It would fit better mechanically if the sorcerer used the spell point variant.
The mechanics are usually what people object to about the psionics system, to be honest, and that includes the point-based system. Now I'm a psionics fan, and I consider them balanced with magic but like all new mechanics, if the DM doesn't know them well they may be prone to abuse, be it deliberate or accidental. If the DM wants to forego that trap and just say 'no psionics' then he's entitled to. He certainly shouldn't be accused of lying just because he doesn't articulate his objections well.
|
I have a very very simple policy whe someone asks for me to add something new into a game I run, I ask why before anythig gelse. for example:
PLAYER: Hey you didnñt mention anything about psionics in your game, but i want to play one.
DM: Why so?
PLAYER: I hate vancian casting, I think the point system is great
DM: fair enought, however I don´t quite like it so sorry. Maybe later in the campaign.
or
PLAYER: I wanna play a psion
DM: Why?
PLAYER: I really like the fluff of a mind mage, it´s great.
DM: Awesome, I just got this sorcerer psionic bloodline that does exactly that.
PLAYER: No, but I want to play a psion, you know? Point system and all that.
DM: Well you´re a liar and a bad person (sorry i couldnñt help it)
Point being, it´s the DM´s jobto always try to understand what their players want and WHY they want it. That way he can use whatever tools he has (and wnats to use) in order to help the player. That way also scenarios where the player finds ways around a DM´s restrictions can be avoided in a very polite and respectfull manner.
You may not be talking about being argumentative, but you are demonstrating it brilliantly.
In case you haven't noticed, you're not my gaming group. However, if any DM were to tell me, "Your only options are to shut up and submit unquestioningly or leave," particularly before the conversation even truly began, I'd have every right to get worked up over it. That's a completely inappropriate way to treat me at a party, it's a completely inappropriate way to treat me at school, it's a completely inappropriate way to treat me as a person going about my daily life, and it's a completely inappropriate way to treat me at the gaming table. Slap me in the face and I ain't gonna take it lightly.
The last DM to take that attitude with me soon found that he wasn't DM much longer.
You're wanting to play at my table and I don't want psionics in the game for whatever reason as a player deal with it or go. Otherwise as a DM I would have lost control of the game and opens the flood gates to all sorts of sh!te. As a DM if another DM said to me "no" I wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram and kick off. I would accept it and move on.
So you're saying that if you have a reason for banning something, and that reason is completely and utterly resolved, debunked, or refuted absolutely and unquestionably, to the point that you no longer have any reason remaining to ban that thing, that you would continue to enforce the ban on principle alone? That's irrational.
Listening to reason is not the same as losing control of the game. The only floodgates that acknowledging the possibility that you are wrong could open are the floodgates on the realization of just how silly, arbitrary, senseless, and draconian many rulings are. However, that's not a loss of control. That's just getting stronger.
If a player said I'm DMing wrong because I don't allow psionics in my game or ninjas or barbarians or clerics and whinged on about it they would be asked to leave.
At no point has anyone EVER claimed anything remotely to the effect of, "If you don't allow X into your game, you are a bad DM," so stop beating that same stawman. It's not at all about what you allow or disallow, but why you allow or disallow something, and how you treat the players along the way, and actually being open to reason. To disallow something for an invalid and irrational reason is wrong, regardless of what it is. Refusing to discuss that irrational reason, refusing to examine it, refusing to allow it to be questioned at all is wrong. It's the why that's so important here, and the processes of logic, reason, and communication.
The mechanics are usually what people object to about the psionics system, to be honest, and that includes the point-based system. Now I'm a psionics fan, and I consider them balanced with magic but like all new mechanics, if the DM doesn't know them well they may be prone to abuse, be it deliberate or accidental. If the DM wants to forego that trap and just say 'no psionics' then he's entitled to. He certainly shouldn't be accused of lying just because he doesn't articulate his objections well.
