Speaking of back stories: I spent four hours writing my back story so I shouldn't die.


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Well ruling out certain combinations without taking the input of the players into account IS dictating the game. I know a lot of players who don't have a problem with that because they are content to let to do the GM all the work. Doesn't change the fact that it's still dictating.

So if I say to my players, "I'm interested in running some Pathfinder. Who's in?" because I have implicitly ruled out literally thousands of combinations, am I really dictating? What if that's the only game I know how to run? Am I still dictating then?

Now suppose they return, "No, we would really like to play Vampire." are they then the ones dictating because they've ruled out Pathfinder?

Sounds like player entitlement to me.
Not to me. Players have a right to get together and shop around for a GM willing to run what they want without being considered over-entitled. Both are opening positions in a negotiated settlement of game to play with some GM. But then, I don't see either as being dictatorial either even if both preferences were derived without consultation with the other negotiating partner.

If player's expect me to run a game even if I flat out tell them that I don't want to because I don't enjoy running those types of games to me is entitlement. Now if the player's say "Oh okay that's cool, maybe someone else can run it" is a perfectly legitimate answer to me.

I'm cool with running or not running, I don't need player's because of they don't want to play in my games then I just won't run it. I'm not dying to run a game so I'm desperate for players and will tolerate anything to get them to play, I just don't work like that.

I still think we're talking past each other here. I read "we would really like to play Vampire" as a suggestion, one you'd be perfectly free to turn down. (And that probably wouldn't even be made if they knew you loathed running Vampire.)

Nowhere in that quoted hypothetical did the GM say "I don't want to run that because I don't enjoy running that type of game", much less have the players tell him to run it anyway. That, I think we all agree, would be out of line.
I read that as an attempt to be helpful by suggesting something they would be more interested in, not an attempt to force you to run something you're not into. Maybe, even if you don't want to run that, it'll suggest something else that'll be fun for both of you.
Of course, if there's only one game you're willing to run at any given time, that won't help

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


Sounds like player entitlement to me.

Im not seeing entitlement. More player preference. I like Rifts and would like to run a game. If my players refuse to play because of lack of interest or dislike of a rpg I want to run then I either run something else. Or what they are interested in me running as a DM if I up for it. Or no game at all. You cant force players to join a rpg they have little to no interest in. Expecting them to play even when they dont want to play is imo entitlement.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:

So if I say to my players, "I'm interested in running some Pathfinder. Who's in?" because I have implicitly ruled out literally thousands of combinations, am I really dictating? What if that's the only game I know how to run? Am I still dictating then?

Now suppose they return, "No, we would really like to play Vampire." are they then the ones dictating because they've ruled out Pathfinder?

To make a suggestion is not ruling out anything. And your players making a counter suggestion isn't ruling out anything either. So up to this point, there is no dictating from either side of the game table.

The interesting thing is what happens next. Are you willing to try and find a solution to which both sides can agree or are you just saying: Well, looks like there is no gaming then.

No there may be perfectly valid reasons why you won't run a Vampires game (for example because you do not even know the rules). But let's just assume for the sake of the argument that you are not only able to run the system but you do even enjoy the game. It's just that you would enjoy Pathfinder even more?

Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

Grand Lodge

WormysQueue wrote:
Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

I like hamburgers, a lot... I also like pizza, a lot...

Sometimes, I don't want pizza however. I want a nice big, fat, juicy burger. In times such as those, if I can't get that burger, to eat pizza would not be very satisfying, even though I really like pizza...

If everyone at the game table is to have an equal amount of fun (players & GM alike), then how is a GM running something that he really is not into running (even if he ordinarily really likes running the system), sharing equally in everyone else's fun?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Well ruling out certain combinations without taking the input of the players into account IS dictating the game. I know a lot of players who don't have a problem with that because they are content to let to do the GM all the work. Doesn't change the fact that it's still dictating.

So if I say to my players, "I'm interested in running some Pathfinder. Who's in?" because I have implicitly ruled out literally thousands of combinations, am I really dictating? What if that's the only game I know how to run? Am I still dictating then?

Now suppose they return, "No, we would really like to play Vampire." are they then the ones dictating because they've ruled out Pathfinder?

Sounds like player entitlement to me.

But everything sounds like player entitlement to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

I like hamburgers, a lot... I also like pizza, a lot...

Sometimes, I don't want pizza however. I want a nice big, fat, juicy burger. In times such as those, if I can't get that burger, to eat pizza would not be very satisfying, even though I really like pizza...

