|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you let them run? Seriously, why?
One assumes that generally 5 people who know the rules are sitting at a table when this thing happens, and those 5 people have to decide "That person is someone I'm going to invest hours of my time allowing to run a game."
So why do you do it? Why do you come to the table and then complain on here about it? Why don't you run?
If you don't trust your GM, why are you letting them GM? Why can't you find someone else in the 5 people making the decision who isn't going to a be a "jerk?"
And does everyone else think they are a jerk, or are you the only one that is having a problem?
Because...well...if five people sat down and picked someone they all think is a jerk to DM, doesn't that kind of implies they think that GM is the lesser evil of the other four?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why do you do it? Why do you come to the table and then complain on here about it? Why don't you run?
A: Because they're too lazy to GM and too angsty-drama-look-at-me-look-at-me-dammit to not complain someplace free with a captive audience.
Do you not realize that this is (a) teh Interwebz and (b) a message forum for RPGers?
O.o
You know who was entitled?
Charles Foster Kane, making people clap when his girlfriend was performing opera terribly.
Some people get trapped in a mindset that says bad gaming is better than no gaming. Personally my free time is too precious to be doing an activity where I'm not enjoying myself so I abandoned that mindset a long time ago but I definitely remember a younger me that was willing to put up with bad gaming in order to get gaming in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people get trapped in a mindset that says bad gaming is better than no gaming. Personally my free time is too precious to be doing an activity where I'm not enjoying myself so I abandoned that mindset a long time ago but I definitely remember a younger me that was willing to put up with bad gaming in order to get gaming in.
Then run. Or find a better GM. You are already here on the messageboards with literally 1000s of players. It isn't like the old days where you couldn't find players or GMs outside of a FLGS.
|
|
You know who was entitled?
Charles Foster Kane, making people clap when his girlfriend was performing opera terribly.
Which was cruel on Orson Welles part, since Marion was actually a really cool and talented person by all accounts.
Rosebud was particularly wrong...
Hearst deserved it, but I can see why he was so pissed.
Just because you have 5 people who know the rules doesn't mean you have 5 people with the time or talent (or patience) to do all the prep work being a GM entails.
|
|
Some people get trapped in a mindset that says bad gaming is better than no gaming. Personally my free time is too precious to be doing an activity where I'm not enjoying myself so I abandoned that mindset a long time ago but I definitely remember a younger me that was willing to put up with bad gaming in order to get gaming in.
Agreed and seconded. I also had a similar mindset as a younger game. Better bad gaming than no gaming. Now I know better.
Is this question like that game paranoia? If the commies hate being commies then why would they rather die than stop being commies?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You give your gm permission to have unlimited power... He has an unlimited number of characters with an unlimited number of hit points and an unlimited number of (su) abilities that you'll never have... But thats not all. He's not just playing the king and the barkeep. Not just the number of henchmen in the advancing army. The sharpness of the balrog's teeth.
His character is the leaf on the wind, the clouds in the sky. The amount of light coming from the luminescent mold on the walls. The position of ursa minor in the night sky. The possibility that there *is no ursa minor in the night sky*. The temperature of the breeze. The smell of the barmaids bosom and the color of her toenails... The amount of time your beef jerky takes to go bad... He has been given the paintbrush of infinite possibilities...
But somehow thats not good enough. Thats not what he wants to play... He wants to play your character...
You know what I do with GMs like that? I take... the paintbrush... away.
@tennengar: That's nice...and poetic. As a GM, and sometimes player, I agree with it wholeheartedly. I have an entire universe to play with so I don't need to dictate what my players' characters feel, think, or do. I don't care for it when I'm a player and a GM does this to me. Your character is the one thing over which you have control. They can suggest...but not dictate.
M
Rosebud was particularly wrong...
Hee hee!
God, I love trolls.
It's true you can find a game. A lot of times you can find them online. I enjoy sitting around a table and playing though. I have lived in a new town for about a year and have been looking for a game. I am actually on a waiting list for three games. I am also currently getting a new game started at the local game shoppe.
You make it sound easy to find a game. I would have to disagree. It is my hope that by leading a game I will be able to play in another game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you have 5 people who know the rules doesn't mean you have 5 people with the time or talent (or patience) to do all the prep work being a GM entails.I don't think the OP actually wants an answer, he just wants to feel superior to people who don't like antagonistic DMs.
