@littlehewy and Digitalelf: I don't think we are actually disagreeing as much as you may feel we are. I seriously doubt you would be banning something, merely for not liking it. I imagine there are lots of character concepts/designs that players in your games use that you dislike, that you, yourself would never play, that you don't ban.
As I said, there are very legitimate reasons to ban something, maybe it just doesn't fit the theme of the game setting you are running (digitalelf's comment about having to run the setting would seem to point to that).
I know that for myself, guns don't feel like they belong in a high fantasy game. Likewise, alchemists would probably also be booted due to their bombs don't feel like high fantasy to me either, much in the same way guns don't. But I wouldn't ban them merely because I personally think the class is dumb and wouldn't play one.
And let me be clear, nothing is stopping a GM from doing whatever they feel like. Hell, I've heard stories of GMs that gave the female players extra xp if they flashed the table. Just because a GM can do something doesn't mean it is appropriate for them to do it.
Each player and group will have to decide where the line is for them. Maybe having a GM that bans stuff just because they don't like them isn't enough for a player to feel like leaving the group since other than that the GM does a good job. One bad issue isn't always enough to drop a group, but just because you are willing to live with it doesn't mean that the issue wasn't bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a mutual agreement around pages 6-8 (I forgot where exactly), and then something just happened, starting a new storm.
And let me be clear, nothing is stopping a GM from doing whatever they feel like. Hell, I've heard stories of GMs that gave the female players extra xp if they flashed the table. Just because a GM can do something doesn't mean it is appropriate for them to do it.
*Eye twitches a few times* Want to give me an address or two? I feel like giving a certain chauvinist a free amateur circumcision, without any painkillers.
Just to clarify:
Earlier, I was defending the "Because I don't like x" because it's something I myself have said (about one thing - gunslingers).
But I would never withhold a more detailed answer if I had one. I suppose that's why my (excellent) bunch of players accept that answer on that particular issue - because it's the only instance of it.
Surely we can find something more interesting to argue about? :)
You would have set a precedent of answering though. That is different from the "don't ask me questions, just play" attitude that was in this thread and the others.
I wonder if everyone here is purposefully talking around each other. So here is what I am seeing;
If you are playing with a DM who arbitrarily bans classes/races/feats/etc... without warning or explanation, then you are probably playing with a bad DM.
If the GM won't answer you then you don't know if it is arbitrary or not. I would have to it is, if he never answers though.
@littlehewy and Digitalelf: I don't think we are actually disagreeing as much as you may feel we are. I seriously doubt you would be banning something, merely for not liking it. I imagine there are lots of character concepts/designs that players in your games use that you dislike, that you, yourself would never play, that you don't ban.
As I said, there are very legitimate reasons to ban something, maybe it just doesn't fit the theme of the game setting you are running (digitalelf's comment about having to run the setting would seem to point to that).
I know that for myself, guns don't feel like they belong in a high fantasy game. Likewise, alchemists would probably also be booted due to their bombs don't feel like high fantasy to me either, much in the same way guns don't. But I wouldn't ban them merely because I personally think the class is dumb and wouldn't play one.
And let me be clear, nothing is stopping a GM from doing whatever they feel like. Hell, I've heard stories of GMs that gave the female players extra xp if they flashed the table. Just because a GM can do something doesn't mean it is appropriate for them to do it.
Each player and group will have to decide where the line is for them. Maybe having a GM that bans stuff just because they don't like them isn't enough for a player to feel like leaving the group since other than that the GM does a good job. One bad issue isn't always enough to drop a group, but just because you are willing to live with it doesn't mean that the issue wasn't bad.
I actually don't feel like we're really arguing much at all, just sharing different perspectives, except for a couple of folks that is. If I myself wasn't a 'banner', I would totally be saying pretty much what you are :) That is, I do hear what you're saying. In practice, it's just worked out a little different for me.
Because gunslingers make Hewy smash!
|
But sometimes, "because I just don't like ____ and it doesn't fit the game setting I'm trying to portray" IS an appropriate answer. I don't care how much a player really, really likes cyborg mechs, if they don't fit in my fantasy game, then they don't fit.
Some things just don't belong in some games, period.
Well, in the case of a cyborg mech, that would be one of times no-one would blame the GM if they did just go "F*** O**", as that goes waaaay outside the assumptions of even the most rabid steampunker.
