Hama, you realize that you're stating the obvious and adding nothing to what little discussion is going on here, right?
Awww TOZ, I like when people state the obvious. You yourself make some nice posts that state the obvious.
Icyshadow, i am glad that i have never GM-ed for you, or that i never will for that matter. Players like you are the ones that ruin my fun when i GM.You've never done me wrong, so I would never do that to you.
There's a difference between you and the guy who ruined my fun.
Besides, I barely know you, so I'll optimistically assume you'd be able to treat your players better.
Quite better, never had any complaints...
But go lick your master's boot? Seriously? Where did you get that from the discussion...
Some people were simply saying that they have a right to have preferences and that they have a right not to have to explain themselves for that.
The vitriol probably came from the people who really think I am just complaining about not getting my way, which is not true. It would be easier to trust someone when you have no reason to suspect why they aren't giving clear-cut answers. They can avoid that by actually giving said answer. Also, to quote myself on that first issue.
And there's the other problem, which I have been confused over as well. What is this obsession with "screen time" DMs around here seem to have? I've never seen it come up, either because I SOMEHOW manage to give everyone equal screen time, or then because nobody around the tables where I play is a manchild hungry for attention.
Why is the default assumption "The GM's job is to accommodate whatever I want to do," rather than "the GM's job is to balance the desires and playstyles of the group so that everyone has fun?"What I want is in no way negatively affecting the rest of the group. D&D (and Pathfinder by extension) is a group game, and this should be taken into account. What should the DM do if suddenly all the other players decide to take my side and say "let him play the character concept he's been wanting to play for so long, or we all leave" to him? Should he still have his way, or should he be able to compromise a bit like I think he should? If I really were of that "accomodate whatever I want to do" mindset, I'd demand he start using every houserule I've had in mind along with other things, which I refuse to do because I am NOT a control freak.
|
This is why folks are calling you on the entitlement issue - you're perfectly entitled to ASK the question, you're just not entitled to an answer that satisfies you, or an answer, period. The GM entitled to request feedback on their session, but they're not entitled to positive feedback, or any feedback for that matter.
So I can ask questions and not expect a answer or whatever the hell of a nasnwer th DM wants to give me. Asking for more clarification is entitlement
Saying that the DM can request for feedback and not only does not have to give it he does not have to answer anything or give feedback. That a oxymoron it makes no sense. And you point to me and say I'm the entitled one. LOL. Your a classic case of entitlement 101.
Makes me so happy I don't play with some posters in this thread.
I am a DM who ismore than willing to answer questions of any kind without considering it entitlement on the players part. I am also so happy to know not one but two DMS who would pretty much put some of the DM overlords in this thread to shame. Also willing to answer questions and feedback. Who also don't consider it player entitlement.
|
|
The vitriol probably came from the people who really think I am just complaining about not getting my way, which is not true. It would be easier to trust someone when you have no reason to suspect why they aren't giving clear-cut answers. They can avoid that by actually giving said answer. Also, to quote myself on that first issue.
Agreed and seconded.
So I can ask questions and not expect a answer or whatever the hell of a nasnwer th DM wants to give me. Asking for more clarification is entitlement
No, asking for more clarification is NOT entitlement, and nobody EVER insinuated that was.
It's not the REQUEST for an answer that makes it an entitlement issue, it's the EXPECTATION that an answer MUST be provided that makes it an entitlement issue.
Saying that the DM can request for feedback and not only does not have to give it he does not have to answer anything or give feedback. That a oxymoron it makes no sense. And you point to me and say I'm the entitled one. LOL. Your a classic case of entitlement 101.
Can you please proofread and edit before submission? Something's wrong and this doesn't make sense.
Here it is, in a nutshell:
The Player may ask the GM questions. The Player is not entitled to an answer.
The Player may request explanations/clarifications for answers given. The Player is not entitled to an explanation/clarification.
The GM may solicit feedback from the Player. The GM is not entitled to feedback.
Edited to add: The GM that NEVER answers questions, and NEVER explains/clarifies their answers? That's very likely not a great GM.
The great part is, nobody is advocating that a GM should NEVER answer and NEVER explain. They're simply advocating that a GM doesn't ALWAYS need to answer, and doesn't ALWAYS need to explain to the satisfaction of the person asking the questions.
