Please tell me that obscure game is not FATAL...
Nope, I'm using Mythender (a game about killing gods). Mythender will probably be available sometime within the next 6 weeks, for free. It's a lot of fun, but unfortunately requires roughly 200 d6 to play. My Little Pony: Friendship is Ending won't be 'public' for a while.
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").
Judging from the amount of work, you are worthy of respect. However, your view on players is less than respectable, given you seem to imply they are not pulling any weight at all in...IN A GROUP GAME, WHICH YOU DO NOT PLAY ALONE BUT WITH A GROUP. Also, I find it funny how I've spent more money, time and thought on campaigns than my DM yet I'm usually a player. So I'm apparently a better DM and I should trample my players just to follow your example?
Not really sure the point of starting a new thread on this...if you couldn't resolve this in 500 posts, do you think a new thread will help matters and isn't just going to fan the flames more?
|
Everything can't be equal I'm afraid. If that were the case then the game would never even get started.
If you make it so at your gaming table. 90% of the games i have been in both players and DMs view each others as peers. The DM is to be respected but not obeyed. The Players listened to yet the DM does not have to bend over backwards to accomadate the player. A reasonalbe amount of communication has laways been the key imo to a good game.
Nobody is forcing you to play in the game that I've proposed so I'm not sure where this attitude comes from.
See you keep changing your position. First you start off saying that a certain amount of communication is needed. Then it changes to what the DM is willing to give if he even wants to give it. Or its my way or the highway. We get you like running a very tight ship. Stop passing yourself as being some sort of reasonable communicative DM. Your anything but.
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.
And whats wrong with a player asking for more information. Or questioning politely certain decisions or aspects of a DM design choces a the game. Note I said asking not demanding or being argumentative. I said asking and questionig politely. Is that too wrong at oyur table.
|
|
with and respct and no offence no one is forcing anyone to be a DM. No gun is being held at anyone head to buy more books. Prepare a game and encounters or buy the books. So while I respect a DM who puts the time and effort into buying books setting up a game and being a DM that in no way shape or form entitles them to any special treatment. At least at my table. Same way if a player makes 20 page backstory. I don force my players to do so and Im not treating anyone differently for doing so. Respect is eanred no demanded. I dont care if yiu bought the entire 3.5 collection to make your own homebrew world. I and the rest of the players never forced you to spend that money. Whats next I demand the DM to pay a share of the rent because I allow him to host the game at my place.
So wait, there are GMs that refuse to allow players to have any input in their game, and then complain that the players just show up and they, the GM, have to do all the extra work with the game. *Scratches head* Something is weird there, can't quite put my finger on it.
============================================================
Some GMs have players that they know are obnoxious so they treat those players in an obnoxious way (e.g. refuse to answer those players' questions). But they treat non-obnoxious players with respect (e.g. agree to reasonably explain their motives for certain campaign decisions). Here's a question, if you find it necessary to be obnoxious to players that are themselves obnoxious, would it not be easier for everyone to just ban the player? Especially since players are a dime a dozen and GMs are the bee's knees.
============================================================
As for entitlement, a player has just as much entitlement to a question being answered in a game setting as they would in any other social setting. If you were at a gathering of friends, and you noticed that when you asked one person a question, they ignored you, but when someone else asked them a question they answered it. Would that strike you as appropriate social behavior or total douche-bag behavior? Especially if they were the one that invited you over in the first place. I mean if they didn't want you there, why invite you if not to just disrespect you in front of others?
Likewise, a GM should be entitled to a player's acknowledgement that the GM has answer, when it is presented in a rational fashion, and not to act like it wasn't answer and to keep asking the question. Likewise the player should not ignore a GM when the GM asks for feedback.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Judging from the amount of work, you are worthy of respect. However, your view on players is less than respectable, given you seem to imply they are not pulling any weight at all in...IN A GROUP GAME, WHICH YOU DO NOT PLAY ALONE BUT WITH A GROUP.