If everyone at the game table is to have an equal amount of fun (players & GM alike), then how is a GM running something that he really is not into running, sharing equally in everyone else's fun?

I'm willing to play/run games for my friends that I don't necessarily like. I don't go to a convention or game store willing to play/run those games with strangers, but I'm willing to compromise with my friends.

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?


A real friend would do what you want to do, no compromise necessary. If they don't understand what it takes to have you as a friend, drop 'em.


Digitalelf wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

I like hamburgers, a lot... I also like pizza, a lot...

Sometimes, I don't want pizza however. I want a nice big, fat, juicy burger. In times such as those, if I can't get that burger, to eat pizza would not be very satisfying, even though I really like pizza...

If everyone at the game table is to have an equal amount of fun (players & GM alike), then how is a GM running something that he really is not into running (even if he ordinarily really likes running the system), sharing equally in everyone else's fun?

So what you're saying is that everyone at the table should figure out exactly what game (system, AP/module/homebrew, style of play etc) he or she mosts wants to play at that moment and then if they all match go ahead and play, if not people should just leave. And no discussion before revealing your choices.

That's the only way to be sure everyone has an equal amount of fun.

This is a snarky exaggeration of your statement, but it's not more of an exaggeration than the repeated variants of "expect me to run a game even if I tell them I don't want to run that game because I don't like the style".

Grand Lodge

Irontruth wrote:
Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

No, but sometimes (and I mean just that, some of the time, not all of the time) people just don't feel up to doing something. A true friend would recognize those times and not insist on them doing something they just don't want to do by pushing the issue and forcing that person to do it anyway...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

I like hamburgers, a lot... I also like pizza, a lot...

Sometimes, I don't want pizza however. I want a nice big, fat, juicy burger. In times such as those, if I can't get that burger, to eat pizza would not be very satisfying, even though I really like pizza...

If everyone at the game table is to have an equal amount of fun (players & GM alike), then how is a GM running something that he really is not into running, sharing equally in everyone else's fun?

I'm willing to play/run games for my friends that I don't necessarily like. I don't go to a convention or game store willing to play/run those games with strangers, but I'm willing to compromise with my friends.

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

I'm saying that I'm not willing to do something that I dont enjoy for anyone who doesn't take my enjoyment into consideration. I dont know about your friends, but the few people that I consider friends would rather NOT PLAY than let me run or do something that I really didn't want to do.

Again, you running a game for your friends that you dont like ISNT compromise. Compromise consists of both sides giving up something and getting something in return. That's not what this is at all. It's you falling on your sword for the sake of someone else's enjoyment. And In my opinion anyone who claims that they're a friend and allows a friend to do that? Without giving anything up in return? Probably not that great of a friend.


Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?
No, but sometimes (and I mean just that, some of the time, not all of the time) people just don't feel up to doing something. A true friend would recognize those times and not insist on them doing something they just don't want to do by pushing the issue and forcing that person to do it anyway...

Exactly.

Now we can argue over whether suggesting something else is pushing the issue or not.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

I like hamburgers, a lot... I also like pizza, a lot...

Sometimes, I don't want pizza however. I want a nice big, fat, juicy burger. In times such as those, if I can't get that burger, to eat pizza would not be very satisfying, even though I really like pizza...

If everyone at the game table is to have an equal amount of fun (players & GM alike), then how is a GM running something that he really is not into running, sharing equally in everyone else's fun?

I'm willing to play/run games for my friends that I don't necessarily like. I don't go to a convention or game store willing to play/run those games with strangers, but I'm willing to compromise with my friends.

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

I'm saying that I'm not willing to do something that I dont enjoy for anyone who doesn't take my enjoyment into consideration. I dont know about your friends, but the few people that I consider friends would rather NOT PLAY than let me run or do something that I really didn't want to do.

Again, you running a game for your friends that you dont like ISNT compromise. Compromise consists of both sides giving up something and getting something in return. That's not what this is at all. It's you falling on your sword for the sake of someone else's enjoyment. And In my opinion anyone who claims that they're a friend and allows a friend to do that? Without giving anything up in return? Probably not that great of a friend.

Who here is arguing that you should run something that you really don't want to do?

Dark Archive

I'd never argue a character should have immunity due to a good/long backstory, but I feel a Hero Point award should be given to such players.

