|
This is a continuation of the other thread that was shut down.
The thread went from needing to explain enough why you didn't allow something to people accusing some people of saying just shut up and play or there's the door.
The purpose of that thread was to show that a DM doesn't always need to explain his reasons and that sometimes player's need to accept the fact that sometimes a DM doesn't want his decisions open to debate.
Also, when you ban something and the player's react then that does mean you told them about it before the game started and laid at the options that are available. Nobody advocated that the player's didn't know what the game would be ahead of time because myself and plenty of other people gave thorough examples of this.
Think about it, why would I tell you what classes and races are banned after you start the game? That doesn't make any sense what so ever.
The bottom line is it's okay to ask questions when appropriate but it's also okay for those answers to be "because I don't like XYZ" and you as a player can either accept it or opt out of that game to player another or run your own.
Not every DM decides to tell you they are going to ban something ahead of time. Some decide to work with you towards something, and then just backstab you all the while saying you are the one at fault and he's done nearly nothing wrong. Then again, maybe I'm just an unlucky player.
Also, the options you give in the last sentence aren't the only ones. If the players don't like the DM (or his decisions), they can kick him off his throne (or the house itself if they're not playing in the DM's own house) and someone else will be DM. Preferably someone more competent and less of a jerk.
Lastly, a lot of good points were brought up in the previous thread. Dismissing them all here doesn't make you look very smart.
Basically that amounts to a "I don't have to tell you the reason", which basically amounts to "because I said so". <--How we see the end result.
Explaining something does not make it open for debate, nor does it preclude it from debate, because a player that wants to argue will do so, whether you explain it or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically saying you should not be expected to give a the base reason if you don't want to, and if you know the base reason, even if you don't have a good reason not to give the base reason. If the player does not like it he can just not player or find another group.
PS:The part below the dotted line is what you are trying to say. The part above the line is how we see it.
I don't know what these special brownies that your mom offering have in them and I freaking love cheese danishes, but back on point I do agree that a lot of posters get all extremist with taking one or more classes banned from a game meaning that you're controlling their character.
I mean if somebody wants to run a game about something you're not interested in or somebody wants to play something that you don't want to run, you don't have to stop being friends.
I think DQ explained it best though.
As an example if I don't like warforged because they remind me of robots, and I hate robots in my fantasy it is perfectly ok for me to avoid saying that, and instead say "I don't like them"? This also assumes I know that it won't cause any issues if I do give that base reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if a DM doesn't like something he's free to ban it even if the players like it?
And if a player doesn't like something that the DM likes he just has to suck it up or leave?
The DM guide said the DM may be a bit arbitrary but he also must be a fair judge. I don't see much fairness here.
I also fail to see how this can be a group game if it's all about what the DM wants and what the DM likes instead of any compromises.
So, if a DM doesn't like something he's free to ban it even if the players like it?
And if a player doesn't like something that the DM likes he just has to suck it up or leave?
The DM guide said the DM may be a bit arbitrary but he also must be a fair judge. I don't see much fairness here.
I also fail to see how this can be a group game if it's all about what the DM wants and what the DM likes instead of any compromises.
So if a DM says he wants to run a MLP game, asks if people want to join and I decide I want to play dwarf, this means that the DM is clearly anti-dwarf right?
He told you what they are playing.
That's different from what I was saying.
Just because a DM can be an unfair jerk doesn't mean that a player can't be an entitled jerk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i think that if the DM doesnt like something, then it shouldnt be that big of an issue really. the DM decides how the game world works in the version you are currently playing.
That said, the DM should only use good reasons, like disallowing warforged in an Oriental Adventures game, etc. If a player really likes an idea, the DM should put forth effort to include that content in the game world.
unfotunately, there are DMs out there that disallow things just because they are commonly viewed as "too powerful" (a la 3.5 psionics or Tome of Battle) even if they fit well in the current theme of the setting. In that instance, i think there is a breakdown in the trust between DM and player about whether the player will disrupt the game. Are players also at fault here? sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think everybody tends to think of themselves as the walking wounded.