My view of players as a whole is less than respectable because a large number of players I have dealt with were uninspired, childish ingrates. That isn't the view on my current group. If I wasn't playing with these guys I doubt I would be playing or DMing at all. Do I think of most gamers as vermin - not exactly. But it gets very tiring to hear stories "about my character" at cons or the FLGS, which are in fact uninspired rip-offs of characters from novels, movies or comics all rp'ed by people who are bad at rping and have a convenient interpretation of the rules (always in their favor). I've dealt with that for years (and bad DMs) so my view has been tainted.
Also, I find it funny how I've spent more money, time and thought on campaigns than my DM yet I'm usually a player. So I'm apparently a better DM and I should trample my players just to follow your example?
I don't really believe you - unless your DM is 14 and has no money, is new to the hobby or just doesn't give a s#*! about DMing, he has probably spend more time and effort putting his game together than one of his players.
Spending more money doesn't = better, never said that (read my post again). I stated that most DMs spend more money than their players on the game - that is pretty much true in most cases if all parties are non-casual gamers.Even if your Dm was broke or didn't spend as much money on game materials as you, he sure as hell should be doing more work than you putting his sessions together. That or find another DM that matches your level of commitment to the hobby (since you sound dissatisfied).
I trample players (and people in general) who are asking for it. You act like an entitled jerk at the table and you will be shown the door.
I don't grief my group with hardships for the sake of my own edification and humor - we play a hard game; the stories are not always nice and their character are not ninja/ex-special forces/Wolverine/Drizzt/Raistlin clones or knock offs from films or movies. Do they want to emulate heroes from movies or entertainment that influence them - sure they do. But they are required to try and create something a bit more personal and original at CharGen.
I happen to be pretty lucky and am blessed with a good group - scratch that. These guys were culled from a large group of around 12-15 guys (over the years) so it wasn't all luck. I would like a second group but time and commitments make that near to impossible (a few guys who want to play but can't due to time/family/distance). I don't trample my players and they afford me a decent modicum of respect and it's not because I run a Manson like cult where they worship my DMing skills - no. Because a few have tried running their own games, know that it's hard work and they are respectful of the commitment I have made to our mutually shared hobby. It isn't out of fear or DM hierarchy over players, but out of respect for the job of being the DM.
Quite a few posters don't or will ever get that.
I would say that while there are certainly players with bragging about their knock-off clone characters. There are also a bunch of GMs bragging about their knock-off clone settings. "So it is basically middle earth with the serial numbers rubbed off, right?" "No way, it is totally different. I mean yeah the elves did sail from across the sea. And yeah there is an evil land to the East. And sure there is ..."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about obnoxious players
And that's why those players (obnoxious ones) are not in our gaming circle. Because of incessant and obnoxious questions (with motive to gain and game the system) combined with a lack of imagination or courtesy, they have been shown the door or were merely phased out.
The players input in D&D/PF should be about their character (imo) - all other input is done through the interface of playing the damn game (i.e. actions of the PC as it affects his world). I wasn't complaining about the lack of work players have to put in, but more about all the posturing that goes on about equal roles and effort. It doesn't exist.
Deal with it.
This "equal roles" notion is manufactured concept from the 3.5 crowd that wants all players to feel important. Guess what? I can run a campaign without half of my players, it's much more difficult to run that same campaign without that DM. As it stands right now - if one of my players can't make it we can still run our game, if I can't make it then that game doesn't get run that night. This isn't a proposal of hierarchy; this is accepting and acknowledging the reality of that hierarchy that is needed to facilitate a specific game. Under the current system you can always run another module/adventure/whatever but you will still need at least one DM and 1 or more players.
|
|
I would say that while there are certainly players with bragging about their knock-off clone characters. There are also a bunch of GMs bragging about their knock-off clone settings. "So it is basically middle earth with the serial numbers rubbed off, right?" "No way, it is totally different. I mean yeah the elves did sail from across the sea. And yeah there is an evil land to the East. And sure there is ..."
This thread is proof that there are a majority of uninspired players and DMs, so what's your point? Was that supposed to be a 1 for 1?
Why do I get the feeling like this is how some people's games work. LOL
*with the 1st guy being a player and the 2nd guy being the GM.
- 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").
BTW, I've played in games where everyone of these ideas has been false. I've also played GM-less games. I've also played in groups with rotating GM's.
