Sometimes the DM is new and require a extra hand at the gaming table.
Sometimes I have had to help new GM's before, well I did not "have to" just like GM's don't need hundred of pages for plot points, and they don't have to buy any books if they don't want to..
Back to the point though...Since I helped these GM's, a lot, and the logic seems to be that he who does the most work should have more authority/leeway should I get more authority at the table or special access to things the other players can't use? I have clearly helpe the GM's with rules related issues, and him asking about if ____ is broken and so on. What if I also pay for the food for the evening also? That is a financial contribution if the session is long, and the nearest place to eat is 30 minutes away. I did do more than bring a character sheet.
Memorax do you think our buddy Aux will say I should get something extra or am I still "just a player."
I think this thread needs a reminder that every group functions differently, and that there is no one standard ratio of player/DM inclusion and investment for which to compare against.
|
This is at least the 3rd time I have asked this question, and it has been ignored.
As a game master, I tend to give reasons for my decisions; sometimes however, I need a decision to just be accepted by the players. And in those few cases, simply asking for something more than "I don't want this or that in my games" IS argumentative (because as a DM, I have my reasons and I've made my decision on the subject so it's not open for debate in these cases)...
And honestly, this need a few of the posters here have for a reason why things are banned by a GM beyond "I don't want that in my games" is quite baffling to me because in over 30 years of gaming in several different states I have never actually NEEDED to explain why I banned this or that, it was just accepted by the players (but like I said, even though I've never needed to give an explanation, I still do in most cases)...
|
Here the thing Aux. Your ninja example I almost never see in any game i have run or played in. 99% of the time if a player wants to play a ninja and the DM refuses and uses a response like not wanting anything with asian influences in his game. Its more than enough. If a player still keeps asking why after you gave him a reason beyond just "im the DM" then I agree you have to put your foot down and say "I gave you a reason stop asking" That is not what the posters like myself have issue with its:
Player: Can I play a alchemist?
DM: No
Player why?
DM: Its just the way it is
Player: Thats not answering my question
DM: Thats all your going to get and if you dont like it the door to leave in the right.
Player: (player leaving without even answerin DM)
The 1% that leads to conflicts when a DM is not being very communicative. Or tries to pull the "I am the DM I am god you must obey me type of approach. I try and work with the DM. I never try to argue or fight with the DM. Yet if I have to argue and fight to get a question any question answered every step of the way. I just leave the game. I dont care how many hours you spent crafting the world or the money spent on books. If I am not having fun at the table I leave.
|
|
As a game master, I tend to give reasons for my decisions; sometimes however, I need a decision to just be accepted by the players. And in those few cases, simply asking for something more than "I don't want this or that in my games" IS argumentative (because as a DM, I have my reasons and I've made my decision on the subject so it's not open for debate in these cases)...
I think that if certain stuff is banned from the start players usual never ask to play something that was and is banned. If I tell my players in email or in person that I disallow Gunslingers 99.9% of the time players do not ask to play them. There is of course the occasional 1% who refuses to listen or tries to get me to change my mind. Those I try ot resolve peacefully. If I cant I ask the player to leave. While sometimes A DM can say "I don't want this or that in my games". It also needs to be understood that sometimes depending on the topic that may not be good enough.
And honestly, this need a few of the posters here have for a reason why things are banned by a GM beyond "I don't want that in my games" is quite baffling to me because in over 30 years of gaming in several different states I have never actually NEEDED to explain why I banned this or that, it was just accepted by the players (but like I said, even though I've never needed to give an explanation, I still do in most cases)...
You have either been very lucky. And communicate what you allow for the players to use from the start. Myself I have had to filed a few questions when I have banned something. I have also questioned when something I ask for uis banned. I dont demand. I dont argue. Nor do I consider it entitlement. Its when with some other posters in this thread abnd the other say they want communication and feedback from players. When in reality they dont or think that the players deserve to even be told anything. Ask a question dont expect a answer type of situation. I could give you some feedback except Im not and your a bad person for asking if you do mentality.
|
At the end of the day someone may not get what they want. Perfect gaming harmony is a bit of a myth. Most of the time everyone can agree and just play what the DM proposes but there is sometimes that one person who just doesn't agree.
Tell me this Wraith, since you have such a problem with me bowing out instead of going ahead and running the game. Why should I continue to run my game, work my butt off, get everything prepared, and host a game that I really don't want to run if I can't put my foot down and keep the game choices where I want them? Why should that player get his way and I don't?
Why shouldn't that player either except those rules or bow out of the game, or even run one?
