Are you opposed to cooperation between a GM and their players to create a game that is fun for all of them?The thing is the DM has already given you the option to walk away. DM's are not going to beg you to play in their game. You either want play in their game that they propose or you don't. You are an individual who doesn't speak for the group.
The DM is more than just another player I'm afraid and by RAW the book backs him up. That's the biggest problem I see here is thinking that the DM is just another player. He is the person that hosts his game, builds his game, spends hours making and running his game. Player's are guests in the DM's house who are free to leave if they find the DM's hospitality not what they want it to be but don't expect the host to come running after you begging for you to come back in.
Are you asking "What if most or all of the players disagree with the GM's rules will ShallowSoul then discuss the issue"?
|
The thing is the DM has already given you the option to walk away. DM's are not going to beg you to play in their game. You either want play in their game that they propose or you don't. You are an individual who doesn't speak for the group.
The DM is more than just another player I'm afraid and by RAW the book backs him up. That's the biggest problem I see here is thinking that the DM is just another player. He is the person that hosts his game, builds his game, spends hours making and running his game. Player's are guests in the DM's house who are free to leave if they find the DM's hospitality not what they want it to be but don't expect the host to come running after you begging for you to come back in.
Are you opposed to cooperation between a GM and their players to create a game that is fun for all of them?
Edit: Let me clarify.
My position is that if there is a disconnect between the player and the GM, both sides should try to find common ground.
For the GM, it's a game, not a Shakespearean masterpiece. There is nothing so sacred in your story/theme/setting, that you can't bend it to accommodate a player.
For a player, you aren't always going to get exactly what you want. You should strive to communicate your goal and work with the GM to get a close approximation of that goal, but be prepared to modify your concept to fit the story/theme/setting.
All this "you can just walk away" is childish, immature and non-productive. If someone is a jerk, a!#@~&&, etc, sure you walk away or whatever.
It's not childish. It's so F$^&ing simple it's almost funny. You either don't play in the game or you do. I propose a game,I list what I am allowing or disallowing in the game and then you make a decision as to whether or not you want to play. It's not childish, it's not complicated, it's not godlike power, it's not being cocky, it's just plain simple.
Calling someone childish because they won't do what you want them to do, even if it involves you wanting a subjective explanation as to why something is banned is in itself being childish. I don't have to take any threats from you about my Dming just because I don't live up to "your" expectations. As long as the majority of the group agrees with my decisions and my tactics then you are allowed to take that walk or create your PC and pull a chair up to the table and play.
There is nothing wrong with working with your group but always remember that you don't demand anything of the DM and you respect the DM if he isn't opening any of his decisions to a debate.
Nobody if forcing you to play.
|
I wonder though if posters in this thread must either have very forgiving players or the only one who runs games in the area. That type of bad DMing would not stand in my area. A DM who refuses to communicate with players while also pointing them the door if a player does not like it is going to rapidly be blacklisted as a DM. I think posters forgot it's not the 80s and 90s where the internet did not exist.
Word gets around faster. With social networks and twitter. Sure if one or two players say negative stuff about the DM it usually gets ingnored as bad mouthing the DM and sour grapes. When a entire table of players says the same thing well other gamers in the area start to wonder. Again players have as much power as the DM is willing to give them. Buying the books. Spending time working on your world is not going to make me as a player ignore your negative qualities as a DM. Espcially when the DM is afraid of communicating with his players and displaying a fear of losing control of the table. Imo that has to be the reason. Otherwise I can't see why a DM would be so adamant about not communicating with players.
IfI wanted to be a real jerk I could do the same thing to the uncommunicative DM at my table. I don't. I do have a rue if something is banned at a DMs table he can't use it in my game. If I allow something that is banned from another dms table I want to also be able to have access to it as a player.
|
|
There is nothing wrong with working with your group but always remember that you don't demand anything of the DM and you respect the DM if he isn't opening any of his decisions to a debate.
There is a difference between working with a group and stacking the deck in your favor so to speak. You not only want the group to bow to all of your conditions at a game table imo. You also expect them to give only a certain type of feedback. If they don't give you that then you show them the door. I think your idea of working with players is vaslty different from everyone else.
|
IfI wanted to be a real jerk I could do the same thing to the uncommunicative DM at my table. I don't. I do have a rue if something is banned at a DMs table he can't use it in my game. If I allow something that is banned from another dms table I want to also be able to have access to it as a player.
