| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't make it right the be a jerk GM, mind you.
I think the game rules treat the GM as an authority simply because it is that person's responsibility to keep the game moving. In that sense, they are not merely another player, and they must have the authority to countermand the players — but if everything is going well, that's not ever necessary.
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 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.
If someone has food allergies or is something selectively restrictive like a practicing Vegetarian then it is incumbent on them to tell others in a timely fashion. No one is required to change the way they cook just for you, but if you let them know in advance they will often prepare something extra to accommodate your situation. Demanding on the spot to be treated special just gets you labeled as rude.
|
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 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 had a friend whose mom was the opposite. She convinced everyone her kids were allergic to everything, when it was utter BS. Now adults, they eat peanuts, shellfish, fresh fruit, and chocolate with impunity. She was kind of a nutjob.
That doesn't make it right the be a jerk GM, mind you.
I think the game rules treat the GM as an authority simply because it is that person's responsibility to keep the game moving. In that sense, they are not merely another player, and they must have the authority to countermand the players — but if everything is going well, that's not ever necessary.
Oh, yes. The 'don't be a jerk' rule always applies.
|
It'd be like that person who asks question of you while you;re both watching a movie. "Just watch the movie...!"
I must admit I had such an issue last night while running Pathfinder Society. One of the players tried to call timeout after the barbarian rolled a nasty hit that still didn't finish the BBEG off. I told him it didn't matter right then, we needed to finish the session because it was 11PM, and he could read the scenario afterwards. While I was signing chronicles, I gave him the run down and satisfied his concerns.
Oh, yes. The 'don't be a jerk' rule always applies.That doesn't make it right the be a jerk GM, mind you.
I think the game rules treat the GM as an authority simply because it is that person's responsibility to keep the game moving. In that sense, they are not merely another player, and they must have the authority to countermand the players — but if everything is going well, that's not ever necessary.
Remember this rule applies all across life, not just in gaming.
A jerk is unpleasant and annoying in every social situation.
Oh, yes. The 'don't be a jerk' rule always applies.That doesn't make it right the be a jerk GM, mind you.
I think the game rules treat the GM as an authority simply because it is that person's responsibility to keep the game moving. In that sense, they are not merely another player, and they must have the authority to countermand the players — but if everything is going well, that's not ever necessary.
Remember this rule applies all across life, not just in gaming.
A jerk is unpleasant and annoying in every social situation.
What of those people who are only jerks in certain situations, such as when they have the authority of a DM?
What TOZ said. Don't play if you can't look past their jerk behavior.
But it isn't the GM chair that turns some people into jerks, it's the authority. These people also make horrible bosses and nasty parents.
Thankfully he doesn't seem very interested in getting kids.
|
Likewise for players who constantly gainsay their GMs.
Of course. Forgot to add that in to my post. Both bad Dms and players imo if really distruptive will be blacklisted.
A lot of people in that community are going to blacklist the player instead for being disruptive.
Yes and no. What I mean is that it depends on how many Dms their is in a given area. If it's a small area with not too many Dms players will grin and bare it. If in a larger area with a larger amount of DMs a bad DM is imo screwed. If a players has more choices they are imo going to ignore the DM with the bad rep. When a majoirty of players through word of mouth advisde playing against a certain DM players joining ypour games dry up. As players who do the same thing.
|
|
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.
True yet at the same time a DM who engaes in too many deamnds bad calls TPK and general overlording so to speak is going to have his players leave. Being electec by the group does not immunize players leaving. Eiter one at a time or as a group. Or booting you from the DM table. I came to the realization long ago that DM/GMs or whatever the name is for the posion of the guy running the game is at the mercy of the players. It's hard to accept at first but it is what it is. As a DM you can be the mos strict and controlling DM on the planet. Means nothing without player. And like it or not we are athe whims of the players. Not saying we should bend over backwards. Far from it.
A DM can and should place certain limitations on his game. Upfront in the open and with a explanation. As long as a player is not being rude I see no problem. Since when did asking Dms for more of a explanation let alone questions about the game become a crime. I rather players questions upfront. Get it out of the wat before the game starts. Solves a lot of problems and reduces any potential unpleasantness a the table later on. I started a new AP with a Gunslinger as a player. He asked for modern fireamrs to be included. I told him I'm allowing a gunslinger this time around to test the class to see if I want to include it in further games. Using regular firearms. Maye later when I get used to the class I may allow modern firearms. For now I'm saying no. He was satisifed with the answer. I allowed the player to play the class .Was upfront with what I allowed and disallowed in my game and gave a perfectable reasonable explanation as to why I refused modern firearms. Just a better way to handle it imo than just a NO! or I'm the bm!.
