LT, you seem fixated on the idea that there is automatically one player in every group who's a "sabateur" and is just out to ruin everything for everyone. While that may be your experience, I'm not convinced that the existence of that person at your table should be cause for all DMs to automatically play hard-ass "I know your type and I won't tolerate it, maggot!" with all players. Why not? Because I'd say it's the DM's job to screen out that guy BEFORE INVITING HIM TO THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE. An ounce of prevention, you know.
Kirth, I think he's just asking for your opinion on what happens in the grey area between everyone agreeing with the DM (the ideal) and every (or nearly every) player disagreeing with the DM. It happens. The player doesn't have to be a saboteur. Maybe the player has simply type-cast themself as an elf, and is uncomfortable being otherwise. I have that issue very often, and that player is the reason I've never run my Hundred Years War campaign.
What do you think should happen if there majority of players are ok with the world, but one player is uncomfortable stepping out of their comfort zone?
LT, you seem fixated on the idea that there is automatically one player in every group who's a "sabateur"
*talks into walkie talkie*
El Presidente to secret order of saboteur players... Gersen knows. I repeat: Gersen knows. We've been made. Deploy the death squad.
Death Squad here.
What do you think should happen if there majority of players are ok with the world, but one player is uncomfortable stepping out of their comfort zone?
That's a tough issue, and one that I personally wouldn't make a general statement for. Everyone's comfort zone is different for different things. In general, I think if the DM and other players enjoy having the oddball player in the group enough, they'll probably show a willingness to make allowances. If they don't feel like that player adds a whole lot, they'll probably already have hinted that he/she should find a different game, before the DM is forced to make a big show of throwing that person out.
You seem to think that I said that all GMs should automatically play hard ass.
*sigh* Reading comprehension, the lost art. I blame it on the Internet.
Maybe because you post a lot about how important it is to be a hard-ass, but never about making allowances to players?
*sigh* Writing clarity, the lost art. I blame it on the Internet.
i have typecasted myself into psuedojapanese flavored females. Wa Fauxlitas to be precise.
Lolita (or loli) is another term i use for young girl. some people add other connotations that i do not. it is also the name of a type of fashion.
Faux means fake, by Fauxlita, i mean youthful character whom though easily mistaken for an underage girl is older and not quite what she seems, whether it be by means of talent, training, or knowledge.
Wa Lolita is a subcategory of lolita fashion that mimics traditional japanese garments and adds elements of lolita fashion itself.
by Wa Fauxlita, i mean a Japanese female who can easily be mistaken for a child due to a variety of factors, one of which is appearance, and wears traditional japanese clothing, usually with a few compatible built in elements of lolita fashion. such examples can vary from things like lace trimming on the sleeves to an outright ruffling of the sleeves or a variety of modifications to the base design of similar inspiration.
That's a tough issue, and one that I personally wouldn't make a general statement for. Everyone's comfort zone is different for different things. In general, I think if the DM and other players enjoy having the oddball player in the group enough, they'll probably show a willingness to make allowances. If they don't feel like that player adds a whole lot, they'll probably already have hinted that he/she should find a different game, before the DM is forced to make a big show of throwing that person out.
I do not wish to be offensive, but it seems odd to me that the only suggested options you suggest are giving the player what they want, in spite of the storyline/world or kicking them out. Is it not reasonable to encourage that player to step out of their comfort zone and grow as a player without suggesting they must leave the group?
Also, is the player's "value" the only factor, or would the degree of the allowance requested be taken into account? Would asking to be an elf in an all-human campaign be met with lighter hands than asking to be a dragon or an awakened animal? How about asking to use Unearthed Arcana variant rules that would result in that character being played by different mechanics than the other players? Or requesting the creation of a player-designed organization for the player's character to be the start of? (Each of these are real situations, by the way...so they're not that outrageous. Not even the same player in each case, either.)
And, to add to the general discussion, is it the group as a whole's tolerance to these requests that matters, or the GM's? What if the GM says it's ok but the remainder of the group objects to the player?
I dont mind playing in a strict campaign(such as an all elven-PC campaign for whatever reason), as long as it is for that one campaign(multiple sessions with a definite end). I would not play in a gameworld(every adventure or campaign has the same things due to makeup of the world) with that level of strictness though.
I think that the DM knows when he creates a campaign what might and might not work before it is even presented to the players so if I dont think everyone will buy into it I don't even present it. Now this may also change depending on the level of friendship between the players. If you are only friends at the table, then 1 player being left out may not bother you as much. There are a lot of factors to consider.
FIAT!*hands Mairkurion a bar of soap* Wash that out now. :)
I'm on it!
::Soaps up washcloth, threads through TOZ's ears::
Again, what if five players want to play a human-only campaign (perhaps based on Conan) and the 6th player wants to play an elf? Should the five players not be able to play what they want to? Or should the 6th player not be able to play what he/she wants to?
I'd say that 5 players + DM >> 1 player. 5 players and DM win. That's democracy.