Maybe some GM forgot to tell you something about the upcoming game. More fun to say he stabbed you in the back, and intentionally did not tell you.
I think everybody likes to take things personally.
You could just let other people play how they want, but its more fun to gripe as if the way four old friends play in Saskatchewan somehow ruins your game with your brother-in-law in San Diego. You know, rather than having nothing to do with you.
Ego is a killer of everything good. Give it up. We all sound ridiculous when we continue these threads. People are going to do as they are going to do, and you are too, so just let it go.
This is not an issue of power though with regard to classes. It is an issue of the GM banning something and saying he does not have to explain anything. You can play or not play.
And I quote
....but it's also okay for those answers to be "because I don't like XYZ" and you as a player can either accept it or opt out of that game to player another or run your own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people (I mean everyone, myself included) just like complaining and arguing.
I think everybody tends to think of themselves as the walking wounded.
Maybe some GM forgot to tell you something about the upcoming game. More fun to say he stabbed you in the back, and intentionally did not tell you.
I think everybody likes to take things personally.
You could just let other people play how they want, but its more fun to gripe as if the way four old friends play in Saskatchewan somehow ruins your game with your brother-in-law in San Diego. You know, rather than having nothing to do with you.
Ego is a killer of everything good. Give it up. We all sound ridiculous when we continue these threads. People are going to do as they are going to do, and you are too, so just let it go.
Nope. The issue is that people are not explaining themselves well. You can't say you are not saying "just shut up and play", when you refuse to discuss and issue. It is effectively the same thing. Now maybe the OP is saying there are only certain times he will not explain, but if so he has not made that clear at all. In short if there are estinuating circumstances he should say what they are. At the same time, if that is his general stance then just own up to it.
I think that if the DM doesnt like something, then it shouldn't be that big of an issue really. The DM decides how the game world works in the version you are currently playing.
That said, the DM should only use good reasons, like disallowing Warforged in an Oriental Adventures game, etc. If a player really likes an idea, the DM should put forth effort to include that content in the game world.
Unfotunately, there are DMs out there that disallow things just because they are commonly viewed as "too powerful" (a la 3.5 Psionics or Tome of Battle) even if they fit well in the current theme of the setting. In that instance, I think there is a breakdown in the trust between DM and player about whether the player will disrupt the game. Are players also at fault here? Sometimes.
Very wise words.
It actually saddens me that my DM would dismiss your post as stupid, if only because he did the exact opposite of all this, which led to said distrust.
My homebrew race was not "too powerful", and I actually wrote detailed backstories to incorporate them to other settings, including Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Golarion. The only way he could honestly call me distruptive is when I call him out on arbitrarily tormenting my characters, which he seems to have gotten a sub-conscious penchant for. And that's his own fault, really.
i LOVE to complain.
and i would say that the DM should give some explanation. every time i have had a DM disallow something, there has been an explanation. even if it was one i dont like, such as "i dont like psionics" it was at least some sort of explanation. i haven't had anyone say "no, thats just the way it is, deal with it or piss off"
although i did have a DM get in a yelling match with me about whether i could convert a drow from evil to good.
I just like for things to make sense. There has not been one reason given as to how not explaining things is generally better for the game. That is why I don't understand the idea of not explaining. Like I said before, I am not expecting a thesis or a debate, but give me something. I may not like the answer, but I am not asking to like it. I am asking for the base reason, even if I do decide that it is not a good reason.
PS:Once again this all assumes the GM can communicate well enough to express himself clearly.
I think everybody tends to think of themselves as the walking wounded.
Maybe some GM forgot to tell you something about the upcoming game. More fun to say he stabbed you in the back, and intentionally did not tell you.
I think everybody likes to take things personally.
