You can scroll back and read through the thread.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?
Hmm I -could- that is true...
Perhaps I did and that is why I was confused...
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! :)
Studdpuffin, a joke?
Maybe like a governor?A sly wink and nod.
|
Lemurion,
I would agree with you completely, except that I don't believe the GM and the player have equal consideration when it comes to the game's style and content. The majority of that responsibility, stated in most RPG rules books, lies with the GM. As the GM typically also invests more into the game (preparation, materials, personalities, setting, etc.) it is my opinion that the player should concede to the GM in most situations of conflict. This isn't done because the GM's enjoyment is more important, it is done for the total enjoyment of the gaming table.
IMHO, a good GM will try to make clear what is allowed and expected in a particular game/campaign/their table. Time, caffeine, and other factors will not allow a full understanding, so some leeway is expected at both ends for courtesy's sake.
Let's play nice and have fun.
I think it's funny how this conversation has gone.
VV has been making statements about DMs and DM styles. Not talking to your players at all, shooting down everything they say, lying to them, etc, are jerk behaviors.
LT and Seeker, on the other hand - especially LT - have been making statements about VV. She's childish, she doesn't understand how things work, she's never DMed, etc.
That's why this conversation is so irritating. It's not just that Seeker and LT keep purposefully twisting VV's statements, it's that they openly insult her as they do so.
Which again brings me to the question I've asked like three times here - why do people still argue or debate with LT and Seeker when all they do is twist words and insult others?
Case in point: the only one that's made comments about blanket "no psions" being has been LT and Seeker. Not VV. VV's point was "If you don't want psionics in your game, just tell me why and be honest about it. If you hate the mechanics, say that. If you hate the fluff, say that. Don't beat around the bush or lie." It was Seeker and LT that jumped down her throat claiming "Well I can say no to psionics if I dislike the mechanics if I want, I'm the DM." And you know what? VV AGREES WITH YOU. Just be HONEST about it and talk to the player about it.
That's why this thread is so long. Every time VV tries making a statement, the wonder twins twist it into some new bizarro strawman argument.
The only argument in my mind is whether or not I have to provide a player (when I am DM) with an agreeable reason for saying "no" to one of their requests. I, personally, don't always have a hard and fast reason for saying "no." It may be just a gut reaction. The player may not agree with the reasoning, but hopefully they accept it and get over it.
A DM should listen to their players, and players should respect the decisions of their DM (regardless of reasons imho).
You could try with keys and a car door. Not that I advise trying that
Movie from the 80's? Kid hacking into places he should not? That one?
Gods that has been a very long time. Mid 90's maybe.
I <3 that movie. This thread is just like that.
"Strange game... the only winning move is not to play."
don't mind me i'm just adding to the number of posts...
And that associating words like "crap", "prick", "bad", etc. to the person you disagree with are appropriate in finding that middle ground.
Which has nothing to do with the fundamental logic of my case. Objecting to the wording has nothing to do with the point.
The problem is with the attitude which is reflected by the word choice and underlies and prevents any possible constructive discussion.
"Action X is bad," is a perfectly valid position, and a valid premise. "Action X violates fundamental human decency," is a perfectly valid position, and a valid premise. That simpler wording is used instead of constantly reusing the same needlessly long phrases does not affect the validity of the argument nor does it muddy communication unless you choose to get worked up over the phrases to the point where you ignore the message.
I point, again, to the fact that she knows for a 'fact' where the GM is being a prick, but is unable to provide any kind of guideline whatsoever as to when the player is being a prick. The metanarrative underlying that is one of intentionally unrestrained entitlement.
Specific types of acts are inherently wrong. Shutting down discussion to keep from resolving issues is bad. However, I can't give you exact, universal parameters on what constitutes shutting down discussion to keep from resolving issues.
Likewise, wasting everyone's time is bad, but I can't give you exact universal parameters of, "At X minutes, the player is now wasting everyone's time and is therefore in the wrong," because there's more to it than that.
I've given examples where the player's in the wrong. However, that's what it takes; examples.
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?
One of my fundamental positions is that even the most stuck up of God DMs has no right to treat players like crap. That players have the right to be treated like intelligent adults, rather than lowly servants. A number of acts fall quite firmly under the "treating players like crap" header.
You are asking if there is a polite term for a GM who sticks to an established set of house rules?
...while refusing any and all outside input and a complete and utter unwillingness to discuss them or consider them logically? Because that last part's the problem. If a DM's strolling around with houserules carved in stone tablets, with absolutely no willingness to even discuss and reflect upon them, that's completely shutting down all discussion pretty hardcore.
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).
The various reasons why sometimes success is impossible still don't make failure from being failure.
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.
Whether or not the DM is at fault also has no bearing on whether or not there was failure with regards to the objective of creating a game that's fun for everyone at the table. You can fail and not be at fault. It's still failure.
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.
"Expected group dynamics" are rather secondary as well, as it's entirely possible for a group to expect players to treated with absolute disrespect and oppression. That doesn't mean the DM has any right to treat the players that way. Only that the players are used to it.
I've (very briefly) been in groups that adhere to the F.A.T.A.L. mentality that female characters are there to be... well... let's just say very greatly mistreated. Keeping a long story involving IC rape and chainmail bikinis out of it, this was a band of chauvinist pigs, and the fact that this was their expected group dynamic doesn't change this.