Sometimes, people just need to accept that they're not going to get a satisfactory answer or explanation, and they're going to have to just game on.
If they can't accept that, well, they can try to find another game. If finding another game is so easy for them that they can casually threaten to leave a game, then, awesome - they've got better gaming prospects than a lot of us, and more power to them for finding a game that better suits them.
Makes me so happy I don't play with some posters in this thread.
Likewise, buddy.
I am a DM who ismore than willing to answer questions of any kind without considering it entitlement on the players part. I am also so happy to know not one but two DMS who would pretty much put some of the DM overlords in this thread to shame. Also willing to answer questions and feedback. Who also don't consider it player entitlement.
What you consider it and what it really is are two separate things, and the only "DM overlords" in this thread are fictional constructs of your imagination.
I don't have an issue with players asking questions. I have an issue with players not accepting answers when the GM states "that's all I care to explain."
And, before you try to argue (AGAIN) otherwise, I'm not advocating that the GM answer with a "Because I said so." That's really a non-answer, and isn't going to do anyone any good. "Because I don't want it" or "Because I don't like it" may not be satisfactory answers to the person asking the question, but they're not nearly the smarmy answer that "Because I said so" is.
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.So, no, you're not going to accept that the GM doesn't wish to debate the point, and you're going to press your case anyways.
Gotcha.
I assigned no motives in my question to you, and if you believe that my statement of observation is assigning motives to you (much like you erringly believe the term "argue" is "loaded"), I can't help that.
Okay, I'll just put you on ignore so we don't cross post then.
If you can't see the difference between discuss and argue, I'm not going to bother talking (you'll probably read DEMAND in that word) with you.
...I don't have an issue with players asking questions. I have an issue with players not accepting answers when the GM states "that's all I care to explain."
And, before you try to argue (AGAIN) otherwise, I'm not advocating that the GM answer with a "Because I said so." That's really a non-answer, and isn't going to do anyone any good. "Because I don't want it" or "Because I don't like it" may not be satisfactory answers to the person asking the question, but they're not nearly the smarmy answer that "Because I said so" is.
And what if the DM merely says "because I said so" anyway?
If the GM says "Because I said so" anyway, then it's decision time for you - are you going to let it slide or not? Because the ball is in your court.
As I said, a GM who always answers this way is likely not a great GM, and I'm not advocating that a GM answers this way.
Okay, I'll just put you on ignore so we don't cross post then.
Thank you!
P.S. When did we get an ignore feature?
If the GM says "Because I said so" anyway, then it's decision time for you - are you going to let it slide or not? Because the ball is in your court.
As I said, a GM who always answers this way is likely not a great GM, and I'm not advocating that a GM answers this way.
...I know this probably sounds meanspirited, but I got a good laugh out of that one. The GM really would dismiss this comment as hogwash if I showed this to him.
|
|
Bah I never liked or will like ignore features. Were are all adults. If you can't stand that a poster may disagree with you than don't visit a discussion forum. period. Hiding behind a ignore feature I don't know seems kind of coawrdly. Not to mention if someone says something bad about you imo you kind of lose the right to be offeneded imo. If you use a feature on a forum that blocks a certain person posts than you have no one else to blame but yourself if you can't see the negative things said behind your back.
...I know this probably sounds meanspirited, but I got a good laugh out of that one. The GM really would dismiss this comment as hogwash if I showed this to him.
Then perhaps it's time to try to find another GM?
|
|
Brian I think we are just going to be in disagrement on this issue of what can or cannot be said to players and DMs at the game table. I beleive in all information access at the table. You take a more restricted view. That's fine yet imo your way of doing thinks leads to more conflict at the table imo.
Bah I never liked or will like ignore features. Were are all adults. If you can't stand that a poster may disagree with you than don't visit a discussion forum. period. Hiding behind a ignore feature I don't know seems kind of coawrdly. Not to mention if someone says something bad about you imo you kind of lose the right to be offeneded imo. If you use a feature on a forum that blocks a certain person posts than you have no one else to blame but yourself if you can't see the negative things said behind your back.
But then you don't get the smug satisfaction of telling someone that you're ignoring them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah I never liked or will like ignore features.
I love them. It's so much better to put a wall between two rabid animals than let them constantly fight it out and force moderators to intervene.