If a DM said a four page backstory was too long or looked down on back stories in general, I'd not want to play in such a hack n slash centric game. If the DM said at the start to keep all backstories to 2 pages or less, that'd be different.

A backstory should be there to give the player RPing guidance and the DM story hooks. The two sentence backgrounds pimped earlier in this thread are lacking in the specific details that I and other DMs find more helpful.

Additionally, I'd allow a player to reuse a background so long as the names of people and places are changed. Being too strict comes across as unfriendly which isn't a good environment for fun. Friendly but fair is preferred.

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

I like hamburgers, a lot... I also like pizza, a lot...

Sometimes, I don't want pizza however. I want a nice big, fat, juicy burger. In times such as those, if I can't get that burger, to eat pizza would not be very satisfying, even though I really like pizza...

If everyone at the game table is to have an equal amount of fun (players & GM alike), then how is a GM running something that he really is not into running, sharing equally in everyone else's fun?

I'm willing to play/run games for my friends that I don't necessarily like. I don't go to a convention or game store willing to play/run those games with strangers, but I'm willing to compromise with my friends.

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

Here is where it all ends.

That's great if you want to compromise with your friends but it's also okay for people who don't just like it's okay for some friends to compromise for you and it's also okay if they don't.

Now if you continue to argue then you are doing it just for the hell of it.

Silver Crusade

ShinHakkaider wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Would you then deny your players their wish just because you want to "maximize your fun" as Shin Hakkaider put it?. Or would you rather fulfil their wish and still having fun?

I like hamburgers, a lot... I also like pizza, a lot...

Sometimes, I don't want pizza however. I want a nice big, fat, juicy burger. In times such as those, if I can't get that burger, to eat pizza would not be very satisfying, even though I really like pizza...

If everyone at the game table is to have an equal amount of fun (players & GM alike), then how is a GM running something that he really is not into running, sharing equally in everyone else's fun?

I'm willing to play/run games for my friends that I don't necessarily like. I don't go to a convention or game store willing to play/run those games with strangers, but I'm willing to compromise with my friends.

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

I'm saying that I'm not willing to do something that I dont enjoy for anyone who doesn't take my enjoyment into consideration. I dont know about your friends, but the few people that I consider friends would rather NOT PLAY than let me run or do something that I really didn't want to do.

Again, you running a game for your friends that you dont like ISNT compromise. Compromise consists of both sides giving up something and getting something in return. That's not what this is at all. It's you falling on your sword for the sake of someone else's enjoyment. And In my opinion anyone who claims that they're a friend and allows a friend to do that? Without giving anything up in return? Probably not that great of a friend.

A.K.A "Entitlement"

Iron: Question?

Why do you feel it's okay for you as a player to insist that a DM run a game even though it's a game you know he doesn't want to run and you know it's a game that he won't have fun running?

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

So since you "compromise" then everyone else is supposed to as well?


If I as a DM wanted to run one thing and my players wanted me to run another, I would decline to run the game.

It would not be fair on the players if I ran Vampire when I wanted to run PF as my enthusiasm would be lacking and the quality of my GMing would fall below my standards. Because I wasn't excited about running the game my prep time would be devoted to Skyrim, XCom and Civ 5.

I would say I am happy to play Vampire if that what everybody wanted to do.

Grand Lodge

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
It would not be fair on the players if I ran Vampire when I wanted to run PF as my enthusiasm would be lacking and the quality of my GMing would fall below my standards. Because I wasn't excited about running the game my prep time would be devoted to Skyrim, XCom and Civ 5.

Exactly!

Most of the time, I'm game (no pun intended) to run almost any system that the players want to play. But those few times that I REALLY want to run one system in particular (because I am not in the mood for something else) I would just be going through the motions if I were to run anything else; which is not fair to the other people at the table...

And if the group just isn't in the mood to play the system I really want to run that particular session, then I have zero issue stepping aside and letting someone else GM...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

I'm willing to play/run games for my friends that I don't necessarily like. I don't go to a convention or game store willing to play/run those games with strangers, but I'm willing to compromise with my friends.

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

Compromise is a two way street.

If you don't want to run Vampire and they want to play it, even after you've repeatedly explained to them "I hate that system, I hate running it, and I hate playing it" that's not compromise. That's the PLAYER dictating what the GM should do at that point.

We don't take kindly to double standards 'round here.

Compromise is "You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"To be honest guys, I really hate that system. Got anything else in mind?"