You could just let other people play how they want, but its more fun to gripe as if the way four old friends play in Saskatchewan somehow ruins your game with your brother-in-law in San Diego. You know, rather than having nothing to do with you.
Ego is a killer of everything good. Give it up. We all sound ridiculous when we continue these threads. People are going to do as they are going to do, and you are too, so just let it go.
Oh, trust me. He didn't forget. It was a setting we both had a hand working on (we were actually discussing it together quite often), and he suddenly changed his mind about my race being in it. The only legitimate complaint he could make about me is that I jabbered about all my creations a lot, but that's also his fault because he kept making homebrew campaign worlds where he deliberately decided NOT to let them be playable, giving me false hope by saying "maybe next time" every time until I realized he's just going to keep up being a jerk on a high horse.
Did I mention I've developed a very cynical view on the word maybe? Because most people say maybe when they mean no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean if somebody wants to run a game about something you're not interested in or somebody wants to play something that you don't want to run, you don't have to stop being friends.
I have a group of friends I've been playing with for 14 years. We play bi-weekly and are a deeply entwined group. Now, I'm not married and I don't have kids, so I have more free time than my other friends, but my friend who has a full-time job, 3 kids and is going to school, doesn't have a lot of time (he actually shows up to the game with his homework and works on it during breaks).
The advice of "take it or leave it" is unhelpful, but some other people think that that is the best method.
If I'm going to run a game for my long time bi-weekly group, I can't just tailor the game to my interests. These guys don't have other games to turn to and we game to get together, not just to play to our own interests. So if I'm going to propose a game to fill our sessions, I have to take my audience into account.
Non-specifically, the take it or leave it advice does not teach anything useful to new DM's. It doesn't teach how to resolve a conflict between the DM and the player who has expectations not previously present in the campaign. Walk away isn't useful advice to people who want to forge a better game for their group.
So if a DM says he wants to run a MLP game, asks if people want to join and I decide I want to play dwarf, this means that the DM is clearly anti-dwarf right?So, if a DM doesn't like something he's free to ban it even if the players like it?
And if a player doesn't like something that the DM likes he just has to suck it up or leave?
The DM guide said the DM may be a bit arbitrary but he also must be a fair judge. I don't see much fairness here.
I also fail to see how this can be a group game if it's all about what the DM wants and what the DM likes instead of any compromises.
Because nothing similar to a cranky, sarcastic dwarf exists in the MLP universe.
Because nothing similar to a cranky, sarcastic dwarf exists in the MLP universe.So if a DM says he wants to run a MLP game, asks if people want to join and I decide I want to play dwarf, this means that the DM is clearly anti-dwarf right?So, if a DM doesn't like something he's free to ban it even if the players like it?
And if a player doesn't like something that the DM likes he just has to suck it up or leave?
The DM guide said the DM may be a bit arbitrary but he also must be a fair judge. I don't see much fairness here.
I also fail to see how this can be a group game if it's all about what the DM wants and what the DM likes instead of any compromises.
Only if it's cool that I just change the fluff so that it's a mule. I'll be healthy wise-ass who may be a bit slow and uncharismatic but can carry lots of stuff. Also I have darkvision, am hardy, stable, and can use my dwarven warhammer.
If the Ponyfinder rules work that way, why not?
I'm not a brony so I couldn't care less about that.
Only if it's cool that I just change the fluff so that it's a mule. I'll be healthy wise-ass who may be a bit slow and uncharismatic but can carry lots of stuff. Also I have darkvision, am hardy, stable, and can use my dwarven warhammer.Because nothing similar to a cranky, sarcastic dwarf exists in the MLP universe.So if a DM says he wants to run a MLP game, asks if people want to join and I decide I want to play dwarf, this means that the DM is clearly anti-dwarf right?So, if a DM doesn't like something he's free to ban it even if the players like it?
And if a player doesn't like something that the DM likes he just has to suck it up or leave?
The DM guide said the DM may be a bit arbitrary but he also must be a fair judge. I don't see much fairness here.