I think the moderation around here is way too lenient anyway, but that's another thread.
Brian I think we are just going to be in disagrement on this issue of what can or cannot be said to players and DMs at the game table. I beleive in all information access at the table. You take a more restricted view. That's fine yet imo your way of doing thinks leads to more conflict at the table imo.
What we're really in disagreement on is what you seem to think I'm saying.
I am not trying to dictate what can or annoy be said to players and GMs, nor have I done so in this thread. I've not once said or implied that a player cannot ask the GM a question as you've tried to claim or insinuate that I have.
I do NOT take a more restricted view, and in a lot of cases, the more information the better.
I just don't believe that I, as a player, am entitled to any expansive explanation of why a GM decides as they do, past telling me "I don't want this in my campaign and/or I don't like it."
I'm most likely going to be one of those players that are asking for them to explain or clarify that answer (usually in the form of "any particular reason why, GM-type-person?") - I'm just not going to be one of those players that get bent out of shape when they decline to do so.
Sometimes they provide a satisfactory answer, and sometimes the explain or clarify why they decided as they did.
Sometimes, they don't.
Am I curious? Yeah. Do I disagree? Sometimes. But am I going to get bent about it? Not very likely. Unlike some folks here, I don't particularly have a huge crop of GMs to harvest. Even if I did, if the GM isn't doing anything particularly out of sorts (and disallowing the occasional class/race/spell/weapon/whatever isn't particularly out of sorts), I'm not going to cut off my gaming nose to spite my gaming face.
My way (or my fellow players/GMs way) of doing things doesn't lead to any increase in conflict because I game with mature people who are willing to accept the GM's disinclination to expound upon their answer when they see fit.
|
|
Bah I never liked or will like ignore features.I love them. It's so much better to put a wall between two rabid animals than let them constantly fight it out and force moderators to intervene.
I think the moderation around here is way too lenient anyway, but that's another thread.
It's not that I despise the ignore feature. Just that I see it used to often for the slightest disagrements in threads and discussions. If a poster is insulting you and your family or jus can't stop swearing and being rude than yes a ignore feature is in order. If you like tomatos and I say I can;t stand them and you put me on a ignore list. Just seems like imo a poster can't take negative feedback or coriticsm of any kind. My advice to the Paizo include a ignore feature with a limited amount of posters that can be ignored at one time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok since you want to tie yourself to this lets explore it. Has the GM made any such mistake at the point you are accusing her of doing so? Nope. Since no play has even begun yet you have no idea whether the GM is using a mechanical aspect wrong. SO isn't it insulting to excuse your demands for a straight answer based on an error SHE HASN'T MADE YET?!
I have played in way too many games where DMs have a tendancy to do last minute DMing and preparation. It's entirely poosible for a unprepared DM to make mistakes with a class at character creation and during the game.
I'm running a Rise of the Runelords. I allowed a Gunslinger. Lets say I made the mistake the day of character creation misread what the Gunslinger targets and refused to allow a player to take a gunslinger. A player is well within rights to question my refusal of a class when I'm telling him that I disallow it because gunsliners use reflex saves not touch AC instead. Whch would be unfair to the player. Better the player question me and point out my mistake. It avoids conflict and problems.
This isn't what's happening though.
The GM hasn't given you ANY indication they have misread anything yet. YET you are saying that you are perfectly ok to badger the GM based on your assumption that they probably are banning it because they don't understand how it properly works. Do you honestly NOT see the condescension in that assumption? THAT IS the reason you are standing behind for it being a good thing to badger the GM with questions. Give the poor GM a chance to make a mistake before you get on your holy pedestal.
Okay, memorax and Harris. I'm pretty sure the current enmity was spawned by a misunderstanding of some sort. Maybe it's time to cool the jets before some posts get flagged. And Aranna, one can also inform the DM how the rule really works, but the DM might dismiss that, like mine did sometimes when it came to rule questions. You might not want to believe it, but the mutual trust is sometimes just not there, and the DM can distrust a player just like a player can distrust a DM.
