"I invited you over for brownies, not a cheese danish." Why no DM style is right or wrong.


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
the David wrote:
At least he wasn't as bad as this one.

HOLY CRAP. What a horrible human being. Not the host, the other guy.


Icyshadow wrote:
Do the babies belong to the players, or their characters?

Dagnabbit, you sound just like the cops! Mind your own business.


Rude much Icyshadow?

You learn more and by extension affect change better by understanding others. Not by flashing attitude.


I edited the earlier post, and apologize for the outburst.
There's a lot on the background of that whole mess, I hope you understand.


the David wrote:
At least he wasn't as bad as this one.

That guy's parents did him a gross disservice.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
Doram ob'Han wrote:

My friends' parents didn't like me very much, because I always made them justify their rules. On the other hand, I never broke rules that had logical justifications.

Wow. That's really rude. No offense is intended, but I see why your friends' parents didn't like you. I sure as hell wouldn't if I were in their position. If any of my kid's friends had seriously questioned the rules of our household, that kid would not be particularly welcome in my home again, and I would start to discourage the friendship. I might give the kid's parents a polite call as well.

In this way, parenting and DMing are similar (I say this as a parent and a DM): if you make up rules and your only reasoning for them is "because I say so," then your rules are worthless, and your kids and your players know it. In players, this leads to finding new groups, or acting out. In kids, this leads to sneaking out and lying. If you're the kind of parent who doesn't explain their rules, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want my kid being around that kind of influence.

Even if it were okay for parents to make up arbitrary rules, your players aren't children, and deserve to be treated like adults.

Returning to the danish example, I think a good parent would have said, "why a danish," in case the response was "I'm allergic to chocolate'" or at least "you can't have the danish because I need it for breakfast tomorrow." Likewise, "you can't playba ninja" is bad DMing, whereas "I'm not big on ninjas because there is no Asia in my world and they don't exist," or "the ki mechanic doesn't fit my game," because the player can say "look, there's a ninja archetype that doesn't use ki, can I play that?"

Because talking to your players is good Gming, and talking to your kids is good parenting, whereas stamping your foot, putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "these are my rules because I am in charge here," is simply not. The latter results in GMing for your cats, while your players (or your kids) resent you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

DM'ing and parenting are not similar. Players don't have to agree or obey a DM's rules. They can not play or leave.
Children, by way of the parent-child relationship have no such option (except in cases where the law is being broken).
It's not putting your fingers in your ears.
It's recognizing that they are a parent and an adult, and you weren't.
And it was their house. It was their food. They don't need to justify anything, especially to a child. It shows an unreasonable sense of entitlement that they either needed to provide other options than what was freely given, or that you deserved an explanation.

The laws adults have to follow, socially, require some common sense, some reason behind them. You can rightly ask what that is of an officer of the court, or an HR representative in the company you work for or do internet research.

The rules of a person's house are take them or leave them, they don't need to make sense to you. Especially if you are a minor.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why so many people don't trust authority. Because they've seen far too many arbitrary rules handed down from such authorities. Starting with childhood.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
Doram ob'Han wrote:

My friends' parents didn't like me very much, because I always made them justify their rules. On the other hand, I never broke rules that had logical justifications.

Wow. That's really rude. No offense is intended, but I see why your friends' parents didn't like you. I sure as hell wouldn't if I were in their position. If any of my kid's friends had seriously questioned the rules of our household, that kid would not be particularly welcome in my home again, and I would start to discourage the friendship. I might give the kid's parents a polite call as well.

I disagree. Having worked as a professional childcare worker before, I've found that always being able to explain rules (in a manner appropriate to your audience, 4 y/o's are different from 6 y/o's) greatly increases the efficacy of rules.

Kids should ask questions. They should be respectful when doing so, but asking questions leads to understanding. It's never bothered me when kids ask questions. I've also successfully dealt with violent kids (who didn't have any developmental disorders).

If your authority is legitimate, a question will never threaten it.


All rules are abitrary. When you understand that, and accept that following arbitrary rules is not necessarily a thing to be loathed, you often find peace.


TOZ wrote:
This is why so many people don't trust authority. Because they've seen far too many arbitrary rules handed down from such authorities. Starting with childhood.

If the rules are indeed arbitrary, then true.

Just because a parent or other authority figure doesn't explain their decisions to a child does not make them arbitrary.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Just because a parent or other authority figure doesn't explain their decisions to a child does not make them arbitrary.

In the Army they say perception is 90% of reality.


There aren't any children in the Army. Well, age-wise.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I see you like to latch on the the unimportant part of the statement rather than the point. Carry on then.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The guest has the right to ask for a cheese danish, the host has a right to say "no" and should be trusted enough that the host has a good reason--it is the host's home and the host's hard work baking and all. The guest shouldn't be surprised if cheese danishes are unavailable if they were specifically offered brownies. And at the same time, the host should trust the guest that the guest meant no harm by asking for a cheese danish. And perhaps some other time the host may offer cheese danishes, or the guest may find them elsewhere.

