Me and my partner want to be a four legged participant. For roleplaying reasons.
And suddenly a vibrant imagination is rendered a curse. =P
Yeah, I think that went without saying, really. I fail to understand exactly what this statement has to do with anything.
It means the way I argue with strangers over pure-text interwebz on broad and sweeping issues is not the same as the way I talk with my friends face-to-face on individual discrete and well-defined game issues.
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.
Everything in this world is subject to reason. That includes fun. That includes anger. That includes offense. That includes love. None are a hundred percent solvable through inductive measures, but they're all still subject to analysis.
You don't enjoy something? What don't you enjoy about it? Is this actually a problem with the thing you claim not to enjoy, or are you just biased because of a single bad experience? There are a thousand points you can dissect and analyze logically, and that process of analysis is one of the most important life skills that any human must develop.
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".
When you have to compare your hobby to work to justify something, then things have gone extremely awry.
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."
It's not at all disrespectful. If a player's asking questions, it means they actually care. There are supposed to be questions in character-creation. It's a part of the character-creation process as a whole. It's a necessary step in everyone getting on the same page, and it tends to be an extremely brief process. Notice all the example exchanges that were given. Those are perfectly normal exchanges when asking about a ruling. They typically take two minutes or less, and odds are they're only happening on a couple rules. What if everyone starts asking questions? Then that's fifteen minutes. That ain't much of a waste.
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.
Everyone is there to have fun, which is precisely why proper communication is so vital. Everyone needs to understand what everyone else wants out of the game. Everyone needs to be on the same page. A DM who is refusing to explain her reasons behind a ruling is refusing to even try to get on the same page so that everyone can work together so that everyone can have fun.
And if the DM isn't very good at explaining herself? This would be practice.
Forget about the GM for a minute. How would you like to be another player who has precious little time to play (maybe five hours a month or every two weeks) who sits down to the table only to have you spend half an hour to an hour (or more) arguing with the GM over his house rules? You're holding the entire table hostage and demanding a ransom of the GM caving in to you. That's you being rude, crap, being a prick, it's everything you have called the GM.
Tell me, why in the world are you still assuming these conversations can only possibly happen during game time? If there's not a lot of game time available, and the group doesn't do character-creation sessions, then it only makes sense that the discussions and character-creation processes would happen outside of game time.
And hashing out rules like this rarely takes more than two minutes if both sides are open and honest and listen to each other. Which is why it's so important to learn to be truly open and honest and actually listen to each other. And if it goes on past those two minutes, I mediate for the next two and bring it to a close. Problem solved. Cases that are actually substantial enough to go on for half an hour are exceedingly rare, and often touch on fundamental issues within the group that desperately need to be addressed if the group is to exist.
This isn't about holding the group hostage until the DM caves. It's about actually discussing the issues. Most of these exchanges boil down to, "Why X?" "Because Y." "Understood." Or, "Why X?" "Because Y?" "Counter-proposal/minor object Z?" "Acceptable," or things similarly streamlined.
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. However:
1) It seems unlikely that this occurence (hereafter known as EventX) was an isolated incident that began with VV. Instead, it is much more likely that this was a pattern behavior of the DM.
2) From what I can gather from this and other posts, after EventX, VV organized a coup de'tat among her gaming group and removed the current DM.
3) Since there still seems to BE a gaming group, and VV does not seem to be the sole DM, it seems someone else has moved into that role.
Okay, filling in the story.
The DM had a laundry list of bad habits, the worst of which was shooting down one player's fun in the name of everyone else's fun without asking 'everyone else' or even listening to them, to the point where his crusade for the fun of everyone he wasn't talking at ended up destroying everyone at the table's fun, and all the while, he was totally convinced that everyone at the table but me was having fun (because I tend to put such things in no uncertain terms).
Calling what I did a coup de'tat is inaccurate. All I did was remind the other players that the only reason this guy was still the DM was because they chose to keep giving him that authority. That it is a gift, not an obligation. And then I stepped forward as an alternative. They decided to give me DM authority instead.
This was some time in high school. The group has since fluctuated a lot, and has disbanded completely due to college. However, since then, the group tended to have at least two other possible DMs on hand. I've been rather adamant in encouraging folks to at least try DMing, even if it's just running simple one-shot modules.
Oh, there was one other time with a different group which amounted to the DM saying something to the effect of, "I'd like to see you do better." And so I did.
