So your player is a liar. He is wanting to play a psion not a wizard, and is a liar by your logic. As it does not matter why he wants to play that class or what he calls it.
Incorrect. The Psion wizard is no more a psion than the Cleric with no church affiliation who derives her power from the ideal of justice is clergy. The Psion wizard is no more a psion than a masterwork broadsword is a katana, even though both are modeled as masterwork bastard swords.
The player's position is laid out openly and honestly. 1) The player wants to play a mystic of some sort, a mage-type. 2) The player despises the Vancian mechanics to the point where the game stops being fun for her should she run a character who uses them. 3) The player enjoys the psionic mechanics.
The player is open and honest about her desire to use the psionic mechanics. That does not mean she wants to play the character of a psion any more than the player who brings a masterwork broadsword wants a katana. Although the player would quite enjoy playing the character of a psion, she would also enjoy playing the character of the tower wizard classic, or any number of mystical archetypes more suited to the fluff the DM is going for, and is happy to work with the DM to resolve such fluff issues. It's just that she is incapable of enjoying the mechanics behind the Wizard class, but a kind and rational DM who's being honest in saying that the objections are based on fluff and not the mechanics themselves would be happy to work with the player to make it work.
I have -never- claimed that the players owe the DM complete and unconditional submission to anything.
I have always asserted that the players are entitled to not play. That's the opposite of saying that they owe the DM complete and unconditional submission.
The logic doesn't follow. The player still owes the DM slavish devotion in your model since, if they leave, they're not players anymore. So, if the options are slavish devotion or not being a player, the model ends up as, "All players owe their DMs slavish devotion," since only the ones that offer up slavish devotion are allowed to be players.
In resolving interpersonal conflict, the most basic model is that there are two parties. Party A, and Party B. Each party has their own wants, needs, desires, and priorities. The most equitable solution, the one that generates greatest net satisfaction, is the one that best meets both parties' wants and needs. This process, when performed properly, grows from a mutual understanding of both sides' needs, then analyzes priorities and compares possible solutions until the most equitable solution can be found.
One whose solution is to always to sacrifice everything by default has failed. They are spineless sheep incapable of pursuing their own needs, for they are too afraid to stand up. They have failed at conflict resolution, for their needs can never be met save by chance.
One whose solution is always to stonewall and demand that everyone around them make all the concessions without even bothering to understand others' needs or even their own priorities is a bully and a jerk. If they use a position of authority to force those concessions on others and shut down discussion, they are the very definition of a tyrant.
Your model fails because it shuts down the entire process of conflict resolution absolutely. When there is any sort of conflict, the player only has two options; concede everything and submit to the DM without question or surrender everything and leave the game. Abject failure and abject failure are the only options. It means the only way the players' needs can ever be met is by wandering from DM to DM praying the next game will offer what they seek in a game. And nearly as bad, it ignores the fact that many gamers do not have the luxury of being able to easily find another group, and for many of them, leaving the group could well mean leaving the hobby forever, making your approace one of a great many poisons that are throttling the hobby.
What I'm having trouble with is figuring out VV's motive - what exactly is he after?
I'm a she. And all I want is to be treated as a person. Not as a god or as a slave, but as an intelligent and creative human being who matters. And so is everyone else at the table.
My needs and desires matter. The guy on my left's needs and desires matter. The guy on my right's needs and desires matter. And we must all work together to help see that those needs and desires are met. And working together does not mean, "Concede everything or leave."
A waiting list is not a free ticket to treat people like trash when they have little other choice save leaving the hobby.
Seriously, why are we still smurfing off?
I agree. I'll also add that sucking up everybody's time arguing over house rules is treating your fellow players and the GM like trash.
Whilst actually attempting to resolve the problem rather than rolling over and playing dead is not wasting peoples' time, it's trying to work with them. But accusing someone of wasting your and everyone else's time when they're voicing their very real wants and needs and trying to work with you is very firmly in the "treating people like trash" header. And changing the date/time/location of a game and not telling someone is vastly and indefensibly in the "treating people like trash" header.