But....in Greyhawk there is the Apparatus of Kwalish.
....The Machine of Lum the Mad.
...The Mighty Servant of Leuk-O.
All Greyhawk canon. All Old-School-friendly, and Grognard-approved.
And then there's Ravenloft. If anywhere could be a fit, it's there.
Who's to say the Mists haven't absorbed a young girls finishing school, where they train to use their katanas, their mechs and their magical panties, to defend their honour from erotic tentacle-beasts from Planet Hentai?
Again, only in your imagination.If a GM has a standard response of "Why should I tell you my reasons? How dare you ask!", then the players will be more likely to challenge future decisions, because the GM has a history of making arbitary rulings.
That's a vicious cycle, spiralling ever onward into acrimony.
The tone of many of the posts in this thread imply that GMs need protecting from their unruly, demanding players, need to hold them at arms length, possibly with a chair and whip, as they prowl the gaming venue, looking for any sign of weakness, before they pounce, thirsting for hot, red, pulsing GM's blood.
You missed the "shutup and play I don't have to explain myself" comments" There are several in the past few days in this thread, and the one that spawned it.
Yeah that is not an excat match to what was said, but that is the feeling it gives especially since not one reason has been given to say how not answering is better than answering in regards to improving a game, other than cases such as spoilers. Even then saying "I can't talk about it for campaign reasons" works. It is definitely a lot better than "I refuse to talk about it. If you don't like it then don't play."
In PF, the mech is called apparatus of the crab.
Who's to say the Mists haven't absorbed a young girls finishing school, where they train to use their katanas, their mechs and their magical panties, to defend their honour from erotic tentacle-beasts from Planet Hentai?
Lol, you run it, I'll play it :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the thing to take away here is that both sides are correct, and each understanding of how indulgent a DM should be when answering his player's questions is too situational to iron down anything in black and white.
Because the major posters on BOTH sides are twisting the other side's argument to it's most extreme, and then attempting to portray that as their opponent's baseline position.
Neither side is going to change their minds. It has just become argument for arguement's sake.
If this were cause for a lock, then the majority of the Paizo boards would have been locked long ago.
There's a good bit of discussion going on outside of the major opposing sides. Locking wouldn't be fair to those posters.
I don't really know where I stand on this whole topic. I do know, however, that I have a player who likes to argue. A lot. About everything. Sometimes, it feels like you have to present a 20-slide power point presentation detailing your justification for something (with valid statistical data of course), and that's just...
Sorry, but sometimes "because I'm the one who's going to spend two months writing the campaign and I say so" just has to be good enough.
If not, I'll be happy to play in your campaign. :p
I spoke on this earlier. That is a player issue. That does not mean answering question is bad. If player X likes to argue then don't answer his questions. If he wants to know why tell him, when he learns when to let things go and not argue so much he you will be ok with "having a discussion with him". Let each player make their own bed.
Again, like most of this thread, this is a question of opening lines of communication and not being a dick about shutting them down.
Nothing to add... :)
This thread is massively overdue for a lock.
I had a thread go 14 or 15 pages. We have 5 more pages before ShallowSoul's thread catches mine. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I spoke on this earlier. That is a player issue. That does not mean answering question is bad. If player X likes to argue then don't answer his questions. If he wants to know why tell him, when he learns when to let things go and not argue so much he you will be ok with "having a discussion with him". Let each player make their own bed.I don't really know where I stand on this whole topic. I do know, however, that I have a player who likes to argue. A lot. About everything. Sometimes, it feels like you have to present a 20-slide power point presentation detailing your justification for something (with valid statistical data of course), and that's just...
Sorry, but sometimes "because I'm the one who's going to spend two months writing the campaign and I say so" just has to be good enough.
If not, I'll be happy to play in your campaign. :p
I would also suggest that you let the player know that you'll be happy to discuss the issue in detail, outside of game time. Here is how I usually approach it, "Let's just do it this way for now. I might be wrong, and I'd like to see what you have on the issue, but I don't want to hold up the game to discuss it now. Email me later and we'll get it all straightened out before next session." Most of the time, said player will lose interest after the game session. But at least you treated them with respect and gave them an opportunity to discuss it.
Now if they refuse to be cooperative, at that point, they are disrupting the game, and need to be asked to shut it or leave. They have no right to monopolize the game time for everyone.
