I see you like to latch on the the unimportant part of the statement rather than the point. Carry on then.
Sorry, looked like an apples/oranges deal. But I did get your point on perception :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still waiting for my free brownie...
Feel free to have a glass of milk with it; don't even bother asking. :P
I'm still waiting for my free brownie...Feel free to have a glass of milk with it; don't even bother asking. :P
Just watch the foul language around the kiddies and keep the mooching to a minimum.
| 8 people 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."
While I am also puzzled by this extreme, I am equally puzzled by the extreme of a player who thinks their character concept is a special snowflake that must be unsullied by GM AND fellow PCs alike with their weird ideas of what's fun/consistent.
It's all about give and take. Trust. Respect. Being willing to compromise. Generally being a decent human being and all that.
I do not get why it is hard to have the following conversation:
Player: I want to play a Cyborg Robomancer!
GM: Uh, sorry, did you get my email describing the campaign? This is a high magic fantasy game, there are no robots or cyborgs, and it would be really hard for me to rework the campaign to make your concept work.
Player: Aw, man, I had a really cool idea for meshing tech and magic.
GM: Well, there are some rules for golems and half-golems. With the power level of the characters everyone else is creating, I can't start you off with these things, but why don't we sit down and look at the rules together, and figure out how you could build a character who could eventually get some artificial limbs and build constructs? I know some of the golem creation rules make that hard but I'm willing to be flexible with them and make it easier for you, if you're willing to work with me and start off with a character using the character building rules I lined out.
Player: Hmm, okay, yeah! Actually, I've got a really cool wizard idea forming in my head now, let's go over these rules you were talking about...
*Everyone is happy*
Otherwise you get scenarios where either the GM is expected to never budge and players are to bend over backwards at his every whim, or vice versa. It shouldn't have to be either way and it won't work in the long run at those extremes.
And I definitely don't get that if someone clearly sets up the parameters for their game, you immediately ask to blatantly and obviously break those parameters and should feel rewarded for asking. No, you DON'T create a Star Wars character because you want to play Star Wars, and then bring it to a game of D&D4E or World of Darkness. You find someone who's running a Star Wars game. The GM who says "Sorry, this is a game of Vampire, you can't play a Jedi," isn't being a "special snowflake." Yes, I am speaking in an extreme here, I know people are more talking about allowing splat rules in a core rules game and stuff like that--but I'm using the extreme to illustrate a point. I absolutely agree that the GM should not prioritize his beautiful novel of a story over what the players want to do, just like the players should not absolutely above all else go out of their way to break the system or setting the GM is running, but there needs to be boundaries set on all sides so you have a consistent world and game where everyone can have their needs met, within the boundaries established, and thus everyone can have fun.
I think part of the real issue some folks have is where those boundaries/parameters are NOT set clearly. Which is a somewhat different issue--at least, the source of the problem is different, which is that it's about poor communication or poor intentions--or sometimes just inexperience (perhaps combined with the above). If a GM says "use any Pathfindeer book and create whatever you want" and THEN throws a hissy fit when you present him your Dhampir Gunslinger because he doesn't want guns or half-undead creatures in his world, that's his fault for not saying that in the first place, and his flaw that he throws a hissy fit rather than owning up to his mistake and correcting it/dealing with the outcome.
But I have absolutely no problem with a GM saying, "I am running a low-magic sword and sandals game, there are no wizards or clerics or gunslingers" and expecting that to be trusted and respected (provided otherwise they are known to be a trustworthy and respectful GM). They're not being a special snowflake, they've just got an idea that they want to run with, and they shouldn't be made to feel like crap because they put some limitations on the world in order to give the setting a legitimate/consistent feel. Now, sure, maybe Herakles as a Gunslinger would be an awesome idea in the right context, but I don't think someone's being an asshat for deciding not to use that context right now because they have something else in mind, and I do think it is asshat-ish to berate the GM for daring to have an idea for a different kind of campaign. What is wrong with wanting to run a game with a specific setting or theme and adapting the mechanics to suit it?