I also fail to see how this can be a group game if it's all about what the DM wants and what the DM likes instead of any compromises.
So, you're going to be an earth pony (or mule in this case). Will your cutie mark have something to do with building stuff, explaining the hammer?
So, you're going to be an earth pony (or mule in this case). Will your cutie mark have something to do with building stuff, explaining the hammer?Only if it's cool that I just change the fluff so that it's a mule. I'll be healthy wise-ass who may be a bit slow and uncharismatic but can carry lots of stuff. Also I have darkvision, am hardy, stable, and can use my dwarven warhammer.Because nothing similar to a cranky, sarcastic dwarf exists in the MLP universe.So if a DM says he wants to run a MLP game, asks if people want to join and I decide I want to play dwarf, this means that the DM is clearly anti-dwarf right?So, if a DM doesn't like something he's free to ban it even if the players like it?
And if a player doesn't like something that the DM likes he just has to suck it up or leave?
The DM guide said the DM may be a bit arbitrary but he also must be a fair judge. I don't see much fairness here.
I also fail to see how this can be a group game if it's all about what the DM wants and what the DM likes instead of any compromises.
or a pickaxe and be a miner. At least I'm willing to give up on being a bearded dwarf or this would be much harder and I'd have walked out already.
Yup, but a MLP game is a pretty extreme example that runs counter to a LOT of the standards of gaming. I'm pretty amenable to making room for player concepts, but it does require at least a little bit of buy in to the concept of the game. That isn't one I'd try and push on a group if they weren't already interest in it.
And you can still have a beard.
Also, I'm currently writing a MLP game (using a very obscure game's rules). I have 4 players willing to test it, plus 3-4 GM's in other parts of the country waiting to test it as well.
Please tell me that obscure game is not FATAL...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here the thing as a player I don't expect a DM to bend over backwards to tell me why something is banned. I do expect a reason. Beyond just "because it's the way it is". Or "I don't like it". I rather a DM tell me he hates Gunslingers because they target touch AC. Or that they find the Alchemists Bomb annoying to keep track of in a game. I may not like the reason but at least the DM communicates why the class is banned. Evasive answers just lead to more questions.
Furthermore if a DM bans gunslingers at the start of a game a player character dies than he wants to try and play a gunlsinger all that is needed as a response is "I told you at the start that certain classes were banned. this is noe o them. Please pick a class not from the list o those banned". With myself listing all the banned options again. If I get told that asking questions any questions no matter how valid is going to make me get shown the door I leave. If a DM si so uncomfortable in answering questions that he has to threaten to kick me out of his place well he is not a good DM imo and not worth the hassle.
That being said sometimes a DM a DM has to excplain his reasons. Whether he wants to or not. As well sometimes a DM decisions are open to debate. Being a DM does not immunize you from any type of debate or critisism. If my character dies because you misread how a trap works I'm going to debate it with you as a player. Whether the DM likes it or not because the DM was resposnible for getting my character killed. If before a game starts a DM bans a class because either he heard wrong second hand information or because he made a mistake reading the class description I will debate it with the DM. For example if a DM refuses to allow alchemists because he misread how splash weaposn work think all a players has to to is target the square the creature is standing in and not the creature I'm going to point out his error and ask if he is willing to reconsider. If he still says no I will be dissapointed but accept the decision.
And no I'm not calling the DM incompatant or stupid. so unlike the previous thread it's a example. Only a example. I'm also not commiting a unforgivable breach of social ettiquette for asking and debating. Since sometimes a DM has to field and debate questions put to him as a DM that not always follow a arranged script.
Sometimes some things just don't fit what the DM wants to run. I feel like we're talking in circles, but is "I don't like gunslingers because they don't fit in the setting I want to run" an acceptable reason?
Sometimes some things just don't fit what the DM wants to run. I feel like we're talking in circles, but is "I don't like gunslingers because they don't fit in the setting I want to run" an acceptable reason?