It's not that I despise the ignore feature. Just that I see it used to often for the slightest disagrements in threads and discussions. If a poster is insulting you and your family or jus can't stop swearing and being rude than yes a ignore feature is in order. If you like tomatos and I say I can;t stand them and you put me on a ignore list. Just seems like imo a poster can't take negative feedback or coriticsm of any kind. My advice to the Paizo include a ignore feature with a limited amount of posters that can be ignored at one time.Bah I never liked or will like ignore features.I love them. It's so much better to put a wall between two rabid animals than let them constantly fight it out and force moderators to intervene.
I think the moderation around here is way too lenient anyway, but that's another thread.
I find I'm mostly using it for people who don't actually want to talk to me, but rather talk down to me. I don't have time for that anymore.
I agree Icyshadow. If the GM makes a mistake and then even when it becomes obvious they were wrong they dismiss it and keep using the flawed ruling. I would be exasperated with the GM. Lesson #1 for good GMing is "Learn the rules". Such a response would be the same as telling me "I don't want to be a good GM".
Keep in mind if I decided to stay in his game and not leave I would swallow my views during the session and play exactly like the GM wanted me to. Why ruin everyones fun myself? That's just as bad as what the GM is doing. And if others want to still play I would just shut up and play.
Outside the game I reserve the right to speak openly about the session or any bad rules calls. I wouldn't let it get me THAT upset if I still wanted to play. I would still be miss etiquette in the sessions. I would probably keep notes as to the stuff he is doing differently than the rules however for easy reference when making a character for his next game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok since you want to tie yourself to this lets explore it. Has the GM made any such mistake at the point you are accusing her of doing so? Nope. Since no play has even begun yet you have no idea whether the GM is using a mechanical aspect wrong. SO isn't it insulting to excuse your demands for a straight answer based on an error SHE HASN'T MADE YET?!
I have played in way too many games where DMs have a tendancy to do last minute DMing and preparation. It's entirely poosible for a unprepared DM to make mistakes with a class at character creation and during the game.
I'm running a Rise of the Runelords. I allowed a Gunslinger. Lets say I made the mistake the day of character creation misread what the Gunslinger targets and refused to allow a player to take a gunslinger. A player is well within rights to question my refusal of a class when I'm telling him that I disallow it because gunsliners use reflex saves not touch AC instead. Whch would be unfair to the player. Better the player question me and point out my mistake. It avoids conflict and problems.
This isn't what's happening though.
The GM hasn't given you ANY indication they have misread anything yet. YET you are saying that you are perfectly ok to badger the GM based on your assumption that they probably are banning it because they don't understand how it properly works. Do you honestly NOT see the condescension in that assumption? THAT IS the reason you are standing behind for it being a good thing to badger the GM with questions. Give the poor GM a chance to make a mistake before you get on your holy pedestal.
What if I'm not badgering the GM. What if I'm having a calm and reasonable discussion with them?
That's basically what I've wanted to ask this whole time.
People appear to be arguing at each other, not with each.
I am sure memorax can correct me if I am wrong, but he is not assuming the GM is disallowing something only because the GM might not understand the rules. The example he gave was one circumstance where, when asking for clarification, the GM shows he might have misunderstood a rule.
I deal with entitlement issues all the time (outside of gaming). Asking why something is banned is not entitlement, nor is asking for clarification. If I ask why ninjas are banned, the DM tells me he doesn't like them, and then I ask why, that is not entitlement. The DM might very well say they are not suited to the atmosphere of this campaign, or he wants more authentic medieval classes, he doesn't like the mechanics, etc. That is a reason
Entitlement only kicks in if I continue to argue the point, or attempt to derail the campaign because I refuse to be happy with the decision
What reasonable discussion, Irontruth?
GM: Gunslingers, evil characters, and summoners are banned in this next campaign I am building. You will be focused on restoring the Prince to his rightful throne in this game, and so your characters should be built with that goal in mind. Also as always make a character who is willing to work with others.
You: Why are you banning gunslingers?!
GM: I really don't like the class.
You: Why not? They should be included. I want to play a gunslinger.
GM(deciding to be nice at this point): I just don't like the way they play or the flavor they represent.
You: Why? Are you reading the class correctly? I can explain why you are wrong about them.
GM(now irritated at the assumptions): Sorry end of discussion. I read the class correctly. My decision is final.
You: No. I want to discuss this more. I want to play a gunslinger and I should be able to.
ect.
Is this NOT a good representation of the argument so far? I call this badgering the GM.
What reasonable discussion, Irontruth?