I agree with most of your post, but this is just silly. And, no offense, seems petty to a degree. Just because i envisioned a world where orcs and goblinoids don't exist, because they do not fit the flavor of my world (hence no half-orcs), you are not going to allow me to play a half-orc in your game?
I know it's a dumb example. It's just an example, don't take it literally.
Or are you referring to classes and other mechanics stuff like feats and spells?
In which case, again silly, because maybe the former GM wants to test the class/race/feat/spell, to see if it works appropriately, so that he could include it in his next game.
There is nothing wrong with working with your group but always remember that you don't demand anything of the DM and you respect the DM if he isn't opening any of his decisions to a debate.
Respect has to be earned, not demanded.
The thing is the DM has already given you the option to walk away. DM's are not going to beg you to play in their game. You either want play in their game that they propose or you don't. You are an individual who doesn't speak for the group.
The DM is more than just another player I'm afraid and by RAW the book backs him up. That's the biggest problem I see here is thinking that the DM is just another player. He is the person that hosts his game, builds his game, spends hours making and running his game. Player's are guests in the DM's house who are free to leave if they find the DM's hospitality not what they want it to be but don't expect the host to come running after you begging for you to come back in.
Are you opposed to cooperation between a GM and their players to create a game that is fun for all of them?
Edit: Let me clarify.
My position is that if there is a disconnect between the player and the GM, both sides should try to find common ground.
For the GM, it's a game, not a Shakespearean masterpiece. There is nothing so sacred in your story/theme/setting, that you can't bend it to accommodate a player.
For a player, you aren't always going to get exactly what you want. You should strive to communicate your goal and work with the GM to get a close approximation of that goal, but be prepared to modify your concept to fit the story/theme/setting.
All this "you can just walk away" is childish, immature and non-productive. If someone is a jerk, a!#@~&&, etc, sure you walk away or whatever.
It's not childish. It's so F$^&ing simple it's almost funny. You either don't play in the game or you do. I propose a game,I list what I am allowing or disallowing in the game and then you make a decision as to whether or not you want to play. It's not childish, it's not complicated, it's not godlike power, it's not being cocky, it's just plain simple.
Calling someone childish because they won't do what you want them to do, even if it...
So, you are opposed to player input about a game. Got it.
|
|
[I agree with most of your post, but this is just silly. And, no offense, seems petty to a degree. Just because i envisioned a world where orcs and goblinoids don't exist, because they do not fit the flavor of my world (hence no half-orcs), you are not going to allow me to play a half-orc in your game?
I know it's a dumb example. It's just an example, don't take it literally.
Or are you referring to classes and other mechanics stuff like feats and spells?
In which case, again silly, because maybe the former GM wants to test the class/race/feat/spell, to see if it works appropriately, so that he could include it in his next game.
That is true. It does seem petty. Still if a DM feels so strongly against a class why even play it. sort of like a vegan who tells others not to eat meat yet eats meat at the same time. I stand corrected and will not engage in that behavior.
So, you are opposed to player input about a game. Got it.
I think it's not so much the input. So much that the input comes with a huge long list of conditions that favor the DM. Basically "Im the DM. Thse are the rules. don't question them. If you don't like it there is the door". How this is not seen as childish I don't know.
|
|
Because maybe he saw the look of disappointment on your face when he said that he's not allowing that class in the game, and feels bad about that, so he's willing to try out the class/race/whatever for himself, in order to ascertain his feelings towards it. Maybe he would have a change of heart. I know i did a few times.
I think it's not so much the input. So much that the input comes with a huge long list of conditions that favor the DM. Basically "Im the DM. Thse are the rules. don't question them. If you don't like it there is the door". How this is not seen as childish I don't know.
It's seen as childish. It's downright infantile. It's spilling your bowl of pappy because your mom isn't making the kind of noise you like when you eat infantile.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously cannot imagine how any GM can run a game, in which he gives the players no clues about the setting, the theme, or what kind of characters are appropriate.
Where a player who asks for information about the setting, so as to make his PC fit, is verbally smacked down as a disruptive influence.
To be clear, a short, blunt message such as "Game at 8, bring PCs, no clerics." is not providing clues about the setting. It gives no information, other than "no clerics".
Have they existed in the past, but marched off in a great crusade?
Did faith slowly die away?
Has divine magic never existed in this world?