If they really don't fit the setting, then yes.
But that kind of DM issues were not the ones we (or at least I) were discussing.
Sometimes some things just don't fit what the DM wants to run. I feel like we're talking in circles, but is "I don't like gunslingers because they don't fit in the setting I want to run" an acceptable reason?
Negative.
Per the rules on page 95 of Ultimate Gunslinger, the only acceptable answer is "I don't like gunslingers because they target touch AC."
|
|
Josh it's not so much banning something it's the lack of reason vbeing given. If a DM were to ban a class and I ask why to be told "Im the DM that's why". I don't find that a valid reason. Now if the DM tells me because they ban say Alchemists because they find the Bomb ability unrealsitic I'm fine with that. disappointed if I wanted to play one but no more arguments from me. Also from the last thread use the threat of kicking out someone from their home for what the DM cosniders to be too many questions is also imo kind of stacking the deck. You might as well handout a list of what can or can't be done with no discussion b either side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get the impression that the "I don't have to explain myself, and if you don't like it you can go home" attitude is very old school. As in, it was probably an attitude that people who started playing when they were 10 yrs old did. Now if you are still gaming in a fashion you did when you were 10 yrs old, well, I would say there are not a lot of 10 yrs old that I look to for property social etiquette.
IBL
Josh it's not so much banning something it's the lack of reason vbeing given. If a DM were to ban a class and I ask why to be told "Im the DM that's why". I don't find that a valid reason. Now if the DM tells me because they ban say Alchemists because they find the Bomb ability unrealsitic I'm fine with that. disappointed if I wanted to play one but no more arguments from me. Also from the last thread use the threat of kicking out someone from their home for what the DM cosniders to be too many questions is also imo kind of stacking the deck. You might as well handout a list of what can or can't be done with no discussion b either side.
You didn't answer my question. As a DM, if I'm running a generic, straight out-of-the-box sword and sorcery fantasy game, and I don't want Gunslingers in the game because they don't fit the theme and feel I'm going for, is that or is that not an acceptable reason?
Plain and simple; if my game is about hack and slash, spells and arrows, not quickdrawing 6-shooters and black powder weapons. I don't really care that they hit Touch AC, because Gunslingers are still ****-weak compared to Wizards. Game mechanics aren't even part of my reasoning. They evoke a different feel and playstyle that doesn't jive with what I'm trying to present to my group. Period.
Now, I've run games in places that did have black-powder weapons, and Gunslingers would fit great there. But if I'm running a generic fantasy setting, they don't fit in the game world I'm trying to present, according to my opinion.
I've played under DM's who said the same thing about Psionics; it's not about mechanical balance, it's a flavor thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Banning things that don't fit the genre are perfectly reasonable. Of course, one should be willing to say that and not, "I'm not telling why I'm banning it and if you don't like it get out."
Banning things that don't fit the genre are perfectly reasonable. Of course, one should be willing to say that and not, "I'm not telling why I'm banning it and if you don't like it get out."
Well, or course. I won't speak for every DM out there, but my reasoning on game issues has always been out in the open and transparent. And even then, I've allowed Gunslingers in more causal games just because the fun of the group is more important to me than canon.
But if gunsmithing is not a real part of the setting I'm running, I tell the player up front that they are playing a niche class that doesn't get a lot of support in the setting; expect to be making your own bullets fairly often. I'll still toss gun-related stuff in the treasure pool from time to time, but I'm not catering the entire campaign to the one player who wanted to play what was originally not allowed in the first place.
As a player, I've been in those same shoes, because I like to play offbeat, oddball classes like Shadowcasters, Incarnum classes, etc. The DM's I play under know very little about those classes, and I as a player expect to not come across class-specific support very often, unless I state that I am seeking it out myself.
Basically that amounts to a "I don't have to tell you the reason", which basically amounts to "because I said so". <--How we see the end result.
