|
I have yet to see anyone agree with him, but he is still holding on. I am somewhat mystified as to where all of this is coming from also.Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. The entire concept of 'RAW' agrees with him. On a thread adjacent to here, another commenter wrote...
Actually, since 3E/3.5, which Pathfinder is based off of, the rules are designed to define what everyone can do, since PCs, NPCs and monsters all follow the same rules.This notion, if fostered and encouraged to evolve would support his worries.
I only disagree that this is what 3e did, and that the original spirit of the game simply got squished by splat.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm taking your statement at face value here. If you're making a joke I missed it.
That said, I don't think the concept you're quoting means what you seem to think it does. There's no question that one of the primary game design philosophies behind 3.x was the idea that everything used the same game mechanics. Let me give you a few examples. In 1e, monster damage was pretty-much arbitrary, even if they were using weapons. Monsters generally, IIRC, got no bonuses to hit and to damage for STR. For the most part, in fact, monsters didn't have their stats specified. There were a few exceptions, and monster INT was given in a range, but that was it for monster stats. Monsters used a different "to hit" table from PC classes.
In 3.x, this is not the case. A titan wielding an appropriately-sized sword does damage according to weapon type and STR bonus. S/he gets bonuses to hit for high STR. All monsters, in fact, get bonuses to hit for high STR. All monsters use the same skill system as PCs. Monsters have the same BAB progressions as PCs. Spellcasting monsters have, typically, an equivalent PC spellcasting class level that defines their magical abilities.
The downside of this approach is that it can take quite some time to stat up high-level monsters, which is part of why WotC abandoned it in the conversion to 4th Ed.
Having fun as a DM or a player is about trust and respect. This has be be gained over time. Those quick to judge on either side, will tend to make things sour. If you make a mistake then correct it.
Probably the hardest part of being a DM, is being objective and taking time to understand the rules. For those that play in your game, giving you the time and encouragement to continue.
Real life time constraints. It is easier to modify an already written adventure, than it is to do your own when you have a full time job, kids, and other things to worry about.
I've actually been struggling with that too, but I refuse to surrender. I think I'm finally finding the right balance between prep work and flying by the seat of my pants, and my adventures are a blend between sandbox and railroad so that I have just enough control to hold on and see what's coming. I don't do a lot of fancy maps (but I do use some complex architectures), and I don't stat everything up. I just develop a general idea and theme, think up a few major baddies, then only prep details for those things that are likely to come up in approaching sessions. See my name, then read that last sentence as "prep the bare minimum of details I need the night before I know I'll need them."
It was easier back in the 1st ed. days, when stuff wasn't so complicated, and you could get away with knowing only HD and AC for most encounters. Now traps even have scores and take extra time to stat out. I still think it's worth it, love PFRPG, but yeah, I have to pick and choose what to focus on.
Real life time constraints. It is easier to modify an already written adventure, than it is to do your own when you have a full time job, kids, and other things to worry about.I've actually been struggling with that too, but I refuse to surrender. I think I'm finally finding the right balance between prep work and flying by the seat of my pants, and my adventures are a blend between sandbox and railroad so that I have just enough control to hold on and see what's coming. I don't do a lot of fancy maps (but I do use some complex architectures), and I don't stat everything up. I just develop a general idea and theme, think up a few major baddies, then only prep details for those things that are likely to come up in approaching sessions. See my name, then read that last sentence as "prep the bare minimum of details I need the night before I know I'll need them."
It was easier back in the 1st ed. days, when stuff wasn't so complicated, and you could get away with knowing only HD and AC for most encounters. Now traps even have scores and take extra time to stat out. I still think it's worth it, love PFRPG, but yeah, I have to pick and choose what to focus on.
If I were to restrict the options my players have I could probably do it, but it is more enjoyable to see them use most of the 3.5 stuff still since there are still things that can be done in 3.5 that pathfinder has not covered yet, even though they are gaining ground while using a lot less books.
GM Fiat is a very useful tool that has gotten a very bad rap for a variety of very very good reasons.
I've been victimized by bad GM Fiat and even perpetrated bad GM Fiat at times in my gaming career.
IMHO Fiat is good when it facilitates the action and the storyline. Fiat is bad when it's used to railroad the players or constrain players unfairly.