If I want to play a Gunslinger I woukld rather the DM tell me he does not want a class that targets touch ACs then a no. Espcially not "because I'm the DM" . Fine your the DM. At my table you get the same treatment. If as a DM you feel the need not to explain your reasons for what you do at the DM table I see no reason to do the same to you as a player.
|
|
That doesn't make it right the be a jerk GM, mind you.
I think the game rules treat the GM as an authority simply because it is that person's responsibility to keep the game moving. In that sense, they are not merely another player, and they must have the authority to countermand the players — but if everything is going well, that's not ever necessary.
Nobody is talking about actually being a "jerk" DM. I think the problem with some people is the fact that they view the DM as a jerk just because he may tell them no or he doesn't give the explanation that they want to hear.
|
|
If I want to play a Gunslinger I...
Why? Why does the DM always need to give you a satisfying reason as to why he doesn't want Gunslingers in his game.
Why can't you just accept it when the DM says up front that there will be no Gunslingers in his game.
The DM has just as much right to leave them out because of his own reasons than you do to find out why wants to leave them out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The explanation is not necessary. Let me explain. You either trust the GM to be fair or you don't. If you trust the GM then you aren't going to be concerned with no explanation. You already trust her, you will accept that her reason whatever it might be is good even if you aren't being told. If on the other hand you DON'T trust your GM then all being given an explanation does is open the matter up for endless argument. Why? Because you already don't trust her. Any explanation you get you will question. The untrusted GM isn't gaining a darn thing by explaining, it just draws out the argument. By eliminating the explanation you save a lot of grief. Will the player be upset, yep, but that player will be upset whatever you do. He already doesn't trust you so anything you try will be second guessed.
So to cut to the point:
If you are a trusted GM the explanation is nice but not necessary.
If you aren't trusted then the explanation just leads to more argument.
If a player DEMANDS an explanation then they are saying up front that they don't trust you. It would be foolish to give that player an explanation. It is far better to simply give that player your ruling and stick to it. Maybe that player will change after having fun in your games... if not then no real loss. Just focus your explaining (if you want to give it and aren't trying to be all mysterious) on the players that do trust you and save yourself the drama.
|
Why? Why does the DM always need to give you a satisfying reason as to why he doesn't want Gunslingers in his game.
Why can't you just accept it when the DM says up front that there will be no Gunslingers in his game.
The DM has just as much right to leave them out because of his own reasons than you do to find out why wants to leave them out.
Since you missed it.
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).
|
|
So to cut to the point:
If you are a trusted GM the explanation is nice but not necessary.
If you aren't trusted then the explanation just leads to more argument.
False dichotomy. Trust is not something that either is or is not. Trust is something that is built. If you are a GM starting a new game (which is normally when these issues arise), you should understand that your players will not trust you until you demonstrate yourself to be trustworthy.
Giving the players a "peak behind the curtain" as to why you make certain decisions goes a long way in building a rapport with your players such that they understand that your decisions are not arbitrary or capricious. Over time, perhaps they will trust you, and when you need to make a call and keep the reasons secret, they will have confidence that you have a good reason for it and they will all have fun if they go along with it.
|
|
Why? Why does the DM always need to give you a satisfying reason as to why he doesn't want Gunslingers in his game.
Why can't you just accept it when the DM says up front that there will be no Gunslingers in his game.
The DM has just as much right to leave them out because of his own reasons than you do to find out why wants to leave them out.
What TMZ said as well as once again when did it become a captial offence to ask DMs questions. Or more explanations as to why e hwants to ban something. It's one thing if I demand why. If I ask a simple question what is the problem with asking. Or are players supposed to just be yes men and sheep not questioning anything the DM says. I'm kind of getting that kind of vibe from some posters in this thread. @
@ Araana
Nor is it a question of trust. Seriously asking for more feedback and a explanation is me not trusting the DM. It's come to that now. I ask because I want to kow the reasons behind it and for simple curiosity. As well the DM might be wrong and getting a rule wrong or not understanding a rule or class.