Explaining something does not make it open for debate, nor does it preclude it from debate, because a player that wants to argue will do so, whether you explain it or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically saying you should not be expected to give a the base reason if you don't want to, and if you know the base reason, even if you don't have a good reason not to give the base reason. If the player does not like it he can just not player or find another group.PS:The part below the dotted line is what you are trying to say. The part above the line is how we see it.
This post was for Shallowsoul. I see that I did not quote him.
|
|
This post was for Shallowsoul. I see that I did not quote him.Basically that amounts to a "I don't have to tell you the reason", which basically amounts to "because I said so". <--How we see the end result.
Explaining something does not make it open for debate, nor does it preclude it from debate, because a player that wants to argue will do so, whether you explain it or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically saying you should not be expected to give a the base reason if you don't want to, and if you know the base reason, even if you don't have a good reason not to give the base reason. If the player does not like it he can just not player or find another group.PS:The part below the dotted line is what you are trying to say. The part above the line is how we see it.
To answer the first part, technically I don't have to give you a reason just like you don't have to agree to play in my game. Second, that doesn't mean because I say so. I'm not telling you to do something, I have laid out what I don't want in my campaign before the game has started. I have given you the theme and I have given you what isn't allowed.
Depending on who you are, like a few people around here, it isn't worth the aggravation of debating it with you because no matter what answer I give won't be good enough. Sometimes "because I said so" is a legitimate answer because there are some people where you have to keep it brief and stick to your guns because the game will never get off the ground due to the arguing that some people want to do until they get their way. It is just as easy for you to say "sorry man, I'm just not that interested in playing that kind of game", than it is for me to sit you down and have to explain why I don't allow ABC.
If I want my campaign to stay with in a certain boundary then sometimes you have to finalize your specifics so there is no room for debate. If you don't like this style of DMing then that's your right but try and tell me that my is wrong.
|
|
You didn't answer my question. As a DM, if I'm running a generic, straight out-of-the-box sword and sorcery fantasy game, and I don't want Gunslingers in the game because they don't fit the theme and feel I'm going for, is that or is that not an acceptable reason?
Plain and simple; if my game is about hack and slash, spells and arrows, not quickdrawing 6-shooters and black powder weapons. I don't really care that they hit Touch AC, because Gunslingers are still ****-weak compared to Wizards. Game mechanics aren't even part of my reasoning. They evoke a different feel and playstyle that doesn't jive with what I'm trying to present to my group. Period.
Now, I've run games in places that did have black-powder weapons, and Gunslingers would fit great there. But if I'm running a generic fantasy setting, they don't fit in the game world I'm trying to present, according to my opinion.
I've played under DM's who said the same thing about Psionics; it's not about mechanical balance, it's a flavor thing.
In a bit of rush to type out my last post so left out a part. Banning something that does not fit the genre is okay. Banning something because of flavor Im cool with that. Telling me that not only are you not going to tell me and then threathen to kick me out for even asking. Well unless Im being a jerk or argumentative why even use a threat. Just let me know why.
|
|
Banning things that don't fit the genre are perfectly reasonable. Of course, one should be willing to say that and not, "I'm not telling why I'm banning it and if you don't like it get out."
What fits is subjective. What you may find fits, doesn't with someone else. Since the DM is the one running the game and creating the game then I think what he/she sees as "fits" is more important than what the player sees as "fits".
Banning things that don't fit the genre are perfectly reasonable. Of course, one should be willing to say that and not, "I'm not telling why I'm banning it and if you don't like it get out."What fits is subjective. What you may find fits, doesn't with someone else. Since the DM is the one running the game and creating the game then I think what he/she sees as "fits" is more important than what the player sees as "fits".