Oh, we could go on and on.

There is a mystery in these GM/player threads that somewhat (and only somewhat) eludes me--that when GMs and players do not get along or have different goals, why do they not simply seek out new groups?

There is a lot of anger--a LOT--of anger and bitterness I see from GMs directed toward jerk players and from players directed toward jerk GMs. All from bad experiences. Their anger is legit. They felt they were in an unjust situation. They probably were. No one should--nor I think often has--say they shouldn't have been angry. But it's how they direct that anger in future. The challenge seems to be learning to discern "this individual is a jerk" from "all GMs/players are evil and I must FIGHT THEM ALL because this one time someone made me feel bad."

Now, I've had bad GM experiences. Usually none of them have been to do with a GM not letting me play something I wanted to because my GMs have always been pretty upfront about what's available and what's not, I accept the parameters they offer, and devote my energy toward designing something within their parameters that I will have a lot of fun with and then do so. At times when the parameters have been broad and it's not clear what's available, I've asked, "Can I play X?" and I've almost always been met with "yes," or in rarer occasions, "no, because [very good reason here]." I'd like to hope my experience with this does not put me in some very rare minority.

My bad experiences come from when I was a) a more inexperienced gamer myself, and unsure what to expect or how to assert myself (that was a general problem I had when I was younger) and b) in games where GMs weren't restrictive but just manipulative jerks who did nasty stuff to PCs because it gave them a thrill. Over time, I learned that these GMs were examples of bad GMing, and I stopped playing with them. I've ultimately found some awesome folks to play with and while sometimes we have to note, "Hey, Bob really shouldn't play this system with Sally, they'll fight over how X works," Bob and Sally are also aware of this and understanding they need to be in different games from each other and are otherwise kind and civil to each other. It's a good thing, and we find it quite easy to say, "Hey, I'm running this, here are the parameters, who's interested?" and then the folks who are interested and willing to work within the parameters get invited to play and the others find other games. And there are no hard feelings, no angst, no frustration. It's lovely. Again, I'd love to hope this is not an unusual situation.

And here's the thing, I've lived in several areas, and in most of them, I've had very little trouble finding folks to play with. Sometimes you do have to go a through jerks to find the fun folks to play with, but gamers are always looking for each other. We may be a small group but we tend to be pretty tenacious about finding groups, and a trip to the local game store or asking a friend to introduce you to someone or posting on a message board in a gamer finder area (like the Gamer Connection subforum below) generally has had good results for me, in my personal experience anyway. And then of course there's always PBP if all else fails.

So there's never a reason, unless you really live out in the middle of absolutely nowhere with no means of communication, to put up with a jerk because they're the only group you can find. There's always folks looking to play somewhere, so drop the jerks, accept that not all players and GMs act like they do, and find your joy.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What Deathquaker said.

I've been pretty aggressive in seeking more players for Society play. So when I over heard some guys in my unit talking Pathfinder I engaged them and swapped stories. They were a little distant, so I asked if they were interested in trying organized play.

After they said things like 'gotta mow my lawn' and 'it would cut into my Borderlands time' and 'I have to wash my garbage', I laughed and left them alone.

Not everyone is someone to game with.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as authority goes. I have observed one interesting thing. I didn't earn respect as a GM till I had the guts to actually say NO. Sometimes a player might not agree, but the group as a whole is often very grateful when you put your foot down and make a ruling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

As far as authority goes. I have observed one interesting thing. I didn't earn respect as a GM till I had the guts to actually say NO. Sometimes a player might not agree, but the group as a whole is often very grateful when you put your foot down and make a ruling.

This goes to leadership and group management though. Not protecting your setting/theme/story. People like boundaries and it's a good thing to set them. People also like having input when setting those boundaries as well.

The important part is the group dynamic and if everyone is having fun. The unimportant part is whether elves like red flowers or green flowers more.


Irontruth wrote:
The important part is the group dynamic and if everyone is having fun. The unimportant part is whether elves like red flowers or green flowers more.

I was going to post but this statement sums up what I was going to say better than I could have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
And if your friend tells you his music preferences, but you pressure him into showing up anyways, would you be surprised if they ask or suggest music you didn't intend?

How do you pressure someone to show up to your party?

Emotional blackmail?

I have met people/players who want things their way regardless of the situation they are in. They are willing to convince others that their way is superior even if this involves emotional blackmail. Certainly this is true with both GM's and Players.

Irontruth wrote:
Just because your the GM doesn't mean you get to dictate other people's preferences.

Of course not. You do get to dictate how the game is run, which isn't the same thing as dictating your players preferences.

Irontruth wrote:
In a game amongst friends, you should be accommodating to your friends, because the point of a game isn't for the GM to tell a story, it's to play a game.

I agree. Although it isn't that simple.

To rephrase Abraham Lincoln:

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time."

Of course Abraham Lincoln didn't use the word "please" he used the word "fool" but I feel it's astute either way.