On the flip side, DM << 5 players. DM wins anyway. That would be a dictatorship.Since I've already said I tend towards a democratic game...
Eh. Most people I play with barely know the rules. They want to solve puzzles, hack dungeons, accomplish epic victories, suffer equally epic failures, and play characters they find interesting. I give the puzzles to solve, dungeons to hack, fantastical backdrops for - and an group of friends to witness- their epic victories (or failures) and more-or-less let them play characters they find interesting. It's hard to think of a conflict arising, but if it did, I'd probably blame myself for not keeping them properly entertained - so I guess I agree with the "vote of no confidence" option. As a player, I still consider the enjoyment of the group to be my primary concern - if I'm not having fun, and everybody else is, I'll just leave the group to their pleasure.
I do not wish to be offensive, but it seems odd to me that the only suggested options you suggest are giving the player what they want, in spite of the storyline/world or kicking them out. Is it not reasonable to encourage that player to step out of their comfort zone and grow as a player without suggesting they must leave the group?
No offense taken. I agree that would be an ideal solution.
I dont mind playing in a strict campaign(such as an all elven-PC campaign for whatever reason), as long as it is for that one campaign(multiple sessions with a definite end). I would not play in a gameworld(every adventure or campaign has the same things due to makeup of the world) with that level of strictness though.
I think that the DM knows when he creates a campaign what might and might not work before it is even presented to the players so if I dont think everyone will buy into it I don't even present it. Now this may also change depending on the level of friendship between the players. If you are only friends at the table, then 1 player being left out may not bother you as much. There are a lot of factors to consider.Again, what if five players want to play a human-only campaign (perhaps based on Conan) and the 6th player wants to play an elf?
Should the five players not be able to play what they want to? Or should the 6th player not be able to play what he/she wants to?
If there are elves in the gameworld I would need a really good reason to play only one race, but with that aside it would depend on why the group wants to all Race X, and would Race Y really mess things up.
Using Eberron as an example if we all played hobgoblins trying to rebuild the former Dhakanni(I am sure this is spelled wrong) empire I don't see why an elf or human would want to see that happen so if they can't convince the group why it makes sense in game then they don't get to play Race Y.
I don't mind a game with limits, but there should be very good reason for it, other than the DM said so. There are times when a person just has to accept no as an answer, but I think they should be limited within reason of course.
Democracy is five wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
The DM puts in many hours over the week to prepare for the game. The players put in little if any.
This is a valid point, but the premise of "the GM makes the rules" really has to start from the assumption that the GM genuinely desires to make everyone's time enjoyable. If the GM isn't honestly trying for this (or for some reason doesn't know how,) then there does have to be a recourse beyond "everyone leaves the game and elects a new GM." This is doubly true if the group are friends and/or family. The rotating GM or the vote of no confidence are the best suggestions I've seen in this thread.
Again, what if five players want to play a human-only campaign (perhaps based on Conan) and the 6th player wants to play an elf? Should the five players not be able to play what they want to? Or should the 6th player not be able to play what he/she wants to?I'd say that 5 players + DM >> 1 player. 5 players and DM win. That's democracy.
On the flip side, DM << 5 players. DM wins anyway. That would be a dictatorship.Since I've already said I tend towards a democratic game...
Democracy is five wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
The DM puts in many hours over the week to prepare for the game. The players put in little if any.
This is like saying the cook decides what to eat, which may be true, but if the cook does not want to waste his time cooking something nobody will enjoy he should ask what they want so the meal is not wasted.
This takes care of a lot of issues before they even come up.I have never DM'd with rules that everyone liked, and I have never played under a DM that ran things exactly(100%) like I wanted, but we meet close enough in the middle to have a good time because we(myself and the other DM's) are at least willing to listen even if we say no in the end.
This is a valid point, but the premise of "the GM makes the rules" really has to start from the assumption that the GM genuinely desires to make everyone's time enjoyable. If the GM isn't honestly trying for this (or for some reason doesn't know how,) then there does have to be a recourse beyond "everyone leaves the game and elects a new GM." This is doubly true if the group are friends and/or family. The rotating GM or the vote of no confidence are the best suggestions I've seen in this thread.
Good response; I agree all around.
My way or the highway. Life is too short to waste time DMing for people who want the game run a certain way. They can DM if they feel that strongly.
Which isn't to say I veto everything anyone says. I generally play by the rules, and if someone is like, that's wrong, we look it up. Occasionally I'll overrule something for the sake of fast play, but that's very rare. The things that break the rules are usually well documented ahead of the game so there aren't many surprises.
I have always played in DM strong groups, and we have snatched the DM chair from people before. It does lead to hurt feelings, but when you ignore the players you might just motivate someone enough to find the time to DM. My way or the highway usually works when nobody else has the time or motivation to DM, but when everyone has a decent grasp of the rules, and can find the time if they really have too you might have to decide if you would rather DM with compromise or not DM at all.
