campaign.
Second, how do you know those four players that "approve" aren't just shutting up and doing what you want because they know how you'll get if they speak up, and they've decided, unlike the fifth player, that it's just not worth fighting with you?
Third, as I said, in most cases you can probably sacrifice like 2% of what you want in order to give the player in question like 80% or 90% of what he wants. Why wouldn't you do that? Perhaps your campaign setting is the real "special snowflake" in this scenario...
And finally, why do you keep talking about "forcing" someone to do something? What we're talking about is compromise, not force. Do you understand the difference?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why play with people who don't give a damn when you have the option not to?
Because you can still have a perfectly good game with them if you are willing to compromise in the smallest degree, which was what I said in the second half of my post. Also, you are kind of selectively reading what I wrote. As I said, the player will give a damn and will engage with the campaign world, but his interest in it will be primarily about the way his character interacts with it. Why on earth should it be any other way?
Except ..
This thread is about special snowflakes, right? This is the person who is less interested in compromise and more interested in what they want. That's why it isn't about the average player or even the snowflake player. The special snowflake, from what I've seen in the thread, is the problem player who is demanding that they get the thing they want regardless.
You might have a good game with them if you compromise in the smallest degree. But then again, you may have a very bad game when they continue to take in the way a special snowflake is likely to do.
When did the GM get approval?When he said to the players: "Hey guys, I want to run a campaign without elves. You in?"
If they agree, then the GM has his approval...
Why agree to play in a campaign that has no elves, if you really only want to play an elf?
Yes, but they have obviously not collectively agreed to that if there's one player who is asking to play an elf. And chances are you know these people and you knew in the first place that one of them only ever plays elves before you proposed your "no elf" world, which is kind of a dick move to begin with.
Except ..
This thread is about special snowflakes, right? This is the person who is less interested in compromise and more interested in what they want. That's why it isn't about the average player or even the snowflake player. The special snowflake, from what I've seen in the thread, is the problem player who is demanding that they get the thing they want regardless.
You might have a good game with them if you compromise in the smallest degree. But then again, you may have a very bad game when they continue to take in the way a special snowflake is likely to do.
That's an entirely valid point, except that one of the central points of debate in this thread has been over what does or does not constitute a "special snowflake" (i.e. an unreasonable) character. My argument is with GMs who apply the label to characters who show any deviation whatsoever from what they want to run. There are many such GMs.
That's an entirely valid point, except that one of the central points of debate in this thread has been over what does or does not constitute a "special snowflake" (i.e. an unreasonable) character. My argument is with GMs who apply the label to characters who show any deviation whatsoever from what they want to run. There are many such GMs.
And there are a number of unreasonable players who only want to do what they want to do. Which is where we keep going round and round. We've been repeating this over the last several hundred points without getting anywhere, however. I am not sure anyone's mind is going to be changed; we cannot even define what is a special snowflake after all.
Yes, but they have obviously not collectively agreed to that if there's one player who is asking to play an elf. And chances are you know these people and you knew in the first place that one of them only ever plays elves before you proposed your "no elf" world, which is kind of a dick move to begin with.When did the GM get approval?When he said to the players: "Hey guys, I want to run a campaign without elves. You in?"
If they agree, then the GM has his approval...
Why agree to play in a campaign that has no elves, if you really only want to play an elf?
... Then why did he agree to that campaign? Seems like you think the player's agreements should be written in erasable ink.
|
|
Yes, but they have obviously not collectively agreed to that if there's one player who is asking to play an elf. And chances are you know these people and you knew in the first place that one of them only ever plays elves before you proposed your "no elf" world, which is kind of a dick move to begin with.
So the GM can't even propose an idea without it being a "dick move", but they should find a way to accommodate what ever a single player comes up with.
Cognitive dissonance much?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing for me is that throughout the majority of my gaming career, there was little to no read in for the game. I started doing player hand outs years ago, but for the most part games were "Hey, we are playing Friday at 8" and that was it. You showed, made a character and moved on.
I seldom if ever saw anyone trying to do more than get extra gear or something special in that regard, and it was usually met with "Wait, why do you get something that everyone else doesn't?"
I think we may be over exaggerating "Approval" of the setting. People are there to play, and in my experience (which is mine and may not be yours) people aren't silently sullen because we are playing X game. People were happy to be PLAYING! The game, the actual act of getting together to play was what was important. If the campaign wasn't working out, we'd talk about it. But people did not show with the expectation they were going to vote in some way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My game, I hope, will be "about" my game. It will not be about your character, nor will it be about my setting, for if I sit at the table alone my setting is stagnant, and I imagine that if you sit at a table alone your character is impotent.