With the exception of one or two Dms who as a whole we don't game with anymore I trust the Dms who run games at a table. Does that mean I'm not going to say anything because I trust the DM or question a decision. I will. Trusting a DM does not make him immune to questioning or feedback.
|
|
False dichotomy. Trust is not something that either is or is not. Trust is something that is built. If you are a GM starting a new game (which is normally when these issues arise), you should understand that your players will not trust you until you demonstrate yourself to be trustworthy.Giving the players a "peak behind the curtain" as to why you make certain decisions goes a long way in building a rapport with your players that your decisions are not arbitrary. Over time, perhaps they will trust you, and when you need to make a call and keep the reasons secret, they will have confidence that you have a good reason for it and they will all have fun if they go along with it.
+500
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the differences between spellcasting and psionic capabilities at various levels was a fun challenge for everyone. For instance, without create water, crossing a desert became an actual problem. He solved it by making a tub-shaped astral construct to haul water for them.
Also perfect for breaking down walls, rescuing them from prisons, etc...
"OH YEAH!"
<distributes Kool-Aid>
If I want to play a Gunslinger I...
Why? Why does the DM always need to give you a satisfying reason as to why he doesn't want Gunslingers in his game.
Why can't you just accept it when the DM says up front that there will be no Gunslingers in his game.
The DM has just as much right to leave them out because of his own reasons than you do to find out why wants to leave them out.
I like being treated as a peer at the gaming table. Not a toddler that you don't explain things to. So yes, if you tell me I can't be/use something, I'm going to ask why.
We still see GM's showing up to these boards occasionally who think Rogues are DPR kings. Just because you're the GM, doesn't exempt you from being wrong about something or failing to see the broader picture.
Now, I can understand if you want to explain something later, or in an e-mail, so as not to take away from gaming time, but I'm going to want to have a discussion on it. That's my nature and if a GM can't handle that, we're not going to get along.
Right now I'm a:
-player
-player
-player/co-GM
-GM
I also run convention scenarios.
When I GM I relish answering questions. It gives me an opportunity to explain my thoughts on the design of the game or the themes of the setting. Its a chance to reinforce my ideas and try to get them excited about them too.
Questions also tell me more about what that player is interested in. It gives me a chance to ask questions in return and hopefully adjust my game to accommodate their interests.
Ignoring a question ignores all those opportunities to make your game better.
As a GM, the most fun I have is when my players are excited about what they're doing and having fun. It's like cooking someone dinner, the most rewarding part is when you see someone enjoy it and know that you provided them with that experience. I try to tailor the game to the players, because that's going to be the most fun for them. Sure, I pitch stories and themes, but if they aren't interested in them I go with something else.
|
|
And the differences between spellcasting and psionic capabilities at various levels was a fun challenge for everyone. For instance, without create water, crossing a desert became an actual problem. He solved it by making a tub-shaped astral construct to haul water for them.Also perfect for breaking down walls, rescuing them from prisons, etc...
"OH YEAH!"
<distributes Kool-Aid>
LOL. You might as well add a celestial Dire lion who can create cereal based meals because "THERE GREAT".
So to cut to the point:
If you are a trusted GM the explanation is nice but not necessary.
If you aren't trusted then the explanation just leads to more argument.
False dichotomy. Trust is not something that either is or is not. Trust is something that is built. If you are a GM starting a new game (which is normally when these issues arise), you should understand that your players will not trust you until you demonstrate yourself to be trustworthy.
Giving the players a "peak behind the curtain" as to why you make certain decisions goes a long way in building a rapport with your players such that they understand that your decisions are not arbitrary or capricious. Over time, perhaps they will trust you, and when you need to make a call and keep the reasons secret, they will have confidence that you have a good reason for it and they will all have fun if they go along with it.
Um... I was talking about established groups. I guess I haven't made that clear. Everything is different when it's new. Players and GMs alike need a bit of time to get used to each other. If people remember other things I have said online I always exempt new players and by extension new GMs from the same level of expectation I look for in a regular play group. You may have found the one time it is truly extra beneficial to give explanations out over any ruling you make. This doesn't detract from my statement. People don't stay new. They either give you their trust or they don't for good reasons or bad ones. It isn't important why. But once they have decided to trust or not this holds true, explanation becomes unnecessary. It is nice to offer to a player who trusts you and silly to offer to one who doesn't.
|
|
What about, when the group itself is not new, but the game? Or an expansion to the game?