It's still not the "no psionics" that makes the DM a liar. It's the lying that makes the DM a liar. It's saying, "No because fluff," when you mean, "No because mechanics." Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It's not the player's fault when they act in good faith when you say something you didn't mean, you're the one at fault for not saying what you mean. No point in blaming the player for it.
VV, at what point do you feel a player crosses the line from trying to discuss something to being an argumentative time suck?
At the point where they cross the line from trying to discuss something to being an argumentative time suck.
However, in your model, it's the DM who is being the time suck by pouring in all this time and energy to shutting down all conversation when the entire discussion can begin and end in half the time. Do not assume that the player is automatically at fault when a DM is wasting everyone's time by fighting to refuse the discussion in the first place.
Also, if the DM is being completely and utterly irrational, and being undeniably, factually wrong, the player isn't the one who's wasting time banging her head against the wall trying to point out that the DM is insane. When a DM's trying to claim that RAW, fire and cold damage negate each other because Heat Metal and Chill Metal counter each other, the DM is the one wasting the time.
The fundamental point is to realize that both player and DM are humans, peers, and equals, who are both capable of being wrong. The more one assumes the DM cannot be wrong, the more likely the DM is to actually be wrong.
If someone actually cared, they COULD point out that requiring the DM to explain every ruling or decision, or even just requiring it when asked, placed an unfair burden on the DM, since there are more players than DM's at a gaming table and each of them has the opportunity to ask A question, while the DM is required to answer ALL questions.
Obviously, someone here is sholdering an unfair burden...
Only the rulings where an explanation is requested need be explained, not every single one. In all likelihood, most of 'em will go completely unquestioned.
However, it's an utterly petty burden, since the DM should already know why she made her various rulings. After all, in making the ruling in the first place, she should have already made a logical analysis of both sides of the issue before coming to either conclusion. If the DM actually thought about the ruling before making it, then the answer is already there and need not be created. Meanwhile, if the DM didn't think about a ruling before making it, why in the world did she make it in the first place?
No, the fundamental point is that right and wrong doesn't matter and is, in fact, meaningless. What is meaningful is the answer each player/DM gives to the questions "how do I want to play the game?" and "is this game playing by rules I can enjoy?" There is no objectively right/wrong answer to those questions.
It's absolutely about right and wrong. Questions like, "Am I being a complete and utter ass to these people?" are important in any social gathering, including running a game. And managing one's expectations, realizing what is and is not reasonable or completely unreasonable to ask of someone, are vital skills for just being a human at all. It's important to come to realizations like, "These people are my peers and equals, therefore it would be unreasonable of me to expect slavish subservience," before going into any sort of social gathering, gaming included. If you go into a social situation expecting slavish subservience from your peers, you're wrong. If you think you can't have fun unless your peers grant you that slavish subservience, you need to either manage your expectations better or get some help, because that's getting into the realm of major psychological issues.
It's so cute when people pretend that objective truth exists.
Even without absolute truth, even if everything in the world is nothing but opinion, it doesn't matter. Not all opinions are created equal, and no position is any better than the logic that goes into it. Invoking the 'mere opinion' fallacy is meaningless, and utterly fails to address anything. It does nothing but obfuscate and prevent communication. It is among the most useless and poisonous of all possible assertions.
|
Even without absolute truth, even if everything in the world is nothing but opinion, it doesn't matter. Not all opinions are created equal, and no position is any better than the logic that goes into it. Invoking the 'mere opinion' fallacy is meaningless, and utterly fails to address anything. It does nothing but obfuscate and prevent communication. It is among the most useless and poisonous of all possible assertions.
But, of course, that's just your opinion.
What you're failing to acknowledge when you state: "It's absolutely about right and wrong. Questions like, "Am I being a complete and utter ass to these people?" are important in any social gathering, including running a game." Is that one man's 'being a complete and utter ass' is another man's 'utterly charming'.
For instance, I find your aggressive tone on this thread quite rude, I think it obfuscates and inhibits communication.
You probably think you are simply forthright, or determined, or not aggressive at all.
Subjective, see.