Glad to know you think I'm "doing it wrong" based on these ideas, instead of the amount of fun my group is having.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people here obviously don't think about the other players. If I run an all human game why should I allow you to play an elf? If I let one person slide with something then I have to let everyone else do it. The best way to handle it is to treat everyone the same and stick with the theme of the game at hand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, I've played in games where everyone of these ideas has been false. I've also played GM-less games. I've also played in groups with rotating GM's.Glad to know you think I'm "doing it wrong" based on these ideas, instead of the amount of fun my group is having.
NP.
If the players are doing equal or more work than the DM in writing the scenarios for a D&D/PF style of game then yes, you are doing it all wrong.
Protip - Since it hasn't been a problem in your DM(s) table you should just keep up what you're doing and stop complaing about other DMs who won't answer questions on why they banned something from their table. Just an idea.
I play in a GM-less game - it's called Arkham Horror.
*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.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.
For the sake of argument we are assuming the corner case of the "I want to argue everything" player is not in your group.
You also did not answer my question, but since you made this thread to clear up misunderstandings then I don't understand why you did not answer the question. In short it seems that through 3 threads when asked about specific parameters you don't answer the questions.
If you did answer the question, but I just am not seeing it, then a different explanation from anyone is highly appreciated.
Example time again.
Let's say I have a GF. Let's also say she sees me talking to another female.
GF:Who was that?
Me:Oh just someone I know.
GF:Well what were you talking about?
Me:<refuse to answer> or I won't say anything more than that. I would rather not discuss it.
GF:<becomes suspicious>
Now let's say the girl is my brother's GF, and they are having issues. Of course I should not share the information, but if I say "It was a personal issue", that should handle the situation, assuming she trust me. At least she has the root reason of why I won't tell her. Now on the other hand, if she comes to her own conclusion due to me going into silent mode about, I should not complain since I had the chance to diffuse the situation.
Then the players will most likely vote to not play that game.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".
Thanks. That is the type of answer I was looking for. No, I am not going to badmouth you. If you only want to run a certain game type, and the players are not for it, then it is perfectly reasonable to not run at all. I have been under a game with an unmotivated GM, and it was not fun.
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?
We are basically saying that if the question is valid, and you have the answer then there is no reason not to give it to them. I have had people ask me questions that were not really worth discussing IMHO, so I understand that point.
As an example when I was in my 3.5 days a player found a way to get the old age category several times, but keep a young body, with a very liberal interpretation of the rules. I actually thought he was joking at first. Upon realizing he was not joking I said No, and made it clear that was not going to happen. Had I known he was serious that conversation would have lasted less than 30 seconds.
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.
You have some lazy or less than enthusiastic players. There is no other way to put it. They don't take time to think of character descriptions, backgrounds, plan character advancement, try to figure out how to make sure the party will survive as a whole before the game starts. We had meetings on things like this before. By the time it was said and done we had put in just as much work as the GM did. His(whoever was GM'ing) work was more central to the game of course, but it was definitely not a case of "show up and play".
@Auxmalous
I find it funny that you didn't believe me, even if I have DM'ed before.
Did I not tell you that, or did you consciously ignore what I said earlier?
And seeing how you are willing to argue with the others, I shouldn't bother discussing DM'ing with you any further.
There are actually GM-less RPG's, not just board games.
Other than writing down some NPC stats, for my game I do zero prep. I occasionally think about the game, because I have a mind, I enjoy gaming and think about it sometimes. If I have an idea, I write it down, but I don't do story prep work.
I run stories on the fly. I've found that when I prepare stories, they don't go well. When I improv them and use player input about what is going on, they go well. This includes for my Shadowrun 3rd edition game that I'm running.
Your "protip" is pretty worthless. This is a message board. This sub-forum is for talking about gaming ideas. People are already free to disregard what I say or even hit the 'ignore' button. Or stick to the rules section.
I'm not saying that prep is bad. But rather that prep does not entitle you to any kind of special treatment.