Because the major posters on BOTH sides are twisting the other side's argument to it's most extreme, and then attempting to portray that as their opponent's baseline position.
Neither side is going to change their minds. It has just become argument for arguement's sake.
Actually progress was made once. It can be made again.
Also some people have said they don't field questions so it is not an extreme to say they GM that way. Some people that have not said that may have been lumped in with them, but in that case you should try to separate yourself from that group like Brian did.
Basically here is what we have.
3 different mindsets:
1. I am the GM, and what I say goes without question. If you don't like it then you can not play and/or find another group.
2. I don't really agree with that(statement 1), but the GM is in charge so I support his right to not explain things if he wants to.
3. The GM should explain things if he has the capability to do so, and it won't harm the game.
|
|
Who's to say the Mists haven't absorbed a young girls finishing school, where they train to use their katanas, their mechs and their magical panties, to defend their honour from erotic tentacle-beasts from Planet Hentai?
Lol, you run it, I'll play it :)
"Sucker Punch-finder"?
"Strahd's Moving Castle"?
"Gundam Thing"?
I would also suggest that you let the player know that you'll be happy to discuss the issue in detail, outside of game time. Here is how I usually approach it, "Let's just do it this way for now. I might be wrong, and I'd like to see what you have on the issue, but I don't want to hold up the game to discuss it now. Email me later and we'll get it all straightened out before next session." Most of the time, said player will lose interest after the game session. But at least you treated them with respect and gave them an opportunity to discuss it.
Now if they refuse to be cooperative, at that point, they are disrupting the game, and need to be asked to shut it or leave. They have no right to monopolize the game time for everyone.
I was assuming the questioning of the ban was not happening at the table from the beginning. I say that because any campaign issues should be handled before the game starts. That is how I have always seen it done. If a rules issue pops up in the game. I give the player a short time(less than 1 minute) to correct me. If he can't find a source then my ruling stands, but I will check after the game, and send him an email saying who was correct and why.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I ban anything, it's before the game starts. If something comes up mid-game that I didn't notice before, that really irks me, then I open it up for the group to discuss. Fortunately, most of the players I play with are in it for the fun of all, and aren't trying to slip a fast one past the DM, so our discussions are neutral and very beneficial.
But my point being, once the game starts, nothing gets auto-banned in play, without the rest of the group agreeing on it. Good communication can do wonders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was assuming the questioning of the ban was not happening at the table from the beginning. I say that because any campaign issues should be handled before the game starts. That is how I have always seen it done. If a rules issue pops up in the game. I give the player a short time(less than 1 minute) to correct me. If he can't find a source then my ruling stands, but I will check after the game, and send him an email saying who was correct and why.
I would also suggest that you let the player know that you'll be happy to discuss the issue in detail, outside of game time. Here is how I usually approach it, "Let's just do it this way for now. I might be wrong, and I'd like to see what you have on the issue, but I don't want to hold up the game to discuss it now. Email me later and we'll get it all straightened out before next session." Most of the time, said player will lose interest after the game session. But at least you treated them with respect and gave them an opportunity to discuss it.
Now if they refuse to be cooperative, at that point, they are disrupting the game, and need to be asked to shut it or leave. They have no right to monopolize the game time for everyone.
Right. If it was a race/class/whatever issue about character creation, all of that should be ironed out before people get to the game. Unless you do character creation during the first session. Still, you should send out the guidelines prior to someone showing up.
I mean, if someone can dedicated hours a day to debating on a game site, I think they can spend a little time emailing back and forth with a player, even if said player likes to argue just to argue. I mean, what do you think is going on here? ;)
|
Oh, and your argument borders on ad hominem with the whole "you're just imagining things" part.Well, adow, it's hard to figure otherwise when someone makes up tripe like:
Don't expect a straight answer. Remember he expects and sometines not only demands answers from other posters.We play a fantasy game. We live in the real world. Some people apparently have a hard time telling them apart.
Right because you have been a paragon of virtue throught the entire thread. Basically telling anyone your going to post what you want. Whenever the hell you want and anyone else can go to hell if they dont like. Whatever the rules only apply to you when your the target. Everyone else is fair game. Or are you going to say that is not true either.
Just in case you accusing me of making things up when I asked you to tone done some of the comments in your posts
Y'know, I really don't care.
If someone has an issue with it, they can flag it. If they don't want to read my comments, they can ignore me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let it go brother.