"Maybe we could try Shadowrun?"

"Sure I haven't played that in a while, let's see how that goes."

That is compromise.

This:

"You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"To be honest guys, I really hate that system. Got anything else in mind?"

"Too f~&#ing bad we all wanna play Vampire."

"But seriously, guys, I hate it. I'm not going to be invested in the game and it won't be fun for me at all."

"If you were really my friend you'd run Vampire."

*Sigh* "Fine."

2 weeks later, everybody quits because "Dave sucks at running this game, it's boring."

That is not compromise.


Rynjin wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I'm willing to play/run games for my friends that I don't necessarily like. I don't go to a convention or game store willing to play/run those games with strangers, but I'm willing to compromise with my friends.

Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?

Compromise is a two way street.

If you don't want to run Vampire and they want to play it, even after you've repeatedly explained to them "I hate that system, I hate running it, and I hate playing it" that's not compromise. That's the PLAYER dictating what the GM should do at that point.

We don't take kindly to double standards 'round here.

Compromise is "You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"To be honest guys, I really hate that system. Got anything else in mind?"

"Maybe we could try Shadowrun?"

"Sure I haven't played that in a while, let's see how that goes."

That is compromise.

This:

"You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"To be honest guys, I really hate that system. Got anything else in mind?"

"Too f#$$ing bad we all wanna play Vampire."

"But seriously, guys, I hate it. I'm not going to be invested in the game and it won't be fun for me at all."

"If you were really my friend you'd run Vampire."

*Sigh* "Fine."

2 weeks later, everybody quits because "Dave sucks at running this game, it's boring."

That is not compromise.

Nor is:

"You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"I can't believe you guys are trying to force me to play a system I hate. It's Pathfinder or nothing!!!!!"

2 weeks later, the game collapses because the players are screwing around because they're not interested.

I still want to know who here's been arguing for the 2nd option. Lots of people supported the first and there have been some who seem to come very close to the third.


^Iron seems to be pushing for option 2.

Hence the "If you were a real friend..." comment.

He says real friends would run a game they hate for his other friends. I disagree.

To be perfectly blunt, if I were hanging out with my friends and he said "Do this." when I really didn't want to (and have already said no repeatedly), I'd say "No you a!%!#$&." and that'd be the end of it, we'd move on to a new topic of discussion.

But that's because I don't live inside a sitcom I guess.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Compromise is "You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"To be honest guys, I really hate that system. Got anything else in mind?"

"Maybe we could try Shadowrun?"

"Sure I haven't played that in a while, let's see how that goes."

That is compromise.

So after all, we agree because that's what I'm talking about the whole time.


thejeff wrote:


Nor is:
"You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"I can't believe you guys are trying to force me to play a system I hate. It's Pathfinder or nothing!!!!!"

2 weeks later, the game collapses because the players are screwing around because they're not interested.

I still want to know who here's been arguing for the 2nd option. Lots of people supported the first and there have been some who seem to come very close to the third.

I don't think it would get to that: -

I as the DM would say I seriously do not have it in me to run a Vampire game.

If you guys want a Vampire game one of you will have to run it.

I will take an RPG break for a while as Vampire holds not interest for me.

I am not going to force you to play PF and you should not force me to run Vampire.

I am neither your slave nor your mother and you guys jumping up and down saying I want, I want, I want just makes me grumpy - If you want vampire you're adult to organise it for your self.

Like I said before I don't like vampire either playing it or running it so I will take a break.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


Nor is:
"You wanna play Pathfinder?"

"Eh, not really. Could you run a Vampire game?"

"I can't believe you guys are trying to force me to play a system I hate. It's Pathfinder or nothing!!!!!"

2 weeks later, the game collapses because the players are screwing around because they're not interested.

I still want to know who here's been arguing for the 2nd option. Lots of people supported the first and there have been some who seem to come very close to the third.

Just because it's not compromise, doesn't mean it's really dictatorial either. If Pathfinder is the only game that GM X runs, is he really acting as a dictator if he refuses to run something else the players might want to play? I don't think so. Chances are the players already know PF is the only game he runs.


shallowsoul wrote:

A.K.A "Entitlement"

Iron: Question?

Why do you feel it's okay for you as a player to insist that a DM run a game even though it's a game you know he doesn't want to run and you know it's a game that he won't have fun running?

I think you have this question backwards. Your question assumes the exact opposite of compromise, which isn't what I'm for at all. Your assumption is that I'm being a tyrannical player, when I'm actually telling you I'm in favor of compromise.