All this talk has become irrelevant.
Whether you should get an explanation is purely up to your relationship with your GM. I have already, in the other thread, pointed out times it's best never to explain. I have been shown times it's best to always explain. In the end YOU the player and how you get along with your GM determine if it is a good idea to explain anything to you. If you aren't getting explanations then work on improving your relationship first.
...I'm still conflicted about leaving that one DM.
Though something tells me that it's better on the long run to do it.
At the end of the day someone may not get what they want. Perfect gaming harmony is a bit of a myth. Most of the time everyone can agree and just play what the DM proposes but there is sometimes that one person who just doesn't agree.
Tell me this Wraith, since you have such a problem with me bowing out instead of going ahead and running the game. Why should I continue to run my game, work my butt off, get everything prepared, and host a game that I really don't want to run if I can't put my foot down and keep the game choices where I want them? Why should that player get his way and I don't?
Why shouldn't that player either except those rules or bow out of the game, or even run one?
If everyone is cool with 99% of the rule decisions you make, but the group says that you should probably change that other 1% in order to improve the game for them, are you suggesting having to make that 1% of change in their favor would make the gaming so unfun for you that you wouldn't be able to run the game?
The comments about GM work versus player work, hit me with an analogy.
Let's say you have a game group, and everyone decides they are going to play with miniatures.
Now certainly player 4 has invested more time, effort, and money in their miniature, but think about all the things the player got out of that, that the other players didn't.
Yeah, when I GM I tend to put more time, effort, and thought into the campaign. But I don't do it because I am forced to, as if it is a job. I do it because I enjoy doing it. I could easily grab random foes from a bestiary or adventure path to give an appropriate level challenge to my party (and I do that quite a bit). But if I spend time making up some unique challenging NPCs/creatures, I am doing that because I am interested in doing it.
Just like the example player 4 above, the effort and result is itself a reward. Don't Cry for Me Argentina, I am doing what I enjoy doing.
|
|
At the end of the day someone may not get what they want. Perfect gaming harmony is a bit of a myth. Most of the time everyone can agree and just play what the DM proposes but there is sometimes that one person who just doesn't agree.
What happens than when all the players disaggree with some or all of your decisions then. Are you just going to not run the game and look for new players . Try to work with them. Or assume they are being entitled because they dont all agree. Yes perfect harmony does not exist at a gaming table. One can get somehat close to it if players and DMs are treated as equals and communicate somewhat.
Tell me this Wraith, since you have such a problem with me bowing out instead of going ahead and running the game. Why should I continue to run my game, work my butt off, get everything prepared, and host a game that I really don't want to run if I can't put my foot down and keep the game choices where I want them? Why should that player get his way and I don't?
So if the players agree to 99% of what you demand as a DM is the 1% going to make it so intolerable that you cant run a game.
|
|
The comments about GM work versus player work, hit me with an analogy.
Let's say you have a game group, and everyone decides they are going to play with miniatures.
Player 1 shows up with a cheap plastic pre-painted miniature.
Player 2 shows up with a moderately priced unpainted metal miniature.
Player 3 shows up with cheap plastic miniature that they tried to paint in 5 minutes (e.g. maybe just used 2 colors, skin tone and brown).
Player 4 shows up with a high end metal miniature that they spent several hours methodically painting. Now certainly player 4 has invested more time, effort, and money in their miniature, but think about all the things the player got out of that, that the other players didn't.
Yeah, when I GM I tend to put more time, effort, and thought into the campaign. But I don't do it because I am forced to, as if it is a job. I do it because I enjoy doing it. I could easily grab random foes from a bestiary or adventure path to give an appropriate level challenge to my party (and I do that quite a bit). But if I spend time making up some unique challenging NPCs/creatures, I am doing that because I am interested in doing it.
Just like the example player 4 above, the effort and result is itself a reward. Don't Cry for Me Argentina, I am doing what I enjoy doing.
I usually host games at my place with DMs using my books most of thetime. Does that mean Im supposed to get special treatment as a player. Hardly. A person who chooses to DM takes on the responsability as well as the work being a DM. so Im not giving anyone special treatment for doing what comes with the job position so to speak.
|
|
At the end of the day someone may not get what they want. Perfect gaming harmony is a bit of a myth. Most of the time everyone can agree and just play what the DM proposes but there is sometimes that one person who just doesn't agree.
What happens than when all the players disaggree with some or all of your decisions then. Are you just going to not run the game and look for new players . Try to work with them. Or assume they are being entitled because they dont all agree. Yes perfect harmony does not exist at a gaming table. One can get somehat close to it if players and DMs are treated as equals and communicate somewhat.