And what if all four players see what fits differently from the DM?
|
|
And what if all four players see what fits differently from the DM?Banning things that don't fit the genre are perfectly reasonable. Of course, one should be willing to say that and not, "I'm not telling why I'm banning it and if you don't like it get out."What fits is subjective. What you may find fits, doesn't with someone else. Since the DM is the one running the game and creating the game then I think what he/she sees as "fits" is more important than what the player sees as "fits".
Then the players will most likely vote to not play that game.
|
|
Telling me that I dont have to be given a reason as a player is imo the same thing as because I said so. Either way your not giving me any concrete information and evading the question. Once again being a DM does not entitle you to what can or be said at the gaming table. If I sit down to a DM table and have to fight every step of the way to get information thats a Dm who does not trust his players. I can understand not answering every question. Once in a while I have to use "because Im the DM. for a particularily stubborn player. If anything more communication leads to less aggravation and problems at the table.
Why is it that a few posters in the other thread and this one act like asking questions and more feedback from the DM is entitlement. Yet telling players not only do they not deserve any questions answered or any feedback that they run the risk of being tossed out of the game. Somehow that is no a form of entitlement. Some of the posters have serious control issues. THat or a fear of losing control of any situation.
|
|
Then the players will most likely vote to not play that game.
Which is perfectly reasonable yet so is the DM eventually blacklisting from the gaming community. If too many players leave the table word of mouth can kill any players desire to play in any game that DM decides to run. Which happned in my area. A dM did too man TPKs and made the mistak of doing it with a smile on his faces. Refused to stop doing so and no no one wants to game with him anymore. Way too many controlling DMs forgot gaming is a team activity with both sides bring equal.
|
|
Telling me that I dont have to be given a reason as a player is imo the same thing as because I said so. Either way your not giving me any concrete information and evading the question. Once again being a DM does not entitle you to what can or be said at the gaming table. If I sit down to a DM table and have to fight every step of the way to get information thats a Dm who does not trust his players. I can understand not answering every question. Once in a while I have to use "because Im the DM. for a particularily stubborn player. If anything more communication leads to less aggravation and problems at the table.
Why is it that a few posters in the other thread and this one act like asking questions and more feedback from the DM is entitlement. Yet telling players not only do they not deserve any questions answered or any feedback that they run the risk of being tossed out of the game. Somehow that is no a form of entitlement. Some of the posters have serious control issues. THat or a fear of losing control of any situation.
That's great if it doesn't meet your criteria but there are also others out there who don't share your opinion.
Why is it that there are a few posters who think a players feedback and questions are always warranted and always necessary?
|
|
Why is it that there are a few posters who think a players feedback and questions are always warranted and always necessary?
Since being a player and DM is a broup activity where both sides should be treated as equals. Neither side should deserve special treatment. Or engage in the activity with special conditions. Ry playing a game of baseball with a set of condtions that favor your team and see how long you find others to play with you.
|
|
Since being a player and DM is a broup activity where both sides should be treated as equals. Neither side should deserve special treatment. Or engage in the activity with special conditions. Ry playing a game of baseball with a set of condtions that favor your team and see how long you find others to play with you.
Why is it that there are a few posters who think a players feedback and questions are always warranted and always necessary?
Everything can't be equal I'm afraid. If that were the case then the game would never even get started.
Nobody is forcing you to play in the game that I've proposed so I'm not sure where this attitude comes from.
What's wrong with you sitting this one out and allowing the DM to run his campaign the way he wants to run it? You want the game to be your way but you can't let him have it his way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Telling me that I have to give you a reason when it simply exasperates things and ultimately doesn't matter as a player is imo the same thing as entitlement. Either way you're not giving me any respect and won't let the question go. Once again being a player does not entitle you to what should or must be said at the gaming table. If I sit down to a table with a bunch of players and have to fight every step of the way just to get the game started becasue they won't let why I don't want a class in my game go, thats a player who does not trust his DM. I can understand not liking every answer. Sometimes I'd like to know things as a player too, but I also understand when that's only gonna lead to more arguing to let it go and just play.