So your player is a liar. He is wanting to play a psion not a wizard, and is a liar by your logic. As it does not matter why he wants to play that class or what he calls it.Incorrect. The Psion wizard is no more a psion than the Cleric with no church affiliation who derives her power from the ideal of justice is clergy. The Psion wizard is no more a psion than a masterwork broadsword is a katana, even though both are modeled as masterwork bastard swords.
I honesty don't know why I am surprised by your GM/player double standard any longer
GM: Any thing but yes master right away master : Is him treating you like crap or him being a liar
Player : Do as I want now or I keep asking in a different way till you give in: Is just being reasonable
I can not believe I am saying this, but I am agreeing with lilithsthrall. If I had a player like you who treated the GM as like you seem to. He would not be invited back. I don't think anyone I have ever played with would miss such a player
No offense to you as a person VV, your game style is just that incompatible with my own.
I chalk it up to everyone sees eye to eye on something at some point.
When did "engage the DM in conversation" equate to "Just whine at the DM nonstop until he becomes your little slave."
See how that's not ended in a question mark? It's because the question is rhetorical, and here's the answer: you wouldn't be able to argue against it otherwise.
Once again, it amazes me people still argue with LT and Seeker when both have shown that they will steadfastly ignore any arguments that they can't purposefully twist out of what was meant.
Nobody is saying the DM needs to do this or that. Here', let me narrow it down to a simple statement that will undoubtedly be immidiately ignored:
When the DM just says "no" and offers no rhyme or reason, he is shutting down conversation, which is Bad.
When the Player just says "yes" and offers no rhyme or reason, he is shutting down conversation, which is Bad.
When the DM lies (I dislike psions because of the fluff. Wait, you're changing the fluff? Well, ANOTHER reason...), it is Bad.
When the Player, after conversation has been made, still whinges, it is Bad.
Fun things that will be ignored include "after conversation has been made" and "When the DM lies."
I have no issue with a player asking, but after you say No and then a player twisting it around with wording and asking the same thing again and again. Then yes I have an issue with that
It came down to VV stating any GM that said no psionics then would not let him play a psion but call it something else then that GM was a liar.
Yet the player is not a liar for doing the very same thing. No that player is just being reasonable. Its the same double standard as always. The GM has the right the player allows him to have. While the player can do as he wishes and GM has no right to disallow anything without a 20 page report and a please my I.
I have never given a "because I said so" before. But I have said no, many times. To me a "I don't want that in my game" is all the explanation needed most times.
This thread would make a great set of movies... first "Rise of the Thread" where an innocent DM makes a reasonable inquiry, to which he gets some answers. Suddenly, the thread mutates and morphs into a hideous monstrosity that is a pointless argument! Then the Haiku monster, Smurfs, and other valiant heroes band together to fight the thread. After a long and bloody battle the heroes are victorious and celebrate in their victory after burying the thread.
Which is where we go into the sequel "Thread Vengeance: The Return" where the thread rises from its grave to cause havok on the forums!
We'll make millions!
They may but one is kinda a@~$*@& like isn't it. I don't want this in my game is simply that. I do agree that you don't need to be a dick. I just do not agree that you need to lay out in great detail why your not allowing something.
If a GM tells you "I use house rule X, end of discussion", arguing with him about it is wasting everyone's time. If a GM tells you "I'm considering house rule X" or "I use house rule X, but I'm thinking of changing it, what do you think?" then, by all means, discuss it with him.
And if the DM is refusing the possibility of any sort of discussion on her houserules, she is being a prick.
I honesty don't know why I am surprised by your GM/player double standard any longer
GM: Any thing but yes master right away master : Is him treating you like crap or him being a liar
Player : Do as I want now or I keep asking in a different way till you give in: Is just being reasonable
I can not believe I am saying this, but I am agreeing with lilithsthrall. If I had a player like you who treated the GM as like you seem to. He would not be invited back. I don't think anyone I have ever played with would miss such a player
Bloody Hell...