So if the players agree to 99% of what you demand as a DM is the 1% going to make it so intolerable that you cant run a game.
Tell me this Wraith, since you have such a problem with me bowing out instead of going ahead and running the game. Why should I continue to run my game, work my butt off, get everything prepared, and host a game that I really don't want to run if I can't put my foot down and keep the game choices where I want them? Why should that player get his way and I don't?
Why should 99% cater to that 1%? Why can't that 1% be the one to either make what is within the limits or not play at all?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should 99% cater to that 1%? Why can't that 1% be the one to either make what is within the limits or not play at all?
So the fact that they are willing to cater to 99% of the things you want is not reasonable enough for you. They either must cater to 100% of the things you want or they should hit the road. That seems like a rational position for you to take? Really?
|
Why should 99% cater to that 1%? Why can't that 1% be the one to either make what is within the limits or not play at all?
At the end of the day someone may not get what they want. Perfect gaming harmony is a bit of a myth. Most of the time everyone can agree and just play what the DM proposes but there is sometimes that one person who just doesn't agree.
What happens than when all the players disaggree with some or all of your decisions then. Are you just going to not run the game and look for new players . Try to work with them. Or assume they are being entitled because they dont all agree. Yes perfect harmony does not exist at a gaming table. One can get somehat close to it if players and DMs are treated as equals and communicate somewhat.
So if the players agree to 99% of what you demand as a DM is the 1% going to make it so intolerable that you cant run a game.
Tell me this Wraith, since you have such a problem with me bowing out instead of going ahead and running the game. Why should I continue to run my game, work my butt off, get everything prepared, and host a game that I really don't want to run if I can't put my foot down and keep the game choices where I want them? Why should that player get his way and I don't?
Aaaaand you completely misunderstood what he asked you. He asked you that if the players agree to 99% of the things that you propose, why can't you just do that measly 1% more. Or are you that stubborn and hard headed?
Honestly, i am beginning to think that you are either a troll or a horrible GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow pres man such a pointed and leading question.
While it's fine for the players to ask for 100%. It would be quite vain for them to walk out over a 1% disagreement, wouldn't it? Not everyone is perfect... in fact I will say right now nobody is perfect. If the GM wants to cling to such a tiny flaw then smile let him and do no worse than rib him occasionally in a friendly way over it outside of the game.
He certainly isn't being selfish by having a 1% disagreement. Would it ruin his fun to change maybe yes or maybe no depending on how habitual the thing is. Would it ruin the players fun to overlook such a tiny thing? I sure hope not or they probably aren't good players for any GM.
|
|
Aranna I think you misunderstand. Its not the players who are getting up and leaving because its not 100% agreement with the DM. Its that unless the players cater 100% to Shadowsouls demands at the table as a DM me he seems unable or unwilling to run the game. From what I am reading from his postion everyone either agrees to do it his way or its the highway. As apparnelty even if the players agree to 99% of his demands he cant run a game.
@ Hama I dont think he is a horrible or bad dm. Just used to getting his way. While also having very forgiving players. In my neck of the woods a DM who has to have players accept 100% of his demands without question and without even being told why is not going to get any players. Or any who play with him repeatedly. Were not talking just myself and my gaming circle. The gaming community here takes a very dim view on the whole " I am the DM I am god " mentality.
Imo in this thread and the other thread it shows that he has to get his way no compromise being possible. Which is strange because he starts his OP in this thread as trying to come across as a reasonable DM yet imo is anything but. If all it takes to stop someone from DMing is the players not catering to the DMs whims 100% well your not someone who likes being talked back to questioned. Let alone the defination of a reasonable DM. I dont expect a DM to cater to my whims 100% of the time either yet if I told "obey and do what I tell you to or Im not running the game". Well sucks to be the DM he not runing the game. There is having your cake and eating it too. And then their is demanding the cake shop gave you more cake free of charge.
Wow pres man such a pointed and leading question.
While it's fine for the players to ask for 100%.
Huh? Who said that. *looks at post above* Not me. In fact I specifically said that if the players were willing to bend 99% the GM's way, is it so unreasonable to expect that the GM bend 1% their way.
It would be quite vain for them to walk out over a 1% disagreement, wouldn't it?
I agree. But what if the group had problems with other issues (some portion of the 99%), but were willing to bend to fit the GM. Then the GM showed he was unwilling to bend even a minuscule amount (the 1%). At that point, isn't the GM demonstrating that they are unreasonable. So it is not just that they disagree with 1%, but instead have been given evidence that the GM is incapable of dealing with the players in a mature and well adjusted way.