A GM is also a player, but she isn't just a player, shes the player who spends hours preparing for each session. You can't expect someone to spend hours preparing for something they don't want to do.

Irontruth wrote:
IMO Bad GMing includes putting your story/theme/setting above the enjoyment of your players.

If the GM is held responsible for the enjoyment of the players then the players are also held responsible for the enjoyment of the GM. The relationship has to be give and take. As a player you might have to compromise some of your preferences with your GM.

Just as you can't expect someone to show up for a game they don't want to play you can't expect someone to spend hours preparing for something they don't want to run.

Certainly if no one shows up to your party then you'll be sitting around doing nothing. You can't have a party without people and you can't have a game without players. You should certainly take your players opinions into consideration, but you shouldn't prepare for a game/party which you don't want to run/host.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Don't evade the profanity filter.


Karlgamer wrote:


If the GM is held responsible for the enjoyment of the players then the players are also held responsible for the enjoyment of the GM. The relationship has to be give and take. As a player you might have to compromise some of your preferences with your GM.

I don't have a problem with this, if you also accept the concept that its okay for GM's to compromise as well.

GM's all too often get hung up on their story/theme/setting and lose sight of the fact that they are playing a game with other people. The people playing the game and the process of playing are far more important than any specific within the game.

Now that runs both ways, for players as well, but a player usually only controls one things, their character. I'm much more inclined to side with a player wanting to include something than a GM excluding it, because the GM already got to include tons of stuff into the game.


Karlgamer wrote:
A GM is also a player, but she isn't just a player, shes the player who spends hours preparing for each session. You can't expect someone to spend hours preparing for something they don't want to do.

As a side note, I consider this a guilt trap. "Oh, because I spent hours slaving away over a hot stove, the least you can do is eat it."

I run a bi-weekly shadowrun game that is going very well. I maybe do 2 hours of prep per session, mostly writing down stats for potential NPC's. All world creation and setting decisions are made during the actual game session, and I twist the cannon setting quite a bit.

Last session things were getting a little boring and slow, so I had a car bomb go off. I didn't know who put it there or why, just that it went off. This week, we revisited it and I had to create an extremist politician, paramilitary organization and political movements on the fly. I asked the players questions and took input from them regularly in the process. I asked them to think of things for next session as well.

Its their game as much as mine. My job is just to help them come up with cool stuff to do.


Irontruth wrote:
I don't have a problem with this, if you also accept the concept that its okay for GM's to compromise as well.

Yes. Some although it depends.

You said: "The unimportant part is whether elves like red flowers or green flowers more."

Your right about this being unimportant although it's unimportant because it's most likely trivial to the story. So it's just as trivial to the players as it is to the GM.

The fact that a particular NPC likes red flowers might be vitally important to the story. The GM shouldn't change the situation because one of this players has a hangup with red flowers(Although there might be more to that hangup which should probably be discussed with a professional(in such a very rare case if the GM can change it perhaps he should)).

If at the beginning of a game session your GM says you can't play certain classes that should mostly be the end of that discussion. You are free to inquire why or even make some suggestions. Perhaps a archetype of one of those classes would fit better. In the end it's the GM's decision.

Irontruth wrote:
GM's all too often get hung up on their story/theme/setting and lose sight of the fact that they are playing a game with other people.

I've seen GM's who were all about story but who failed at basic rules knowledge.

I've seen Players who wanted to use something that wasn't allowed.

I've never seen, in all my years of playing, a GM get hung up on their story/theme/setting and lose sight of the fact that they are playing a game with other people.

Irontruth wrote:
The people playing the game and the process of playing are far more important than any specific within the game.

It seems that occasionally those specifics are precisely what's important. There is a difference between playing a Darksun game versus a Planes Scape game. Those differences make the experience. Now I'm not sure I would like playing in either of these settings but in each there are non-arbitrary restrictions I would have to meet.

Irontruth wrote:
Now that runs both ways, for players as well, but a player usually only controls one things, their character. I'm much more inclined to side with a player wanting to include something than a GM excluding it, because the GM already got to include tons of stuff into the game.

Well, it's usually all included until it's excluded right?

The GM works on his adventure but that doesn't necessarily mean anything was included(I guess it depends on what is meant by included).

The big thing to get is that GM's work. They have a right to protect their work.

Irontruth wrote:
As a side note, I consider this a guilt trap. "Oh, because I spent hours slaving away over a hot stove, the least you can do is eat it."

If I didn't want what my mom cooked that night I didn't eat. I learned to appreciate my moms cooking.

I didn't have much of a choice but as a player if I don't like the game I simply won't play. I encourage this.

Irontruth wrote:
I maybe do 2 hours of prep per session

I don't. I run a weekly game. I spend about 2 hours each week night.

Irontruth wrote:
My job is just to help them come up with cool stuff to do.

I've run games like this. They can be very fun. If this is what you enjoy I highly suggest you continue.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quote:
If I didn't want what my mom cooked that night I didn't eat. I learned to appreciate my moms cooking.