How many times must you put those same words in my mouth? That ain't what I'm saying. I've listed, time and time again, many many perfectly valid reasons to disallow this, that, and the other.
Here we go.
Good Thing:
DM: "No psionics."
Player: "Unfortunate. I have a desire to utilize psionics. What needs and desires have led you to this decision?"
DM: "My desire is to not have the psionic fluff in this campaign."
Player: "Oh, frabjous day. My desire is to use the mechanics, rather than the fluff. We are not in conflict. I propose a solution that meets both our needs. The mechanics I desire sans the fluff you dislike."
DM: "This does indeed resolve my objections and meet my needs. I shall work with you on this, that we may both be satisfied."
Note that the two sides come together for a solution that benefits everyone. This is not thee DM being the player's slave, but actually considering her reasons and listening, working with the players. The DM is wise enough to realize that the solution really does meet her every need and desire, and that, "No psionics," was not, in fact, the truest representation of her needs.
Bad Thing (DM-side):
DM: "No katanas."
Player: "My Fighter has exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus in the bastard sword and has a masterwork broadsword."
DM: "No katanas. A katana is a masterwork bastard sword."
Player: "But I don't have a katana, I have a masterwork broadsword. It just happens to be represented as a masterwork bastard sword, too."
DM: "No katanas."
Player: "It isn't a katana!"
DM: "No katanas."
In this case, the DM isn't listening, and is being irrational. The DM has no objection, no grounds on which to object, yet stubbornly refusing to budge in the face of reason.
Good... well... acceptable thing:
DM: "No psionics."
Player: "Why?"
DM: "I am not comfortable enough with the mechanics to run a game with them."
Player: "I could teach you. Psionics is pretty simple."
DM: "I have a lot on my plate and just don't have the time right now."
Player: "Alright."
In this case, the DM actually has a legitimate reason to say no. The reason is sound, and the player accepts it.
Bad Thing:
DM: "No psionics."
Player: "Why?"
DM: "I hate psionics with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. I know and despise the system on a fundamental level, the fluff doesn't remotely fit, and [let's say this conversation's going back to the old 3e days] they're broken as all get-out."
Player: "Okay, I'd like to play a Psion."
DM: "I told you, hate psionics."
Player: "Well okay, I'll get rid of the psionic fluff, and make a sorcerer character with the Wilder class."
DM: "That doesn't solve anything. I hate the fluff and the mechanics."
Player: "Well, what if I play a Psychic Warrior instead?"
This time, it's a bad thing on the player's part, as the player isn't listening this time. The player isn't trying to work together; he's just pushing and pushing without listening.
The key is in actually communicating, rather than shutting down communication, in listening to each other, in speaking with others, not talking at them. In cooperation, in flexibility, in trying to understand each other rather than either side just stubbornly stonewalling.
I am endorsing the fundamental keystones of communication and problem solving, not b~$@$ing and whining until you get your way.
This thread would make a great set of movies... first "Rise of the Thread" where an innocent DM makes a reasonable inquiry, to which he gets some answers. Suddenly, the thread mutates and morphs into a hideous monstrosity that is a pointless argument! Then the Haiku monster, Smurfs, and other valiant heroes band together to fight the thread. After a long and bloody battle the heroes are victorious and celebrate in their victory after burying the thread.
Which is where we go into the sequel "Thread Vengeance: The Return" where the thread rises from its grave to cause havok on the forums!
We'll make millions!
"Valiant heroes"??
er..what?Yes, this argument is retarded. What's more retarded are people who don't like this thread jumping in to criticize it.
There are a long list of other threads you can focus your energy on.
This thread would make a great set of movies... first "Rise of the Thread" where an innocent DM makes a reasonable inquiry, to which he gets some answers. Suddenly, the thread mutates and morphs into a hideous monstrosity that is a pointless argument! Then the Haiku monster, Smurfs, and other valiant heroes band together to fight the thread. After a long and bloody battle the heroes are victorious and celebrate in their victory after burying the thread.
Which is where we go into the sequel "Thread Vengeance: The Return" where the thread rises from its grave to cause havok on the forums!