I'm the person arguing that gaming groups should talk to each other and find solutions that work for the whole table.

If several people in the group really want to play a certain style of game, but the regular GM doesn't want to run it, maybe someone else should run it for a couple sessions, and the GM can just be a player. Then, the group can go back to the other game that the GM likes to run and the group still enjoys playing. That would be a compromise, instead of the GM saying he wants no part of it and going off to start a new gaming group, which would not be compromising,

Again, this applies to people who are friends with each other outside of gaming. Like one group I'm in, several people have been best men or groomsmen for others at their wedding, we've known and hung out our entire adult lives. We're not going to cancel gaming because someone wants a different style of game. We compromise and accommodate, because for us the most important factor is hanging out together, the game system is much further down the list.

At a convention or the local gaming store, I'm going to be a little more narrow-minded. I'm looking for the right kind of game plus good people, but since I don't know them as well, I'm not going to force them or myself to play a game that isn't wanted.

I think gaming is a group endeavor, not an individual effort.


Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Are you saying I shouldn't compromise with my friends?
No, but sometimes (and I mean just that, some of the time, not all of the time) people just don't feel up to doing something. A true friend would recognize those times and not insist on them doing something they just don't want to do by pushing the issue and forcing that person to do it anyway...

Now flip the roles around and explain to me how your version is compromising?

If you want to do X and I want to do Y and they're mutually exclusive, I'm saying we find a compromise solution. Like maybe sometimes X and other times Y, or perhaps Z, which has a little of both. I am not saying that because I want Y you must also participate, because that wouldn't be compromising, would it?


Irontruth wrote:
Shiftybob wrote:
Oh, you spent four hours writing your character? Well, I'm the GM, and I spend four hours preparing for every session, so all of my characters are going to be immortal and everything has to go exactly as planned.
You know, I'd need both hands to count how many times I've see this happen with a GM, while I haven't seen the OP scenario happen myself.

Actually, despite my sarcastic tone, I think you're right. It's a thousand times more common from the other side of the table.

Silver Crusade

memorax wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Sounds like player entitlement to me.
Im not seeing entitlement. More player preference. I like Rifts and would like to run a game. If my players refuse to play because of lack of interest or dislike of a rpg I want to run then I either run something else. Or what they are interested in me running as a DM if I up for it. Or no game at all. You cant force players to join a rpg they have little to no interest in. Expecting them to play even when they dont want to play is imo entitlement.

And expecting a DM to run when he/she says no, and actually referring to him/her as a bad DM or one that doesn't compromise is entitlement which is what Iron keeps talking about.

Grand Lodge

Irontruth wrote:
Now flip the roles around and explain to me how your version is compromising?

It's not compromising...

But what I was saying is that sometimes... *GASP* (I know) A compromise cannot be attained, even amongst the very best of friends...

I also pointed out that a true friend would be able to recognize or at the very least, respect those few times...

In a separate post, I further pointed out that those few times in which no compromise can be made, I would not have a problem stepping aside and letting someone else GM for a session or two in order to run something that the rest of the group wishes to play (and if it is a system that I just cannot stand, then I have no problem letting the Xbox keep me company during those sessions)...

But you must please note that I keep using the word sometimes, and that I also keep repeating that most of the time, compromise is a totally attainable goal...

Liberty's Edge

shallowsoul wrote:

And expecting a DM to run when he/she says no, and actually referring to him/her as a bad DM or one that doesn't compromise is entitlement which is what Iron keeps talking about.

I think Irontruth is advocating for more of a compromise at the gamin table and less that the DM is a bad person for refusing. For me it works both ways. In that if I want to run rpg xyz and players want to play rpg abc I'm not going to force them into playing rpg xyz. It's just going to end up being a unfun time for everyone at the gamin table. Same thing with players who want to do the same. If the DM is in no mood to run rpg abc and no amount of compromising or talking before the game is going to change that then the players should not force the DM into running a game he does not want because as before it's going to be a miserable time for everyone at the table.