I learned how to fast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
If I didn't want what my mom cooked that night I didn't eat. I learned to appreciate my moms cooking.
I learned how to fast.

I learned how to cook (or at least how to make a bowl of cereal).


shallowsoul wrote:

Many years ago, my friend's mom invited us in for brownies while playing outside one day. Well as we are sitting there, this lad I knew saw a cheese danish and asked if he could have it. Well my friend's mother told him no because she invited him over for brownies and not a cheese danish. Well his response was why couldn't he have it and her's was, "either have a brownie or you can leave, it's your choice".

There is no right or wrong way to DM and I don't like it when people judge you because you don't DM a style that they like. Sometimes I run games where everything is allowed and sometimes I run games where certain things are banned because that's okay. Sometimes I don't care how good of a reason you give as to why a class, race, feat etc that I have banned should be allowed. Sometimes I do allow it and sometimes I don't but what I can't stand is a player who expects you to say yes all the time and is ready to call your DMing into question if you say no. I even heard something along the lines of my imagination being limited because I supposedly couldn't figure out a way to make everything fit into my campaign.

As I said in another thread, I don't force my games on anyone. I present to everyone what I would like to run and everyone decides if they want to or not and I say that's okay.

I, as a DM, should have to worry about being ridiculed for saying no and not giving when someone demands that I do. I've been reading through the Pathfinder books and I don't see anything that would make people believe that this behavior is okay. I don't see anywhere that the book describes entitlement on anyone's part so I'm not sure where this attitude comes from.

If I invite you over for an undead game then that is what I have offered you. If you politely decline then that's all good but if you start insulting me because I won't give in then I find that really rude.

This guy is taking things out of context. Nobody ridiculed him. We asked him a question. He refused to answer, so the question was rephrased. Now honestly I have not been to the thread in a while so he may have answered after I left.

There was snarkiness on from many people no matter what the viewpoint was.

Disclaimer-->Yeah I understand he has the right to not answer a question if he does not want to.

However if you people come to their own conclusions then I don't see why a person would be upset. Ok, actually I do see why they might be upset, but I don't think the person who refuses to answer a simple question has much ground to stand on.

You are also misunderstanding, or deliberately being misleading with the point of any not allowing all things. Nobody is saying that nothing should ever be banned. That was stated more than once, and anyone who favorited your post is being mislead.

edit:He did not answer after I left. In short he is complaining because people made up their own minds on a point he refused to clarify.

-----------------
Here is a replay

Shallowsoul wrote:

Actually I present my games to my players and after explaining what isn't allowed, if it is a specific game, then they decide whether they want to play it or not.

I don't force anything on anyone just like I don't expect to be forced to change my game for their sake every time they want me to.

bookrat wrote:

So you do exactly what he said you do.

"...after explaining what isn't allowed..." = "You will play what I want..."

"...then they decide whether they want to play or not." = "...the door is that way."

Shallowsoul wrote:


Actually no.

Here is a campaign that I would like to run. It involves ABC and I am not allowing XYZ. Anyone want to play?

No? That's cool, Bobby has a game that he would like to run so let's hear his proposal and decide.

If you can't see the difference then that's your problem.

As you can see if a certain someone had simply not evaded the question, and decided to be snarky it would not have really been an issue. Instead however he decided to not give an answer, and I repeat "that is his right". If anyone made fun of Shallowsoul I can't support that, but I do support them coming to their own conclusion, whatever that was.

Even if he had said "No I won't run for them", that would have been fine, or at least I hope it would have been fine for everyone. It is not like our games are going to be disrupted by it.


Irontruth wrote:
Without knowing the details of my personal gaming history, are you telling me that I'm wrong?

No. How could I?

I said:

Quote:

I've seen GM's who were all about story but who failed at basic rules knowledge.

I've seen Players who wanted to use something that wasn't allowed.

I personally have never seen a GM get hung up on their story/theme/setting and lose sight of the fact that they are playing a game with other people.

Irontruth wrote:
Really, because that is EXACTLY what this thread is about.

I don't think "a GM getting hung up on their story/theme/setting and lose sight of the fact that they are playing a game with other people." is what this thread is about.

I think there are more instances or a single player throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get to have things their way, then there are of a crazy power mad GM.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Doram ob'Han wrote:

My friends' parents didn't like me very much, because I always made them justify their rules. On the other hand, I never broke rules that had logical justifications.

Wow. That's really rude. No offense is intended, but I see why your friends' parents didn't like you. I sure as hell wouldn't if I were in their position. If any of my kid's friends had seriously questioned the rules of our household, that kid would not be particularly welcome in my home again, and I would start to discourage the friendship. I might give the kid's parents a polite call as well.

I disagree. Having worked as a professional childcare worker before, I've found that always being able to explain rules (in a manner appropriate to your audience, 4 y/o's are different from 6 y/o's) greatly increases the efficacy of rules.

