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.
Reverse Gender, BoEF.
|
My current druid is trying to convince the bard and the Sorceress to mate with the Paladin, since that would be fulfilling the natural order of things and their babies would be beautiful. Yeah, he got kicked, zapped, and debuffed for that one. ^__^
Still using Comeliness or just going off the Charisma bit there MM?
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.
Nice to see your back to insults.
You said hate the fluff, everyone else has used "No psionics" When someone say "No psionics" that normally means nothing, nada, not a thing from that bookIf I said"No arcane magic" most players would understand that means nothing to do with any arcane class, feats,spells and so on. Yet if they choose to ignore it for psionics, Then your damned right that player is just twisting words and being an ass by acting like he did not understand
The hypothetical was
When you say "Can I use the psion to make a wizard but just use those rules" and the GM says 'No psionics" then yes it's clear. Stop trying to explain it in 12 different ways you got your answer
Nice to see your back to insults.
What else am I to infer when you keep harping on the exact same thing time and time again when I've already corrected you on it no less than a dozen times?
You said hate the fluff, everyone else has used "No psionics" When someone say "No psionics" that normally means nothing, nada, not a thing from that book
And it's also subject to discussion and change. The petty details of "what" mean very little with regards to the conversation save as a framework. It's the why that is critically important. It's not about what the answer is, but the process of working together to find the solution that best suits everyone's needs. "No psionics" is not a need, and thus holds little weight in discussion. It's all about why psionics are being left out.
The entire array of house rules and bans and such should be built from a sound logical grounding with valid premises and substructures. If those premises are shaken, invalidated, or modified, the house rules must, by necessity, change. As such, "No psionics," carries no weight if the decree is in place because of Reason X, and Reason X is resolved, there is no logical reason to maintain the stance of, "No psionics."
Caineach wrote:
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.
If people keep misinterpretting you, perhaps its not them. That is honestly how you come accross in more than one post, including the one this is contained in.
Perhaps you should be less antagonistic and not assault people of the opposite oppinion, or those who are trying to actually have rational discourse. If that is not your intent, perhaps you should take some writing courses to learn how to not write aggressively.
Caineach wrote:
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.
"Submit to DM almighty or leave." I never said anything of the sort. I said you must play by the rules the GM sets forth, or not play. Anything else is disrespectful. The rules the GM decides to run with are fair game, until the GM finalizes them.
I disagree that players leaving because they are not having fun is the fault of the GM, or a failure of the group, or even the game. Not everyone can play with everyone else and have fun, since EVERYONE has different ideas of what constitutes fun, and no game can fit everyone.
Some examples:
I love inter-party intrigue in games, and so do a number of people I have played with. Others hate it with a firey passion, as is shown by so many no evil character debates. If the GM wants to run a high interparty game, its those players responcibility to bow out of a game they know they wont have fun in. There is no problem with the game or the group, its just not a fit for some of the people.
I enjoy battletech campaigns. There are 2 basic ways to run repair, fast, loose, and fairly arbitrary, or a time consuming number crunch mostly by the book. You may perfer the former. I prefer the latter as a player, as its more restrictive to my future actions. It affects how you play the game. You may have a group where some people like managing the resources and not others, but if the resource management is going to bother you, even if its done by others, its your responcibility to not play the game. I know people like this, and have seen GMs ask them to not play their games; not because they are being jerks, but because they know the player will be a bad fit.
|
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.
Rubbish back at you. I'm not saying that you cannot have fun with belligerent players/gms, but overall they're not the ones likely to be invited back to play. This is more meant to be advice for people who are consistently problematic and know it, not those that have to play with them.
If you can get them to not be a jerk, so much the better... but they still had to find a measure of control in order for you to proceed with them. Also, i'm not calling argumentative or passionate players belligerent either, just those who are going to show up with the purpose of ruining someone elses fun (or at least their own, which typically detracts from everyone's fun).
Its a game, everyone should be there to have fun in whatever way they want... unless that means ruining someone elses day. That's just rude.
EDIT: And can we please keep away from needlessly targetting people. Its not fair to anyone else who is trying to at least keep the conversation constructive.
|
|
Still using Comeliness...
Ha, we reinstituted comeliness in our games. I've met quite a few people with high charismas but were ugly as sin on the outside, and quite a few people who looked very good but were meek or very boring... and then you'll meet the good looking and charismatic and the ugly and boring. They really seem to be on seperate mechanics.