That being said I think both sides are at fault if either side or both are forced into a rpg that one side or the other does not want to play or run. If as a DM you know the players favor one or more rpg over others than imo you can't expect to want to run something different and expect them to agree. Well it's not going to happen. It's not player entitlement imo it's doing your research as a DM before buying and doing a whole bunch of work on a rpg that the players really never wanted to play in the first place. Same with players. If the DM likes running a certain rpg or other rpg and as players you insist on forcing the DM to run a rpg he is not comfortable with don't be surprised if the DM says no and nothing happens. Even if as players your willing to buy the rpg. Once again as players do your research make sure you know what the DM wants. Nor is it DM entitlement

Of course nothing says don't try and get either side or both out of their comfort zones. Far from out. Just expect to fail more often than you succeed. As I'm getting older both as a player and DM I'm willing to try new rpgs. Yet unlike when I was younger definately have a core of rpgs I want to run.

While attempting to compromise is possible and should be attempted. It should not if it's going to fail. No matter how good the DM or players or both are with the system. If you want to run Rifts and the players despise it no amount of compromise is going to change their minds. If players want to play Shadowrun and are tired of D20 no amount of skill as a DM with the D20 system is going to change their minds. Neither is trying to guilt trip them with the amount of work one puts in as a DM. Nothing angers me more when a DM plays the pity card because he took it upon himself to do extra work as a DM. Now of the players ask for the DM to do the extra work it's one thing. Telling me you spend months working on the game world when no one asked you to well no one asked you. Nor am I giving you any extra consideration for doing so.

The player and/or DM wanting to run/play two different rpgs is a dilemma imo that usually has no easy solution imo.


Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Now flip the roles around and explain to me how your version is compromising?

It's not compromising...

But what I was saying is that sometimes... *GASP* (I know) A compromise cannot be attained, even amongst the very best of friends...

I also pointed out that a true friend would be able to recognize or at the very least, respect those few times...

In a separate post, I further pointed out that those few times in which no compromise can be made, I would not have a problem stepping aside and letting someone else GM for a session or two in order to run something that the rest of the group wishes to play (and if it is a system that I just cannot stand, then I have no problem letting the Xbox keep me company during those sessions)...

But you must please note that I keep using the word sometimes, and that I also keep repeating that most of the time, compromise is a totally attainable goal...

I'm mostly just opposed to how it's sometimes presented as the GM makes all decisions about the game and not one else gets input. I think you and I are pretty close actually, just looking at different aspects.

I also think that games tend to be better when the GMis excited about the game, which is less likely if they don't like it. In fact games tend to be better when everyone is excited about it.

I also know that sometimes I'm going to play or run a game less because I want to and more because a friend really wants to. The fun for me there is doing something that makes my friend happy.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:


I'm mostly just opposed to how it's sometimes presented as the GM makes all decisions about the game and not one else gets input. I think you and I are pretty close actually, just looking at different aspects.

Seconded. For me at the table it's a table of equals. If the DM starts trying the "I'm good fear and obey me" routine I just walk away. If some of the players badger the DM and the DM caves too easily I walk away too. Nothing says fun killers for me when a DM says "You character is dead" and a player says "no he is not" and the DM is at the whims of one or more members at the table.

Irontruth wrote:


I also think that games tend to be better when the GMis excited about the game, which is less likely if they don't like it. In fact games tend to be better when everyone is excited about it.

For me that works both wants. Neither players of DMs should be running/playing a rpg either sides or one side likes or is excited about. Both sides need to do their research. If a compromises can be reached so much the better if not better no gaming than bad gaming. It's not entitlement on either side.

Irontruth wrote:


I also know that sometimes I'm going to play or run a game less because I want to and more because a friend really wants to. The fun for me there is doing something that makes my friend happy.

I would be careful with that because if your running rpg xyz to make one or more players happy and as a dM you can't stand rpg xyz in the long term it's not going to be a happy time for the DM. I'm willing to compromise with my players on what I allow and want to run. Yet sometimes I have to put my foot down. I have two platers who insisted I play either AD&D or Rofts because they were too lazy and too cheap to buy other rpgs. They had the money to spend so money was not really a issue. I was not going to cave because they could not be bothered to learn a new rpg. So comprising at the game table is a good thing imo it does not need to be done all the time.

Sometimes no matter what you can't please everyone. At the same time it needs to be handled with tact and a small amount of diplomacy. Trying the "iy's my way or the highway" is not using tact or diplomatic in any shaoe or form. You might lose the player forever and possibly a freind.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I tend to think of the GM as the Roman idea of the Princeps. Not what the title eventually game to mean as a complete dictator, but rather its original, idealized meaning of the "first citizen".