Do you think there is value, when playtesting the new material, for everyone to play with more of their cards on the deck?
When our group moved from 2nd Edition to 3rd, we would often explain what we were attempting, to ensure we had the right interpretation of the rules, and would dissect the results of an encounter, after the game, to find out why someone had taken the tactics they did.
It resulted in clearing up lots of misconceptions about how the rules worked, and everyone who took active part saw their game improve.
I can't see how that would happen, in a game where a player is left in the dark.
So to cut to the point:
If you are a trusted GM the explanation is nice but not necessary.
If you aren't trusted then the explanation just leads to more argument.
False dichotomy. Trust is not something that either is or is not. Trust is something that is built. If you are a GM starting a new game (which is normally when these issues arise), you should understand that your players will not trust you until you demonstrate yourself to be trustworthy.
Giving the players a "peak behind the curtain" as to why you make certain decisions goes a long way in building a rapport with your players such that they understand that your decisions are not arbitrary or capricious. Over time, perhaps they will trust you, and when you need to make a call and keep the reasons secret, they will have confidence that you have a good reason for it and they will all have fun if they go along with it.
Um... I was talking about established groups. I guess I haven't made that clear. Everything is different when it's new. Players and GMs alike need a bit of time to get used to each other. If people remember other things I have said online I always exempt new players and by extension new GMs from the same level of expectation I look for in a regular play group. You may have found the one time it is truly extra beneficial to give explanations out over any ruling you make. This doesn't detract from my statement. People don't stay new. They either give you their trust or they don't for good reasons or bad ones. It isn't important why. But once they have decided to trust or not this holds true, explanation becomes unnecessary. It is nice to offer to a player who trusts you and silly to offer to one who doesn't.
Trust has nothing to do with it. When I ask a question and you tell me no, I'm going to ask why (unless I think I already know). If the GM I've been playing with for the past 15 years tells me no, I'm going to ask why.
Knowing why is information that helps me play in a campaign better. Either finding out mechanical expectations of the GM or learning about the setting/theme/story better. If I ask for something that the GM thinks should be obviously excluded, it means there is a break down between our two understandings of what is going on. I still have that happen all the time, even if people that I've been gaming with for half my life.
A question for all that feel that players are entitled to an explanation of a GM decision upon request:
If the GM replies with "Because I don't like [race/class/item/whatever] and do not want it in this particular game/campagin" as their explanation, and doesn't care to elaborate, are you going to accept that, or argue the point?
I'd ask what exactly is it that does NOT appeal to them in issue X, rather than immediately declare war.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 you are allergic to chocolate, maybe you shouldn't accept the brownie invite (and certainly shouldn't expect they make you something else just because).
It seems to me a lot of people are putting forth perfectly reasonable guidelines for DMing and then everyone jumps in with: "What about my specific example that is highly unlikely but slightly contradicts what you said in paragraph three, subsection B!"
IDK...maybe that's just the point of the internet.
A question for all that feel that players are entitled to an explanation of a GM decision upon request:
If the GM replies with "Because I don't like [race/class/item/whatever] and do not want it in this particular game/campagin" as their explanation, and doesn't care to elaborate, are you going to accept that, or argue the point?
There's a loaded word in your question, "argue".
I'm going to try and have a reasoned discussion about it. Not argue it. Because a reasoned discussion will help me understand why. For example, if they think it's 'broken' I might be able to show how it isn't, or suggest a reasonable fix. (I seriously still encounter people who think Sneak Attack is the most powerful thing ever)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd ask what exactly is it that does NOT appeal to them in issue X, rather than immediately declare war.
And if their response is "I said I don't like [X], and do not wish to debate it," will you accept that and move on?
There's a loaded word in your question, "argue".
Nonsense.
I'm going to try and have a reasoned discussion about it. Not argue it. Because a reasoned discussion will help me understand why. For example, if they think it's 'broken' I might be able to show how it isn't, or suggest a reasonable fix. (I seriously still encounter people who think Sneak Attack is the most powerful thing ever)
And, I pose the same question to you - if the GM tells you that they don't wish to debate/argue/haggle/dispute/expostulate/discuss the issue, and asks that you simply accept their decision to not have [X] in this particular game/campaign, will you accept that and move on?