Not everyone is perfect... in fact I will say right now nobody is perfect. If the GM wants to cling to such a tiny flaw then smile let him and do no worse than rib him occasionally in a friendly way over it outside of the game.
No doubt, some people will are quite willing to continue playing under an unreasonable GM. Though the ribbing probably wouldn't go over. That can be seen as complaining, and the player might be shown to the door. "Either accept everything my way, or leave." seems to mode of thought here. I would not expect rational behavior from someone who has that thought pattern.
He certainly isn't being selfish by having a 1% disagreement. Would it ruin his fun to change maybe yes or maybe no depending on how habitual the thing is. Would it ruin the players fun to overlook such a tiny thing? I sure hope not or they probably aren't good players for any GM.
So they are willing to set aside any disagreement they might have on the entire 99% of the other issues. Just because they are willing to go the way of the GM, doesn't mean they think the GM is correct. But the GM being unwilling to make any concession at any level, I do think that is at the very least an immature attitude. I am not saying players are reasonable for not making concessions, I am saying they are make concessions on the other 99% (or some lesser amount of that), but the GM is unwilling to make a concession on the other 1%.
|
|
Aranna I think you misunderstand. Its not the players who are getting up and leaving because its not 100% agreement with the DM. Its that unless the players cater 100% to Shadowsouls demands at the table as a DM me he seems unable or unwilling to run the game. From what I am reading from his postion everyone either agrees to do it his way or its the highway. As apparnelty even if the players agree to 99% of his demands he cant run a game.
@ Hama I dont think he is a horrible or bad dm. Just used to getting his way. While also having very forgiving players. In my neck of the woods a DM who has to have players accept 100% of his demands without question and without even being told why is not going to get any players. Or any who play with him repeatedly. Were not talking just myself and my gaming circle. The gaming community here takes a very dim view on the whole " I am the DM I am god " mentality.
Imo in this thread and the other thread it shows that he has to get his way no compromise being possible. Which is strange because he starts his OP in this thread as trying to come across as a reasonable DM yet imo is anything but. If all it takes to stop someone from DMing is the players not catering to the DMs whims 100% well your not someone who likes being talked back to questioned. Let alone the defination of a reasonable DM. I dont expect a DM to cater to my whims 100% of the time either yet if I told "obey and do what I tell you to or Im not running the game". Well sucks to be the DM he not runing the game. There is having your cake and eating it too. And then their is demanding the cake shop gave you more cake free of charge.
Hold on second there partner!
This isn't about anybody getting their way except for a few player's it seems like.
Basically here is what it boils down to for a few of you. Now if I want to run my game a certain then I am "used to getting it my way" but it's cool if the player's get it "their way".
It's not about someone "getting their way". I think you need to check yourself and really comprehend what the hell you are reading. Assumption is the mother of all "%^ck ups.
This crap about 1% is what it is, crap. "Oh if I am willing to go 99% then why not go that extra 1%". Well the point in having specific theme games is to, you know, stick with the theme. Theme games don't exist if you don't stick with the theme.
I'm going to give a little bit of reality here. When you offer the player's a chance to play a specific game and the majority want to play then the game get's played. This little stubborn guy over here that won't budge rarely if ever exists. If the majority of the group decides not to then the game isn't played.
I offer my game and if the majority want to play it then we play it how I present it, if not then we don't play.
Oh I know some of you can't understand why I don't run it anyway but of course those of you are used to "getting it your way" so that's why you can't understand why someone would opt out of running the game if that specific theme can't be played.
|
|
Aranna I think you misunderstand. Its not the players who are getting up and leaving because its not 100% agreement with the DM. Its that unless the players cater 100% to Shadowsouls demands at the table as a DM me he seems unable or unwilling to run the game.
You still haven't answered my question.
Why should I give in and not the player.
Notice how I emphasize on the word "player" and not "players". You can't speak for everyone else and it's already been decided that if the majority vote no then the game doesn't go ahead.
|
|
I dare any of you to say I'm wrong with what I am about to say.
My group prefers that I run my games the way I do. I give my group consistency when it comes to specific games. They know that when I say I am going to run a specific type of theme then that is what they are going to get and they "like" it. My "hard headedness" is what they like in a GM because even though I am steadfast in my decisions, I am also honest to the core. What you see is what you get.
Now try and give me some of that "badwrongfun" some of you like to dish out.