The GM should never make the gamer harder for one player just because they are too powerful, too annoying, or too combative. Player/DM issues and PvP issues should be resolved through an open dialogue between game participants. If a player doesn't conform to the expectations of the rest of the group it should be handle in an above-board manner. That means that passive aggressive uses of DM fiat should never be encouraged. For one thing it's negative behavior and second it never actually resolves the underlying issues.
Yes plenty of players today are prone to extremely negative behavior in an attempt to be the alpha dog at a gaming table but honestly that type of nonsense was abundant back in the day as well. More things change the more things stay the same and what not.
3.x/PF is undeniably more codified mechanically than previous editions. In many situations this has improved gameplay but in some cases the codification of rules has acted like a straitjacket to many DMs. Indeed many of the people that I know that have moved to 4e haved moved because the "overcodification" of the 3.x ruleset completely stiffled them.
My answer to everyone is that RAW doesn't have to be a straightjacket. Houserule to your heart's content. The worst thing that can happen is that you make a mistake and have to correct it in some manner. Most gamers are willing to rollback to a previous state as long as you are honest about the screw-up. Chances are your mistakes will become readily apparent given enough time.
Almost all the complaints I see on both sides revolve around problem DMs and problem players abusing the trust given to them by the rest of the group. Honestly though bad gaming is worse than no gaming. If something is bothering you about a game you need to speak up and try to change it or you need to bail. Life is way too short for that sort of nonsense.
I have yet to see anyone agree with him, but he is still holding on. I am somewhat mystified as to where all of this is coming from also.Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. The entire concept of 'RAW' agrees with him. On a thread adjacent to here, another commenter wrote...
Actually, since 3E/3.5, which Pathfinder is based off of, the rules are designed to define what everyone can do, since PCs, NPCs and monsters all follow the same rules.This notion, if fostered and encouraged to evolve would support his worries.
I only disagree that this is what 3e did, and that the original spirit of the game simply got squished by splat.
Just because everything more or less follows the same rules now does not mean that they override the GM's authority. It just means they made the system consistent by doing away with unnecessary special cases.
The GM's options for changing the rules have not changed. At least not according to "RAW", to the rules as written. Actually written, you see. Times might be different now, but that's pretty much an unwritten rules thing.
In a world where the GM is not allowed to modify game rules, modifying module content could easily be held to that same standard, could it not?
I have no idea. I never was in such a world. You should get one of those string theory nuts to answer questions like that! :P
This world, the one we all live in (okay, so I might only have a partial residence here) is not a world where the GM "is not allowed to modify game rules". Who would forbid it?
The game itself and its developers sure as hell can't forbid anything. What are they going to do if I change the rules in my game, sue me?
The players can't really do anything like that, either, unless the GM allows it. Of course, this brings us back to the whole "this game has more than one participant and they're all supposed to have fun" thing.
|
I still love to be GM way more than being a player. In the end, the golden rule applies, if you're having fun playing that way - do it.
I am a little afraid right now because this Saturday I step into the world of organized play, running my first Pathfinder Society event. I worry about the culture of PFS, and how the players view their roles, be it as adversaries to the GM, or just have fun.
I'm not too worried, as most Pathfinder players I have met have been pretty laid back. I do worry about getting in trouble with management. If I see something in a module that is just not going to be fun for the group I have, I will change it.
Speaking for myself, I am an ego-maniac. I want people to enjoy their game and have fun, and I like being the one responsible for it. I never care if the monsters win. In fact, I hate it when the monsters win, though I understand that is the reality of building a sense of risk.
I want people to be able to play whatever type of character they can imagine. It is my job to make sure that doesn't make it less fun for the others. There's lots of ways to do that.
It seems to me that the answer is simple: Don't run Pathfinder Society games. (Not suggesting anything against the Pathfinder Society, simply pointing out that it may not be the OP's bag.)
Everyone else is still having fun at their tables. Stop whining, go have fun at yours.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
To me, the story is the thing, and that means GMing more than anything else. I love being in character, I love building a PC who can't lose or an encounter that forces my palyers into panic. SOme of my players are really good with rules and builds though, so that gets really hard.
I have played in the Iron GM tournament at gen con every year exceopt the first one, and jsut competing in that event has made me a much better GM, a faster thinker and I have loads more fun. If you want to see an environment where GMs are treated like rock stars, and players demand nothing less than your best, check that out. They have a FB page.
Can I, in fact, simply use the adventure as a skeleton, and taylor it completely to my taste?