Why is it that a few posters in the other thread and this one act like not wanting to answer questions that ultimately don't matter is DM tyranny? Yet telling DMs not only do they deserve any questions answered or any feedback that they run the risk of not having players for the game. Somehow that is not a form of tyranny. Some of the posters have serious control issues. That or a fear of losing control of any situation.
......................................
See what I did thar?
Sometimes some things just don't fit what the DM wants to run. I feel like we're talking in circles, but is "I don't like gunslingers because they don't fit in the setting I want to run" an acceptable reason?Negative.
Per the rules on page 95 of Ultimate Gunslinger, the only acceptable answer is "I don't like gunslingers because they target touch AC."
But what if I don't like gunslingers because the grit system feels like very meta (you get points for killing things) especially when the party leaves things alive so you can kill them and remain viable for the next combat...
Now, I don't like firearms because they target ac. However if the player can accept the firearms as they are without the touch ac aspect, then no work is needed and viola early firearms.
Sometimes some things just don't fit what the DM wants to run. I feel like we're talking in circles, but is "I don't like gunslingers because they don't fit in the setting I want to run" an acceptable reason?Negative.
Per the rules on page 95 of Ultimate Gunslinger, the only acceptable answer is "I don't like gunslingers because they target touch AC."
To use an old catch-phrase...
Gunslingers don't target touch AC. Guns do.
I've said it before, if guns don't exist in the campaign, you don't actually have to ban the gunslinger. You just modify their one ability where they start with a gun. They don't start with one and there's no where to buy one... the player probably isn't going to play a gunslinger, are they?
If it's a steampunk game, there are cannons and other semi-modern devices, I'm probably going to ask "why are there no guns?", because guns are somewhat standard in that kind of setting.
But if you have a good reason for it, it might pique my interest more in the campaign.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Message to all DMs - don't run TPKs with smiles on your faces or players will blacklist you.
Way too many controlling DMs forgot gaming is a team activity with both sides bring equal.
Newsflash - you do not "bring equal" to the table, at least in every case I have seen or read about - anywhere.
I have yet to personally see a "bring equal" exchange, even with groups that were heavily into the shared story/troupe setup of gaming where players help write the actual campaign content, it was never a "bring equal" situation. Even under those conditions the DM/GM always has had to do more work.This is general (so try not to troll-pounce-spasm all over this) but for the most part true with a few exceptions:
- DMs tend to buy more product (books, maps, minis, etc)
- DMs tend to spend more money on the game overall (know more about releases, need to buy player and DM content, tend to be completists)
- DMs generally have more of a vested history in rules, direction, game design and philosophy that goes into the game they are running than their players
- DMs put more work into the game than their players who just need to show up with their character sheet and rp, and if not then they should (aka "you are doing it wrong").
As a DM I read, watch and buy non-gaming product that serve as both research and inspiration for my game (and for writing). As a DM I am constantly thinking of new ideas for campaigns, characters, locals, etc, pretty much every moment I am not distracted by other things (relationships, work, etc) and even then I use research material as recreational reading. I even work 24/7 as a DM , made a module tied to a base bunker complex I saw in one of my dreams. The amount of actual game work/write-ups I put in before and after the sessions dwarfs and crushes any notion of "bring equal". The only things you bring are the required bodies to play – everything else is pretty much done for the player in advance/on the fly.
Truth time for the thread: My response to inquisitive players really depends on the player.
If the player is reasonable, mature and understanding I would tell him why I do not like something based off of disliked or conflicting theme or deduced mechanical problems (aesthetics can be enough for me to ban it to death - ex: Asian themed anything in D&D/PF). If it was an obnoxious player I wouldn't even tell him why it was banned - beyond the fact that I don't want it in my game. After awhile they know that their fetish/movie-story powerbuild PC isn’t going to happen they would move on to something less offensive.
Luckily for me those obnoxious players have been purged from our gaming circle over the years, with the only reminder of that type ever existing on these boards.