Implication 1: If the DM crosses VV, she has the charasmatic leadership necessary to remove you from the game. Nevermind that you're all supposed to be friends. Nevermind any circumstances. Nevermind she didn't do it on behalf of the others wronged by the DM before EventX. When it affected her, she overthrew the old order.
I never removed anyone from the game. Ever. I simply reminded the players that they didn't have to give that guy the DM's seat. He was still a part of the group, he just wasn't DM anymore. He wasn't a bad guy, he was just a horrible DM at the time.
He actually thanked me for what I did later, and became a much better DM after he learned to actually listen to and work with other people.
Implication 3: The gaming group is not a democracy, but rather a dictatorship, run from the shadows by VV through a reign of terror and with the very real threat of social expultion as a force to back her agenda.
Believe me, if I were one for driving people from the group, I would have ousted the cleric of JEEZUS! a long time before he ended up dropping out.
And it's not truly a democracy either, just as America is not truly a democracy. It's just that everyone at the table is treated like they actually matter.
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.
The game belongs to everyone equally. The amount of work one puts into a game does not make it any more theirs than anyone else's. Putting in more work does not give you any right to lord over everyone else like a king. Especially when your not even trying to share
I've been in games where I've poured in huge amounts of work into my character, while the DM was working out of a series of modules. That didn't make the game any more mine. I've run campaigns where I was doing mostly improv (a specialty of mine), pulling pretty much every bit of crunch I needed out of the Big Binder (I can't believe I lost that damn thing) and every single one of my players actually put more work into their characters and in building organizations and NPCs and developing side-arcs than I put into the game. I've been in lots of games where the DM just asks me to stat out, say, a mercenary troupe. If a DM refuses to even try to take advantage of the resource that is her players and insists on shouldering everything herself, that's the DM's problem. To then turn around and say that makes the game more hers than anyone else is lunacy.
And I'm still a "her."
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.
I DM as often as not, and the load really ain't that big when you're working with your players to actually lighten the load. Really, all I need is mechanical references, a setting, some movers and shakers, and a stack of good ideas to take to present and let flow to their natural conclusion.
The mechanics are pretty much fully-transferable (once you stat out one 1HD Warrior town guard, not much need to ever make one again), hence the Big Binder and its gobs of stat blocks, much of which was content from the players, things I'd created as a player, and things I created for other DMs. Then, most the heavy lifting of setting-creation is generally done in a world-burning session done in conjunction with the character-creation session, which tends to produce the movers and shakers just as a matter of course, so all I really have to do there is add deep, dark secrets to taste to really shake things up, and I'm set.
DMing doesn't need to be this big, huge, overwhelming burden that the DM must shoulder alone. Organization and collaboration can cut that down by several orders of magnitude. DM smarter, not harder. I've had plenty of sessions where the setting was made as a group, all the critter stats I needed were already in the Big Binder, the big, driving elements for the plot arc came straight from a couple character backgrounds, and all I really had to do was show up, toss in a couple NPCs with stats from the Big Binder and let things unfold.
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
Dammit, how many times do I have to say it? I have absolutely no objection to DMs saying no to things. Zero. Zip. None. It's not about whether or not you say yes or no. It's about why you say yes or no, about having valid reasons that are communicated upon request and subject to discussion.
Dammit, how many times do I have to say it? I have absolutely no objection to DMs saying no to things. Zero. Zip. None. It's not about whether or not you say yes or no. It's about why you say yes or no, about having valid reasons that are communicated upon request and subject to discussion.
Valid with you seems to be a 72 page report and a May I please not allow this. Unless of coarse your the one saying no it seems.
Valid with you seems to be a 72 page report and a May I please not allow this. Unless of coarse your the one saying no it seems.
No it isn't. A standard exchange is, like, two minutes, one way or another. Maybe. I've given examples of such exchanges. They are all quite brief.
If you say so. I have seen you give repeated examples of twisting the GM's words or asking the same thing over and over again a slightly different way.
If you and your group see eye to eye then cool. I am glad y'all found others who have the same play style.
|
We all have exchanges with our GMs over things we don't like. I agree, its far better to have a valid reason if you're going to deny something as a GM. That said, if its clear before hand that your GM doesn't like something (say... like I might say I don't think monks fit the flavor of the campaign I'm running) it should be made known well in advance.
I think part of the problem is that people are confusing *broken* and *flavor* as being part of the same argument for validity. If something is too powerful or not powerful enough for a designed campaign then it should be the GM's prerogative to say no. Same for the fluffy parts of a campaign, and some game systems actually encourage this. Take for instance SW RPG, where you can only play a Jedi character during the rebellion era *IF* your GM says so.