Kids should ask questions. They should be respectful when doing so, but asking questions leads to understanding. It's never bothered me when kids ask questions. I've also successfully dealt with violent kids (who didn't have any developmental disorders).

If your authority is legitimate, a question will never threaten it.

I dont think that the questioning part is the issue though. As the father of a 10 year old I want my son to ask questions as well. But as an authority figure and a parent there are times where I'm going to need my son to simply do what I ask him to do WITHOUT question and trust my judgement as his father. For all the talk here about the way things SHOULD run, the way things ARE is that MYSELF and MY WIFE are responsible for OUR CHILD and his actions. Any steps that we have to take to help raise a productive member of society and a decent person is on US, not some hypotheticals espoused on some message board.

Either way that's different than having one of his friends over and them wanting me to justify the rules of OUR household to HIM. That's just flat out obnoxious and uncalled for which is what Doram ob'Han was talking about doing. As a parent I would have simply told him that myself and my wife make the rules here and those rules are in place for a reason and not subject to audit by a minor who has no investment in the persons of this household. If that's not good enough then there's the door. Think of me as a tyrant if you want but you're not part of this family and household so what you think, while unfortunate, is irrelevant.

On the OTHER HAND, if one of his friends were to ASK, say, why my son has to go to bed so early? I'd explain that he has a hard time getting up for school when he's not as well rested so he goes to be early so that he can rise early. Or Why does he have to read a book for at least 45min every day? So that he can get used to reading and absorbing information and also hopefully just enjoy reading.

Asking will get you farther.

Demanding that I justify will get you kicked the hell out.


Karlgamer wrote:
I think there are more instances or a single player throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get to have things their way, then there are of a crazy power mad GM.

You'd be surprised by how many of those crazy GMs actually exist. It's just that some players think they can't ever protest or just are too scared to say that it's really the GM who is at fault because people will probably blame the player(s) instead. Some would say to them "A GM can never be wrong" and other such claims, which I've seen here (and in other places) before.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Demanding that I justify will get you kicked the hell out.

Send them on their way with THREE shoes. Two on their feet and ...


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Doram ob'Han wrote:

My friends' parents didn't like me very much, because I always made them justify their rules. On the other hand, I never broke rules that had logical justifications.

Wow. That's really rude. No offense is intended, but I see why your friends' parents didn't like you. I sure as hell wouldn't if I were in their position. If any of my kid's friends had seriously questioned the rules of our household, that kid would not be particularly welcome in my home again, and I would start to discourage the friendship. I might give the kid's parents a polite call as well.

I disagree. Having worked as a professional childcare worker before, I've found that always being able to explain rules (in a manner appropriate to your audience, 4 y/o's are different from 6 y/o's) greatly increases the efficacy of rules.

Kids should ask questions. They should be respectful when doing so, but asking questions leads to understanding. It's never bothered me when kids ask questions. I've also successfully dealt with violent kids (who didn't have any developmental disorders).

If your authority is legitimate, a question will never threaten it.

I dont think that the questioning part is the issue though. As the father of a 10 year old I want my son to ask questions as well. But as an authority figure and a parent there are times where I'm going to need my son to simply do what I ask him to do WITHOUT question and trust my judgement as his father. For all the talk here about the way things SHOULD run, the way things ARE is that MYSELF and MY WIFE are responsible for OUR CHILD and his actions. Any steps that we have to take to help raise a productive member of society and a decent person is on US, not some hypotheticals espoused on some message board.

Either way that's different than having one of his friends over and them wanting me to justify the rules of OUR household to HIM. That's just flat out obnoxious and uncalled for which is...

I think you're taking this way too seriously. And reading way too much into a couple of short remarks on the Internet by people you've never met. If not, tone down the capitals.

I understand, if the kid is being a snot nosed brat, that is one thing. But that is an entirely different issue, isn't it? Not wanting to hang out with jerks has nothing to do with authoritarianism or parenting.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Many years ago, my friend's mom invited us in for brownies while playing outside one day. Well as we are sitting there, this lad I knew saw a cheese danish and asked if he could have it. Well my friend's mother told him no because she invited him over for brownies and not a cheese danish. Well his response was why couldn't he have it and her's was, "either have a brownie or you can leave, it's your choice".

There is no right or wrong way to DM and I don't like it when people judge you because you don't DM a style that they like. Sometimes I run games where everything is allowed and sometimes I run games where certain things are banned because that's okay. Sometimes I don't care how good of a reason you give as to why a class, race, feat etc that I have banned should be allowed. Sometimes I do allow it and sometimes I don't but what I can't stand is a player who expects you to say yes all the time and is ready to call your DMing into question if you say no. I even heard something along the lines of my imagination being limited because I supposedly couldn't figure out a way to make everything fit into my campaign.

As I said in another thread, I don't force my games on anyone. I present to everyone what I would like to run and everyone decides if they want to or not and I say that's okay.