We use a point buy for generating all stats but Comeliness, which is rolled on 4d6 and drop the lowest die... so its mostly random. Its mainly used for describing NPCs, though, and small bonuses on skill checks when trying to seduce someone.
Overall, its led to more funny momemnts than anything else.
If people keep misinterpretting you, perhaps its not them. That is honestly how you come accross in more than one post, including the one this is contained in.
When I'm spending my days specifically refuting the exact same strawman time and time again, and they keep bringing up that exact same strawman immediately after I address it specifically... Ugh.
"Submit to DM almighty or leave." I never said anything of the sort. I said you must play by the rules the GM sets forth, or not play. Anything else is disrespectful. The rules the GM decides to run with are fair game, until the GM finalizes them.
And if the DM finalizes before discussion, that amounts to submit or leave, because by the model you present, the only options become submit or leave, which leaves no room for even attempting conflict resolution.
I disagree that players leaving because they are not having fun is the fault of the GM, or a failure of the group, or even the game. Not everyone can play with everyone else and have fun, since EVERYONE has different ideas of what constitutes fun, and no game can fit everyone.
That success is not always possible does not make failure stop being failure. One should make every attempt to succeed and determine whether or not it's possible before settling for abject failure.
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 guess the DM could have said no...
Otyughs are hot.
(I just like using Otyugh in a sentence whenever I get a chance)
I disagree that players leaving because they are not having fun is the fault of the GM, or a failure of the group, or even the game. Not everyone can play with everyone else and have fun, since EVERYONE has different ideas of what constitutes fun, and no game can fit everyone.That success is not always possible does not make failure stop being failure. One should make every attempt to succeed and determine whether or not it's possible before settling for abject failure.
By your statement here, I interpret it to mean that because a style of game exists that I do not like playing it is a failure of that style of game, regardless of how many people love playing it....
I can't begin to describe to you how dumb that statement is.
Otyughs are hot.
(I just like using Otyugh in a sentence whenever I get a chance)
What ever happened to the Neo-otyugh...
By your statement here, I interpret it to mean that because a style of game exists that I do not like playing it is a failure of that style of game, regardless of how many people love playing it....
I can't begin to describe to you how dumb that statement is.
The objective in a game is to create an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy. Sometimes (and this is extremely rare), that isn't possible. However, this is still a failure to achieve the objective of creating an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy. 100% success is impossible. That doesn't mean that failures stop being failures.
One should make every attempt at creating an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy before kicking people out, uninviting people, or leaving.
And these aren't failures in any given style. They are failures to fulfill the objective of creating an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy. Big difference. If you set out to do X, and it turns out to be impossible, you just undeniably failed at doing X. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with you as a person, but you still failed.
I disagree that players leaving because they are not having fun is the fault of the GM, or a failure of the group, or even the game. Not everyone can play with everyone else and have fun, since EVERYONE has different ideas of what constitutes fun, and no game can fit everyone.That success is not always possible does not make failure stop being failure. One should make every attempt to succeed and determine whether or not it's possible before settling for abject failure.By your statement here, I interpret it to mean that because a style of game exists that I do not like playing it is a failure of that style of game, regardless of how many people love playing it....
I can't begin to describe to you how dumb that statement is.
Isn't she saying that rather than settle on people leaving it is better to find a middle ground that everyone likes to play?
Edit: Nevermind VV ninja'd response
Uh, what-evaa *snap*
Uh, what-evaa *snap*
A valley girl's lasy replythe contest is won
Like, nobody says "what-evaa" anymore... totally!Uh, what-evaa *snap*Gag me with a spoon.
Yeah, but in the fashon world it's, like, SOO last season.
[/valleygirl]
So like I go into this like salon place, yknow
And I wanted like to get my toenails doneAnd the lady like goes, oh my god, your toenails
Are like so grody
It was like really embarrassing
Shes like oh my god, like bag those toenails
Im like sure...
She goes, uh, I don't know if I can handle this, yknow...
I was like really embarrassed...
Totally...
And that associating words like "crap", "prick", "bad", etc. to the person you disagree with are appropriate in finding that middle ground.
I disagree that players leaving because they are not having fun is the fault of the GM, or a failure of the group, or even the game. Not everyone can play with everyone else and have fun, since EVERYONE has different ideas of what constitutes fun, and no game can fit everyone.That success is not always possible does not make failure stop being failure. One should make every attempt to succeed and determine whether or not it's possible before settling for abject failure.By your statement here, I interpret it to mean that because a style of game exists that I do not like playing it is a failure of that style of game, regardless of how many people love playing it....