Does this prohibition apply to Druids? (a lot of old-schoolers consider druids a cleric sub-class)
What if I want to know more?
What do I do?
I can't ask "Why are there no clerics?", because that will get me ejected from the house.
Do I dare ask if I can play an Oracle? Or will that get me defenestrated?
Oh, as for experience:
Been playing since 1992 (junior high)
First GM'd around 1994
Participated in closed testing for 5+ games (not open beta's)
Participated in design discussions (specific and general) with multiple developers from multiple publishers
Played in games with and run games for ENnie winners
People have paid money to sit at my table
I've had a gaming group drive 2.5 hours to come play a game with me
So... stop trying to refer to me as some whiny little brat Shallowsoul. Because I'm not.
Also, despite all my years of experience, when a player shows up to my games, regardless of their experience, when they ask me a question about why something is the way it is, I take the time to explain it. If it requires more than a minute, I do it after the game session, but I tell them I can explain it later.
I am not threatened by someone asking a question, or asking to play something that is 'banned'.
Heck, my most recent campaign I decided something should be banned, but someone asked if they could play it anyways. I said yes. They ended up changing their mind, because I explained the nature of the game we were going to play and they ended up with a more interesting character concept as a result.
|
|
I seriously cannot imagine how any GM can run a game, in which he gives the players no clues about the setting, the theme, or what kind of characters are appropriate.
Where a player who asks for information about the setting, so as to make his PC fit, is verbally smacked down as a disruptive influence.
That doesn't happen, unless the GM is a real sadist. I have only once met a guy like that, and our friendship broke over his treatment of other players around the table. Now i cross the street when i see him walking my way (it's not that simple, but i really don't want to get into it).
One thing is to say what the theme of the campaign is, what kind of the setting it is and what is appropriate and common. But if a player really, REALLY wants to play something, at least give it the benefit of the doubt. Re-read the entry, try to re-flavor it. Work with the player. Don't dismiss it outright because it clashes with your idea of something. You maybe made the setting, but if your players play in it, it belongs to them too now.
I have been very vocal in my group and FLGSs that i visit about my gunslinger and guns in fantasy hate. And then, after i saw how much enthusiasm one of my players poured into that class (and made the awesome story where he is the actual inventor of guns), i allowed him to play a gunslinger. He did face some restrictions, and had to pay a lot for enchantments, but he is happy, and if a player is happy, i am happy.
The joy of GMing isn't just making a world. It's players enjoying themselves in that world.
|
|
Because maybe he saw the look of disappointment on your face when he said that he's not allowing that class in the game, and feels bad about that, so he's willing to try out the class/race/whatever for himself, in order to ascertain his feelings towards it. Maybe he would have a change of heart. I know i did a few times.
As did I too change my mind and allow a player to play something I had banned. As I said I never engaged in that type of benavior and never will. So im glad you reminded me and pointed out it was being petty.
It's seen as childish. It's downright infantile. It's spilling your bowl of pappy because your mom isn't making the kind of noise you like when you eat infantile.
I would not call it being childish if a DM would not apply so many conditions to be asked questions at the table. How am I supposed to know what is being banned. Why it's being banned. Answering a question with a evasion usually provokes a reponse of why? IF I was ked at my workplace why the internt prices are cheaper than store prices and I told the customer it's what it is go shop somewhere else. Well i would be in big trouble with my manager. Not a firing offence but a note in my file. So far no good reason has been given for a lack of communication between DM and players. All im reading from the no side is a fear of losing control at the game table. With communication being allowed with a whole bunch of conditions.
How is that cooperating in any meaningful way to promote trust and respect between DMs and players. If your going to give me conditions on what I can or can't say at the gaming table. As well as threatening to kick me out why the hell would I trust let alone respect you as a DM. Respect is earned. You don;t demand respect. That applies to both DMs abnd players.
|
|
I seriously cannot imagine how any GM can run a game, in which he gives the players no clues about the setting, the theme, or what kind of characters are appropriate.
Where a player who asks for information about the setting, so as to make his PC fit, is verbally smacked down as a disruptive influence.
Where did this come from?
Who said anything about "Hey guys, I'm going to run a game, that's it?"
|
|
Where did this come from?Who said anything about "Hey guys, I'm going to run a game, that's it?"