I, as a DM, should have to worry about being ridiculed for saying no and not giving when someone demands that I do. I've been reading through the Pathfinder books and I don't see anything that would make people believe that this behavior is okay. I don't see anywhere that the book describes entitlement on anyone's part so I'm not sure where this attitude comes from.

If I invite you over for an undead game then that is what I have offered you. If you politely decline then that's all good but if you start insulting me because I won't give in then I find that really rude.

This guy is taking things out of context. Nobody ridiculed him. We asked him a question. He refused to answer, so the...

Wraith

At the end of the day, no matter whether you intend it or not, you are basically saying that yes it's okay to ban things but you basically need to run the reason by everyone so they can approve or try and persuade you to change your mind.

There is legitimately no other reason why you would want to know the reason that something was banned.

The way you and a few other posters come off is that I need a good enough reason, in your eyes, to justify not allowing said class, race, feat, etc...

Silver Crusade

Wraith

Also, I didn't create this thread just as a response to you but to the whole topic in general. I've been coming to gaming forums for years and I have seen lots of people with this kind of attitude.

This thread wasn't a shot at you but a shot at the concept as a whole.

Silver Crusade

There are "lots" of classes, feats, races, etc in Pathfinder and the fact that a DM decided to go through all those options and pick certain things to ban should be enough of an indicator that the DM has reasons for not wanting XYZ in his/her game.


Icyshadow wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
I think there are more instances or a single player throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get to have things their way, then there are of a crazy power mad GM.
You'd be surprised by how many of those crazy GMs actually exist. It's just that some players think they can't ever protest or just are too scared to say that it's really the GM who is at fault because people will probably blame the player(s) instead. Some would say to them "A GM can never be wrong" and other such claims, which I've seen here (and in other places) before.

In a way you are both right. There ARE more tantrum players than power mad GMs. But this is probably because there are more players than GMs to begin with. Although I disagree completely with Icyshadow about players hiding how they feel... the only players I have ever seen who hide how they feel are new players. Once a group becomes comfortable around each other it becomes abundantly clear how people feel.

Is a GM ever wrong? No and Yes. By RAW a GM is never wrong. She needs no justification for her rules. To be clear if you don't respect her enough to abide by her decisions in the first place then no amount of explanation will ever change that. Beyond RAW however there are a number of clearly wrong things a GM can do. But it is the GMs game. At the point where they are doing wrong all you can do is point out the wrong and hope they realize their mistake. There are two approaches to doing this. You can approach the GM as a friend and express concern over what was wrong or you can flash attitude and throw the wrong in the GMs face. If you are using the second approach then you are as big a part of the problem as the GM and you deserve what you get (which is often the GM arbitrarily shutting you down). If you use the first method and the GM doesn't wish to hear it then the best course is to forgive the wrong if you wish to keep playing. That's right forgive the wrong and move on. Why? Because if you make trouble then you aren't proving the GM wrong you are proving that you are a problem player. The other players may not like what the GM is doing but they will also not like your trouble making either. Being the bigger person isn't easy but you will quickly earn the trust of not just your fellow players but the GM themself.


I approached that DM in a friendly manner at first.
He chose to backstab me for my troubles.

I tried to reason with him on an equal level.
He chose to ban all my stuff for my troubles.

Nowadays, when I have the whole group supporting me and I have to nearly yell at him, a miracle happens and he bothers to listen.

Aranna wrote:
...If you use the first method and the GM doesn't wish to hear it then the best course is to forgive the wrong if you wish to keep playing. That's right forgive the wrong and move on. Why? Because if you make trouble then you...

You do know that kind of mentality is heavily in the favor of the tyranny of the DM. If he does something wrong that makes the game less fun, then he should NOT be forgiven for not listening when a player kindly asks him to stop being a jerk. That DM is breaking the main rule of the game as a whole, which is that the game should be fun! I don't care how polite or rude you have to be to point that out (depends on how thick the person's skull is), but no game will fly if that rule is broken. And yes, a DM can be just as much at fault for that as a Player.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Doram ob'Han wrote:

My friends' parents didn't like me very much, because I always made them justify their rules. On the other hand, I never broke rules that had logical justifications.

Wow. That's really rude. No offense is intended, but I see why your friends' parents didn't like you. I sure as hell wouldn't if I were in their position. If any of my kid's friends had seriously questioned the rules of our household, that kid would not be particularly welcome in my home again, and I would start to discourage the friendship. I might give the kid's parents a polite call as well.

I disagree. Having worked as a professional childcare worker before, I've found that always being able to explain rules (in a manner appropriate to your audience, 4 y/o's are different from 6 y/o's) greatly increases the efficacy of rules.

Kids should ask questions. They should be respectful when doing so, but asking questions leads to understanding. It's never bothered me when kids ask questions. I've also successfully dealt with violent kids (who didn't have any developmental disorders).

If your authority is legitimate, a question will never threaten it.