The GM is a "player" in the game, like everyone else. However, he is the leader of the "players". He is in command. A GM is not a dictator separate from the players, he is not so far above them that he is entitled to enforce his will upon them needlessly and unfairly. However, he is the leader and the one who makes any final decisions.

On the flipside, he is entitled to the same rights of the regular players. The GM is entitled to have fun (just as the other players are), especially since he has taken the burden of GMing (and from my experience, a GM has to put in much more work than any single player). When the GM oversteps and values his fun over the players, thus abusing his powers, is when you can get the Neros and Caligulas of the Roman Empire (well, add some insanity to the equation too).

And now I am thinking about what it would be like to have Caligula as a GM. Most lethal campaign ever (for both characters and players). Plus he would have a GMPC horse (can't decide whether or not that would be awesome).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scaevola77 wrote:

I tend to think of the GM as the Roman idea of the Princeps. Not what the title eventually game to mean as a complete dictator, but rather its original, idealized meaning of the "first citizen".

The GM is a "player" in the game, like everyone else. However, he is the leader of the "players". He is in command. A GM is not a dictator separate from the players, he is not so far above them that he is entitled to enforce his will upon them needlessly and unfairly. However, he is the leader and the one who makes any final decisions.

On the flipside, he is entitled to the same rights of the regular players. The GM is entitled to have fun (just as the other players are), especially since he has taken the burden of GMing (and from my experience, a GM has to put in much more work than any single player). When the GM oversteps and values his fun over the players, thus abusing his powers, is when you can get the Neros and Caligulas of the Roman Empire (well, add some insanity to the equation too).

And now I am thinking about what it would be like to have Caligula as a GM. Most lethal campaign ever (for both characters and players). Plus he would have a GMPC horse (can't decide whether or not that would be awesome).

It's a little-known fact that Caligula actually went on a sort of concert tour as Emperor, doing acting and singing routines across the Roman Empire. By all accounts, he was terrible at both. I can imagine that he would do some unintentionally HILARIOUS NPCs.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
The fun for me there is doing something that makes my friend happy.

I can agree with that...

But... I MUST have at least some interest in the system to begin with; otherwise my disinterest will bleed through and make for a bad gaming experience for everyone involved...

An example of this has actually come up recently...

One of my players (and a close friend of over 30 years) really loves the Dresden Files and wants to try out the RPG. I'm not such a fan, but I have to admit that Jim Butcher's whole concept within the novels is intriguing to me, so we'll probably give the RPG a try...

On the other hand, had my friend been a fan of say, World of Darkness (which thankfully he is not), I would have no interest in running such a game for him or anyone else...


Funny you mention Dresden, I also have a dislike, though mine is mechanical. My friend likes FATE though, so I'm willing to put up with it because I like other parts of the system and the setting itself. We're also friends with some of the devs and editors.

As a GM, I prefer short games, so it's not as much skin off my back to run 1-3 sessions of something that isn't super exciting for me. In fact my favorite thing to GM these days is a con scenario of a game written by that same dev.

I like games that are to the point, so I tend to run things that have short direct arcs, I leave the long campaigns to other GMs I play with.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed a post. Please post nicely, thanks!


As far as the OP goes, I do think it is a bit unfair to say you can't reuse a character concept (even the long lost twin version). If the concept was allowed originally I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed again. I don't think saying "I'm the last of my kind! Oh wait, there is one more." breaks the story anymore than gnomes and kobolds in an adventuring group together. (feel free to sub gnome and kobolds with any odd group combo you want) It just seems like you're upset that he was attached to a character concept. You were upset he wrote a long back story, making his character a special snowflake (great term I learned here) and then you were upset again when he wanted to reuse the back story, making him cookie cutter. Are you sure you just don't like the player?

Silver Crusade

Reusing a concept sucks all the verisimilitude out of the game. I have two brothers but in most ways I am not very similar to them. We live in different cities, do different jobs and have different interests. In fact there is no-one, not friend or relative, who shares the same, outlook, opinions and passions as me, not even my wife.

So why should characters in a game world be any different?

I am perfectly fine with a character's brother turning up to persue the same quest but that character should be very different. Effectively crossing out a name at the top of a character sheet and bringing in the same character under a different name is the epitome of cheese. Worse it shows a lack of respect for your GM.

In no way should a character background give you any special treatment. It's a tool for a GM to being you into the game, to emphasise elements and to give plot ideas. It is not plot immunity or a get out of jail free card.