Well you just spent a bunch of posts telling us that a player is not entitled to any information. any questions need not be answered. Or if answered a minimal amount of information can and should be given. Any feedback to the players is not necessarty nor should the players expect. If a players asks why a class is banned no information is needs to be given beyond "because I said so" and "that's the yway it is.
Seriously no offence are we trying for reviosnist posting here. Because I'm seeing it in spades with the above comment. Are your for against communicating wiht player characters or not? Proper communication imo between DMs is answering a player questions to the best of his ability no conditions attached. Answering questions with a list of conditions or refusing to answer at all is imo no proper communication. Or considering players who ask for more questions and feedback being spolied and entitled. You keep changing your postiion on the topic.
|
|
Where did this come from?Who said anything about "Hey guys, I'm going to run a game, that's it?"
Well you just spent a bunch of posts telling us that a player is not entitled to any information. any questions need not be answered. Or if answered a minimal amount of information can and should be given. Any feedback to the players is not necessarty nor should the players expect. If a players asks why a class is banned no information is needs to be given beyond "because I said so" and "that's the yway it is.
Seriously no offence are we trying for reviosnist posting here. Because I'm seeing it in spades with the above comment.
You really need to go back and read again. I'll give you a couple of days to read it and let it sink in.
If a DM wants to see how a class plays out and has a player in their current willing to play it, why would you ban it? I could see saying, "I'll let you play it on a conditional basis, because I want to see it in action. But if it gets to be too over-powered, I reserve the right to ask you to drop the character or rebuild it with another class. Cool?" But outright banning it and then saying you want to play it yourself to see how it works just seems to indicate a clear lack of trust on the GM's part ("Only I can be trusted to not break the game!").
Having said that, I do think the out right banning of a particular player from playing something just because they banned it in their game is short-sighted. The only point I could see is just to "teach someone a lesson", about not being willing to work with you in their own game.
And yeah, a GM should seriously be willing to make an honest attempt at working in a player's idea. "You want to play a half-orc, but orcs are extinct in my world. Well maybe you are the last of a lost tribe, I'm going to hit you with some penalties to some skill checks related to current events and social skills. Cool?"
|
|
Your first post accuses any player who asks a valid question about the nature of the setting, to be 'spoiled', and 'entitled'.
Anyone who tries to find out specifics of why something is not included, is told they are being difficult.
Players need those specifics. If gunslingers are out, for example, they need to know if it is because of the technology level, or the touch AC mechanics. If it's the former, then there's no point asking for a clockwork artificer, if it's the latter, there's no point asking for a 3.5 Warlock.
But they aren't allowed to ask.
Because you say, if they ask, you'll tell them they're barred, they can shut up and play, or take a hike.
Throughout this whole thread, I, memorax, Irontruth, Icyshadow, and others, have said "GMs need to explain to their players what the theme of the game will be.".
Whenever we have said that good GMs explain the nature of their settings, you have thrown a fit.
You are the one, who has chosen to take offence at statements that have not been aimed specifically at you.
Therefore you are the one who has self-identified yourself as That Kind of GM.
|
|
Throughout this whole thread, I, memorax, Irontruth, Icyshadow, and others, have said "GMs need to explain to their players what the theme of the game will be.".
Whenever we have said that good GMs explain the nature of their settings, you have thrown a fit.
You are the one, who has chosen to take offence at statements that have not been aimed specifically at you.
Therefore you are the one who has self-identified yourself as That Kind of GM.
Who has said anything about not explaining what your game will be ahead of time?
|
|
I've been advocating compromise and communication.
I Icyshadow yourself and even Hama to a certain extent have been advocating the same. I'm not getting that at all from Shallowsoul. Yes he promtes cooperation with strings attached imo. As well as no compromising either. there is no compromise when one side refuse to bend on a issue.
|
|
It has everything to do with agreeing and disagreeing about communication players and DMs. otherwise what the hell have we all been doing in this thread.
The group that Doram ob'Han mentions did not want to play in a game with lots of undead. Doram ob'Han never mentioned a lack of communication as the cause of why the group refused to play. It was a lack of interest on the group party for a game with filled with undead. Not because the DM refused to compromise on having undead in his game. or a lack of communication. May years ago I wanted run a game of Rifts. My players were not interested. A little disappointed but it happens. Not everyone wants to play every type of game. It was never about a lack of communication. Even if I amde compromises as a GM no interest at all in the Palladium system anymore. Which the players told me upfront.