Because the bigger problem I see here isn't that a GM necessarily expects his/her word to be accepted as if divine, without any dissent, but, ultimately, doesn't care to get into a discussion about why they chose it with someone predispositioned to attempt to convince them to alter their decision.
A question for all that feel that players are entitled to an explanation of a GM decision upon request:
If the GM replies with "Because I don't like [race/class/item/whatever] and do not want it in this particular game/campagin" as their explanation, and doesn't care to elaborate, are you going to accept that, or argue the point?
There's a loaded word in your question, "argue".
I'm going to try and have a reasoned discussion about it. Not argue it. Because a reasoned discussion will help me understand why. For example, if they think it's 'broken' I might be able to show how it isn't, or suggest a reasonable fix. (I seriously still encounter people who think Sneak Attack is the most powerful thing ever)
Dude, it's got "attack" right there in the name! If only there was some attack-based feat with "power" in the name...
Seriously though: speaking as a grognard, ( or at least someone who started playing in the pre-internet era), I think a lot of old timers are willing to accept DMs word as law because back when it was that, or read choose your own adventure novels or fighting fantasy game books , if you could even find them (jackpot!).
The connectivity has, I think, resulted in a world where walking away from a table and starting a PbP group or playing on Skype, Vent, or on a VTT is a workable option.
I guess I'm saying that even a jerk DM is better than the Greatest PbsM (yes, Play by snail Mail) game, but a jerk, whether player or DM, can ruin a table for all involved.
EDIT: The DM get to define their own setting; any player who can't live with that should start DM-ing.
Let me be clear - arbitrary decisions/rulings made mid-game that change that which has been already established, to the adverse preference of the players? That's dickish/jerkish.
Upfront decisions/rulings before the game starts, or when introducing new PCs, NPCs, etc? That's not necessarily dickish/jerkish.
I don't believe for a second that a GM, making a call on specific items (races/classes/items/rules/whatever) and not willing to discuss their reasoning past "this is how I want it/I don't like [X]" is a GM who is being a jerk.
One can argue that a GM that is so intractable as to be unwilling to discuss their decision is a jerk, but I'd argue that a player unwilling to accept the GM's ruling and desire not to have to explain is as much of one.
And, I pose the same question to you - if the GM tells you that they don't wish to debate/argue/haggle/dispute/expostulate/discuss the issue, and asks that you simply accept their decision to not have [X] in this particular game/campaign, will you accept that and move on?
Because the bigger problem I see here isn't that a GM necessarily expects his/her word to be accepted as if divine, without any dissent, but, ultimately, doesn't care to get into a discussion about why they chose it with someone predispositioned to attempt to convince them to alter their decision.
In my experience, the issues that require such discussion usually come up up in the middle of combat, or some sort of encounter that requires the DM's attention. "No, you just can't do that," can feel very arbitrary if no one says, "Can we talk about this after the game?" Disclaimer: A control freak DM (they're out there) will not appreciate the question.
I'd ask what exactly is it that does NOT appeal to them in issue X, rather than immediately declare war.And if their response is "I said I don't like [X], and do not wish to debate it," will you accept that and move on?
There's a loaded word in your question, "argue".Nonsense.
I'm going to try and have a reasoned discussion about it. Not argue it. Because a reasoned discussion will help me understand why. For example, if they think it's 'broken' I might be able to show how it isn't, or suggest a reasonable fix. (I seriously still encounter people who think Sneak Attack is the most powerful thing ever)And, I pose the same question to you - if the GM tells you that they don't wish to debate/argue/haggle/dispute/expostulate/discuss the issue, and asks that you simply accept their decision to not have [X] in this particular game/campaign, will you accept that and move on?
Because the bigger problem I see here isn't that a GM necessarily expects his/her word to be accepted as if divine, without any dissent, but, ultimately, doesn't care to get into a discussion about why they chose it with someone predispositioned to attempt to convince them to alter their decision.
You're assigning me motives that I am not expressing. If want to continue to do that, you can feel free to have the conversation with someone else, or with yourself, because you don't actually need me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never, as a GM, felt threatened about discussing ideas for my game. In fact, the more a fellow player wanted to discuss aspects of the game, the more they tend to be interested in the game and more I tend to enjoy them being part of the gaming group. Now of course those discussions will happen before or after the game, or during the days between game sessions, and not during the game session.