No good comes from debating on who was rude first or was rudest.
Let it go brother.
No good comes from debating on who was rude first or was rudest.
Seconded.
|
|
Found the post I referred to earlier. It was when everyone was talking turkey, and I got hungry;
Except it isn't. In this case, the host is making a statement of positive inclusion from a starting null set. That's not the case when banning options from a game. Banning from a game is the opposite operation - excluding elements from an already populated, even default, set.
For a lot of people, there's an automatic starting level of 'distrust' of homebrew.
It's the material that's most often passed over, banned, modified, or sat on a shelf, unread, unloved.And a lot of people don't have a problem with that, because it's seen as extraneous, unnecessary, surplus to requirements. They don't believe it has been through the same rigorous development, editing and playtesting, as official material.
I beg to differ on that, but I can't deny that's the public perception, possibly as a result of third-party glut in earlier years.
By contrast, they do believe that material in the PF Core Rules has run the gauntlet of forum debates, and been reforged in the crucible of public opinion, overseen by master craftsfolk, informed with ten years of experience on the parent system.
Material in the APG/UM/UC and Campaign Setting has less experience in the school of hard knocks, but there was still public testing, and the guiding hand of developers that are trusted by the majority on these boards. Even when they don't get everything 100%, they are still believed to have given it their best shot.
So, while few people will bat an eyelid at a GM choosing not to add untried options by a cottage industry, to the 'default set', they do expect a much more well-thought out justification, when a GM decides to remove default options from a game that has seen four decades of development, and playtest input from millions of groups worldwide.
You don't want to use the Time Thief?* Whatever, I'll wait for another chance to play one.
You want to ban the Wizard? The Cleric? Vancian casting?
You wanna step outside, and say that? I want you to explain yourself to Gygax, Arneson, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Cook, Tweet, Williams, Cooke, Bullmahn....
*purely an example, 3rd party class that people expect will have some 'wierdo' paradoxical mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found the post I referred to earlier. It was when everyone was talking turkey, and I got hungry;
Except it isn't. In this case, the host is making a statement of positive inclusion from a starting null set. That's not the case when banning options from a game. Banning from a game is the opposite operation - excluding elements from an already populated, even default, set.For a lot of people, there's an automatic starting level of 'distrust' of homebrew.
It's the material that's most often passed over, banned, modified, or sat on a shelf, unread, unloved.And a lot of people don't have a problem with that, because it's seen as extraneous, unnecessary, surplus to requirements. They don't believe it has been through the same rigorous development, editing and playtesting, as official material.
I beg to differ on that, but I can't deny that's the public perception, possibly as a result of third-party glut in earlier years.By contrast, they do believe that material in the PF Core Rules has run the gauntlet of forum debates, and been reforged in the crucible of public opinion, overseen by master craftsfolk, informed with ten years of experience on the parent system.
Material in the APG/UM/UC and Campaign Setting has less experience in the school of hard knocks, but there was still public testing, and the guiding hand of developers that are trusted by the majority on these boards. Even when they don't get everything 100%, they are still believed to have given it their best shot.
So, while few people will bat an eyelid at a GM choosing not to add untried options by a cottage industry, to the 'default set', they do expect a much more well-thought out justification, when a GM decides to remove default options from a game that has seen four decades of development, and playtest input from millions of groups worldwide.
You don't want to use the Time Thief?* Whatever, I'll wait for another chance to play one.
You want to ban the Wizard? The Cleric? Vancian casting?
You...
The bolded part is what I am really sick of, as both a Player and a DM.
|
GMs get to control every aspect of design and behavior of the others beings (NPCs) in the game "universe".
Players can only directly make decisions of design in relation with their own PC.
Thus a GM should have a better reason for infringing on the single design option the player has than just, "I don't like it."
Who lied to you when they told you this?
Technically, a GM doesn't have to have a reason to ban something just like you don't have to agree to play in the game. Now if you are personally requiring a certain amount of information to be passed to you before you are satisfied is a personal problem at the end of the day and has no reflection on the DM what so ever.
Some of you sound like your skills as a player are so great and sought after that a DM better give you a good explanation as to why he isn't allowing something or you won't bless the table with your presence and the DM will go and cry in the corner because you won't play in his game.
What's "good enough" is subjective.
|
|
Is the GM not allowed to have his own irrational likes and dislikes, much like any of the other players?