Death happens, it's part of the game. A good player accepts that and pulls his dice out to roll a new character. A bad player whines and acts like a child.

The OP was absolutely correct in his actions.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Again, though, I think it's a matter of attitude. How you handle situations like this determines a great deal of the reaction you will get. Based on the OP's attitude in this thread, I can't imagine that he was in the least bit sympathetic.

Also, as it was said previously, if the group wants to work towards getting him raised...this is a home game, and that can be a new quest. He is the GM. He is therefore the arbiter of the reality of the game. There is no "harsh reality" or hard and fast rule that he must follow - he has wide discretion regarding where his campaign will go and how he handles matters.


FallofCamelot wrote:
In no way should a character background give you any special treatment.

Who is arguing FOR special treatment?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The player referenced in the OP. His argument was alleged to be:
"I spent 4 hours on my background so I shouldn't get killed."


He isn't here in this discussion though.


Irontruth wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
In no way should a character background give you any special treatment.
Who is arguing FOR special treatment?

Demanding that your character not die because you wrote a long back story is arguing for special treatment.

Using the same character over again, is something I did when I was 12 and a terrible role player.

It is horribly clichéd, if a player can go to the trouble of writing a background longer than The Iliad the first time around he can spend some time on a new character.

It is the GMs job to be impartial - towards the plot and NPCs he crafted and to his players and the intricate backgrounds.

So if a GMs favourite NPC dies or his plot is blown by clever players, he needs to suck it up and play on.

If a players character dies, it sucks but it is part of the game, character death is in the rules. Players can rejoin the game with a new character there are no save games or do overs, as it is not fair on the other players at the table.


Yeah, I'm just curious, who here in this thread has claimed that players should get what they want by throwing a tantrum?

Also, I've done a do-over at the table. We all agreed it was lame, so we said it didn't happen, the game was better for it. I don't remember what it was exactly, and really it doesn't matter.

A GM is not a NFL referee.


Irontruth wrote:
Also, I've done a do-over at the table. We all agreed it was lame, so we said it didn't happen, the game was better for it. I don't remember what it was exactly, and really it doesn't matter.

Perfectly legitimate if the entire group thinks that's for the best. But that is different than having a single character get killed in combat, having the group respond appropriately, and then the player saying that they want their character alive again.

That's not a do-over for the group, that's a do-over for the player, and breaks the story for the rest of the PCs that (assumedly) did not die during the encounter.


Darkwolf117 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Also, I've done a do-over at the table. We all agreed it was lame, so we said it didn't happen, the game was better for it. I don't remember what it was exactly, and really it doesn't matter.

Perfectly legitimate if the entire group thinks that's for the best. But that is different than having a single character get killed in combat, having the group respond appropriately, and then the player saying that they want their character alive again.

That's not a do-over for the group, that's a do-over for the player, and breaks the story for the rest of the PCs that (assumedly) did not die during the encounter.

My point is that the GM is not a disinterested third party, similar to a referee in a sporting match. Because then they can't be allowed to determine anything about what the party faces in regards to challenges.

If the player really wants to live again, turn it into a plot hook. You've now found something that interests the player. To me, when a player feels strongly about something and asks for it, that is a universal sign for a new plot hook.


Irontruth wrote:
Yeah, I'm just curious, who here in this thread has claimed that players should get what they want by throwing a tantrum?
No one has said 'throwing a tantrum' is acceptable. It has been stated (or spun depending on how you view it) that players are justified in being 'very upset' at having their backstory lessened or come to naught. However, in answer to your question, several of the posters here have sided with the 'alleged player' and made passionate arguments that a 4 hour character should:
  • get a 'do over'
  • receive copious fudging from the DM to keep him alive
  • should get an exact twin so he can essentially play the guy again (seems like a candy-coated do over to me)
  • should not be subject to dice rolls.

You can peruse the thread and find them.


Irontruth wrote:

Yeah, I'm just curious, who here in this thread has claimed that players should get what they want by throwing a tantrum?

Also, I've done a do-over at the table. We all agreed it was lame, so we said it didn't happen, the game was better for it. I don't remember what it was exactly, and really it doesn't matter.

A GM is not a NFL referee.

I prefer games referee to game master. Game Master implies an automatic antagonism between player and game master.

Referee implies fairness and impartiality.

I would rather have a fair game rather than a fudged game.

251 to 300 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Speaking of back stories: I spent four hours writing my back story so I shouldn't die. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.