So, either way seems perfectly valid to me. <shrug>
The key here is to just remember that its a game, just try to have fun and not spoil anyone elses in the process. Hopefully you'll be able to communicate that in your own groups.
EDIT: As for belligerent players or GMs, its whole sale better to avoid them. If you're going to show up to a table and just be a jerk then you'll likely not get invited back. You take most of your problems with you when you get to a table, so it behooves that player/GM to remove themselves or keep themselves under control.
Hey! I edited mine to be nicer. Nice being a relative term I am sure someone in this thread will twist and mis quote at some point :)
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?
*shrug* Same reason I'm always the first to fall in a Call of Cuthulu game. It's mostly a lack of sanity points left telling me to just stay away.
Besides, maybe it will give LazarX pause to think about why there is seemingly no end to the conflict here, and VV a chance to express that the hard line being expounded does not lead to "DMing by coercion".
Personally, I think BOTH are wrong and need to reset their priorities. And VV beats me to pointing out the uncomfortable implications of LazarX's arguments.
Yup, definitly a lack of sanity...
1st rule in Call of Cthulu... BURN THE FISKING BOOK!!!! You obviously aren't paying attention.
To be honest we don't have alot other then you play your way I'll play mine. I got no issues with how she runs her games. I do not think I would not want to deal with her as a player from what I know but got no issues with her really. Not everyone plays the same way after all. Shes the one that keeps telling folks they are GMing wrong, which I admit annoys the frack out of me.
That and I have a really low will save and just can't leave things be at times...sigh
Attempting to respond to a post the points out your contradictory standards with condescention is indicitive of an argumentative debate style, likely based on fear of exposure of your own inadequacies.
OR you could just admit the statement was off the cuff and be done with it. Whatever.
It was very much off the cuff, which doesn't make it any less true. I'm sorry you disagree, I wish I had time to explain further.
And if my tone seems condescending I'm afraid you'll just have to ignore my posts or get used to it. This is about as nice as I get.
EDIT
As an olive branch, I'll admit that my debate style is very argumentative. I prefer to call it "passionate".
EDITAs an olive branch, I'll admit that my debate style is very argumentative. I prefer to call it "passionate".
"Olive branches are over rated. Nothing says I come in peaces like gateing in a demonic hoard and crushing the townfolk under your iron and fuzzy fist."
VV, I think the problem people have with you is that people have different views of entitlement. You seem to come from a stance of player entitlement, others think the GM is more entitled. Personally, I think no one is entitled to anything in the game. It may just be slightly different ideas of what entitlement means.
For instance, LilithsThrall says that the only right people have is to choose to play or not. This does not mean that discussions are a bad thing. This does not mean that sometimes the GM should or should not change their mind based of player discussion. Just that the GM is running the game by the rules they set forward and it is up to the player to decide if they want to play by those rules. Nothing entitles the player with the ability to change those rules. The only choice the player really has, therefore, is whether to play the game by the final version of the rules (which may go through multiple itterations) or not. Once those rules decisions have been made, insisting on rules changes is disrespectful of the GM and their decisions. These decisions should be based off of what will produce the most fun for the group, but people often have very different ideas of what will be fun in a game. If you can't play by them, or think you can run a better game, or just aren't having a good time in the game, the only recourse you have is to not play in that game and possibly start your own.
You seem to think this is a problem with the GM, but personally IME this is more often an individual problem player. Usually, the GM will easily be able to replace the player when compared to the player replacing the group. There are exceptions to this, though this is my experience.
Your arguements come accross as implying that the player has a right to change the GM's ruling once it has been made, and the GM is doing something wrong if he will not change his mind. I think this is the big contention with your position. It may not be your actual position, but its how its being interpretted by me and (I think) others.
Usually, the GM will easily be able to replace the player when compared to the player replacing the group.Just pointing out before VV derails on this point, she is absolutly correct that the ability of a GM to replace players does not have any bearing on the manner in which said GM TREATS players. We would like to see a correlation, but it still would not imply causation. Therefore, the fact that gaming groups can get new players is entirely irrelevant to whether the DM is acting appropriately.
EXAMPLE: If the DM was a Misogynist in an all-male group, with plenty of other males ready to join, and the sole female player got fed up and left, the fact that a new male player replaced said female player is irrelevant to the discussion of if the DM was treating her appropriately.
It really would be best to leave that argument out altogether, as it really adds nothing.