Spacelard wrote:
You're wanting to play at my table and I don't want psionics in the game for whatever reason as a player deal with it or go. Otherwise as a DM I would have lost control of the game and opens the flood gates to all sorts of sh!te. As a DM if another DM said to me "no" I wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram and kick off. I would accept it and move on.
VV wrote:
So you're saying that if you have a reason for banning something, and that reason is completely and utterly resolved, debunked, or refuted absolutely and unquestionably, to the point that you no longer have any reason remaining to ban that thing, that you would continue to enforce the ban on principle alone? That's irrational.
Yea! Go you for only quoting part of my post.
And yea I would cos I'm irrational.
As a player would you still bang on about players rights after I've said no.
That's irrational.
In case you haven't noticed, you're not my gaming group.
Yeah, I think that went without saying, really. I fail to understand exactly what this statement has to do with anything.
However, if any DM were to tell me, "Your only options are to shut up and submit unquestioningly or leave," particularly before the conversation even truly began, I'd have every right to get worked up over it.
For someone who complains about having words put in his mouth, you are really good at it. I think it says a lot about you in the phrases you use - "submit unquestioningly" being a good one. You clearly are presuming this dictatorial and confrontational attitude on their part and are taking one on yours. Whereas my interpretation is along the lines of: "These are the conditions on which I am prepared to put myself out and run a game for you." There's a whole world of difference in attitude between the two, even if the functional result is "if you want to play, this is how it will be."
OK, so let's presume I say "I'm prepared to run a game, as no one else is right now, so it's going to be set in Eberron, Pathfinder rules, I'll consider pathfinderised classes from other sources but no evil characters" and you'd get worked up if you wanted to play an evil character? because my rationale is "because I don't like running games with evil PCs. I don't have fun that way, sorry."
Thing is, gaming is about having fun. Fun is irrational and emotional, not logical; ergo my reasons, or anyone elses, for allowing me to have fun while DMing a game don't have to be logical.
That's a completely inappropriate way to treat me at a party, it's a completely inappropriate way to treat me at school, it's a completely inappropriate way to treat me as a person going about my daily life, and it's a completely inappropriate way to treat me at the gaming table. Slap me in the face and I ain't gonna take it lightly.
Ever tried working for a living? Happens all the time that you get told to do something without the benefit of being told why, and where asking will sometimes result in the answer "I don't have time to explain, it needs doing now, just do it" or the even better "it's company policy".
Back on subject, what you don't seem to appreciate, though, is that you are completely disrespecting the other person - in this case the DM - by demanding explanations. If every player does this, then gaming time is going to be impacted, and the DM is going to get tired of DMing. Sometimes for the sakes of brevity he has to say "Sorry, no, I don't have time to discuss it right now, we are in the middle of the game."
The DM is a player, he has the right to enjoy the game too. Not all DMs are good at defining and articulating their reasoning, but this in and of itself does not mean they don't have them, or that they are being dictatorial. After all, it's a game, not a debate.
|
I would like to call out the rather sinister implications of this statement. As I know none of the details, this becomes complete conjecture. Feel free to ignore.
<snip>
I hope this is not the case, and I'm almost certain it is not. Almost. But some of the things said give glimpses into darker territory best not explored. Call me paranoid, but the sinister implications of these seemingly...
Regardless of if you are right or not, what is the point of bringing this line of thought up in the thread? VV is going to deny that attack on her character no matter what the truth is. You say it yourself that it is best not explored, so why would you place it into the discussion?
V places no value whatsoever in the absolute amount of sheer work it takes for a GM to do his/her part of the gaming experience, she's said so as plain as it can be seen.
I would clarify that for me, and I believe for her as well from reading her posts, we place no extra value on the extra work the DM can do when he/she refuses to allow the other players a chance to help lighten that load.
If the DM asks the players if they want to help worldbuild, and the players offer no help and just want to be entertained like children before a TV, then the GM can rightly claim to have more say in the game.
But if the DM refuses to let players who are willing to help write material aid him in his workload, he should not be glorified. The DM is no more special because he writes the rules, than a politician is special because he writes the laws.