Just because you prep, does not mean your game is better or worse than mine.
|
|
We are basically saying that that if the question is valid, and you have the answer then there is no reason not to give it to them. I have had people ask me questions that were not really worth discussing IMHO, so I understand that point.
I think you and I and IcyShadow and Pres Man are all in agreement on this. Im also not saying every answer has to be a satisfactory one. Yet imo a DM has to answer a reasonable question with more than just "Im the DM thats the way it is if you dont like it the exit is on oyour right" type of response. It seems that any question either that requires a response or any form of feedback is considered entitlement. No matter how polite, respectful and non-argumentative the player is being. Of course if a player is rude and is unsastified with a proper answer given than either a DM has to put his foot down or ask the player to leave.
I just dont see the hassle or the fear of asking why a class is banned. Or questioning anything at the DM table if it is approriate. If I get told all races are allowed before charactr creation than on the day of creating character suddenly dwarves and halflings are banned well im going to ask why.
One thing that does get me really annoyed and makes me lose any respect for a DM is the gulil triping types of DMs. When you chose to run the game you took the responsability to buy, plan, create and run the game. So while I appreciate and respect a DM who does take the mantle of the DM I refuse to admire or respect a DM who tries to make me feel sorry for doing so. I rather play with a uncommunicative DMé
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".
I wanted to get back this comment, since I hadn't responded to it earlier.
You do realize that your comment and mine are not actually at odds with each other, right?
I am saying, if you believe that something doesn't fit the genre, then as the GM, you should tell your players that, and that is a totally legitimate response to their query as to why you chose to ban something. The fact that they might believe it does fit genre doesn't change your belief that it doesn't. Nobody is saying there can't be disagreement within a group and that some calls are ultimately the GM's as the primus inter pares.
But just because I am saying a GM is perfectly in his rights to say his idea of what fits in the genre takes precedence, doesn't mean I am saying it is appropriate for the GM to not actually answer the question and to instead say, "If you don't like what I banned, hit the road." I realize that you figure that since the outcome is a forgone conclusion (as GM, you will win on what fits and what doesn't) that it isn't even worth bothering to address the issue. I am saying as a person in a social environment, you should be giving each person some respect and at least addressing their ideas.
And yes, it may be that a player could give the GM a way of looking at the feature that he hadn't considered before and the GM could change his mind (something I would hope that anyone that believes that it is possible, no matter how remotely, that they might not be omniscience would be open to). This could actually make the game better not only for the player, but for the GM as well, by exposing the GM to a facet they hadn't thought about before.
But it may be that the player and the GM can't come to a mutual understanding on the aspect. At that point, someone has to bend, and I don't think anyone is arguing that it should always be the GM (though on rare occasions it should be in order to at least present the image that the GM is remotely reasonable, especially if it is not something the GM really cares about and the player does).
|
|
There are actually GM-less RPG's, not just board games.
Other than writing down some NPC stats, for my game I do zero prep. I occasionally think about the game, because I have a mind, I enjoy gaming and think about it sometimes. If I have an idea, I write it down, but I don't do story prep work.
I run stories on the fly. I've found that when I prepare stories, they don't go well. When I improv them and use player input about what is going on, they go well. This includes for my Shadowrun 3rd edition game that I'm running.
-
I'm not saying that prep is bad. But rather that prep does not entitle you to any kind of special treatment.Just because you prep, does not mean your game is better or worse than mine.
I have to disagree with your here (lol).
Don't get me wrong, some game systems and genres lend themselves to on the fly sort of gaming. But I think a persistent world with no movement or plots beyond those generated by the PCs or spontaneously by the DM on game night sounds a bit boring and prone to being unfocused and stagnant.
When it comes to skill a more skilled, well-versed and creative "on the fly" DM can trounce a crappy DM who preps the hell out of his game. That being said if you have two DMs of equal skill and experience, I think the prepped DM will have a better run game with all things considered.
Stats are clearer and more mutable with prep, possible complications, sub-rules and issues are laid out ahead of time to help avoid possible problems. There is a chance for less arbitrary rulings and bad decisions because the situation/concerns have been thought out (possible situation, as the players smash through every plan the DM lays out). With prepped game sessions there are fewer chances for the DM to pull things out of his rear...and less mistakes (rules mistakes, story mistakes, campaign mistakes, etc).