I just can't comprehend a GM that wouldn't be interested in discussing ideas for the game. I'd have to imagine the person was pretty insecure about their ideas to feel that way.
|
|
I've never, as a GM, felt threatened about discussing ideas for my game. In fact, the more a fellow player wanted to discuss aspects of the game, the more they tend to be interested in the game and more I tend to enjoy them being part of the gaming group. Now of course those discussions will happen before or after the game, or during the days between game sessions, and not during the game session.
I just can't comprehend a GM that wouldn't be interested in discussing ideas for the game. I'd have to imagine the person was pretty insecure about their ideas to feel that way.
That's nice and all but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Discussing the game itself is one thing, being expected to come up with an explanation as to why I don't like X, or X doesn't fit in my setting etc...
Some people here clearly can't let someone's decision go unless that person has an answer that the player will accept.
Unless you have a particular character waiting to be played and it is banned from a certain game, there is no reason why you would decide to challenge my decision on not allowing something.
|
|
Why? Why does the DM always need to give you a satisfying reason as to why he doesn't want Gunslingers in his game.
Why can't you just accept it when the DM says up front that there will be no Gunslingers in his game.
The DM has just as much right to leave them out because of his own reasons than you do to find out why wants to leave them out.
What TMZ said as well as once again when did it become a captial offence to ask DMs questions. Or more explanations as to why e hwants to ban something. It's one thing if I demand why. If I ask a simple question what is the problem with asking. Or are players supposed to just be yes men and sheep not questioning anything the DM says. I'm kind of getting that kind of vibe from some posters in this thread. @
@ Araana
Nor is it a question of trust. Seriously asking for more feedback and a explanation is me not trusting the DM. It's come to that now. I ask because I want to kow the reasons behind it and for simple curiosity. As well the DM might be wrong and getting a rule wrong or not understanding a rule or class.
With the exception of one or two Dms who as a whole we don't game with anymore I trust the Dms who run games at a table. Does that mean I'm not going to say anything because I trust the DM or question a decision. I will. Trusting a DM does not make him immune to questioning or feedback.
Once again you are dodging what's being said and trying to turn it into something it's not. Nobody has said anything about it being an offense to ask DM's a question. If you are above the age of 10 then you pretty much know the difference between an appropriate question and an inappropriate one.
There is nothing beyond "I don't like X" unless you just want the person to repeat it with a "Because I just don't like it".
I bet I guess the ones here that actually play with a group and those that sit at home wishing they had a group to play with.
Except I was talking about two different groups of actual players....
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.
I've never, as a GM, felt threatened about discussing ideas for my game. In fact, the more a fellow player wanted to discuss aspects of the game, the more they tend to be interested in the game and more I tend to enjoy them being part of the gaming group. Now of course those discussions will happen before or after the game, or during the days between game sessions, and not during the game session.
I just can't comprehend a GM that wouldn't be interested in discussing ideas for the game. I'd have to imagine the person was pretty insecure about their ideas to feel that way.
That's nice and all but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Discussing the game itself is one thing, being expected to come up with an explanation as to why I don't like X, or X doesn't fit in my setting etc...
Some people here clearly can't let someone's decision go unless that person has an answer that the player will accept.
Unless you have a particular character waiting to be played and it is banned from a certain game, there is no reason why you would decide to challenge my decision on not allowing something.
He's expressing pretty much what I'm expressing. So it's exactly what I'm talking about.
Is "That Disgaea Game" anywhere on-line? I found a funny one on RPGnet, but it was 4th ed D&D. (Which is a quite appropriate fit, I thought.)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!!
It was online, but already ended.
I've never, as a GM, felt threatened about discussing ideas for my game. In fact, the more a fellow player wanted to discuss aspects of the game, the more they tend to be interested in the game and more I tend to enjoy them being part of the gaming group. Now of course those discussions will happen before or after the game, or during the days between game sessions, and not during the game session.
I just can't comprehend a GM that wouldn't be interested in discussing ideas for the game. I'd have to imagine the person was pretty insecure about their ideas to feel that way.
That's nice and all but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Discussing the game itself is one thing, being expected to come up with an explanation as to why I don't like X, or X doesn't fit in my setting etc...