We'll make millions!
"Valiant heroes"??
er..what?Yes, this argument is retarded. What's more retarded are people who don't like this thread jumping in to criticize it.
There are a long list of other threads you can focus your energy on.
i presume you want your name left out of the movie then? Do you realize this will keep you from getting royalties?
i presume you want your name left out of the movie then? Do you realize this will keep you from getting royalties?This thread would make a great set of movies... first "Rise of the Thread" where an innocent DM makes a reasonable inquiry, to which he gets some answers. Suddenly, the thread mutates and morphs into a hideous monstrosity that is a pointless argument! Then the Haiku monster, Smurfs, and other valiant heroes band together to fight the thread. After a long and bloody battle the heroes are victorious and celebrate in their victory after burying the thread.
Which is where we go into the sequel "Thread Vengeance: The Return" where the thread rises from its grave to cause havok on the forums!
We'll make millions!
"Valiant heroes"??
er..what?Yes, this argument is retarded. What's more retarded are people who don't like this thread jumping in to criticize it.
There are a long list of other threads you can focus your energy on.
Let's be real here, with all my luck, my part would probably end up being played by Keanu Reeves. I'd rather skip the royalties.
Let's be real here, with all my luck, my part would probably end up being played by Keanu Reeves. I'd rather skip the royalties.
You make a good point here
You're free to call the DM a prick as you walk away from the table.
What it is called is irrelevant compared to what it is. Utter failures at problem-solving, treating players like children, being a bully and a tyrant, refusing to speak with them as adults. No matter how much you go on about folks being able to leave, it doesn't make it right to wield authority like a sledgehammer, to treat people like crap, to refuse to even try to speak with them as equals, to demand that others either bow before your every whim or leave. A DM should always aspire to be a decent DM, and a human being should always aspire to be a decent human being. Making such excuses as, "You can always leave," doesn't mean the DM is right, nor that the player is wrong for objecting. It doesn't mean the DM isn't being a tyrant and a prick who's treating everyone around him like trash, and it doesn't mean the player does not have a right to stand up and object.
Well, the way I look at it is like this:
- I prefer to play, not GM. Playing is easier, and more fun for me.
- I am willing to GM if no-one else will, or to give other GMs a break, if I have to.
- If I have to GM, I am going to do so in a way that means I can still have fun. After all, if I'm doing something I don't desperately want to do for the other players' benefit, I deserve to do it in a way I enjoy.
- Therefore, I will make the rules for the game that will ensure I still enjoy DMing the game. I'll try to make as few as possible and work around them where I can, but there may be a few that as far as I am concerned will be non-negotiable.
- None of the other players are being forced to play in my game, and I always make my rules available with as much advance notice as possible, up front and clear. This does not exclude the possibility of having to answer a question from left-field on the spot, though. I don't expect to have to justify any decisions I make about what to include/exclude beyond "I'm not happy with it, I don't want to include it".
- I ask nothing of the players that I would not expect to give to anyone prepared to DM for me.
As far as I am concerned, it's a question of mutual trust and respect.
And if the DM is refusing the possibility of any sort of discussion on her houserules, she is being a prick.
You're free to call the DM a prick as you walk away from the table.
Sooner or later, you're going to realize (hopefully) that what you're doing (arguing and becoming a time suck) isn't getting you what you want.
I could punch the DM in the face, and know what?
Yeah he's totally free to call me a prick as he walks away from the table.
All my actions are justified!
Since this "discussion" seems to have gotten focused on the example of psionics, I'll reply in kind.
How is the DM a lair when they say "no psionics"?
Let's say I myself had a player request to play a psionicist in my game. My first line of reply would be, "Sorry, I don't want psionics in this campaign." That statement does not specify if I have a problem with the fluff, the mechanics, that particular class, the whole book, or what. In fact, what actually went thru my head in that split-second was that they are all tied together and I don't want to deal with any of it.