You also get better consistency and as such immersion (imo) if you can see the cause –effect and then after effect, even if you only have a marginal idea of what is going on ahead of time. Not talking about PCs as puppets (the standard Paizo poster knee-jerk reaction over here), but I am talking about a consistent immersive world that moves with or without the players involvement. On the fly (with minimal background development) doesn’t support that.
But everyone has a different structure they like to play under - for an ongoing open campaign (no real modules) then playing things on the fly within the confines of the existing world works. I've done that for parts of a persistent campaign in-between the real adventures. Some of the "on the fly" stuff turned into real adventures but most of it was players going after side quests to enrich their coffers or up their gameplay options.
I only run "on the fly" type of sessions when it is A) down time between adventures, B) I don't have anything prepared. That being said I will acknowledge the skill of an "on the fly" DM, but I will respect and give thanks to the DM who has gone out of way to prep the scenario to increase ease of play, maximize game time and minimize mistakes (some that can dead-end a campaign).
If someone makes a meal for you or builds something for you to play with then they deserve thanks and respect for all their effort. No one is holding a gun to my head to run games (although I have been harassed before for choosing not to run some) but you should still show a deal of gratitude and respect if you want me to DM. If you are such a self absorbed "bring equal" type of player, then you should probably find another group, possible one without a DM.
Your explaining your DMing style has given me greater insight as to your vitriol on the issue of DM respect and player vs. DM role importance. I think it's misplaced, but I thank you for your honesty on the matter and explaining how you do things.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I give a DM respect for building a world. Spending the time building the world and preparing encounters. I do show gratitude for playing in his game. That being said I despise being guilt tripped over the work a DM puts into it. We all hsve done it one time or another. Yes it's work. It's hardly the back breaking chore it's made out to be. So I appreciate a person being a DM I'm not going to bend over backwards giving you special privileges you think you deserve for being a DM. Same thing when a DM buys the books. He bought the books for himself first players second. Again no one is forcing anyone to buy more books. All you need is the PF core book and the first Bestirary.
Interesting that as a player I'm not owned anything in terms of communication and feedback yet I'm supposed to give the DM special treatment for basically doing his job. There is some very one sides views in this thread and the other imo.
The side who want more communication have made concessions in that while a player is supposd to get soem feedack. When something is banned we would like a reason besides a evasive answer. If a reason (one that is more then "Because I'm the DM and if you don't like it hit the Road") is given and a player still refuses to accept it we understand accept that a DM sometims may have top put his foot down. So far I'm not seeing any concessions being given from the side who prefer little to no communication to the players. With it now being some sort of special prviilige to not only run the game but also doing one job as a DM.
Is it any wonder we can't agree. Oen sides is supposed to make some sort of concession. The other refuses to make any concessions on this topic imo.
If I was under a GM who had the mindset of I do all the work, I get to make all the decisions, I would just volunteer to GM. I think many players are intimidated by the aspect of running a game, but if they ever do it they will see it is not as hard as most of them think it is. I have a player who keeps saying he will run a game, but keeps backing out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suddenly this is a GM vs Player argument... Problem is that both are needed.
What I find ridiculous is the thought that a player has spent more time, money, and thought than the game master; that would imply that the "player" has somehow taken control of the game since they are creating more content and contributing more to it than the "game master"/host of the game. I mean what's even the point of having a proxy game master who apparently sucks at narrating your stories? So you can play out your character in your world?
Players should have control over their characters, with this I agree. The game / campaign is a combination and fleshing of ideas. Sometimes the players even contribute to creation of the world. But if the players have the same responsibility and power as the game master, what is the GM for? Everyone is a GM.
Suddenly this is a GM vs Player argument... Problem is that both are needed.
** spoiler omitted **
What I find ridiculous is the thought that a player has spent more time, money, and thought than the game master; that would imply that the "player" has somehow taken control of the game since they are creating more content and contributing more to it than the "game master"/host of the game. I mean what's even the point of having a proxy game master who apparently sucks at narrating your stories? So you can play out your character in your world?