I do not want to run a game for players who do not acknowledge my setting and I imagine that you do not want to play a game with me if I do not want to acknowledge your character.
Are we playing together, or are we playing against one another?
Yes, but they have obviously not collectively agreed to that if there's one player who is asking to play an elf. And chances are you know these people and you knew in the first place that one of them only ever plays elves before you proposed your "no elf" world, which is kind of a dick move to begin with.When did the GM get approval?When he said to the players: "Hey guys, I want to run a campaign without elves. You in?"
If they agree, then the GM has his approval...
Why agree to play in a campaign that has no elves, if you really only want to play an elf?
Talk about adding in elements to the argument after the fact. When did 'player who will only ever play elves AND YOU KNEW IT!!!!! Come into the discussion?
... Then why did he agree to that campaign? Seems like you think the player's agreements should be written in erasable ink.
Oh my god. Again, clearly, he DIDN'T agree. More precisely, he agreed provisionally. He has obviously said, in effect, "yes, I want to play in your game as long as I can play X, or some variation thereof."
So the GM can't even propose an idea without it being a "dick move", but they should find a way to accommodate what ever a single player comes up with.
Cognitive dissonance much?
No. There is no cognitive dissonance. Let me remind you that I am a GM too. I know the preferences of most of my player group very well. There are many, many games that I want to run, that I am not even going to bring up at this point. Why? Because I know that some of them are not interested and the best result I can hope for is that those players will either feel pressured by the group into playing (and not actually have a very good time) or that they will try to accommodate me, but either compromise their desires too much (and therefore not have a good time) or enter into an ultimately frustrating negotiation process of exactly the kind we have been discussing. The difference between me and many of the posters in this thread is that I do not begrudge my players their interests, because doing so is ridiculous and would reflect concern solely for my desires. Just as many of you have suggested that the player should be able to come up with some other character they want to play, I am fully capable of coming up with other campaigns that I am interested in running, that DO appeal to ALL of my players. And this is not theorycrafting. It is what I do.
|
|
Oh my god. Again, clearly, he DIDN'T agree. More precisely, he agreed provisionally. He has obviously said, in effect, "yes, I want to play in your game as long as I can play X, or some variation thereof."
... Then why did he agree to that campaign? Seems like you think the player's agreements should be written in erasable ink.
And if he, personally didn't agree and 4 other people did...
|
|
No. There is no cognitive dissonance. Let me remind you that I am a GM too. I know the preferences of most of my player group very well. There are many, many games that I want to run, that I am not even going to bring up at this point. Why? Because I know that some of them are not interested and the best result I can hope for is that those players will either feel pressured by the group into playing (and not actually have a very good time) or that they will try to accommodate me, but either compromise their desires too much (and therefore not have a good time) or enter into an ultimately frustrating negotiation process of exactly the kind we have been discussing. The difference between me and many of the posters in this thread is that I do not begrudge my players their interests, because doing so is ridiculous and would reflect concern solely for my desires. Just as many of you have suggested that the player should be able to come up with some other character they want to play, I am fully capable of coming up with other campaigns that I am interested in running, that DO appeal to ALL of my players. And this is not theorycrafting. It is what I do.
So the GM can't even propose an idea without it being a "dick move", but they should find a way to accommodate what ever a single player comes up with.
Cognitive dissonance much?
Great. But if you do find that a group, or subgroup of the people you play with does want to run what you want to run, the person who doesn't want to run it doesn't get to veto everyone else's fun.
Great. But if you do find that a group, or subgroup of the people you play with does want to run what you want to run, the person who doesn't want to run it doesn't get to veto everyone else's fun.No. There is no cognitive dissonance. Let me remind you that I am a GM too. I know the preferences of most of my player group very well. There are many, many games that I want to run, that I am not even going to bring up at this point. Why? Because I know that some of them are not interested and the best result I can hope for is that those players will either feel pressured by the group into playing (and not actually have a very good time) or that they will try to accommodate me, but either compromise their desires too much (and therefore not have a good time) or enter into an ultimately frustrating negotiation process of exactly the kind we have been discussing. The difference between me and many of the posters in this thread is that I do not begrudge my players their interests, because doing so is ridiculous and would reflect concern solely for my desires. Just as many of you have suggested that the player should be able to come up with some other character they want to play, I am fully capable of coming up with other campaigns that I am interested in running, that DO appeal to ALL of my players. And this is not theorycrafting. It is what I do.