Or its a problem with the player, and other females would be perfectly willing to join. My point is that often 1 player will percieve a problem where none of the other players think there is one. Players (inclusive of GM) are a diverse group of people. People don't always get along. Its irrelevant of whose fault this is, the only recourse people are ENTITLED to is to leave.
The issue with VV's stance is she has a very Draconian ideal of what abuse is." No sorry, all members of that class come from the same school of training in this setting" To her is player abuse. From this thread saying No to a mechanic on the base of you don't like it is player abuse. Say No psionics...when you mean you hate the fluff and your a liar
To me player abuse is cursing at em, calling em names, treating there pc's as your playthings, killing character on a whim and the like. Saying No is not player abuse. Hell saying no to a well balanced item because you just hate it is also fine
"You said no to my gnome psionic who is really just a wizard but uses the psion rules but no one can tell in your Darksun game! Stop abusing me!"
The issue with VV's stance is she has a very Draconian ideal of what abuse is." No sorry, all members of that class come from the same school of training in this setting" To her is player abuse. From this thread saying No to a mechanic on the base of you don't like it is player abuse. Say No psionics...when you mean you hate the fluff and your a liar
To me player abuse is cursing at em, calling em names, treating there pc's as your playthings, killing character on a whim and the like. Saying No is not player abuse. Hell saying no to a well balanced item because you just hate it is also fine
"You said no to my gnome psionic who is really just a wizard but uses the psion rules but no one can tell in your Darksun game! Stop abusing me!"
Seeker, I have a special potion which gives a +10 WILL bonus for saves against cyclical threads...want one?
Nah I am just amusing myself now. That last bit was snarky but that does seem to be her stance.
I just can not see how saying NO is player abuse. When it's that players turn to GM they can allow what ever they like.
Nah I am just amusing myself now. That last bit was snarky but that does seem to be her stance.
I just can not see how saying NO is player abuse. When it's that players turn to GM they can allow what ever they like.
Agreed.
I don't care how good a backstory someone has they are not going to play a Half Dragon Celestial Weresquid in my campaign.Personally in my experiance the people who argue/whine/gripe about a DM saying "NO" to thier wonderful concept are trying to gain an advantage one way or another (read MUNCHKIN) which immediatly puts me on guard.
If I say sorry you can't play an evil PC because I know full well later in the campaign it would either making play difficult or end up with the PC being squashed by "THE FORCES OF GOOD" I'm not going to explain myself either and give away campaign story lines.
Time for me to drink that potion....
Or its a problem with the player, and other females would be perfectly willing to join. My point is that often 1 player will percieve a problem where none of the other players think there is one. Players (inclusive of GM) are a diverse group of people. People don't always get along. Its irrelevant of whose fault this is, the only recourse people are ENTITLED to is to leave.Correct about the recourse. That is the only entitled recourse.
However, people are entitles to various right owed their status as human beings (if you are a natural-rights believer). This is NOT an argument about my list, BTW. I meerly point out that VV is correct when she says all people are entitled to certain rights. That their only recourse for violation of those rights is to leave has no bearing of the initial entitlement of those rights.
So the arguing continues. But look closely at what is being said (not what is actually being argued). VV is correct that people are entitles to rights. You are correct that their only entitled recourse for violation of those rights is to leave. No contradiction there.
The argument therefore is on whether an explaniation of a ruling or the ability to play a certain character concept is an entitled right. There should be no argument that there are all sorts of rights people are entitled to. What IS an argument is if these specific rights are entitled.
I just see this same argument being hashed out again and again, and it really is just obfuscating the actual disagreement.
I disagree with you about players rights. Neither the players or the GM have the right to not be treated like crap. It may be civil and logical, but there is no right.
|
Okay VV is saying that EVERYONE is entitled...LT is saying NOBODY is...can we please get off the they are saying player or DM is more entitled track please? Neither one of them is saying that.
Secondly, I know this hobby tends to attract social misfits, but has it gotten to the point that we are willing ignore social protocols? I´m sorry but the stance of nothing matters, it´s all opinions or nobody has any rights other then to walk away is the talk of social misfits. People who are sociable TALK and resolve conflicts and live and work together. At the very core, those ideas of you have no rights is true, but as social critters, to accept those is to live alone or with slaves.
Okay VV is saying that EVERYONE is entitled...LT is saying NOBODY is...can we please get off the they are saying player or DM is more entitled track please? Neither one of them is saying that.