I dont think that the questioning part is the issue though. As the father of a 10 year old I want my son to ask questions as well. But as an authority figure and a parent there are times where I'm going to need my son to simply do what I ask him to do WITHOUT question and trust my judgement as his father. For all the talk here about the way things SHOULD run, the way things ARE is that MYSELF and MY WIFE are responsible for OUR CHILD and his actions. Any steps that we have to take to help raise a productive member of society and a decent person is on US, not some hypotheticals espoused on some message board.

Either way that's different than having one of his friends over and them wanting me to justify the rules of OUR household to HIM. That's just flat out obnoxious

...

I was responding specifically to the idea that some child who is not my peer coming into my home and demanding that I justify the rules of MY home to him. I thought that was pretty straightforward.

As for the Capitals thing, that's how I write to put slight more emphasis on certain words to get my voice across. It's not the same me yelling in all caps so dont take it that way.

"And reading way too much into a couple of short remarks on the Internet by people you've never met. "

REALLY? Isnt that kinda what we're ALL doing here?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

for me though if your not going to offer me any type of danish you need to tell me up front. Offering both than when I get there telling me I can't hwave any is imo starting everything off the wrong foot.

If a DM has certain restrictions it needs to be told upfront before the game starts. Hell even before character creation. If your not going to allow homebrew races and dislike them than say so. Allowing them then doing a 360 and removing lal of them is imo unfair. Same thing about classes and rulew changes. Tell e up front. Otherwise don't be surprised if it causes conflict down the line. Being a DM does not mean your abirtrarliy get to change the rules on a whim. If you tell me I can flank undead then I'm allowed to flank undead. End of discussion. Too often I have seen Dms allow certain things in games It causes them troubles with encounters an running the game then decide to change things rather than work with them. I think what is forgottten that platers should not be allowed everything. Yet the DM has to be clear and consice upfront what he allows in a game. For me what bothers me the most is a DM who goes on a rant about a class bans it from the game yet as a player shows up with the same class. If I'm the DM my first question to that person is can I play that in class in their games. If they say no then they can't play it in my games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, I am sort of puzzled by the mindset of some GMs that "my gameworld is a special snowflake that shall remain unsullied by players with their weird ideas of what's fun."

I understand that they're trying to build an atmosphere, but an RPG is not a novel. Actually, it is like a novel, but it is written in the minds of the players; you can have great ideas of what to write but if what you put on the page is weak, your novel is bad. Similarly, a great game setting must be well-received by the players, or else it is not really great at all.

I often hear stories about GMs who are smart, creative people, but they seem to think GMing is an introspective pursuit. They think a game is something that you write, and since you wrote it so well the players *will* have a great, meaningful experience. I regard GMing as an interactive process, that only really starts when I start to share ideas with the players. This doesn't mean I customize the game to their every whim (I tend to run APs in a pretty straightforward manner); it means that the only game that matters is the one that makes it into the players' heads.

I can relate to the OP, offering one kind of game experience and being asked for another. But at heart, it seems to me that this is a failure of the OP's to understand that the game that breaks through to the players' imaginations is the *only* game. Everything else is just prep.


memorax wrote:
If a DM has certain restrictions it needs to be told upfront before the game starts. Hell even before character creation.

.

Of course. When I am asked to DM, or offer it, I will state which things I don't want to see at my table, and which things I want to be asked about.
.

I do have a couple of house rules, which I discuss with my players, giving my reasons why I would like to change things, litening to their replies; and give them a printout of, prior to character creation. If a player then cannot be bothered to read these, or join the discussion because "she doesn't want to wrap her head around that stuff", I cannot force her to... but I WILL shoot down anything that clashes with these rules, period.
.

Should something come up during a game where the application of the RAW leads to blatantly nonsensical results, I reserve the right of making a GM call, favoring logic to RAW. If the group points out that the RAW (or my house rule) results are nonsensical, I usually will decide in favor of logic rather than RAW. After all, we all want to play the game, not game the system.

Upfront enough?

Liberty's Edge

Midnight_Angel wrote:


Should something come up during a game where the application of the RAW leads to blatantly nonsensical results, I reserve the right of making a GM call, favoring logic to RAW. If the group points out that the RAW (or my house rule) results are nonsensical, I usually will decide in favor of logic rather than RAW. After all, we all want to play the game, not game the system.

That's a bit of a slippery slope though. If by RAW I can flank undead then I can flank them. As a DM you might not think it's logical yet if the rules say I can do it then I should be able too. Same way if I build a monk that can trip things twice my size. If I take the right feats and build him propery according to the rules than I should do be able to do it. Otherwise as a DM one can only say "well tht's not logical" only so many times. After awhile it's less about logic and more the DM trying to slip in new houserules into the game. It's one thing to dispute RAW when it';s unclear. It's another when the RAW as written is clear and you don't agree with it. After awhile no one is going to think outide the box for fear of the DM thinking it might be iilogical.


memorax wrote:
That's a bit of a slippery slope though.