So the GM can't even propose an idea without it being a "dick move", but they should find a way to accommodate what ever a single player comes up with.
Cognitive dissonance much?
Yes they do. In my group, yes they absolutely do. If I want to play with that person, I am going to find a way to include him that actually interests him, period.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the last post I am going to make on this thread.
Two positions have been posited here.
The first is that it is wrong for players to be totally uncompromising and demand to play a specific character concept in exactly the way they want it.
This position has been ratified by virtually everyone posting here. Almost no one has denied it.
The second is that it is wrong for GMs to be totally uncompromising and refuse to alter any aspect of their campaign world in order to work with the interests of a player who wants to do something a bit different.
This position has been repeatedly and aggressively rejected by many of you.
Do you see the imbalance? Who, really, is the "special snowflake" in this relationship?
I have nothing more to say about this at this time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes they do. In my group, yes they absolutely do. If I want to play with that person, I am going to find a way to include him that actually interests him, period.Great. But if you do find that a group, or subgroup of the people you play with does want to run what you want to run, the person who doesn't want to run it doesn't get to veto everyone else's fun.No. There is no cognitive dissonance. Let me remind you that I am a GM too. I know the preferences of most of my player group very well. There are many, many games that I want to run, that I am not even going to bring up at this point. Why? Because I know that some of them are not interested and the best result I can hope for is that those players will either feel pressured by the group into playing (and not actually have a very good time) or that they will try to accommodate me, but either compromise their desires too much (and therefore not have a good time) or enter into an ultimately frustrating negotiation process of exactly the kind we have been discussing. The difference between me and many of the posters in this thread is that I do not begrudge my players their interests, because doing so is ridiculous and would reflect concern solely for my desires. Just as many of you have suggested that the player should be able to come up with some other character they want to play, I am fully capable of coming up with other campaigns that I am interested in running, that DO appeal to ALL of my players. And this is not theorycrafting. It is what I do.
So the GM can't even propose an idea without it being a "dick move", but they should find a way to accommodate what ever a single player comes up with.
Cognitive dissonance much?
So why can't the player find a way that interests you so he can be included?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the last post I am going to make on this thread.
Two positions have been posited here.
The first is that it is wrong for players to be totally uncompromising and demand to play a specific character concept in exactly the way they want it.
This position has been ratified by virtually everyone posting here. Almost no one has denied it.
The second is that it is wrong for GMs to be totally uncompromising and refuse to alter any aspect of their campaign world in order to work with the interests of a player who wants to do something a bit different.
This position has been repeatedly and aggressively rejected by many of you.
Do you see the imbalance? Who, really, is the "special snowflake" in this relationship?
I have nothing more to say about this at this time.
Let me sum it up for you.
You can demand whatever you want, just don't expect a DM to always take on board those demands.
One side of this argument is imagining the DM to be a chef who invites people over for a steak dinner. When they arrive, one of the guests mentions they are a vegetarian, and everyone needs to eat carrots instead. When some object to the change of plans, he pulls out a gun and threatens to kill himself and everyone present if carrots, rather than steak, is not eaten.
The other side of the argument is imagining the guests to be headed over for a steak dinner, and one of them brings along his grandma's special baked potatoes, hoping to add to the enjoyment of the meal. The jerkish host swats the potatoes out of the guest's hands, shattering his mom's best dish, and then sics the dogs on the guest, who chase him down the street bleeding.
It's all rather insane, with most likely a dash of autism tossed in for good measure.
The fact is, everyone has different tolerances for discussion. These can range from person to person, or from situation to situation within a single person. Be civil to each other, and really considerate of each others' time, and you'll eliminate most of the issues here.
If a DM says 'no elves', why would an elven character be your (as a player) go-to choice? If you as DM say 'no elves', why would a player who loves his elven characters to the exclusion of all else be your go-to choice? I can't even imagine that kind of asinine conflict coming up. Far more likely to me, is a player approaching me about playing a viking character in my tropical pirate setting, and me not having considered vikings one way or another. Obviously they don't immediately fit. What to do then? For me, it involved talking things over with the player, asking for how they saw things going, and deciding that I had a wealth of opportunities in allowing the viking character. If it had been another point in the campaign, another approach, another point in my busy life, that could have easily went the other way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two positions have been posited here.