I can't begin to describe to you how dumb that statement is.
Isn't she saying that rather than settle on people leaving it is better to find a middle ground that everyone likes to play?
Edit: Nevermind VV ninja'd response
Mmhhhmmm a number of people in the thread have used that language for either side of the argument didn't they? Did VV say she would call them crap and prick or did she use those terms as a description of what she felt she/her imaginary player/dm was being treated like or treating others like?
|
|
The problem is with the attitude which is reflected by the word choice and underlies and prevents any possible constructive discussion.
Alright, so why not ask her to use a more polite term than bash her for the word choices. We're only going to be as constructive as we build ourselves to be, so lets aim for something a little higher than word choices.
Belligerent (as a term for describing such players/gms) I think starts things off nice, but it doesn't describe all the possible ways in which a GM or a Player can spoil someone elses fun. Are there other terms we'd rather see to describe such players/gms?
Will save DC 19 or take 2d4 Int damage
Anyway, he goes are you into s and m?
I go, oh right...Could you like just picture me in like a leather teddy
Yeah right, hurt me, hurt me...
Im sure! no way!
He was like freaking me out...
He called me a beastie...
That's cuz like he was totally blitzed
He goes like bag your face!
Im sure!
By your statement here, I interpret it to mean that because a style of game exists that I do not like playing it is a failure of that style of game, regardless of how many people love playing it....
I can't begin to describe to you how dumb that statement is.
The objective in a game is to create an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy. Sometimes (and this is extremely rare), that isn't possible. However, this is still a failure to achieve the objective of creating an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy. 100% success is impossible. That doesn't mean that failures stop being failures.
One should make every attempt at creating an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy before kicking people out, uninviting people, or leaving.
And these aren't failures in any given style. They are failures to fulfill the objective of creating an experience that everyone at the table can enjoy. Big difference. If you set out to do X, and it turns out to be impossible, you just undeniably failed at doing X. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with you as a person, but you still failed.
Except there are styles of play that groups of people like that others don't. There are more players than seats in most gaming groups I've been in. Someone must sit out, unless you like playing in 16-20 person games (they can be fun, but then your alienating people who don't want to play in a game that large). Its not the fault of the GM who says I want to run a game in style X, if a player who doesn't like style X plays in his game and doesn't have a good time. Every game has a style.
You seem to like complete free-form games. I know lots of players who hate them. If you try to run a free form game, your not going to invite them because they aren't going to enjoy playing as much as others (or you might invite them dissmissively saying they shouldn't feel obligated to play). Likewise, they shouldn't join knowing what type of game it is, since they know they wont like it. That in no way invalidates the game for the 4-6 other players who want to play in that style game. And if 1 player does join and he later realizes that he doesn't like the style, why should that force the group to change?
You should always try to make the game fun for the players involved, but not every game will fit everyone. Sometimes people just have diametrically opposed views with eachother on how a game should be run.
|
|
There are two different kinds of these 'mavericks'. One is the kind who will just walk away and find another table who plays the way they do. The other is the kind who will be argumentative and suck up time trying to convince everyone to be like them.You are asking if there is a polite term for a GM who sticks to an established set of house rules?
No, i'm asking if there is a polite term to describe a GM or Player who doesn't act in accordance with expected group dynamics.
EDIT: OH, lets call them Mavericks! :)
Ya know, we could be using this time to build better characters.
;)
I guess the DM could have said no...
I said no to many, many things from that one. You think your animate dead guy was bad Shudder
As I said that boy warnt right
Whee! It keeps going...and going..
As a player, I give my DM leeway to run his game the way he wants. I may offer a suggestion here or there, but I figure they are putting in the time and effort to prepare every session and so have earned the right to run things the way they see fit.
It's how I DM, too. I put in a lot of effort to help create fun stories for the PCs to participate in. Since I am in control of the game (so it doesn't get out of hand and fall apart), I will use the rules that I feel best help me accomplish those goals. Sometimes that means saying "no" outright to an unbalanced ability or character idea. I don't mind someone making a case for something, but don't push it. You make your case...I make my decision...we move on.
It really does boil down to trusting one another. We are fortunate in that our current group has had the luxury of playing together for more than 15 years. We know each other quite well. That doesn't mean we don't have conflicts over houserules, mind you. *grin*
But the DM invariably gets their way, and that's okay. It's their turn at the helm and we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and I know they will do the same for me when it's my turn.