There's no "lie of omission" there. In fact, it is out-of-context to simply take one line of an entire conversation and call someone a liar for not launching into an exhaustive discourse on an issue simply because someone asks a brief question. When I make that reply, I'm fully expecting a short conversation to follow. As such that statement expresses my starting disposition on the matter to facilitate better understanding for the follow up question, "Oh, how come?"
At this point comes elaboration: fluff, mechanics, setting, and the many hours of work involved in retooling: the character sheet and monster databases, wiki templates, and even the paradigm-shift needed in the setting (mechanical and otherwise). All of those things would be needed to facilitate an additional power system in my game. And I conclude, "...Of course, if someone else wants to start up another campaign at some point, maybe on alternating weekends, then who knows what might happen then. Any takers?"
At that point, I've said my peace and have clearly expressed that the matter is final in the game that I'm running. The player can pursue it with another player, but if they continue with trying to ask me about ways to use content from the psionics books in my game, I'd be inclined to think they are being obstinate or outright disrespectful.
At any rate, you don't just summarize someone's reasons or take their pre-amble as their entire line of reasoning and call them a liar. That could be considered anti-social as well as dishonest. A discussion, much like diplomacy or writing, is an iterative process.
How is the DM a lair when they say "no psionics"?
"No psionics" isn't the lie.
In the example, the player asks why the DM says, "No psionics." The answer is, "Because psionics don't fit into the world," or more generally, "The fluff doesn't fit." And so, the player requests to use the mechanics, alongside fluff that is more palatable.
If the DM was being honest, the DM should be eager to help hash that out. If, however, the real reason the DM said, "No psionics," was because she isn't comfortable with psionics, is unfamiliar with the material, or any number of other reasons, then she lied when she said it was for fluff reasons and she should have said so sooner. The lie of omission is in stating that the objections are fluff and nothing more, and the player cannot be held accountable for the lies of the DM.
That's the part of the conversation you're missing; this all stemmed from the player asking, "Why?"
And you're free to ramble on whining about all of that as you walk away from the table.
And I'm also free to ramble about the rats, and the broken stairs, and the rampant health and safety code violations as I move into a new apartment. The fact that I'm moving into a new apartment doesn't change the fact that those are all Bad Things.
Let's be real here. You already said that, if the DM did all these things you're whining about, you wouldn't necessarily walk away from the table - you'd just treat it as a "mark" against the DM (whatever that means). So, we're not even talking about something you're really upset about.
*Sigh.*
All things come in degrees and magnitudes. There are degrees of disrespect that are petty and not worth getting worked up about. They are still wrong. Just because there are some levels of poison that won't kill me doesn't mean it isn't a bad idea to pour a gallon of poison down my throat.
On the other hand, I know of many DMs who would replace you with someone else (or just with an empty chair) if you were argumentative and a time suck (being argumentative and a time suck is not being a decent human being).
I'm not talking about being argumentative; I'm talking about actually discussing matters like intelligent human beings. And if there is so little time for gaming that there's no time to even talk about the game, then there is no time to game.
And these conversations don't even need to be very long. When you actually consider situations rationally and discuss them intelligently, they can actually progress quite briskly, with ample back-and-forth in a short amount of time, leading to a prompt decision. In fact, it's an even greater time sink to force such dialogue to a stand-still than to actually hold the discussion in the first place.
You're demonstrating a tenuous grasp on reality if you're seriously equating physical assault to being told "no, your imaginary character can't do that".
The point is not to equate the two, but to apply the exact logic you're using in this argument in order to try and show you just how utterly absurd it is. Your entire argument boils down to, "You can leave, so nothing can possibly be wrong." Which demonstrates a tenuous grasp on reality.
Could you all just smurf off now? Please? Some people believe in player entitlement and others don't. Stop spreading this argument to every thread on the board.
The damage is contained to this sector
For now
This thread would make a great set of movies... first "Rise of the Thread" where an innocent DM makes a reasonable inquiry, to which he gets some answers. Suddenly, the thread mutates and morphs into a hideous monstrosity that is a pointless argument! Then the Haiku monster, Smurfs, and other valiant heroes band together to fight the thread. After a long and bloody battle the heroes are victorious and celebrate in their victory after burying the thread.