When Violetta stated that a GM's contribution to a game is no more important than any one of his players, that was the clear sign that this thread was going to run into the brick wall of her sense of self-entitlement. V's essential position boils down to this; If you the GM aren't going to allow this thing I want in your game, you are obligated to justify your decision to ME the player. Any stand other than this is an "endorsement" of dictatorship, presumption and other forms of suppression.
V places no value whatsoever in the absolute amount of sheer work it takes for a GM to do his/her part of the gaming experience, she's said so as plain as it can be seen. With the added assumption that any disagreement from her wants must be from the seething malevolence of an recalictrant GM... it's clear that there is nothing gained in further enabling her diatribe.
I know. It's pretty clear she has never DMed, or does so as a very odd communal effort. However, there is a lot to be gained in drawing her to see that her that her attitude is, in effect, the one she rails against: Arbitray, dictatorial and treating other players like crap. I especially liked her railing about the necessity of social skills, none of which her post have indicated she possesses.
This thread has not even broke 800 posts yet. We have lots of flames and b&%&*ing left to cover.
Nah I was meaning the last 2 times this came up...or was it four? anyhow the last 2 threads to become VV crusade vs GMing treating folks like crap( or what most of us call saying no) lasted 800 pages or better
|
|
No, it must reach OVER 9000!!!!1!!!!!!@!!!!!@2!!!!eleventyone!!!This thread has not even broke 800 posts yet. We have lots of flames and b!!!~ing left to cover.Please say it does not have to reach 9000...Disbelieve.
KA...ME...HA...ME...HA!!!
You really only have yourself to blame for opening the door. :P
And if you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. By becoming an annoying voice whining constantly in your ear. XD
I would clarify that for me, and I believe for her as well from reading her posts, we place no extra value on the extra work the DM can do when he/she refuses to allow the other players a chance to help lighten that load.If the DM asks the players if they want to help worldbuild, and the players offer no help and just want to be entertained like children before a TV, then the GM can rightly claim to have more say in the game.
But if the DM refuses to let players who are willing to help write material aid him in his workload, he should not be glorified. The DM is no more special because he writes the rules, than a politician is special because he writes the laws.
Getting the players to help take some of the load, unfortunately both lightens and increases the load because, while the players are adding content, the DM then has to coordinate efforts and edit them to work together. I can easily imagine situations in which that coordination and editing becomes a bigger burden than creating the content on his own in the first place.
I can certainly endorse the players lightening the DM's load with respect to coming up with ideas for adventure hooks that would work with the PCs, ideas for quests, ideas for local NPCs they'd like to interact with, but even in those cases, the DM has to have the final approval and final editing rights to work in with the rest of the campaign which is his responsibility to administer and master to the point that he can administer it competently.
|
|
You mean you aren't already? Then who have I been talking to all this time!!?
Ralph Nader?
And to Bill, I understand what you mean, but I still believe that the DM is no more important than the Player. There are DMs that can run a campaign with no preparation at all, just making up stuff on the fly. This is no more worthy of praise than the DM that has to spend hours before the game making ready. It is an investiture certainly, but does not give him rights over me. Only I give him rights over me.
|
I would clarify that for me, and I believe for her as well from reading her posts, we place no extra value on the extra work the DM can do when he/she refuses to allow the other players a chance to help lighten that load.
I have a lot more experience with character design and building than many of our other players/GMs who game with us. I have created a large number of generic stat blocks meant to alleviate the burden of other GMs for our group... but I also take custom orders as well.
Still, many of those who want to GM prefer to take the burden on themselves for the most part. They like to do the work, and parsing it out to the players is less fun for them. I personally don't use many of the things that other players bring to me... since I will often have my own prepared already.
Tangential, but sort of on topic, many of my players have the stats for monsters in the MM (in 3.5 anyway) memorized as they have often GM'd themselves and those stat blocks are reflexive now. This creates a fairly large problem as they can count... so they know how to shoot for DCs, AC, and HP depending on the given encounter (even if they try not to). Therefore, I rarely use monsters as they stand in the books (except the AP ones they've never seen before)... unless I want it to be a by-the-book encounter. So that's roughly 40-60 though. Not quite half the time I am using my own stats, but enough.