Players should have control over their characters, with this I agree. The game / campaign is a combination and fleshing of ideas. Sometimes the players even contribute to creation of the world. But if the players have the same responsibility and power as the game master, what is the GM for? Everyone is a GM.
I have been reading this thread and the one that inspired it. I have been waiting for someone to point out the bolded segment regarding the "we are a collective" brand of playstyle.
If everyone has the same responsibility as the GM, then are you really playing D&D/PF? Or are you just sitting around regurgitating amazing character tropes for each individual character?
-What is the responsibility of the GM?
-What separates the GM from the players?
-Who arbitrates a rule issue? Is it the GM, or do the players have some kind of "at-table" democracy where the GM is merely one of five?
I am curious about the answers to these questions from those espousing the "equality for all" bend at their gaming tables.
I'm still under the opinion that the game can only be played wrong when it's not fun. However, the game can be unfun just as much because of a rotten DM as it is by a rotten player(s), that was the only point I was driving or trying to drive. This stems mostly from a foul DM I've had, and he only proved me right about him last time I simply wanted to discuss the bad blood between me and him in a civil manner. And I'm never going to advertise my written works again. I don't have the confidence for that.
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 bring a campaign that I've worked on for a couple of months in advance, and that I spend at least a couple of weeks of prep-time on between sessions. You bring a character sheet.
That's not an equal exchange. It shouldn't be an equal exchange. While players have every right to not want to partake in the campaign idea I have, they also have the right to write their own campaign and let me play in it, if they think they have a better idea.
I put a lot of time into my campaigns. I can't write someone else's idea better than they can though; I can only write what's in my own head. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be open to input, of course, but in the end it really does boil down to some variant of "because I say so". I can only tell the story that I can feel. Sometimes you can't justify that with words.
If you don't like that, that's great. Make your own campaign with your own ideas. I'll jump at the chance to be a player for a change.
This is what happened to me...
I GM Pathfinder for our group, I am the only one who owns the books, I made sure everyone had access to the PRD and printed relevent pages they needed to decide what to play. The players has a very good idea of what they wanted to play, I had a Witch, Inquisitor, Barbarian, Cleric and a Ranger. I bent over backwards to accomodate the players, one wanting to use some 3rd party stuff for the witch, we used archtypes and mixed things around to make the chartcters they wanted. It worked well...up to a point when the cracks began to show. The players did not know the rules and had to learn as we played or clearly did and exploited them to make the charcters work they wanted. The extra bits added or changed made things overpowered or underpowered. It was an utter nightmare. The campaign folded in a very bad way with the Witch fighting within the party. I gave up and threw the towel in.
For me it did'nt work and lost confidence as a GM for 6 months.
Now I'm GMing again and this time I have been explicit from the start about what is allowed and what isn't. As some of the players still struggle learning the rules (I have the other end of the scale a 65 year old playing who knows 1st ed like the back of his hand but struggles with all the options in Pathfinder)I decided not to have any advanced classes and stick to the corebook with archtypes, no 3rd party products were allowed and nothing form 3.5. Some may think this limited but 12 weeks in and its working very well now.
I still bend over backwards to help the players out but within the framework I layed down at the start of the campaign, I have 3 players who really like the charcters they have with very good and intersting backgrounds. Most importantly of all they are all balanced and easy to keep track of how they are progressing. I may allow later when they have a better grasp of the rules allow more diverse classes if they decide to multiclass but for now im sticking with the things I have banned.
Moral of this I guess is once bitten.
My thinking is that you are the GM, you know what works and what dos'nt, you have devised the adventure and the world and made it your'e own thefore you have the right to say what can and can't be used. Lets face it if the world you are using has no Wizards and magic worked a different way why would you want a wizard, if you explain this and the player wants to play one then in my eyes said palyer is just being problematic in my opinion and I would just say no find something else to play or sorry no room on the table.
As for what the responsiblty of the GM is
To be fair, arbitrait the rules to make sure it runs smoothly but most imprtantly to make sure its fun for everyone otherwise what's the point.