In a word....no.
I prefer not to hang out with irrational people. I value my sanity and safety far too much.
The thing with people who are allowed to go on for years, thinking irrationally?
They start to behave...irrationally.
Oh, it starts out with little things, like declaring Sneak Attack to ZOMGBROKENOVERPOWERED!!!!1! and Powerful Sneak to be a gamebreaker, rather than a trap feat.
But where does it end?
Am I going to come home and find he's nailed sprouts to my front door, to ward off leprechauns?
Will he smash a hole in my roof, because the End Times are coming, and he doesn't want to miss being caught in The Rapture if he's asleep?
Will he grease himself up, and hide in the ceiling space, to avoid the Mothmen? Do I gotta call Pest Control to shoo him out?
|
|
Saying "I just don't like that" is the same as saying "because I said so"...
Not every person that plays an RPG is a critical thinker, nor are all who play them articulate speakers. Are there specific concrete reasons of why someone does not like something buried within that person's psyche? Probably so, but not everyone has the ability to bring them to the surface...
Just because one person can sit and do a little soul searching and come up with the underlying reasons for their own irrational likes, dislikes, and opinions, does not mean everyone can...
(Because this thread is not just about mechanical concerns, or themed campaigns, but also about game tone.)
There are some things I would not question.
If they wished to set limits on gore, sexual content, horror, bad language, or other sensitive topics, I would have the sense not to push for a reason.
Whether it's a simple matter of thinking such topics are poor taste, or because they trigger phobias or bad memories, it's not my place to ask. Unless they wish to offer that information, it should remain their prerogative.
If you don't mind robots in your fantasy, or intelligent constructs it should not be an issue. I know they are not robots, but many people they of them as pseudo robots, and they don't like them for that reason.
Of course it could be the 1000 immunities they have.
PS:...just repeating things I have heard from GM's that don't like warforged.
PS2:If a person thinks their dislike of _____ is irrational then why support that belief?
Let say I don't like Mark(imaginary co-worker/associate/etc), but I am also of the opinion that he is a good person or at least not a bad person, and I have no reason to dislike him. I would not treat him the same as I would treat someone who gave me a reason not to like them. I know classes/feats/spell/etc are not people, but still...
|
|
No one is imo saying that players who argue even when a DM has explained should still continue to question a decision. If a player asks why no gunslingers and I say because I dont want a class that targets touch ac. Then he still keeps asking why then I will put my foot down and tell the player to stop or leave th game. Whic is imo a extreme example that happens rarely.
Simply asking for more information when the DM is to some in this thread seems not only entilement but also a huge breach of etiquette. IF I get inivited to a all you can eat hamburger BBQ and the serve hot dogs Im going to politely ask why the BBQ has no hamburgers. If a reason is given why I will eat the hot dogs. If I get "because its what your going to get so stop asking" Im fine with that too. Instead I order in hamburgers for myself. Of course I dont question everything in game Sometimes questions can and will pop up. If your not wiliing to answer all question be upfront about it. If you tell me as a player your willing to field any and all questions than put limits on what can be asked or the feedback you want to get well tell me. Then dont pretend that you are willing to answer questions in the first place. That too is a form of entilement. Spefically on the Dms end
And while I dont consider myself the greatest player or demand a DM give me a good answer. I will ask for more information. Espcially if the DM is very vague or gives me a "because" answer. A DM may have full control over what he allows in his game. He does not have control over what a player is going to ask at the table. If as a DM you give littlle or no information to the point where its like pulling teeth with pliers of course players are going to ask. No one is saying share all your secrets a degree of communication is needed. Telling "because that;s how it is" or even worse "Im the DM" is not imo a answer. Its a evasion. Why are some posters in this thread so afraid of communicating with their players. D
One good thing that has come out of this thread. Myself and my players some who have been lurking on the forums will try and work with a DM who is not commuicative. Be polite and ask for more inforamtion. If the DM is rude refuses to say anything well we have decided either indivudually or as a group to leave the table. We are all in our 30s and 40s and we have no patience for this type of BS anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs get to control every aspect of design and behavior of the others beings (NPCs) in the game "universe".
Players can only directly make decisions of design in relation with their own PC.
Thus a GM should have a better reason for infringing on the single design option the player has than just, "I don't like it."
Who lied to you when they told you this?