GM: Gunslingers, evil characters, and summoners are banned in this next campaign I am building. You will be focused on restoring the Prince to his rightful throne in this game, and so your characters should be built with that goal in mind. Also as always make a character who is willing to work with others.
You: Why are you banning gunslingers?!
GM: I really don't like the class.
You: Why not? They should be included. I want to play a gunslinger.
GM(deciding to be nice at this point): I just don't like the way they play or the flavor they represent.
You: Why? Are you reading the class correctly? I can explain why you are wrong about them.
GM(now irritated at the assumptions): Sorry end of discussion. I read the class correctly. My decision is final.
You: No. I want to discuss this more. I want to play a gunslinger and I should be able to.
ect.
Is this NOT a good representation of the argument so far? I call this badgering the GM.
I could never see someone say the bolded parts, and probably won't ever see that. However, a GM that gets irritated that fast also seems to have temper issues. I could run in circles with someone about an issue for a while myself until I lay my foot down, and even that depends on the issue itself. Even though I feel inclined to ban the Summoner class in my games, I might allow a player to have one if he/she REALLY wants it and if I can be sure that they can run a character like that well enough.
But that's just me using an example. I'm even more open-minded with races. I can adapt fluff to pretty much anything, but if the stats are too strong, I am going to hit those numbers with a nerf bat, whether the player likes it or not.
|
|
@ Aranna
You do have a point except I never have reached a conversation to that level ever in any of my gaming sessions.
ME I'm not allowing gunslingers
Player: Why not?
Me: I don't like that they target touch ac as opposed to regular AC. As well as the flavor.
With your exampe your giving a reason yet evading answering the question. It took the player three4 tries to get a response that imo did not sound like a evasion. Where you disliked the way the play and the flavor they represent. First two feel to like your answering yet avoiding answering at the same time. On one hand one can say the player is badgering the DM on the other your also making it difficult to get a straightr answer. Players should not badger DMs yet netiher do they have jumo through flmaing hoops to get a answer eiter.
People appear to be arguing at each other, not with each.
Some people are.
Asking why something is banned is not entitlement, nor is asking for clarification.
And this argument is only being made in the minds of those who meet this next statement:
Entitlement only kicks in if I continue to argue the point, or attempt to derail the campaign because I refuse to be happy with the decision
Moving on:
If I ask why ninjas are banned, the DM tells me he doesn't like them, and then I ask why, that is not entitlement. The DM might very well say they are not suited to the atmosphere of this campaign, or he wants more authentic medieval classes, he doesn't like the mechanics, etc. That is a reason
You're absolutely correct, and again, the only people arguing this are imaginary constructs in the minds of some posters.
Asking why isn't entitlement. Asking for clarification isn't entitlement.
Expecting that the GM is required to give you a reason that satisfies you? THAT is entitlement.
What reasonable discussion, Irontruth?
GM: Gunslingers, evil characters, and summoners are banned in this next campaign I am building. You will be focused on restoring the Prince to his rightful throne in this game, and so your characters should be built with that goal in mind. Also as always make a character who is willing to work with others.
You: Why are you banning gunslingers?!
GM: I really don't like the class.
You: Why not? They should be included. I want to play a gunslinger.
GM(deciding to be nice at this point): I just don't like the way they play or the flavor they represent.
You: Why? Are you reading the class correctly? I can explain why you are wrong about them.
GM(now irritated at the assumptions): Sorry end of discussion. I read the class correctly. My decision is final.
You: No. I want to discuss this more. I want to play a gunslinger and I should be able to.
ect.
Is this NOT a good representation of the argument so far? I call this badgering the GM.
But what if I don't talk to my GM like that. Are you claiming it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about a topic like this? What if the setting already has guns?
I was trying to capture the GM evasiveness that one side didn't like and juxtapose it with the I will question you endlessly till you cave of the other side. I apparently didn't quite get it right...
Regardless Brian has the right of it. Continuing to argue (discuss) till YOU are satisfied with the answer is the problem. All the GMs are saying is they don't have to answer. The game will go on, people will have fun, and adventures will be had.
I was trying to capture the GM evasiveness that one side didn't like and juxtapose it with the I will question you endlessly till you cave of the other side. I apparently didn't quite get it right...