PS: Everyone wants the game run a certain way, but they are usually open minded enough to accept certain differences.
i have typecasted myself into psuedojapanese flavored females. Wa Fauxlitas to be precise.
** spoiler omitted **
Dude, no offense, but you creep me out. Really a lot.
DICTATORSHIP OR DEMOCRACY?
GM = Referee in game.
Outside game = Dictatorship. GM builds the game world, builds the monster, builds the playing field, spends a tone of time doing all this stuff. GM create the world the players play in, and is dictator on how the world works.
There really is no purpose for this thread.
This thread can not answer this question for you and your group.
This question itself isn't the right question.
If a group can't decide amongst themselves the proper level of give and take for a DM and the group, that group is not ready to play. No post in this thread can be of any help in that case.
Somehow, this post gave me the thought "There is no thread."
If I found myself in a group with a bunch of people who cared a lot about rules and were willing to DM, I'd just be a player. Playing is so much easier. I'm playing in a 3.5 game right now, and it was the first one I'd ever gotten past 3rd level on as a player.
In general, if you have a GM who is being a dick, you need a new GM.
I guess if I did not like DM'ing I would agree with your previous post, but I quiet enjoy it, but not all the time. Even if I don't agree, I do understand though. It is easy to get burned out if you only DM all the time.
Dude, no offense, but you creep me out. Really a lot.My favorite is that he just walks into ANY thread and is like "if you didn't know I play freaky stuff, now you know!". It's like a public service announcement :P
I think it is she, but yeah she does state that she plays off the wall things a lot.
I think it is she, but yeah she does state that she plays off the wall things a lot.
Maybe, but, "Aliases: Shuriken Nekogami, DM Timothy Young, Umbriere Lunas, Kodachi Nekogami, Desert Phantom Joseph, Wolfman Tim."
I think it is she, but yeah she does state that she plays off the wall things a lot.Dude, no offense, but you creep me out. Really a lot.My favorite is that he just walks into ANY thread and is like "if you didn't know I play freaky stuff, now you know!". It's like a public service announcement :P
I also though they were female, but pretty sure in one thread a while back they said they were male. I didn't stay and dig to deep into the post so can't be sure.
i will admit to the off the wall stuff that i play, the fact that i am a nippophile, the fact that i am male, the fact that my creepiness is part of a molding caused by a cocktail of anime, mental disabilities, a creepy DM that i play with on saturdays, friends that feed my creepiness, and a dissapointment with myself.
Somehow, this post gave me the thought "There is no thread."There really is no purpose for this thread.
This thread can not answer this question for you and your group.
This question itself isn't the right question.
If a group can't decide amongst themselves the proper level of give and take for a DM and the group, that group is not ready to play. No post in this thread can be of any help in that case.
And thus GodzFirefly achieved enlightenment, and all karmic formations fell away as he beheld Emptiness.
|
i will admit to the off the wall stuff that i play, the fact that i am a nippophile, the fact that i am male, the fact that my creepiness is part of a molding caused by a cocktail of anime, mental disabilities, a creepy DM that i play with on saturdays, friends that feed my creepiness, and a dissapointment with myself.
That is sooo f&!%ed up.
I never thought I would meet someone who loved nipples too! I mean, I enjoy the breast more, but nipples are totally cool.
|
i will admit to the off the wall stuff that i play, the fact that i am a nippophile, the fact that i am male, the fact that my creepiness is part of a molding caused by a cocktail of anime, mental disabilities, a creepy DM that i play with on saturdays, friends that feed my creepiness, and a dissapointment with myself.
Honestly you just have to dial back on the Too Much Information. Having one's quirks is fine and dandy but if I frequently went off on a tangent about how I spend my Friday nights being abused by Russian dominatrices, getting candlewax burns, that we meet at Room 213 at Forsythe Inn, Downtown Atlanta, at 11:00 p.m. and that my safeword was "Bea Arthur", people would rightly call me out as being a bit awkward in terms of a naturally flowing conversation.
It's all about restraint.
Some days it does not pay to read a thread.
i will admit to the off the wall stuff that i play, the fact that i am a nippophile, the fact that i am male, the fact that my creepiness is part of a molding caused by a cocktail of anime, mental disabilities, a creepy DM that i play with on saturdays, friends that feed my creepiness, and a dissapointment with myself.That is sooo f%!#ed up.
I never thought I would meet someone who loved nipples too! I mean, I enjoy the breast more, but nipples are totally cool.
a nippophile is someone who has an obscession with japan. the nippo part came from another name for japan. nippon (nihon works too)
Some days it does not pay to read a thread.
That's what we get for not listening to our wives and going to bed.
What if a GM wants to play a human-only campaign and 5 of his 6 players want to play a human-only campaign, but the 6th player wants to play an elf?
This is the point where the GM finds out why his/her player wishes to play an elf and then attempt to offer a solution that doesn't break the game world's believability. If it's something like they just want to look like an elf, explain that they'll be taken as 'odd'.
Also ew, this thread got thread jacked with weird fetishes.