Technically, a GM doesn't have to have a reason to ban something just like you don't have to agree to play in the game. Now if you are personally requiring a certain amount of information to be passed to you before you are satisfied is a personal problem at the end of the day and has no reflection on the DM what so ever.
Some of you sound like your skills as a player are so great and sought after that a DM better give you a good explanation as to why he isn't allowing something or you won't bless the table with your presence and the DM will go and cry in the corner because you won't play in his game.
What's "good enough" is subjective.
GMs CAN do a lot of things and get away with them as long as enough of the people they game with can tolerate it.
That doesn't mean it is behavior that GM SHOULD use.
i.e. Just because your* players didn't argue when you* said your* stuff smelled like roses ...
*Generic you, not anyone in particular.
GMs get to control every aspect of design and behavior of the others beings (NPCs) in the game "universe".
Players can only directly make decisions of design in relation with their own PC.
Thus a GM should have a better reason for infringing on the single design option the player has than just, "I don't like it."
Who lied to you when they told you this?
Technically, a GM doesn't have to have a reason to ban something just like you don't have to agree to play in the game. Now if you are personally requiring a certain amount of information to be passed to you before you are satisfied is a personal problem at the end of the day and has no reflection on the DM what so ever.
Some of you sound like your skills as a player are so great and sought after that a DM better give you a good explanation as to why he isn't allowing something or you won't bless the table with your presence and the DM will go and cry in the corner because you won't play in his game.
What's "good enough" is subjective.
Everything you just said can be reversed to apply to the DM.
So instead of proposing a one-sided solution to this, why don't we talk about how cooperation can improve the game?
|
|
For a lot of people, there's an automatic starting level of 'distrust' of homebrew.
The bolded part is what I am really sick of, as both a Player and a DM.
It's true; and it's sad. So much good stuff out there, not being used.
Of course, there's probably some crap as well, but it should be judged on merit, not the size of the production budget.People do prefer to play it safe, work from trusted sources.
The assumption is possibly understandable, if the GM and fellow players have been burned in the past.
I'm sure every player can remember That Guy, from their first group, who was always trying to turn everything up to 11.
And it would always be to turn the game to his own advantage.
I started in the early 80s, so the big thing was ninja. Ninja this, ninja that. Every time we played there'd be That Guy flapping his gums about how awesome ninja were.
It's because of people like that, that so many people today won't even consider a ninja in their game, even when created by official sources, and when the math is laid out for comparison with top-tier classes.
I think the trick to getting homebrew stuff considered by your group, is to show that you're not doing it for personal gain.
Make up material for another player, make up material for your GM to use against you.
Show them you're not trying to hog the spotlight; you're stepping back, to give the spotlight to another player.
You'll get more and better feedback, if you're not seen to be to close to your precious.
|
GMs get to control every aspect of design and behavior of the others beings (NPCs) in the game "universe".
Players can only directly make decisions of design in relation with their own PC.
Thus a GM should have a better reason for infringing on the single design option the player has than just, "I don't like it."
Who lied to you when they told you this?
Technically, a GM doesn't have to have a reason to ban something just like you don't have to agree to play in the game. Now if you are personally requiring a certain amount of information to be passed to you before you are satisfied is a personal problem at the end of the day and has no reflection on the DM what so ever.
Some of you sound like your skills as a player are so great and sought after that a DM better give you a good explanation as to why he isn't allowing something or you won't bless the table with your presence and the DM will go and cry in the corner because you won't play in his game.
What's "good enough" is subjective.
Woah now...if my gm told me this, i would walk away from his game as fast as i could. That is downright douchebag behavior. Who the hell does that GM think he is? A god? A King?
The GM is just another player, albeit with a larger job and a much greater responsibility. He has no right to treat players the way i assume you either treat yours or would treat yours if you had any players (i assume from your posts on your GMing style).
|
|
GMs get to control every aspect of design and behavior of the others beings (NPCs) in the game "universe".
Players can only directly make decisions of design in relation with their own PC.
Thus a GM should have a better reason for infringing on the single design option the player has than just, "I don't like it."
Who lied to you when they told you this?
Technically, a GM doesn't have to have a reason to ban something just like you don't have to agree to play in the game. Now if you are personally requiring a certain amount of information to be passed to you before you are satisfied is a personal problem at the end of the day and has no reflection on the DM what so ever.