Regardless Brian has the right of it. Continuing to argue (discuss) till YOU are satisfied with the answer is the problem. All the GMs are saying is they don't have to answer. The game will go on, people will have fun, and adventures will be had.
Again with this word argue. Are you saying that all conversations are arguments? Are you telling me that I am only satisfied with me being right and only if I get my way?
An example, I was in the Navy, so I moved away from home for a while. When I came back, I rejoined my old gaming group. I loved playing druids. I was told I couldn't though. I asked why.
I was told it was possible, but because things had happened in game, druids were considered heretics and the main faith of the region was basically at war with them. So if I made a druid, if found out I would be tortured and killed, or at the least be made an outlaw.
I chose not to make one and I was satisfied with that response. When we played a different game, where druids weren't hated, I played one.
Also, through play we reconciled (partly), druids and the main faith, so they were playable again. There were in game reasons for it and it made sense.
"Because I said so" isn't a good reason for anything in a cooperative environment.
Again with this word argue. Are you saying that all conversations are arguments? Are you telling me that I am only satisfied with me being right and only if I get my way?
What's your argument with the word?
No, obviously not all conversations are arguments, but "argue" and "argument" aren't loaded words with negative connotations.
ar·gue [ahr-gyoo]
verb, ar·gued, ar·gu·ing.verb (used without object)
1. to present reasons for or against a thing: He argued in favor of capital punishment.
2. to contend in oral disagreement; dispute: The Senator argued with the President about the new tax bill.verb (used with object)
3. to state the reasons for or against: The lawyers argued the case.
4. to maintain in reasoning: to argue that the news report must be wrong.
5. to persuade, drive, etc., by reasoning: to argue someone out of a plan.
6. to show; prove; imply; indicate: His clothes argue poverty.
or how about
ar·gu·ment [ahr-gyuh-muhnt]
noun
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.
The only potentially "negative" use of the word is in the first definition of argument, which is qualified by the adjective "violent" which would serve to indicate that one could have a friendly argument, a benign argument, etc.
The word is not loaded, it's not negative.
And, yeah, it sure seems that you're only satisfied if you get your way, which would be an explanation that satisfies you. Demonstrably, if you don't get an explanation that satisfies you, you're not satisfied, and if you get an explanation that satisfies you, you're getting your way.
You've pretty much stated that you're not satisfied with an answer of "This is how I want things to be" or "I don't like [X]/I don't want [X] in my game."
"Because I said so" isn't a good reason for anything in a cooperative environment.
And the only people arguing such are imaginary.
|
If I said I'm throwing a Thanksgiving day dinner party and I wasn't making a turkey, then I think people would be excused for asking why. I should certainly expect the question and would reasonably be considered prickly if I didnt answer it. It's an iconic, traditional part of the meal. It's an exclusion from an expected set.
Not a good example because I know people who don't serve turkey at Thanksgiving and instead serve ham. If I went to Thanksgiving dinner at someone's house and I asked why there was no turkey after none was offered then I probably wouldn't be invited back.
If I got out of my way to tell you what is banned from a game then the default notion has gone out the window so you can't assume the game is default anymore.
What if you serve ham at Thanksgiving, despite knowing your friend is Jewish?
|
|
An example, I was in the Navy, so I moved away from home for a while. When I came back, I rejoined my old gaming group. I loved playing druids. I was told I couldn't though. I asked why.
I was told it was possible, but because things had happened in game, druids were considered heretics and the main faith of the region was basically at war with them. So if I made a druid, if found out I would be tortured and killed, or at the least be made an outlaw.
I chose not to make one and I was satisfied with that response. When we played a different game, where druids weren't hated, I played one.
Also, through play we reconciled (partly), druids and the main faith, so they were playable again. There were in game reasons for it and it made sense.
"Because I said so" isn't a good reason for anything in a cooperative environment.
That's because you came back to a game that was already in motion so you had a legitimate reason to ask why.
Now, let's talk about reality for a moment. If you have been playing with a DM long enough or you understand the type of game that he wants to run and he bans certain things then 9 times out of 10 you can guess why those things were banned.
"Because I don't like them or because I don't want them in my campaign" are just as good a reason as any because it is a legitimate response. Because the DM took the time to ban a certain element should trigger something in the brain that tells you the DM has a reason why he took the time to ban XYZ.