This is exactly what I would do, were I to run published modules. I probably wouldn't run the thing completely off the rails with my changes, but I would certainly tailor things to fit the "flavor" of my campaign setting as well as to challenge the type of party I'm GMing.
|
That said, I don't think the concept you're quoting means what you seem to think it does.
It's all about the context. 'Rules as Written' can mean a number of things. In the adjacent discussion about CMB, threat, reach and AoO, 'RAW' means 'it says in the book...' In the adjacent 'avoid xmas tree' thread 'RAW' means 'eschewing house rules' or similar. When a player uses the term towards a GM it generally means they're appealing to a 'higher authority' who knows better than they do - aka 'rules lawyering'.
The alternative to RAW for, say, a titan's weapon damage would be to roll some dice behind the screen, look at the player's current HP, and decide whether or not it is time for that character to die in this point of the story. There's an acronym for 'Rules as Written', but is there one for 'Rules Shouldn't Get in the Way'? Have you seen 'RSGitW' bandied about? I certainly haven't.
All I'm saying is that in a world where we institutionalize this type of thought, 'MaW' or 'Module as Written' isn't even close to hard to imagine.
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.
I LOVE the trend of putting more control into the players' hands; I like to have a cooperative game, and I like to consider myself a "referee," not a "game master." It's MORE fun for me to run a game if I don't have to treat the players like helpless children who can't do anything without asking "Mother May I?"
|
|
The players can't really do anything like that, either, unless the GM allows it. Of course, this brings us back to the whole "this game has more than one participant and they're all supposed to have fun" thing.
Peer situations being what they are, though, I can see how someone would find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. Nobody wants to be 'that old guy' at the game shop who 'just doesn't get the new system'.
|
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.I LOVE the trend of putting more control into the players' hands; I like to have a cooperative game, and I like to consider myself a "referee," not a "game master." It's MORE fun for me to run a game if I don't have to treat the players like helpless children who can't do anything without asking "Mother May I?"
Amen. I LIKE when players say "I'm going to go do this" and it takes the module completely off the rails. It makes me think and NOT just be a 'script-reader'. And it can be some of the best gaming when even I don't know where the party is going.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "player power" affecting content of stories. I love when it happens too.
It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.
Amen. I LIKE when players say "I'm going to go do this" and it takes the module completely off the rails. It makes me think and NOT just be a 'script-reader'. And it can be some of the best gaming when even I don't know where the party is going.
I like to write complicated James Bond-like spy adventures. IN one of them, the PCs mugged a guy in an alley in the opening event and killed him; unfortunately for me, that guy was intended to be the BBEG behind the scenes for the rest of the adventure. So for the rest of the session, I kicked my brain into high gear frantically deciding how the minions would react to the evil mastermind being found murdered in an alleyway before his scheme could get started. It was all I could do to stay a half-step ahead of the players, as all the scenarios I'd mapped out evaporated in response to one sneak attack.
It was also the most fun I've ever had DMing.
It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.
Do you play with 2-rear-olds? I mean, if you explain why something needs adjustment, do they threaten to hold their breath until they pass out, or what?
Amen. I LIKE when players say "I'm going to go do this" and it takes the module completely off the rails. It makes me think and NOT just be a 'script-reader'. And it can be some of the best gaming when even I don't know where the party is going.Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.I LOVE the trend of putting more control into the players' hands; I like to have a cooperative game, and I like to consider myself a "referee," not a "game master." It's MORE fun for me to run a game if I don't have to treat the players like helpless children who can't do anything without asking "Mother May I?"
I think y'all are missing the OP's original point, or at least misunderstanding the way he was using the term "player power". As I understand it, he's saying almost the opposite, that he is afraid the trend is toward more railroading, not less, as he sees a point when DMs will be forced to follow the module exactly as written. I dare say he also would love it if his players took the module completely off the rails. Doing so, of course, requires a pretty powerful DM who can just wing it and make stuff up on the fly, and players who trust him to do so, which I think Richard would also highly approve of. This thread was never about DMs railroading players. It was about the potential for players railroading DMs. I don't agree with his premise, but I think I understand it.
As I understand it, he's saying almost the opposite, that he is afraid the trend is toward more railroading, not less, as he sees a point when DMs will be forced to follow the module exactly as written.
HUH?! What player, given a larger measure of control, would demand that the DM restrict his options and his in-game choices? I sure as hell wouldn't. I assume you wouldn't. So, unlike you, I'm still totally failing to grasp his concern.