DQ, I think it's the same problem wearing two different disguises.
It's not the GM being selfish about his campaign or the players being selfish about their PCs.
It's selfish players in general, GM inclusive.
DQ, I think it's the same problem wearing two different disguises.
It's not the GM being selfish about his campaign or the players being selfish about their PCs.
It's selfish players in general, GM inclusive.
It's all about give and take. Trust. Respect. Being willing to compromise. Generally being a decent human being and all that.
I think on at least on the basics, we agree. :)
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.
1. I'm not sure which campaign I specified as fun, and which ones I didn't.
2. We had that trust and it broke. I admit I had a part in it, but I consider his response a case of disproportionate retribution. He doesn't seem willing to allow them ever again, either, so many lovely ideas of mine went down the drain until I find a DM with equal story skills and a permittance to said homebrew races.
3. Dragged his heels? I am not familiar with the term. I am completely honest about him suddenly saying no.
4. I am aware of that. I never stepped on the other player's feet. They were fine with letting me play a homebrew.
|
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.1. I'm not sure which campaign I specified as fun, and which ones I didn't.
2. We had that trust and it broke. I admit I had a part in it, but I consider his response a case of disproportionate retribution. He doesn't seem willing to allow them ever again, either, so many lovely ideas of mine went down the drain until I find a DM with equal story skills and a permittance to said homebrew races.
3. Dragged his heels? I am not familiar with the term. I am completely honest about him suddenly saying no.
4. I am aware of that. I never stepped on the other player's feet. They were fine with letting me play a homebrew.
"Dragging your heels" means that someone is doing something slowly because they don't really want to do it. It's an idiom. If I ask you to mow the lawn in an hour and it takes you 2 hours because you were stopping every 5 minutes or you had to stop to tie your shoe, or you stopped to chat on the phone etc. You were doing everything in your power to not have to mow that lawn because you didn't really want to in the first place. That's what it means to "drag your heels".
Why not run your own game for the group? Wait until the GM is getting burnt out (happens to us all) and could use an extra week or two to recover and prep. Then run a short game using the concepts you've developed. If players have fun and the concepts have merit you may be able to demonstrate to your GM that they're worthy of inclusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm waaaaaay late to the game, here. But if my wife invited some of our son's friends over and went to the effort of baking them brownies only to have one little dude ask for something that wasn't offered, then get demanding when my wife said no...
... I'd be pretty pissed. Have an ounce of gratitude, ya little punk. You wanna leave because she won't tell you why other than "it's not for you"? There's the door. Welcome to being on the "not to be invited over to our house list"... at least until you learn to show some gratitude.
As this pertains to GM's... eh. The DM'snot running a game where my desired character is going to be allowed? Either I play anyway or not, and that's on me... even if he doesn't want to give me a reason.
Why not run your own game for the group? Wait until the GM is getting burnt out (happens to us all) and could use an extra week or two to recover and prep. Then run a short game using the concepts you've developed. If players have fun and the concepts have merit you may be able to demonstrate to your GM that they're worthy of inclusion.
Exactly my plan with the upcoming Kingmaker.
Simply asking a question isn't.
Asking one with a tone that demands an answer like it's owed, is.
Perception :)
|
D&D is a social game. Furthermore, the DM is not the end-all-be-all of the game, and should not be. Rule Zero exists for the DM to keep the game going, when the rules would keep it from doing so.
With that being said, allow me to direct you to Rule Negative One (or rather Rule It's Not A Rule Because It's The Whole Idea): If you're not all having fun, it's not a game anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have an ounce of gratitude, ya little punk.I fail to see why asking a question is being an ingrate.
It's not about asking the initial question. If a kid asks me a question (as long as he's not being snotty or disrespectful), I want to do my best to answer it.