What seperates the Player from the GM...the screen... no I mean the adventure I guess and making sure that a story unfolds even if it goes off in a different direction and the subtle art of getting it back on track without them knowing. The world around them and making them feel they are a part of it. Helping players out too if they don't know the rules or are struggling with level up options (I tend to help out and ask them where they see the charcter going then give them a list of feats that could be useful, if someone takes a feat I see won't be of use to them in the adventure I point it out and let them change it).
As for rules and who arbitrates them I guess on our table its me as I ma the only one with the book BUT if a rule dosn't seem to work or one does not exist I come up with an alternative and ask the players what they think. Sometimes they agree other times they come up with something else ands between is we decide.
|
|
[I bring a campaign that I've worked on for a couple of months in advance, and that I spend at least a couple of weeks of prep-time on between sessions. You bring a character sheet.
I respect and admire a DM who spends a lot of time on building his game world. I'm not treating him any differently than the DM who barely fleshes out his game world. A DM takes it upon himself to do the extra work. No one is forcing any DM to do the extra work or buy extra material to do so. No one. No offence we all have done the extra workload as a DM. So trying to come across as the only DM on the planet who deserves extra priviliges for doing so. No nothing going to wash with me or my gaming group. Who at one time or another have sat behind the DM screen. So onace again save the guilt trips because as a DM you decided to do more work for the game. "treat me better because I spent so much work on my campaign world" is going to get a " so what so have I at one time or another".
Not to mention I sometimes do a lot more than just showup with a character sheet. Some Dms require you to do a background for the character. Some less detailed than others. Sometimes the DM is new and require a extra hand at the gaming table. Being a older gamer they look towards m to help them out whne they are not sure of some rules. So maybe in your games players just show uat the table with a character sheet and do nothing. Not in the games I or my players run. No offence I'm supposed to give a DM more respect and entitlement because he puts in extra work on views me as just a lazy person showing up to his game tabl with a sheet. Try that BS with me and I'm dropping out of your game. Still loving and wondering how some demand respect from the players. Yet players deserve no respect vibe I'm getting from some here.
That's not an equal exchange. It shouldn't be an equal exchange. While players have every right to not want to partake in the campaign idea I have, they also have the right to write their own campaign and let me play in it, if they think they have a better idea.
Well it depends. No if you sat down with your players and both had input into what was going to be changed in a game world. Than once your finhsed and the players start wanting to take classes and feats that at the start were banned or not willing to play in your world than imo I would consider a inequal exhange. Now if we decided to play in the Forgotten Realms and as a DM you decide to change the background without telling us beforehand and show up to the table with a FR that is totally different than waht the players were told to expect. Well your going to get questions. Possibly ones you don't want to answer as a DM and players who may or may not want to play on your homebrew of FR. Even then while I respect and admore the DM for putting extra time and effort. I'm not going to treat him any differently. since once again I did the same. Yor not the only guy who has been in the position of pushing a big rock up a hill so to speak.
I put a lot of time into my campaigns. I can't write someone else's idea better than they can though; I can only write what's in my own head. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be open to input, of course, but in the end it really does boil down to some variant of "because I say so". I can only tell the story that I can feel. Sometimes you can't justify that with words.
I get that sometimes a DM has to answer with because i say so. In certain cases. For example if I ban gunsliners because their guns target touch AC and I do not want to deal with in my games. I will give my reason for doing so. If a player persists in asking for a better answer I will possibly use because I'm the DM to answer. Now if all you do is answer any questions with "because I'm the DM" well it's not going to stop questions at the table imo it's going to create more. Adding the threat of kicking someone one out for asking questions is mo going to resolve in one or more players imo leaving the table. No amount of work on a campaing world is imo going to stop them from leaving. Occasioanll you can't justify a decison as a DM at the table. What bothers me and some in this thread is that a dM never ever has to commuicate or give any feedback to his players. Let alone justofy anything. With the added bonus of "you beeter stop or you can leave".
Once again I admire and respect a DM who puta lot of work in the his game. I still does not give you the right to special treatment because everyone at the table usually has done the same. Sometimes less or more. It's not like this is the first year of D&D existence and the postion of DM is something new to the rpg market.