The only way it makes sense to me is if one conflates "following the rules" with "following an arbitrary storyline," but that seems to me to be a totally false equivalence.
It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.Do you play with 2-rear-olds? I mean, if you explain why something needs adjustment, do they threaten to hold their breath until they pass out, or what?
Oh, evil twin, have you read some of the threads around here with people complaining about their GMs not allowing this or that? I think describing the maturity level of some of them as a 2-year old does a grave injustice to toddlers everywhere. These players may not be at our tables (thank God), but they are out there.
|
|
It was also the most fun I've ever had DMing.
Heck yeah. When my bard player said "I'm going to go talk to my underworld contact Rourke" I was unprepared. So I rolled with it, giving a few tidbits and promised from this 'Rourke' character until the bard was satisfied. After the game, I pondered who he was. He ended up being the guildleader of the weaker theives guild, struggling to stay afloat while the competition was thwarting him at every turn. The PCs even ran afoul of him, ruining his plans, and he ended up killing the party rogue thanks to the rogue joining the other guild.
And none of this would have happened if I had said "you didn't clear that with me, you don't have an underworld contact".
As I understand it, he's saying almost the opposite, that he is afraid the trend is toward more railroading, not less, as he sees a point when DMs will be forced to follow the module exactly as written.HUH?! What player, given a larger measure of control, would demand that the DM restrict his options and his in-game choices? I sure as hell wouldn't. I assume you wouldn't. So, unlike you, I'm still totally failing to grasp his concern.
A player who doesn't trust his DM at all, so wants to confine the DM's options, even if it means confining his own and resulting in, in our shared opinion, much less satisfying gameplay. I think his concern is way overblown, but then it is his concern, not mine, so I feel no need to defend its validity, just its intention.
Oh, evil twin, have you read some of the threads around here with people complaining about their GMs not allowing this or that?
From what I've read in these threads, there seems to be a very fine line for some DMs between "not allowing" and "being a massively insecure control freak to the point where no one would want to game with you."
Contrast:
"I'd envisioned a more archery-heavy campaign, and the warlock's at-will eldritch blast sort of steps on that a lot. Would you consider a different class, or a modified warlock?"
(vs.)
"OMG! OP!!! OP!!!! Warlocks are banned!"
|
|
This thread was never about DMs railroading players. It was about the potential for players railroading DMs. I don't agree with his premise, but I think I understand it.
You're right, I was off on a tangent. I've already responded to the original point, so I don't think that's too bad.
I feel about it pretty much the same as I do about the people complaining about Paizo releasing more rules that players are going to want to use against the DMs wishes.
You are responsible for your own group harmony. If you can't reach a compromise, you can't play. If you don't want players to attack you with the RAW, tell them so. Either they can cope, or they can leave.
It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.Do you play with 2-rear-olds? I mean, if you explain why something needs adjustment, do they threaten to hold their breath until they pass out, or what?
You'd be surprised.... ever go to a Con?
It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.Do you play with 2-rear-olds? I mean, if you explain why something needs adjustment, do they threaten to hold their breath until they pass out, or what?
Unfortunately the hobby is littered with a huge number of man-children and while some of us have gotten to the point where we've said enough of that nonsense I've experienced more than one group over the course of my gaming career that has descended into utter BS through the actions of one of more individuals.
In some cases this is players trying to be the alpha dog and thereby cow the DM into submission, in some cases it's outright bullying behavior in regards to PvP and in more than one case it's been a tyrannical GM enforcing his vision of the game through punitive action.
I'm ashamed to admit that I've probably engaged in all of these negative behaviors over the course of my career. However I've matured and see how negative bullying behavior makes for bad games that nobody other than the bully ever seem to enjoy.
Some of this is hard-won experience and some of it is introspection, unfortunately many gamers never seem to learn these lessons. The result is that a large number of gamers either become inactive or they languish in horribad games because they labor under the mistaken belief that any sort of game is better than no game.
Threads like this often seem like navel-gazing but I think they are also valuable in transmitting the shared experiences of the community so that not every one has to labor through decades of bad gaming before they stumble across a group that just works.
|
|
It's all about the context. 'Rules as Written' can mean a number of things. In the adjacent discussion about CMB, threat, reach and AoO, 'RAW' means 'it says in the book...' In the adjacent 'avoid xmas tree' thread 'RAW' means 'eschewing house rules' or similar. When a player uses the term towards a GM it generally means they're appealing to a 'higher authority' who knows better than they do - aka 'rules lawyering'.The alternative to RAW for, say, a titan's weapon damage would be to roll some dice behind the screen, look at the player's current HP, and decide whether or not it is time for that character to die in this point of the story. There's an acronym for 'Rules as Written', but is there one for 'Rules Shouldn't Get in the Way'? Have you seen 'RSGitW' bandied about? I certainly haven't.