There's also a hard line between what one enjoys and what one has gotten used to. There are groups where the players have been beaten and worn down by their DMs to the point where they're used to it and tolerate it, but the fact that they've been broken doesn't suddenly mean the DM was right all along, nor that he's right currently. Most often, when I see a 'bad player' story, it's actually a rather good player who just has spine enough to not snap in two.
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.
And that's the fundamental, recurring problem with your model. There's no room for the process of problem solving. It's 'sacrifice your needs' or 'sacrifice your needs.' Failure or failure, in the face of every conflict. It's about never even attempting to work together. There is only utter submission or just running away.
We are talking about balancing wants here; the player wants psionics, the GM doesn't want psionics, and the question is which desire should outweigh the other. The player is saying "Psionics will make the game more fun for me;" while the GM is saying "Psionics will make the game less fun for me."
The exclusion of a thing can also decrease enjoyment, putting everyone on the same boat. What's important is everyone communicating, to understand precisely what it is everyone wants in a situation in order to best suit everyone's needs. "Psionics will make the game less fun for me," communicates nothing. What is it about psionics you don't like? It's entirely possible that there isn't a conflict at all, and that no one's enjoyment will be reduced at all if the right terms are discovered.
That's why this thread is so long. Every time VV tries making a statement, the wonder twins twist it into some new bizarro strawman argument.
Or the same old bizarro strawman argument ad infinitum.
The 'problem' is the fact that the GM and player want to play by different, mutually-exclusive rules.
Walking away and finding a different table is the most equitable way to solve that.
It's completely impossible to know that until both sides knows and understands what the other wants and needs, and have examined their own wants and needs critically. You don't just declare, "We disagree, therefore it is impossible for us to ever agree, therefore one of us has got to go." You're skipping over the entire step where you actually try to fix something.
Trying to come together and work out your differences peacefully and in a manner that makes everyone happy is not argument, and can only contribute to the game.
Why would that be any different from any other case of attempting to come together in search of mutual understanding to find a mutually satisfactory solution to a disagreement?
Caineach wrote:
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.Whether or not the DM is at fault also has no bearing on whether or not there was failure with regards to the objective of creating a game that's fun for everyone at the table. You can fail and not be at fault. It's still failure.
No, you assume the stated objective is for everyone at the table to have fun. I do not assume that. It is a good goal, but it is not the only one. In my example, the GM's objective is to run a certain style of game, one that he will enjoy. He could be wildly successful in that regard. It doesn't mean that player has fun. To provide fun to a player who inately doesn't like the game is not his objective. And I have seen many players set themselves up to not have fun, more than I have seen bad GMs who try to limit the fun of the players.
If I'm holding a chess tournament between different rooms a colledge dorm, my objective is to hold a chess tournament. Not make sure everyone has fun. If 1 room does not like chess, and prefers shogi, its not my responcibility to make sure they have fun and run a shogi tournament instead. They are welcome to not play. By your deffinition, if I run the chess game, and that group does not participate or does not have fun, I failed. I disagree, as I successfully ran a tournament, my deffinition of success. Not only that, but I pleased most of those I ran the tournament for, of whom that 1 room is but a small subset.
That should be obvious.
Let me simplify, if people don't want to spend time talking, then talking isn't going to bring resolution.
... That's insane. That is complete and utter madness. To be opposed to the most fundamental act of communication is to reject the very possibility of making a decent game.
Poker. How much do they really talk?
A lot, usually. But poker is a fundamentally different beast entirely, and doesn't require the massive amount of raw communication that roleplaying games are fundamentally built upon.
... That's insane. That is complete and utter madness. To be opposed to the most fundamental act of communication is to reject the very possibility of making a decent game.Poker. How much do they really talk?
I've never played a tabletop game like I would poker.
Ever.
The idea of playing a roleplaying game without any outside communication with each other is bizarre to the goddamn max
... That's insane. That is complete and utter madness. To be opposed to the most fundamental act of communication is to reject the very possibility of making a decent game.That should be obvious.
Let me simplify, if people don't want to spend time talking, then talking isn't going to bring resolution.
AT the chance of "Twisting words" Its nice to see your back to the "Your playing wrong" high horse of yours once more
I've never played a tabletop game like I would poker.
Ever.
Only partially true in my case. I play the players in poker, RPGs, miniatures and boardgames. When I was playing competitively, I was real vicious at it, but I grew out of it. I still find myself sizing up prey, er, party members.
That be be because your drunk or you should be
Yes, it's one of the better ones. I get confused some times as a few other folks have it and I always think it's you at first.
YA think he gets offended if hir clerics pray for spells sober?
|
Yes, it's one of the better ones. I get confused some times as a few other folks have it and I always think it's you at first.
YA think he gets offended if hir clerics pray for spells sober?
He HAS sober clerics?
I'm actually proud of my avatar since I was the first to grab it when it came available. :)
To test, what would LilithsThrall and SeekerofShadowLight say to the following:
"My DM has a rule that rogues can only sneak attack once a round, no more. He says it's because he does not want to see the cheesy TWF SA flanking rogue because he thinks they are broken. I tried explaining that I am not even interested in the TWF chain, but he said those are his rules."
I do not recall saying that. Or anything of the like really.
I do not recall saying that. Or anything of the like really.
He wasn't saying you said that. He was asking you what you'd say to it.