I am aware :)

memorax wrote:
If by RAW I can flank undead then I can flank them. As a DM you might not think it's logical yet if the rules say I can do it then I should be able too.

No problem with me. Please note that I wrote logic, not realism.

Things I will shoot down are shenanigans like using Break Enchantment to dismiss a Reincarnation (which is absolutely possible if reading RAW verbatim).

memorax wrote:
After awhile it's less about logic and more the DM trying to slip in suddnely new rules into the game. It's one thing to dispute RAW when it';s unclear. It's another when the RAW as written is clear and you don't agree with it. After awhile no one is going to think outide the box for fear of the DM thinking it might be iilogical.

Actually, I think what is needed between players and the GM is trust. I am not out to get my players (though my monsters are out to get the characters... never leave that level of abstraction).

I will not hide behind RAW to block good ideas, nor will I have opponents behave in an illogical but system-wise optimal way. I will do my best to have any NPC or monster I use behave in a way that appears logical to its situation and character. On the other side, I expect my players not to try to exploit what the majority of the group considers to be loopholes.

Once again, the aim is that everybody has fun, including myself... and a battle of who is the best RAWyer is not my idea of having fun.

Which is what I meant when writing 'Play the game. Don't game the system.'


FUN , the magic word !

In MY opinion, a game does not have to be FUN!
As long as it grips me and I want to know what happen next, this will be a good game

When the character you have played for several years is in deep trouble , you have to scramble to insure his survival and his eventual triumph , I'll be happy

Mowing orcs by the thousand might be FUN but it is not challenging.

that is not saying we can not have fun to vent but Fun should not be the aim of an adventure . challenging the players is


robin wrote:

FUN , the magic word !

In MY opinion, a game does not have to be FUN!
As long as it grips me and I want to know what happen next, this will be a good game

When the character you have played for several years is in deep trouble , you have to scramble to insure his survival and his eventual triumph , I'll be happy

Mowing orcs by the thousand might be FUN but it is not challenging.

that is not saying we can not have fun to vent but Fun should not be the aim of an adventure . challenging the players is

That's just semantics though. My definition of "fun" includes the strange sadomasochistic pretense of the GM-Player relationship. "Challenge" means it's only fun if you're bleeding.


robin wrote:

FUN , the magic word !

In MY opinion, a game does not have to be FUN!

See? In my opinion, it has to be. Then again, we might digress on the definition of 'fun'.

Mowing down orcs by the thousands may be fun for some groups. My players would consider it boring.

Biting your nails because you are unsure whether or not your character will survive is something my players do consider fun.
Having meaningful interaction with their environment and one another, outsmarting the opposition, at times just playing their character... all this is part of what my group considers 'fun'.

Which is what I strive to give them. Preferrably in the right mix.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Midnight_Angel wrote:
Actually, I think what is needed between players and the GM is trust.

CORRECTAMUNDO! /samuelljackson


Obviously it is better as a GM to be upfront about restrictions and rule changes. It goes back to the whole social group dynamic. It's common courtesy.

Also Evil Lincoln uses a weird quote... special snowflake is a character term and I am not sure it fits for a game. Perhaps he is talking about short sighted GMs who fail to learn lesson #2 about being a good GM: Learn about your players. It doesn't mean her game will be bad if she doesn't care about how her players play. BUT it sure does make it easier to get them involved in your game if you know what they like.

Icyshadow you told us earlier the game WAS fun and that this was just one side thing the GM did that got you really upset. If you enjoy his games then obviously the "game must be fun" was an invalid argument. Trying to get a special snowflake race into a game requires building the GMs trust in you. I am guessing you haven't been completely honest about how you interacted with this GM. Judging by your earlier rudeness I am guessing when the GM dragged his heels about balancing something completely new into his game just for you you probably flashed him some of that attitude and got him angry with you. Remember the game isn't about your fun it's about everyone's fun, the GM included.


Aranna wrote:
Also Evil Lincoln uses a weird quote... special snowflake is a character term and I am not sure it fits for a game. Perhaps he is talking about short sighted GMs who fail to learn lesson #2 about being a good GM: Learn about your players. It doesn't mean her game will be bad if she doesn't care about how her players play. BUT it sure does make it easier to get them involved in your game if you know what they like.

Interesting that you point that out... but I do sort of view my campaign as my character when I GM. That's why I never run GMPCs.

But the GMs I am talking about (which may not be the OP but it sounds like it could be) are essentially making the same failure as players who focus too much on character creation and not enough on the game in progress. What you put together on your own time isn't the game, it's prep for the game. That goes for player characters as well as adventures.

There seems to be a type of personality that spends a lot of time on solitaire — character creation, world creation — and not a lot of time actually playing the game. While they remain in that introverted space, they accrue a lot of notions about how things should go, and they get very upset when the realities of the game challenge those notions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still waiting for my free brownie...

51 to 100 of 529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / "I invited you over for brownies, not a cheese danish." Why no DM style is right or wrong. All Messageboards