Which is where we go into the sequel "Thread Vengeance: The Return" where the thread rises from its grave to cause havok on the forums!
We'll make millions!
What... What have I done? I've created a monster! I'm so sorry! Wait what are you doing? wait... WAIT!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!! Don't send me back to the warcraft rogue forums! Anything but that! I promise to never let this happen again! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm ready for my close up.
On the other hand, I know of many DMs who would replace you with someone else (or just with an empty chair) if you were argumentative and a time suck (being argumentative and a time suck is not being a decent human being).
Every example given in this thread has been, like, five lines exchanged between player and DM MAX.
I have no idea how that makes someone an argumentative time suck.
Ya know we all have really, really poor will saves...sigh we really do :)
Well you did pick a man so drunk he does not recall just how he became a god as an avatar :) It seems fitting
How is the DM a lair when they say "no psionics"?"No psionics" isn't the lie.
That's the part of the conversation you're missing; this all stemmed from the player asking, "Why?"
Oh, I got that this was rooted in the "why", otherwise I wouldn't have written about there being a conversation (since the conversation is brought about by the "why"). I was trying to make the point that when a DM states, "I don't want psionics in this campaign," (which is often simply phrased as, "There are no psionics in this world,") then taking that to mean they are opposed to the fluff and not the mechanics or the totality is something that is being inferred by the other party.
That is the reason why other "hypothetical DMs" who have responded to your scenario of the player asking if they can change the fluff and use the mechanics see the player as being a pain. The player's attempts to try for a compromise on the issue are based off an assumption and a meaning that they read into the DM's original "no psionics" reply.
Also, even if the DM's ultimate reason why he won't allow psionics is because of the workload, that doesn't mean giving the reason that it is for fluff or mechanics is a lie. Indeed the very reason why there may be no psionics (whether in fluff or mechanics) was quite possibly a design decision based upon that very workload. Their statement would not be a lie unless they actually couldn't care less about fluff or mechanics but just made that up so you'd go away. Of course, since we're talking about a made-believe world that's kind of a moot point...
Can we go back to haikus now?
Well you did pick a man so drunk he does not recall just how he became a god as an avatar :) It seems fittingZING! XD
I have to say that whole story was one of the hooks that got me into Golarion. That an Geb , super powerful dude in charge going all whiny emo over not having his batman/Joker anymore and offed himself. Only to come back as a ghost because..He..Just..didn't...Know
Fraking classic
Ya know we all have really, really poor will saves...sigh we really do :)
Well I'm enjoying the back and forth so I don't know what anyone is complaining about.
The issue is it's the same song and the same dancers every time. We really do need better will saves
It was expected
We should have not left containment to such flawed creatures
I'm not talking about being argumentative; I'm talking about actually discussing matters like intelligent human beings. And if there is so little time for gaming that there's no time to even talk about the game, then there is no time to game.
You may not be talking about being argumentative, but you are demonstrating it brilliantly. If this is how you 'discuss' things with your DM, then it's being argumentative. Faced with someone like that, most people are less inclined to give detailed explanations, not more, because argumentative people then get them embroiled in an argument over what they can and cannot have in an attempt to get their own way regardless of anyone else's views and feelings on the matter. It's fundamentally disrespectful to the DM and the other players to behave like that.
Of course I am not saying that you do behave like that, but you can't blame people for inferring that this is the way you do things based upon the way you post, which is riddled with inferences of lying, being a prick, being a tyrant, etc if the player isn't allowed to have their way or at least get a long and detailed explanation full of game-spoilers if they can't. Your attitude comes across as confrontational and suspicious of the DM from the word go, and that's not a good attitude to have.
How I knew this would degenerate into "Bad DM won't let psionics into the game"
Well play a sorcerer and put psion on your character sheet!
He doesn't cast Charm Person but Mind Control.
He doesn't cast Mage Armor but Force Screen.
Ta-dah! Psion.
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.
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.
Or I could sit there telling them how their playing the game all wrong, stupid players and see how they feel.