In the situation posited, let's assume my wife's answer is "because the pastry isn't for you." (This -- in the original post -- is tantamount to the DM saying, "because it doesn't fit within my specific campaign"... and, as I said before, it's the DM's prerogative to answer that way. And it's my prerogative not to accept the invitation.)
If the kid, after being told "becuase the pastry isnt' for you", continues saying, "Why? I want the pastry." My wife -- who isn't the kids parent and doesn't hold the responsibility of parenting the child -- isn't obligated to expound on her original answer.
The child has been kindly invited to someone else's house to enjoy a treat. A treat my wife put time and effort into making for him. If he's not going to be happy with the answer my wife is willing to give, and he's not going to be thankful enough to take the gift she made for him... he's welcome to stop asking the question or leave.
I know that -- as a parent myself -- I will be raising my child to do two things. 1) Be curious and ask questions. But 2) to be aware of a person's generosity and that sometimes it can be intrusive or rude to continue asking questions in other people's business.
At that point -- as has been stated -- you have the choice to leave on your own. If you're a brat about the whole thing, you may be asked to leave... possibly not so kindly.
There is legitimately no other reason why you would want to know the reason that something was banned.
Actually as someone that enjoys playing, but also does GMing quite often, I often am interested in a reason why someone decided not to include something in the game. Was the rule broken? Was the rule fine, but just didn't go with the current feel of the campaign? Did the GM have a replacement houserule that actually works better (something I might want to include in my own games)?
And, sure it could be used to try to convince the GM to use a rule, especially if it is that the GM actually is reading the rule wrong. I remember hearing about a GM that hated the trip rules in 3.5, because they didn't understand that you couldn't trip someone trying to stand up (they were already prone). They could ban it from their game, but wouldn't actually learning how the rules were actually suppose to work, and then deciding to ban it from a position of knowledge, than to ban it because you are ignorant of how the rule actually works?
So asking can help both the GM and the player better understand how things interact with each other.
|
|
There is legitimately no other reason why you would want to know the reason that something was banned.Actually as someone that enjoys playing, but also does GMing quite often, I often am interested in a reason why someone decided not to include something in the game. Was the rule broken? Was the rule fine, but just didn't go with the current feel of the campaign? Did the GM have a replacement houserule that actually works better (something I might want to include in my own games)?
And, sure it could be used to try to convince the GM to use a rule, especially if it is that the GM actually is reading the rule wrong. I remember hearing about a GM that hated the trip rules in 3.5, because they didn't understand that you couldn't trip someone trying to stand up (they were already prone). They could ban it from their game, but wouldn't actually learning how the rules were actually suppose to work, and then deciding to ban it from a position of knowledge, than to ban it because you are ignorant of how the rule actually works?
So asking can help both the GM and the player better understand how things interact with each other.
Banning something because you think a rule works one way when in fact works another is an entirely different kettle of fish. Banning races, classes, feats, magic items etc because you have particular beef with, and you know the rules, is what I am talking about.
You know exactly what Eben was talking about with regards to questions. Adults, and most kids, usually know when it's appropriate to question someone and not just ask a question in general.
Or they might not know it'snot appropriate. But that doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay and appropriate. It just means that the kid needs to learn a lesson in social grace, awareness, and propriety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Banning something because you think a rule works one way when in fact works another is an entirely different kettle of fish. Banning races, classes, feats, magic items etc because you have particular beef with, and you know the rules, is what I am talking about.
Yes, but as a fellow GM (as well as a player in your current game), I may be curious about what you dislike about the things you are banning. Is it just that it doesn't fit the current campaign? Is the race or class poorly designed, and I should watch out for it in my own games? As I said, there are more than just I want to use it in your game, I might be curious as to what you are seeing that I might not be, but maybe I should be.
If you say you ban the ninja archtype, but won't go into why, how do I know that is just that you hate ninjas and not that you think the assassination ability is broken? The difference might be very important to me as a fellow GM (beyond me being a player in the game).