Rule of Cool, I think. I've seen people here claim that they do things like that w/o telling their players, and the players typically don't realize it. ("We've substituted a seat-of-the-pants ref for this RAW Pathfinder GM. Let's see if the players can tell the difference.")
All I'm saying is that in a world where we institutionalize this type of thought, 'MaW' or 'Module as Written' isn't even close to hard to imagine.
I guess I'm still not seeing it. I think there's a qualitative difference between the rules set and a module written using that ruels set--the rules are the mechanics of how the world works, and the module is what happens within those rules.
(OTOH, they're both text on a page, so maybe I can see it a little. The rules, though, should be something the players know as an abstraction of character knowledge about the nature of the world; the plot, not so much.)
Oh, evil twin, have you read some of the threads around here with people complaining about their GMs not allowing this or that?From what I've read in these threads, there seems to be a very fine line for some DMs between "not allowing" and "being a massively insecure control freak to the point where no one would want to game with you."
Contrast:
"I'd envisioned a more archery-heavy campaign, and the warlock's at-will eldritch blast sort of steps on that a lot. Would you consider a different class, or a modified warlock?"
(vs.)
"OMG! OP!!! OP!!!! Warlocks are banned!"
Agreed. Although I probably am more sympathetic with the GMs than you are, having experienced lots more problem players than GMs over the years.
Agreed. Although I probably am more sympathetic with the GMs than you are, having experienced lots more problem players than GMs over the years.
The funny thing is this... most people out there who complain about DM Fiat (or similar complaints about DM's) have usually had their experiences colored by a single DM with serious control issues. It sticks with them forever.
For me, I've had similar experiences but not with DM's, it's been with these insane players and their bizarre entitlement mentalities (and mind you, this was not just as a Ref, but also as a fellow player at the table). Sadly, it's stuck with me forever too.
The funny thing is this... most people out there who complain about DM Fiat (or similar complaints about DM's) have usually had their experiences colored by a single DM with serious control issues. It sticks with them forever.
Or three or four of them at different times, in my case. It ususally boils down to a guy who thinks he's writing the next Lord of the Rings, and wants you to play out the scenes he's already written.
|
|
It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.Do you play with 2-rear-olds? I mean, if you explain why something needs adjustment, do they threaten to hold their breath until they pass out, or what?
I don't think you're getting the point Kirth.
Example:
Say you run a game where most of the players are land bound or have very limited ability for overland travel/movement. That is actually an aspect of the campaign you are running - more realistic, gritty, whatever. New "core" book comes out with a weaker 3rd level version of teleport and when combined with a new feat that improves all teleport like spells or abilities it gives lower level groups tremendous range and flexibility.
If you let this in your land bound narrative - the struggle to move across the country, regional politics, etc are chucked out the window.
A) So you can be a "dick" dm an block what you see as a mechanical power up/game option
or
B) Take what the devs feed you, give more powers to the players and rewrite your campaign and feel of your game; roll with the changes and the rules override the theme, feel and challenges, i.e. the rules and player freedom are more important.
And I guess this goes back to a 2nd vs. 3rd ed changes of "how" much power you want players to have over all aspects of the game. In older editions it was very difficult to make magic items, in 3rd + super easy. Same thing with buying items, picking abilities/feats, spells, PRcs, etc.
This makes for two different games and play experiences.
So what does a DM do? Does he accept the new power paradigm and roll with it - everyone can create items, items needed to fill gaps and just cost cash to make, etc, or does he say, "no, I don't want players to have that much control of their environment - I want some the challenges to come from resource limitation (in addition to threats)".
So the rules can give or take away power from players, sometimes it isn't the classic 2-year style tantrum where a player wants an obviously broken and untested ability from a new splat. It could be something far more commonly accepted as a normal option for players in the game - like magic item creation that affords a great deal of power.
I think the game (3rd, PFRPG, offered alts/homebrews) do little to accommodate different styles of desired play. It's a default superhero game and anything you do to change that doesn't really work. I was hoping for more options from Paizo in this regard with Pathfinder - alt styles of play and optional rules to match but that never happened and it never will.