Secondly, I know this hobby tends to attract social misfits, but has it gotten to the point that we are willing ignore social protocols? I´m sorry but the stance of nothing matters, it´s all opinions or nobody has any rights other then to walk away is the talk of social misfits. People who are sociable TALK and resolve conflicts and live and work together. At the very core, those ideas of you have no rights is true, but as social critters, to accept those is to live alone or with slaves.
No, its not talk of social misfits. Its disscussion of rights. The rights that you have are a different thing from how you should be treated. You have no rights governing how you should be treated by other people. That does not mean that others should not be treating you with respect, just that you have no right to it. Others behaving in a civilized mannor is not a right.
Can we agree that halflings need a streak? I mean really have you seen how little they weigh? Poor guys need to eat more
Can we agree that halflings need a streak? I mean really have you seen how little they weigh? Poor guys need to eat moreEither you mean "steak" or you have a fetish for thin midgits. I choose to believe the former.
It was indeed the former...Although I once had a player who's half orc barbarian had a Gnome fetish. Which was a bit wrong
It was indeed the former...Although I once had a player who's half orc barbarian had a Gnome fetish. Which was a bit wrongCan we agree that halflings need a streak? I mean really have you seen how little they weigh? Poor guys need to eat moreEither you mean "steak" or you have a fetish for thin midgits. I choose to believe the former.I played with a guy that played a druid (2nd Ed.) and shape-shifted into whatever he could to mate with whatever was available.
His next series of characters were all half-somethings, all fathered by his first character. Disturbing and hilarious.
Although this is sooooo off topic its more fun.
I had a player who became a danger after his wizard discovered polymorph. The party's mules were never safe.The group dumped him when he discovered Animate Dead. He crossed a line with that one.
If you say so. I have seen you give repeated examples of twisting the GM's words or asking the same thing over and over again a slightly different way.
It's not twisting words. Not in the least. If someone says, "No because X," it's not twisting words to try and resolve X. It's trying to work with someone to try and get a solution that everyone can enjoy. It's trying to understand both the DM's needs as well as communicate your own and attempt to meet all of them as best as possible.
EDIT: As for belligerent players or GMs, its whole sale better to avoid them. If you're going to show up to a table and just be a jerk then you'll likely not get invited back. You take most of your problems with you when you get to a table, so it behooves that player/GM to remove themselves or keep themselves under control.
Rubbish. It's infinitely better to actually resolve your differences and work together. I've played with a lot of what would be described as belligerent players/DMs. And y'know what? I still had a good time because, by working with them, rather than ousting them, they got better.
Folks around here seem to take people for granted.
I asked you before to tell us where you think the line is between a player trying to get a discussion on an issue and a player being an argumentative time suck. You dodged answering that question then.
I didn't answer the question because there isn't an answer. It's only a problem when it's a problem. It all depends on so many little details that there is no hard line in the sand.
Now, it seems you are saying that as long as the player wants only 2 minutes (120 seconds) of the DM's time and then, if they haven't convinced the DM, they will accept the DM's ruling gracefully, then they only want a discusison - anything more than that and they are an argumentative time suck.
It doesn't work that way. This is not a one-sided presentation, this is a conversation. It's only two minutes if both sides are open and honest. If the DM stonewalls and then just says, "Two minutes are up, you lose," without actually discussing the matter or considering it, then it's the DM who's the time sink in the ensuing argument for refusing to actually discuss an issue that could have been resolved in two minutes.
Ultimately, the most important factor is not that the player is asking for a moment of the DM's time, but her honest consideration. If the DM denies that, the time is wasted and it's the DM's fault for wasting it.
VV, I think the problem people have with you is that people have different views of entitlement. You seem to come from a stance of player entitlement, others think the GM is more entitled. Personally, I think no one is entitled to anything in the game. It may just be slightly different ideas of what entitlement means.
It's not player entitlement! Everyone at the table is important, player and DM alike. Everyone at the table needs to work together, player and DM alike. Flat, unequivocally shutting your peers down is supposed to be a Big Deal. When one person at the table decides that there vision is all that matters and should utterly eclipse everyone else's vision, there is a problem.
This is not player entitlement. It's interpersonal decency, a responsibility that everyone has to everyone in the group. And interpersonal decency does not mean "Submit to DM almighty or leave." It means everyone working together to make a game that's fun for everyone.
You seem to think this is a problem with the GM, but personally IME this is more often an individual problem player. Usually, the GM will easily be able to replace the player when compared to the player replacing the group. There are exceptions to this, though this is my experience.
And?