For the record, there have been quite a number more than two positions, with a number coming in towards the middle. While they aren't as glamorous as being one of the extremes displayed, they does still exist.
The problem with this thread (and quite a number of others) is that instead of discussing the issue or defining the snowflake or even admitting that other people have different ways of doing things and perhaps they aren't wrong, just different, we've once again tried to make it into some rhetoric/debate where we score points so someone can "win" the argument.
I think we may be over exaggerating "Approval" of the setting. People are there to play, and in my experience (which is mine and may not be yours) people aren't silently sullen because we are playing X game. People were happy to be PLAYING! The game, the actual act of getting together to play was what was important. If the campaign wasn't working out, we'd talk about it. But people did not show with the expectation they were going to vote in some way.
This matches much closer to my experience as well a few of the group have ideas they like to try out an of course they tell about these ideas as the crop up, so those of us that GM knows about what people would like anyway, which means eventually those concepts can usually be played.
Another thing I find interesting is that attitude of "just go play with another group", I guess I must live relatively isolated because honestly because it is rare that we see anyone else playing beyond our little group (which is basically 4 people total! with two that only sometimes are interested and no there is no gaming store within 30 km of where we live). Maybe I am just not very privileged, but turning away players with a wave of a hand is just not feasible if I want to game I have to compromise.
(for example I can't run modern, sci-fi or my favorite superhero genre games at all since we can't find enough people to run those type of games).
Yes they do. In my group, yes they absolutely do. If I want to play with that person, I am going to find a way to include him that actually interests him, period.Great. But if you do find that a group, or subgroup of the people you play with does want to run what you want to run, the person who doesn't want to run it doesn't get to veto everyone else's fun.No. There is no cognitive dissonance. Let me remind you that I am a GM too. I know the preferences of most of my player group very well. There are many, many games that I want to run, that I am not even going to bring up at this point. Why? Because I know that some of them are not interested and the best result I can hope for is that those players will either feel pressured by the group into playing (and not actually have a very good time) or that they will try to accommodate me, but either compromise their desires too much (and therefore not have a good time) or enter into an ultimately frustrating negotiation process of exactly the kind we have been discussing. The difference between me and many of the posters in this thread is that I do not begrudge my players their interests, because doing so is ridiculous and would reflect concern solely for my desires. Just as many of you have suggested that the player should be able to come up with some other character they want to play, I am fully capable of coming up with other campaigns that I am interested in running, that DO appeal to ALL of my players. And this is not theorycrafting. It is what I do.
So the GM can't even propose an idea without it being a "dick move", but they should find a way to accommodate what ever a single player comes up with.
Cognitive dissonance much?
ANd you seriously believe that that way is ONLY by playing something left out of the game, and there is no other possible way at all he can feel included and have fun? Really?
...But that's almost never what happens in the real world. Here is what happens.
GM: "I know that it might not be popular, but for very important story reasons my campaign world is one where PCs just can't be constructs of any sort."
PLAYERS: "OK, that's cool."
Later....
PLAYER1: "Hey, I know you don't allow constructs in your campaign world, but I've got this cool concept about a Pinocchio type character and he'll only be a 'construct' for a few levels, so would that be cool?"
GM: "Well, that sounds like an interesting concept, and I hate to ever say 'no' to a player, but there are just certain.... reasons that won't work in my campaign world."
PLAYER1: "Well, I understand that you don't like the idea, but I think you aren't really getting my proposal here. If you can give me some more details about why you don't allow constructs, I'm sure we can work something out."
GM: "I'm already a bit nervous about telling you 'no' and letting you know there are story reasons behind it. That's information your characters would not have already. Let's just go with a 'no-construct PC' approach and I can run a game later where you play a construct."
PLAYER1: "Well, I've already put two full days into this concept, and I really want to play it. I think you are being too narrow-minded here and should work with me to help make this work."
GM: "Hmm... well, I can't say I appreciate being called "narrow-minded" but I'll try to overlook that and just say that there are always some limitations to every game. You can't play a god, or a rock, so I don't see what the problem is with choosing a concept that is not a construct. This is my world, after all. I've spent a lot of time on it."
PLAYER1: "Well, how about if my character is like a construct but isn't really one. I mean he would mechanically be a construct but for game purpose we'll just say he's an odd sort of undead. The important thing is that the character is soulless."
GM: "I've got my hands full getting
Not enough "effort to get into the other's head"?
Why can't we have less mind-melds and more accordance with the setting? Whatever that setting may be.