That said, I'm giving Bill Dunn a +1.
And to Bill, I understand what you mean, but I still believe that the DM is no more important than the Player. There are DMs that can run a campaign with no preparation at all, just making up stuff on the fly. This is no more worthy of praise than the DM that has to spend hours before the game making ready. It is an investiture certainly, but does not give him rights over me. Only I give him rights over me.
I would be very reluctant to call it a question of importance and more a question of priority. The DM is the conduit of all actions the PCs take and the rest of the game world and he has to be able to say, with some finality, what happens, what can be perceived, and what fits in. In situations in which there is a dispute that cannot be reconciled, I have to give the DM the nod since he's the one who has to work out the repercussions. The DM needs the freedom to, at times, not give in to all player wishes in the best interests of the game at large.
I DM a lot, in fact, I generally prefer it. In my case, not knowing what's coming on the horizon or what the secrets of the campaign are is hard. I have more fun coming up with them and revealing them to the players than in uncovering them and having them revealed to me. I think it's partly because I like braining out how the campaign looks, I like a certain amount of world-building. I usually give my players reason why I do or do not allow certain things when they ask, including sometimes answering "It's not a tool available to the PCs in this setting, though there may be hints of it about." I take suggestions for events in the campaign and adventure hooks. One player asked for me to involve her PC's father, so we worked in a wedding for him (he's an elf widower who is attracted to human women - the PC is a half-elf child of the previous marriage), statted up the rest of the family, built in family disputes. Good fun. The same player asked about getting ahold of some artifact-level equipment as part of the character concept. I refused that request because I didn't want the game to involve artifact-level issues. That's just not where the campaign direction was heading (frankly, it was heading in more mundane direction in general, which was the intention).
I haven't seen any personal attacks from VV. Only attacks against policies and points of view.
To me it looks like a bunch of other people HAVE been deliberately misrepresenting her position and saying some fairly personal negative things.
Example: I'm not saying I hate spacelard when I say that british slang is some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard. (I miss my buddy from Canterbury, we had great arguments over who had the "better" version of English)
I know. It's pretty clear she has never DMed, or does so as a very odd communal effort. However, there is a lot to be gained in drawing her to see that her that her attitude is, in effect, the one she rails against: Arbitray, dictatorial and treating other players like crap. I especially liked her railing about the necessity of social skills, none of which her post have indicated she possesses.
That was my favorite. Not only do you suggest that you know something about her experience that you don't, you misrepresent what she said (although I can't be certain you're willfully ignorant, might just be a lack of understanding) and then suggest that she has no social skills for the crime of continuing to defend her position against the same two or three ridiculous arguments over and over.
Wow.
I usually give my players reason why I do or do not allow certain things when they ask, including sometimes answering "It's not a tool available to the PCs in this setting, though there may be hints of it about." I take suggestions for events in the campaign and adventure hooks.
I believe your kind of thoughtful, reasoned response is what is known here as "caving in to a player throwing a tantrum".
Although I do not know why.
I know. It's pretty clear she has never DMed, or does so as a very odd communal effort. However, there is a lot to be gained in drawing her to see that her that her attitude is, in effect, the one she rails against: Arbitray, dictatorial and treating other players like crap. I especially liked her railing about the necessity of social skills, none of which her post have indicated she possesses.That was my favorite. Not only do you suggest that you know something about her experience that you don't, you misrepresent what she said (although I can't be certain you're willfully ignorant, might just be a lack of understanding) and then suggest that she has no social skills for the crime of continuing to defend her position against the same two or three ridiculous arguments over and over.
Wow.