If a DM boots a player and replaces them, that's a failure. That DM has absolutely and completely failed to contribute to the positive gaming experiences of that player. That some people would rather fail than even try to succeed is not my concern. That some DMs have gotten arrogant and are taking people for granted because their region has a glut of players does not make it right to treat people as cogs to be replaced.
I'm infinitely more interested in the results that aren't built on abject and systematic failure. And abject failure should never be a first resort.
Your arguements come accross as implying that the player has a right to change the GM's ruling once it has been made, and the GM is doing something wrong if he will not change his mind. I think this is the big contention with your position. It may not be your actual position, but its how its being interpretted by me and (I think) others.
Why do people keep saying this? How many times do I have to correct people on this same thing? Oi.
Everyone at the table needs to be willing to work together. This includes the DM working with the players, as well as the players working with the DM, and the players working with each other. "Working with the players" does not mean declaring, "This is how things will go, no discussion." It means being a reasonable human being, open to rational discussion, willing to change your mind. Being willing to change your mind is not even in the same league as the players being willing to overturn the DM.
Likewise, "working with the DM" does not mean automatically submitting unquestioningly to everything the DM says and ignoring your own needs and desires to offer everything up at the altar of almighty DM.
Or its a problem with the player, and other females would be perfectly willing to join. My point is that often 1 player will percieve a problem where none of the other players think there is one. Players (inclusive of GM) are a diverse group of people. People don't always get along. Its irrelevant of whose fault this is, the only recourse people are ENTITLED to is to leave.
Yes, people are different. You can still work with them. I'm openly bi and a militant agnostic who's gamed for years and enjoyed playing with the most stuck up, dogmatic Catholic you ever saw who literally played Clerics of Jesus Christ on a regular basis. The key is "work with." Not, "kneel to," or, "lord over," or, "Shut up or leave!" or anything like that.
To be clear, I said that the only thing people are entitled to is to choose to not play. I said nothing about the having the right to play or not.
People are entitled to choose to not play. This does not mean that they are entitled to choose to play.
If that's not yet clear let me repeat something I said earlier. What the GM says goes and if he says enough stupid stuff, everybody goes. The GM is not entitled to have players who will play by his rules, he's only able to choose under which rules -he- will choose to play.
So instead of actually talking to the DM about what everyone's looking for in a game or letting him know that nobody's happy with the rules he's laid out, everyone just gives up and runs away without even trying to fix the issue? How is it that I'm the one being called immature, here?
From this thread saying No to a mechanic on the base of you don't like it is player abuse. Say No psionics...when you mean you hate the fluff and your a liar
Your reading comprehension is really lacking.
Saying no to psionics and claiming it's because you hate the fluff is lying when the real reason is something else entirely. If you say you hate the fluff, and you actually hate the fluff, that's perfectly fine, but in that case, you should be happy to work with the player to resolve the fluff in order to utilize the mechanics.
If the real reason is that you don't like the mechanic, say that you don't like the mechanic. That's fine. However, if your friends really like and enjoy that mechanic, you still owe them the consideration of really analyzing what it is you don't like about the mechanics, of exploring whether or not there's some wiggle room in there where you could tolerate it and still have fun; shooting people down arbitrary, baseless, unanalyzed whims is a Bad Thing.
I just can not see how saying NO is player abuse.
I don't know why you keep beating that very same dead horse of a strawman, because I never said nor implied anything even remotely close to those lines.
I disagree. Walking away is a very powerful statement. It's one of the most powerful social statements a person can make (right up there with undieing love and eternal hate).
And committing seppuku is also a powerful statement. That doesn't necessarily make it a clear statement, nor an appropriate statement, nor a useful statement. You don't begin a conversation by committing seppuku.
I am reminded of the wizard polymorphing his familiar into a nymph at bedtime...
I had a halfling sorceress whose air mephit familiar was also her wife.
And that, children, is how mephlings are born.
I'm amazed at how you keep dodging answering this question.
I'm not dodging. There isn't a hard, fast answer to give. "There is no answer," is the only answer I can give.
Although this is sooooo off topic its more fun.
I had a player who became a danger after his wizard discovered polymorph. The party's mules were never safe.
The group dumped him when he discovered Animate Dead. He crossed a line with that one.
This threads on topic??
Yeah I say that crossed the line a bit, but I also had a player not character but player who spent time deciding how "Bangable' each monster I used was.
Something was wrong with that boy
I am really missing something here. Who was the doner, or did they have a custom spell? Polymorph? Alter Self?I had a halfling sorceress whose air mephit familiar was also her wife.
And that, children, is how mephlings are born.
Old Amazon trick?