Some of you sound like your skills as a player are so great and sought after that a DM better give you a good explanation as to why he isn't allowing something or you won't bless the table with your presence and the DM will go and cry in the corner because you won't play in his game.
What's "good enough" is subjective.
Woah now...if my gm told me this, i would walk away from his game as fast as i could. That is downright douchebag behavior. Who the hell does that GM think he is? A god? A King?
The GM is just another player, albeit with a larger job and a much greater responsibility. He has no right to treat players the way i assume you either treat yours or would treat yours if you had any players (i assume from your posts on your GMing style).
The thing is the DM has already given you the option to walk away. DM's are not going to beg you to play in their game. You either want play in their game that they propose or you don't. You are an individual who doesn't speak for the group.
The DM is more than just another player I'm afraid and by RAW the book backs him up. That's the biggest problem I see here is thinking that the DM is just another player. He is the person that hosts his game, builds his game, spends hours making and running his game. Player's are guests in the DM's house who are free to leave if they find the DM's hospitality not what they want it to be but don't expect the host to come running after you begging for you to come back in.
|
|
First of all, i have been GMing almost exclusively for the past 10 years. And i didn't always host the game. So that BS goes out of the window. If i was hosting the game and the GM acted like a douche (like the one in your posts does), i would promptly tell him to leave my house. And then i would proceed to GM a game.
You obviously live in a strange place where GMs are a commodity. While they can be rare, anyone can GM and some can even become really good at it over time. So that hing about begging, also calling BS.
Now the GM does have a (much) larger responsibility then the players. To make the game. But if there are no players, he does not get to play either. SO, yes, a GM is just another player, not some mythical being of power and awesomeness.
The thing is the DM has already given you the option to walk away. DM's are not going to beg you to play in their game. You either want play in their game that they propose or you don't. You are an individual who doesn't speak for the group.The DM is more than just another player I'm afraid and by RAW the book backs him up. That's the biggest problem I see here is thinking that the DM is just another player. He is the person that hosts his game, builds his game, spends hours making and running his game. Player's are guests in the DM's house who are free to leave if they find the DM's hospitality not what they want it to be but don't expect the host to come running after you begging for you to come back in.
The GM is not always the host, not that being the host should even matter. By that logic the player can force a GM's hand.
I also think you missed my earlier post. You can't compare players to visiting guest because a guest generally brings nothing. Players also put in work, which means they bring something. They don't normally put in the work the GM puts in, but nobody is forcing him to GM either.
I have been to parties where I have eaten and left, and I have been to parties where I have stayed and helped clean up. The players are a lot closer to the people that help setup or cleanup than those who eat and leave since they do provide a neccessary component for the game. If I have a party, and nobody shows up I can still eat. If I run a game and nobody shows up...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I game at someone else's house and some of the times one of the residents does the GMing, other times one of the guests does the GMing. At my own home, I usually GM, but also have acted as just a player and host and let someone run the game. I haven't ever played with or acted as a GM that was above the players. Even when we had bad GMs, which is part of the reason I started GMing, they just weren't great with the rules and flow of the game, but it wasn't that they were being disrespectful to the players in a "My way or the highway" type of attitude.
Of course I live by the following adage, "Life is too short to game with douche-bags."
The thing is the DM has already given you the option to walk away. DM's are not going to beg you to play in their game. You either want play in their game that they propose or you don't. You are an individual who doesn't speak for the group.
The DM is more than just another player I'm afraid and by RAW the book backs him up. That's the biggest problem I see here is thinking that the DM is just another player. He is the person that hosts his game, builds his game, spends hours making and running his game. Player's are guests in the DM's house who are free to leave if they find the DM's hospitality not what they want it to be but don't expect the host to come running after you begging for you to come back in.
Are you opposed to cooperation between a GM and their players to create a game that is fun for all of them?
Edit: Let me clarify.
My position is that if there is a disconnect between the player and the GM, both sides should try to find common ground.
For the GM, it's a game, not a Shakespearean masterpiece. There is nothing so sacred in your story/theme/setting, that you can't bend it to accommodate a player.
For a player, you aren't always going to get exactly what you want. You should strive to communicate your goal and work with the GM to get a close approximation of that goal, but be prepared to modify your concept to fit the story/theme/setting.
All this "you can just walk away" is childish, immature and non-productive. If someone is a jerk, a$!#$%#, etc, sure you walk away or whatever.