The funny thing is this... most people out there who complain about DM Fiat (or similar complaints about DM's) have usually had their experiences colored by a single DM with serious control issues. It sticks with them forever.Or three or four of them at different times, in my case. It ususally boils down to a guy who thinks he's writing the next Lord of the Rings, and wants you to play out the scenes he's already written.
Man, I wish it was only three or four for me.
And frankly, the thing about bad DMs is that almost everyone starts as a bad DM. Some of the best DM's I've ever had were truly awful DMs for several campaigns before they started to hit their stride, and others of the best still had some unfortunate inappropriate-DM-fiat issues.
So the rules can give or take away power from players, sometimes it isn't the classic 2-year style tantrum where a player wants an obviously broken and untested ability from a new splat. It could be something far more commonly accepted as a normal option for players in the game - like magic item creation that affords a great deal of power.
I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that while most people will agree that the DM has the right to tinker with the rules or disallow content, maybe 1 DM in 10 actually has the level of systems/rules expertise to "fix" one thing without breaking greater than one things. Maybe. 10% is probably too generous.
To use your example, magic item creation. How often does someone post here about wanting to run a campaign that does away with magic item creation and/or magic item purchase, and how often has that person thought even one step ahead about what the consequences of that change are and how to correct for that fallout as well? I'd say about 0% of the time.
Lots of comments on the bad DM part of my post... but not much on the bad player part of my post:
For me, I've had similar experiences but not with DM's, it's been with these insane players and their bizarre entitlement mentalities (and mind you, this was not just as a Ref, but also as a fellow player at the table). Sadly, it's stuck with me forever too.
Example:
Say you run a game where most of the players are land bound or have very limited ability for overland travel/movement. That is actually an aspect of the campaign you are running - more realistic, gritty, whatever. New "core" book comes out with a weaker 3rd level version of teleport and when combined with a new feat that improves all teleport like spells or abilities it gives lower level groups tremendous range and flexibility.If you let this in your land bound narrative - the struggle to move across the country, regional politics, etc are chucked out the window.
The solution is simple, just say that for the next campaign/adventure you run, such things will be considered, and if found to be reasonably balanced, used; for the current campaign, however, the baseline rules and sources are already set, and only things that don't significantly disrupt that baseline will be added. This lets the player feel like the additional content is still worth something, even if it isn't usable right now; it might even convince the player that wants it to run their own campaign, which can easily incorporate the material they want, and the original campaign is left intact.
Lots of comments on the bad DM part of my post... but not much on the bad player part of my post:
For me, I've had similar experiences but not with DM's, it's been with these insane players and their bizarre entitlement mentalities (and mind you, this was not just as a Ref, but also as a fellow player at the table). Sadly, it's stuck with me forever too.
Okay:
I've had lots of experiences with bad players, but I can't remember any bad experiences with players as a result of an unreasonable entitlement mentality. Players with flaws in that area always had much, much bigger flaws in some other direction which broke the camel's back first -- continual rampant cheating, inability to get along with any of the other players at all, poor hygiene taken to an extreme, need to endlessly argue with all players about everything (including, but not remotely limited to, the GM) etc.
I have just recently contemplated DMing to the point that I'm trying to piece together an adventure path. I've played with this group for about 5 years and I know the tendencies of the players and DMs. One of the DMs does a great job while the other is sketchy.
The one who does a great job seems to always know what we're gonna do next and is rarely surprised and he does a good job reigning in the stuff that slows down the game. I really want to DM and my main concern is will I be able to control the table without coming off as a tyrant? I hope so and throughout the next two campaigns I'm gonna just watch how each DM handles situations and make a mental note of it.
We had a third DM and he was pretty heavy-handed to the point that he was kicked out from behind the screen. I think each DM just has to know his group and how to handle the players. I'm sure that groups that don't have a solid roster are much more difficult to handle. I guess I'm fortunate there.
I've had lots of experiences with bad players, but I can't remember any bad experiences with players as a result of an unreasonable entitlement mentality.
I very clearly remember a player demanding that the ref of the game allow him to use a character design (including weapons, equipment, etc) that "his other ref" allowed him to use at their other game. He was adamant, insistant, and confrontational about the whole thing.
Disclaimer- I was simply a player observing the disagreement.
I don't think you're getting the point Kirth.