Indeed. If only we could all agree about what our hypothetical players and DMs tones are.Simply asking a question isn't.
Asking one with a tone that demands an answer like it's owed, is.
Perception :)
Truth!
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.
I think there is a difference between right/wrong and good/bad. I have probably spanned this spectrum as a GM.
I'm wrong many times. Wrong by my own standards. Wrong about a rule. Wrong about the campaign. Wrong about the game play.
As arbiter of the rules you could officially declare that you are never wrong. This would in fact make you an alway right GM, but it would probably also make you a very bad GM.
The setup for the game is another story. The players have no input into the world they are playing other then through their character and depending on that characters knowledge and experience.
For instance:
A player can't have their character start talking about the iphone 5. A GM is allowed to tell them: "your character doesn't know about the iphone 5."
A player can't play a Wizard in a campaign without magic. A GM is allowed to tell them: "You can't play a wizard there is no magic in this world."
It is certainly not wrong of the GM to expect players to exist in the world that he is running. Certainly a player can suggest that the GM run another world or even make some changes, but a GM shouldn't feel obligated to do so. A player shouldn't feel obligated to play.
Maybe a GM shouldn't ever surprise their players with an unusual set of rules/restrictions, although I'm sure there are some groups where the GM has enough trust from their players to get away with this.
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.
I think it's the job of a good GM to make sure their players are having fun. If I feel that a player might not be enjoying themselves I always try to talk to them about it.
That being said, my players are not that timid.
But as an example: "your character doesn't know about the iphone 5." isn't a good excuse for "not having fun."
You'd be surprised by how many of those crazy GMs actually exist.
I've had a few bad GM's. GM who's rulings were truly arbitrary. Mostly in 2nd edition.
Consistency is key here. It's about trust. It's hard to trust a GM who always makes up rules on the spot.
Certainly, it's important to keep the game moving regardless of having an official ruling. In moments like that I often rule in favor of my players for that session, but by next session I usually have the correct ruling and I inform my players of this. Thanks forums!
Bad GM's exist. They're usually not power mad crazy. They're usually just unprepared and ignorant of the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes. I loved every damned minute of it.
Curse the time zones, that and my need to sleep.
Lastly, I curse my two IRL groups for not seeing the glory of Disgaea!!
DISGAEA 4 LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
That's going a bit overboard.
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.
See above.
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.
That's such a weird situation though. One group of players enjoys hearing no- needs to hear it in fact to avoid going overboard and to result in agreed upon rules. The other group shuts down when they hear no, and takes it as a personal affront or as railroading. There are a lot of different ways to say no to boot, it's a matter of learning what the person you are speaking to will respond to with the least amount of animosity.
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.
My friend's mom didn't believe in food allergies, and almost lost her son as a result. He learned to fast too. This may also be why the situation brought up by the OP rubs me the wrong way(guy was allergic to chocolate and would always ask for something else).
If someone actually says "I want to run a game with x, y, and z components and without j, k, and l" then that's absolutely awesome, it's a good thing their game has focus and theme, and good on the GM for handling things that way.
In my experience, however, that rarely ever happens. There's a 'control-freak' GM archetype out there, and they don't like enumerating all of the rules at the campaign at the start, either because the rules are very restrictive and they know they'll attract more players with a 'just the tip' sort of selling strategy, or else they don't actually have a set of guidelines and restrictions for their campaign, as the enjoyment for them is capriciously and arbitrarily passing judgment on player choices and opinions as they come up, then falling back on 'Rule 0.'
What? In 32 years I've never done that, and in all that time I can think of only one game where I wasn't told what kind of setting we were headed into, and that was a game comprised of stoners who never curbed their munchies long enough to roll even a single die that day.
All things being equal, it would be a major pain to hide the campaign from everybody else, and then to keep secrets during character creation, only to fight about it and have people quit later. I can't imagine there is more than the smallest possible percentage of GMs out there who would choose this overly complex route over simply saying, "Hey, guys, it' a witch hunter campaign, so stick to a gothic theme."