I take your point but this:
However, if any DM were to tell me, "Your only options are to shut up and submit unquestioningly or leave,"
Was as great a misrepresentation of a point of view as any I made. VV has been asked repeatedly to define her idea of unreasonable player behaviour as well as DM behaviour, and has been noticably vague on the point. I never accused her of lacking social skills, I merely pointed out that her posts did not give any indication thus far that she had those that she decries the DM who denies her for lacking, as her basic argument seems to come down to: "Any denial of what I want is treating me like crap" without apparently realising that demanding this could construe treating somebody else like crap, to use her terms.
If I came across as making a personal attack, I appologise to VV and to any others that feel offended; this was not my intention. However, I am attempting to understand VV's point of view from her posts, and, well, either I'm missing something or she's basically demanding the right to have her way (or argue relentlessly with the DM for her way) above all others. That doesn't work for me - DM's invest time and energy into the game that is greater than other players do. Yes, the burden can be shared, but the DM still has as much work to do even in the best circumstances as the rest of the players put together. To my mind, this entitles them to some largess about what they do and don't want to make the game work for everyone, themselves included.
When I GM, I do so on the fly. In fact, I consider it one of my defining characteristics to have no idea where the plot is going when I start and make a group-flow-of-consciousness control the plot.
BUT, I find doing so incredibly more difficult than running just one character. Making a plot coherent and interesting as you are slowly pulling it out of your nether regions over a course of an evening is by no stretch of the imagination easy.
It has been my experience that, between the times I've been a player and the times I've been a GM, being a GM requires -far- more effort.I'm quite interested in hearing from anyone who has both GMed and ran a PC, found it much easier to GM, and whose players were eagerly urging you for another GM session (when they had other GMs who could do it instead). (I'm not interested in hearing from anyone who has done only one of those three.) Not to say that I don't believe such people exist - there are weirder things in the world - but to say that I'd find them interesting (much like a person who bowls a perfect game).
Depends on what you mean by easier. On the aggregate I don't think being a GM can ever be necessarily easier because as a player I have the option of sitting back and letting someone else in the group take the active role, playing the mute character so to speak, one that only acts during combat. You can drop out of the game mentally as a player, and you can never do that as a GM, so it's inherently unbalanced.
Having that said I find being an engaged GM a lot easier than being an engaged player. As a player I have the difficult task of making a rounded believable character and getting into the mindset of someone else. As a GM I can run rather two dimensional NPCs with little problem because NPCs don't get enough camera time for people to notice the lack of depth. Even then I've never made a character as a player that was anywhere near fleshed out as any of my important NPCs. Having to create someone wholecloth is daunting task, but NPCs spring up out of necessity of actors for certain events. It's easier to work backwards and create motivations for actions you know someone will take than to create a person and then figure out what actions they'll take in the situation presented to you.
I don't expect this widely shared. I am autistic after all, and getting into the skin of people in real life is difficult enough, much less getting into the skin of fictional people. I run games much the way you do, creating the plot out of events I came up with three minutes ago, but the magnitudes here are such that everything that goes into being a gm- the need for system mastery, remembering every little detail that I came up with on the fly, straining to tie every thing as a coherent goal... are all easier, combined, than running dialogue. And NPC dialogue is often scripted, I get no similar help as a player.
I guess it depends on how you quantify effort. Effort per time spent, definitely more goes into being a GM. Effort in how much mentally taxing it is, there's no contest. Being a player is exhausting.
Incidentally that's also why I never run DMPCs. Worse of both worlds right there.
I take your point but this:
However, if any DM were to tell me, "Your only options are to shut up and submit unquestioningly or leave,"Was as great a misrepresentation of a point of view as any I made. VV has been asked repeatedly to define her idea of unreasonable player behaviour as well as DM behaviour, and has been noticably vague on the point. I never accused her of lacking social skills, I merely pointed out that her posts did not give any indication thus far that she had those that she decries the DM who denies her for lacking, as her basic argument seems to come down to: "Any denial of what I want is treating me like crap" without apparently realising that demanding this could construe treating somebody else like crap, to use her terms.