What if you serve ham at Thanksgiving, despite knowing your friend is Jewish?I'm sure you wouldn't invite your Jewish friend to a Thanksgiving celebration knowing your family only serves ham.
Let's assume the family USUALLY serves turkey?
|
|
Let's assume the family USUALLY serves turkey?What if you serve ham at Thanksgiving, despite knowing your friend is Jewish?I'm sure you wouldn't invite your Jewish friend to a Thanksgiving celebration knowing your family only serves ham.
Why would the family just suddenly stop serving Turkey? I'm sure since this Jewish person is a friend they would know better than to serve ham.
Why would the family just suddenly stop serving Turkey? I'm sure since this Jewish person is a friend they would know better than to serve ham.Let's assume the family USUALLY serves turkey?What if you serve ham at Thanksgiving, despite knowing your friend is Jewish?I'm sure you wouldn't invite your Jewish friend to a Thanksgiving celebration knowing your family only serves ham.
There we have the paradox I had with my DM. He initially seemed okay with all the things we had worked out together. In this case, he was serving turkey as usual. Then he suddenly did that 180 turn and the fighting started. Using the metaphor again, he suddenly served ham despite saying he was gonna serve turkey.
Good catch Brian. It looks like memorax was creating a straw man.
To ask is fine. What people have issue with is people who don't accept the answer. We don't GM to spend hours arguing with a player who won't take no for an answer. We GM because it's fun watching friends and acquaintances solve the scenario you created for them.
Sometimes it's needed becuase the DM is wrong and totally clueless about something.Really? This automatic assumption that your GM is totally clueless IS a good example of the lack of trust I am talking about.
Nobody said the player thought the GM was clueless. He was simply giving one reason why a Q and A can solve misconceptions. In other words if questions can bring more light to the subject then it is good to answer the question.
Example:
GM:No gunslingers.
Player: Why not?
GM:They can do 1000 points of damage by _____, and they target reflex saves.
Player: Sorry, that is not correct. On page ___ in the UC book it says _____.
GM:<GM checks the book> OK sorry. You can play it then.
As you see the player never assumed the GM was clueless and players can know more than GM's, but more on that later. The player asked why. The GM answered, and the decision was reversed. People really need to stop reading between the lines when there is nothing between the lines around here.
PS:As the players knowing more than a GM it is possible. As long as the player is respectful then it should be an issue however.
It's not a strawman imo.
If a DM keeps insisting that Gunslingers target reflex saves why would I not point out his error.
The whole entitlement BS kind of works both wys. On one had you cant't accuse players of wanting more inforation as entitlement than on the other say that a DM can filed questions with any kind of answer. That too is a form of entitlement.
Since no one anywhere is saying gunslingers target ref saves this IS a good example of stawman. Since no one anywhere is suggesting it would be inappropriate to call a GM on a rules mistake when she actually makes one (and not just because your convinced she is too clueless not to be making one in the future). Really listen to yourself. I am reusing words you used. Making an imaginary hypothetical to argue against... what would you call it?
The entitled players are the ones who DEMAND answers. I thought we all already agreed those players are bad?
The point was not so much about gunslingers, but the fact that GM's can make decisions based on bad information. The gunslinger was just an example.
When debating don't focus so much on the example, but the point being made, unless the example is the point.
Since no one anywhere is saying gunslingers target ref saves this IS a good example of stawman.
Really that's the strawman. A hypothetical example I used to try and prove my point. I know no one here said that. I never said anyone here said that. I used that as a example on when to question a DM response to banning a class. I guess I need to repeat it. If A a DM (no one in this thread) bans gunslingers because he thinks they target reflex AC (no one in this thread) by mistake then I think it's alright for a player to question why a class was banned. Since the DM (no one in thsi thread) is banning a class becuase of wrong information on that class. Clear enough for you or is it another "Strawman". Dms make mistakes. I know this your probably know this it happens.
Ok since you want to tie yourself to this lets explore it. Has the GM made any such mistake at the point you are accusing her of doing so? Nope. Since no play has even begun yet you have no idea whether the GM is using a mechanical aspect wrong. SO isn't it insulting to excuse your demands for a straight answer based on an error SHE HASN'T MADE YET?!
In his example he is not accusing the GM of anything. It is a simple Q and A which leads to the discovery of a mistake. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.