Again, all things being equal, no offense, but Occam and his Razor think it more likely that most GMs DO have conversations about what kind of game is coming up, and players either exaggerate the circumstances of how they found out, ignore the info, or just don't care to listen or compromise.
Demanding a cheese danish is one thing. As long as the little brat doesn't drink his host's milk.
That goes without saying. :)
I think one reason me and my DM are still not on the best of terms is that we both seem to have selective memories, he insists that I never apologized about certain things, and he seems to claim the past situations were completely different from how I remember them. I refuse to believe so because his claims are rather out there and his vision of how I was doesn't match me as a person at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never subscribed or will subscribe to the DM being the supreme overlord in control of all. No matter waht is wirttien in any rpg. Being a DM imo is knowing to give and take away from players. and yes imo you need to give a explanation as to why something is banned. If not expect the same treatment as a player at my table. Here the thing many DMs don't realize or want to accept. A DM has as much power as the players want to give him. If you push players too far you end up playing D&D solitaire. With word of mouth getting around that the DM is a bad one and gets blacklisted in the gaming community of the area. Made worse with Facebook and social networks. Yes a DM for the most part is master his table. It's still not going to prevent players from leaving your table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never subscribed or will subscribe to the DM being the supreme overlord in control of all. No matter waht is wirttien in any rpg. Being a DM imo is knowing to give and take away from players. and yes imo you need to give a explanation as to why something is banned. If not expect the same treatment as a player at my table. Here the thing many DMs don't realize or want to accept. A DM has as much power as the players want to give him. If you push players too far you end up playing D&D solitaire. With word of mouth getting around that the DM is a bad one and gets blacklisted in the gaming community of the area. Made worse with Facebook and social networks. Yes a DM for the most part is master his table. It's still not going to prevent players from leaving your table.
Likewise for players who constantly gainsay their GMs.
I never subscribed or will subscribe to the DM being the supreme overlord in control of all. No matter waht is wirttien in any rpg. Being a DM imo is knowing to give and take away from players. and yes imo you need to give a explanation as to why something is banned. If not expect the same treatment as a player at my table. Here the thing many DMs don't realize or want to accept. A DM has as much power as the players want to give him. If you push players too far you end up playing D&D solitaire. With word of mouth getting around that the DM is a bad one and gets blacklisted in the gaming community of the area. Made worse with Facebook and social networks. Yes a DM for the most part is master his table. It's still not going to prevent players from leaving your table.Likewise for players who constantly gainsay their GMs.
+1
In fact the bad press from social media against a bad player is likely far worse than the bad press for a GM. There are countless players in most areas and often far far fewer GMs. This means players who can't find a game will still play with a GM who has a bad rep, while a player with a bad rep may be doomed to have to play computer games and give up table top play. It's the law of supply and demand.
The DM isn't the overlord of his gaming group.
But once he has been given the authority to run a game, you step into his or her parlor, and he is in control, to an extent. Anything that happens to the pcs is his domain. He is the overlord there.
That's such a weird situation though. One group of players enjoys hearing no- needs to hear it in fact to avoid going overboard and to result in agreed upon rules. The other group shuts down when they hear no, and takes it as a personal affront or as railroading. There are a lot of different ways to say no to boot, it's a matter of learning what the person you are speaking to will respond to with the least amount of animosity.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 probably isn't two camps. The reality is likely far simpler. People like structure when playing but only when that structure is fair and consistent. If the GM isn't consistent or is unfair in his rulings then this is probably what has generated such vitriol from certain players. Still those players would do well to remember not all GMs are bad. I understand the desire to lash out but really they should target that ire into something more productive like learning to be a good GM themselves.
Parenting thing aside, the whole asking questions of the DM or demanding answers thing would bug the hell out of me as a DM.
It'd be like that person who asks question of you while you;re both watching a movie. "Just watch the movie...!"