Some people here clearly can't let someone's decision go unless that person has an answer that the player will accept.
Unless you have a particular character waiting to be played and it is banned from a certain game, there is no reason why you would decide to challenge my decision on not allowing something.
That is not what I am talking about though. If the player asked, "Why are ninjas banned?" And you answer, "I think they are stupid and don't want them in my game.", then you answered the question. The player now knows why you banned them. The player might think at that point that you are an idiot, but there is no reason to continue asking about it*.
If instead the player asks, "Why are ninjas banned?" And you reply, "I don't want to talk about it. And you have no right to know." That seems a bit strange to me, but that is the position some seem to be taking. As if there were some trauma involved and that delving into it was going to do harm. "MY MOM WAS KILLED BY A NINJA, OK?! HAPPY NOW? MOMMY! WHY!?"
*EDIT: Outside of the gaming context, I might ask the person why they think ninjas are stupid. Not because I want to convince them that ninjas are not stupid, but merely to know more about their likes and dislikes on a personal level. If the person is just sick of all of the weeaboos they keep running into and just wants to avoid everything with any eastern feel, that is cool, and I'll know to avoid bringing such things up around them, because I got to know them personally and they weren't afraid to discuss their likes and dislikes.
And what if you discovered the player also hated weeaboos and just wanted to play the "ninja" because they thought the abilities would make a good assassin character they were interested in. "What if I got all the abilities but agreed to never describe or refer to my character as a 'ninja', would it be fine then?" "Ah ... well from that perspective ... that is ... I guess, yes? Yes. That would be great."
|
|
Once again you are dodging what's being said and trying to turn it into something it's not. Nobody has said anything about it being an offense to ask DM's a question. If you are above the age of 10 then you pretty much know the difference between an appropriate question and an inappropriate one.
How I am dodging. I put forward that it's perfectly reasonably to ask a DM to explain and possibly clarify a postion on something he bans from his or her game table. That seems to bother you imo. If a DM says "no gunslingers" I consider it okay to ask "why?" rather than not say anything and just accept everything the DM says.
There is nothing beyond "I don't like X" unless you just want the person to repeat it with a "Because I just don't like it".
Here the thing though. When you don't like a class espcially when running a game with experienced players your going to get someone asking for more information and clarification. And there is nothing wrong with that imo. The better answer would be "I don't allow gunslingers because they target touch ac and I don't want them in my games". Which was my response for a long time until the latest AP where I allowed it.
On one hand you seem to be saying it's okay to ask questions. Then on the other your also saying to those asking them kind of not to ask them in the first place. You can't have it both ways. Open the floor to questions than answer any which way imo.
I bet I guess the ones here that actually play with a group and those that sit at home wishing they had a group to play with.
A simple answer. Dms who encourage feedback. Are not afraid to answer questions with just a "because I'm the DM". Don't view player who ask questions as a hassle and a bother are the ones who run games. The ones who do the opposite are the ones who sit at home wishing they had a gaming group.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The better answer would be "I don't allow gunslingers because...
We humans tend to have funny, irrational quirks at times. Sometimes about the silliest things too...
I for example, do not like brussels sprouts. I can't tell you why, I just don't like them...
Sure you can ask me why, but I am not going to be able to give you any better of an answer other than "Because I don't!"
Absolutely, a better answer would indeed be: "I don't like brussels sprouts because..."
But the fact of the matter is, I don't have a better answer...
If I had to sit down and rationally think about it, there's probably a multitude of little things about them that makes me dislike them as a whole, and I seriously doubt that if someone were able to somehow remove just one or two of those little things that I dislike about them would make brussels sprouts any more appealing to me...
It doesn't have to make sense to you, you just have to accept that answer and move on (one way or the other)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You people realize the problem here isn't the players who ask nicely.
It's the players who DEMAND answers who are the real problem.
Brian E. Harris brings up an excellent point as well. Sometimes the only reason not to answer the 'Why?' question is because you already know the player in question is just going to try to dismiss your concerns and badger you to allow whatever. Maybe I don't like having my concerns dismissed however irrational they may seem to you. It all boils back down to trust. Do you trust me to run a fair and fun game or don't you? NO you don't NEED your special snowflake race to have fun. If you like the concept so much then adapt it to an existing race and enjoy yourself.