Example:
Say you run a game where most of the players are land bound or have very limited ability for overland travel/movement. That is actually an aspect of the campaign you are running - more realistic, gritty, whatever. New "core" book comes out with a weaker 3rd level version of teleport and when combined with a new feat that improves all teleport like spells or abilities it gives lower level groups tremendous range and flexibility.If you let this in your land bound narrative - the struggle to move across the country, regional politics, etc are chucked out the window.
A) So you can be a "dick" dm an block what you see as a mechanical power up/game option
No, I get it -- my overall point is that the type of campaign ("land bound narratives" or whatever) should exist by DM and player AGREEMENT, not by the DM deciding for everyone. In your situation, the correct choice is neither to "cave in" nor to simply ban everything -- rather, you need to talk with the players, explain that using the new inst-o-travel spell will change the game a lot and why, and then seek player consensus on whether that's what everyone wants.
No one player has the right to demand it if the others don't want it.
However, no one DM has the right to ban it if all the players do want it.
If the DM's world is so fragile that it can't accommodate the type of campaign the players all want, then I'd suggest that world is too fragile for use. Put it on a shelf somewhere and bring out something that can be used to play in!
No one player has the right to demand it if the others don't want it.
However, no one DM has the right to ban it if all the players do want it.
If the GM establishes a "tone and tenor" of a campaign beforehand and nobody, objects to it, then it's perfectly within the DM's pervue to preserve that tone and tenor for the life of the campaign. Certainly, he cannot be expected to produce a line by line itemization of what isn't allowed (or, with mystical forethought: what won't be allowed in the future (see Aux's teleportation / splat example)).
If the GM establishes a "tone and tenor" of a campaign beforehand and nobody, objects to it, then it's perfectly within the DM's pervue to preserve that tone and tenor for the life of the campaign. Certainly, he cannot be expected to produce a line by line itemization of what isn't allowed (or, with mystical forethought: what won't be allowed in the future (see Aux's teleportation / splat example)).
If the DM doesn't ask, and just dumps them into his campaign, and then refuses to adjust things at all when they start realizing what they're into? Sorry, to me, that's a dick DM, not unreasonable players. I realize from previous threads that I'm in a distinct minority on this. I realize that the overwhelming majority conform to "it's the DM's world, he can do whatever he wants and the players need to suck it up unless they submitted their variance forms in triplicate before rolling up a character."
But despite being in a minority, I still prefer not to act like that. Some players might want me to be more autocratic, and leave. That's their right as players.
I don't think you're getting the point Kirth.
Example:
Say you run a game where most of the players are land bound or have very limited ability for overland travel/movement. That is actually an aspect of the campaign you are running - more realistic, gritty, whatever. New "core" book comes out with a weaker 3rd level version of teleport and when combined with a new feat that improves all teleport like spells or abilities it gives lower level groups tremendous range and flexibility.If you let this in your land bound narrative - the struggle to move across the country, regional politics, etc are chucked out the window.
A) So you can be a "dick" dm an block what you see as a mechanical power up/game option
No, I get it -- my overall point is that the type of campaign ("land bound narratives" or whatever) should exist by DM and player AGREEMENT, not by the DM deciding for everyone. In your situation, the correct choice is neither to "cave in" nor to simply ban everything -- rather, you need to talk with the players, explain that using the new inst-o-travel spell will change the game a lot and why, and then seek player consensus on whether that's what everyone wants.
No one player has the right to demand it if the others don't want it.
However, no one DM has the right to ban it if all the players do want it.If the DM's world is so fragile that it can't accommodate the type of campaign the players all want, then I'd suggest that world is too fragile for use. Put it on a shelf somewhere and bring out something that can be used to play in!
+1
I think that's it. The Gm does have to work with his players to make a world they all enjoy.
I played in a game with a GM who wanted to run Dragon Mountain.
We'd all heard of it before and a few of us had even had the misfortunes of gaming in it for a while.
Well, we avoided every reason to go there. The GM kept tossing hints and plots and we kept moving further and further from the Mountain.
Then he had it teleport to an open plain in front of us.
The game stopped and I spoke up.
"Listen, we all know that you want us to go into the Mountain. But none of us, as characters or players, want to play that adventure. n any form." The rest of the players all nodded.
He got it. He agreed to stop trying to railroad us to the place and we had a fun time getting into all sorts of other trouble. (Ogre brothel?)
But it was because we told him what we wanted.