If I came across as making a personal attack, I appologise to VV and to any others that feel offended; this was not my intention. However, I am attempting to understand VV's point of view from her posts, and, well, either I'm missing something or she's basically demanding the right to have her way (or argue relentlessly with the DM for her way) above all others. That doesn't work for me...
If you don't understand her position, I don't think I can add anything that would help. It's pretty clear to me that it isn't "I have to get my way". There's this weird cognitive dissonance going on.
She's been giving side-by-side examples of when a player and DM might be misbehaving, which I would assume answers the question of "what do you consider a bad player". I don't think that her main point has anything to do with player behavior (beyond it not being a mortal sin to ask why) though, so I don't know why you'd be concerned with her answering that question.
Although frankly I still prefer the most vitriolic posts (not referring to you) to the whining about letting the thread die.
About that misrepresentation argument you had...
What about it?
"But instead of maturely exercising your right not to play" and similar statements indicate that questioning and attempting to compromise are immature, and earlier in the thread that statement was made outright.
"I'm quite interested in hearing from anyone who has both GMed and ran a PC, found it much easier to GM, and whose players were eagerly urging you for another GM session (when they had other GMs who could do it instead). (I'm not interested in hearing from anyone who has done only one of those three.) Not to say that I don't believe such people exist - there are weirder things in the world - but to say that I'd find them interesting (much like a person who bowls a perfect game)."
Thanks! I think you're interesting too. I feel a little silly saying so right after someone said that they're autistic, but I've got what has been described to me by one medical professional as, "The worst case of adult ADD I've ever seen, I'm surprised you remember to breathe." Which, humorously, distracted me enough that I forget to breathe for maybe twenty seconds.
Another doctor told me I would never be functional without prescription meds. So I am, just to be spiteful.
The point being that I think that's where the advantage comes from, I get adventure ideas looking at a bowl of peas. When I'm a player I have to remember to shut up occasionally (rarely due to arguments, I just yammer; I'm sure you can tell) and now and then I've got to look around and ask someone what's going on in the plot. It's hard to stay with it when the party enters discussion mode. Also, I'm reasonably sure people want to play in my games because I'm incredibly handsome.
What Bill Dunn said was reasonable and considerate, but it did not wholeheartedly demand DM'd explain any and all rulings demanded.
Your response was to suggest that his position would be considered "caving in to a player tantrum".
However, I do not believe, based on previous posts, that LazarX would agree that this is indicitative of their position, since they also have indicated that they would allow some give and take, but that it is not a right of the player to demand (a position which I disagree with).
So, your attempted paraphrase of the opposition opinion did not succeed, and, in fact, was a misrepresentation.
That is all.
Which would mean something if I was speaking specifically about LazarX? Or, for that matter, about what someone says they do, versus what they actually do.
The assertion has been made, repeatedly, that VV is advocating throwing a tantrum. She is actually advocating reasonable discourse of the sort that Bill suggested. So the comparison between the two is valid. That you can't understand that doesn't mean I'm being duplicitous. That is all.
<jealousy> BRAGGART </jealousy>
Now this indictment is spot on. I brag all the time. It's in the spirit of sharing my joy though, so I don't think it should count.
|
|
I'm quite interested in hearing from anyone who has both GMed and ran a PC, found it much easier to GM, and whose players were eagerly urging you for another GM session (when they had other GMs who could do it instead). (I'm not interested in hearing from anyone who has done only one of those three.) Not to say that I don't believe such people exist - there are weirder things in the world - but to say that I'd find them interesting (much like a person who bowls a perfect game).
I don't quite fit your requirements, because the only group I DMed for more than a oneshot or two so far was kind of a captive audience, since we were all in Afghanistan. :) I will offer that I found it easier to DM because I could sit back and watch the group work out where they were going and react to them by either answering their questions or having a planned event happen when they weren't expecting it. I've also only used published material with my own minor additions.
To Studpuffin and Bill, I really have no disagreements with your responses. I acknowledge that the GM has to make judgement calls, but he only comes down as law in-game. He's the referee, but outside the session he and I have equal say.