I don't think this poster wants a discussion, they just want someone to tell them they are right and everyone who says otherwise is mean.
|
|
It's true you can find a game. A lot of times you can find them online. I enjoy sitting around a table and playing though. I have lived in a new town for about a year and have been looking for a game. I am actually on a waiting list for three games. I am also currently getting a new game started at the local game shoppe.
You make it sound easy to find a game. I would have to disagree. It is my hope that by leading a game I will be able to play in another game.
And by you leading a game, there will be a game.
This is specifically at entitled players who whine and moan about mean GMs like they can't decide not to play in that game or can't decide to run their own game if they don't like it.
You don't seem to be one of those people, but clearly it cut close to home for some people reading...
Idk at my table the only Gm is a jerk but he is the glue that holds us together, if he isn't running the group falls apart in less then one game no matter which of us runs.
So why do we keep letting him treat us like crud? He is the only game in town.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every single day when I log into these forums and read a post I come away thinking "Thank the RPG Gods that I have spent an entire 30+ year gaming career somehow, inexplicably, against all odds, playing with kind, decent, intelligent, compassionate, witty, creative and cooperative human beings."
Who knew they are so rare?
I will thank them all again today in my latest campaign update for being who they are.
Thanks Ciretose and others for reminding me how fortunate I am.
Every single day when I log into these forums and read a post I come away thinking "Thank the RPG Gods that I have spent an entire 30+ year gaming career somehow, inexplicably, against all odds, playing with kind, decent, intelligent, compassionate, witty, creative and cooperative human beings."
Who knew they are so rare?
I will thank them all again today in my latest campaign update for being who they are.
Thanks Ciretose and others for reminding me how fortunate I am.
You are very fortunate, I just hope the next place I move to will have people that are far nicer gamers
Why do you let them run? Seriously, why?
One assumes that generally 5 people who know the rules are sitting at a table when this thing happens, and those 5 people have to decide "That person is someone I'm going to invest hours of my time allowing to run a game."
So why do you do it? Why do you come to the table and then complain on here about it? Why don't you run?
Because just because someone has this one thing they get stuck up on does not mean they are a jerk all the time, or even the majority of the time.
Generally, you game with your friends. Do you leave your friends every time they're an ass about something If so, I imagine it's kinda hard to find friends.
If you don't trust your GM, why are you letting them GM? Why can't you find someone else in the 5 people making the decision who isn't going to a be a "jerk?"
Rolled up in that, among your group you're generally going to go with the guy who's best qualified to GM, or failing that the one guy who actually WANTS to GM.
And does everyone else think they are a jerk, or are you the only one that is having a problem?Because...well...if five people sat down and picked someone they all think is a jerk to DM, doesn't that kind of implies they think that GM is the lesser evil of the other four?
When people post their complaints on these forums (which I assume you're drawing your pool from), when they say "My GM is such a jerk!" they usually go on to explain about how on this one occasion their GM did something they didn't like.
It's just like when you're at work. You might have a fairly good relationship with your boss, but when he does something that seems douchey you're going to turn to your co-workers and say "Gee willickers, Dave is such a jerk today Tom!"
These forums are kinda like that, except they're also where the other "bosses" hang out.
Except you are paid to do your job, you pick a GM for your leisure time.
Do I need to explain the concept of an analogy to you?
It's the same basic idea. Both are in a position of relative authority and both sometimes make unpopular decisions. The people that abide by those decisions sometimes complain about them.
Unless you mean to say that making unpopular decisions is something that shouldn't be done unless the other person is getting paid. Which is doubtful, because in that case one wonders why you complain about the trend of the game swapping to "easy mode".
|
|
Except you are paid to do your job, you pick a GM for your leisure time.Do I need to explain the concept of an analogy to you?
It was a crappy analogy. I was pointing out why.
One is something you do for money, one is something you do for fun.
It's is comparing who you would be willing spend time with for money vs who you hang out with by choice would in your free time.
Finding a game is not hard anymore, unless you are annoying and no one wants to play with you.
See edit.
One is something you do for money, one is something you do for fun.
It's is comparing who you would be willing spend time with for money vs who you hang out with by choice would in your free time
Also, speaking of putting words in someone's mouth...
|
|
See edit.
Also, speaking of putting words in someone's mouth...One is something you do for money, one is something you do for fun.
It's is comparing who you would be willing spend time with for money vs who you hang out with by choice would in your free time
Feel free to state your opinion of the difference between your boss and your friends.
Your analogy, not mine.
Feel free to state your opinion of the difference between your boss and your friends.Your analogy, not mine.
Sorry if the words "See edit" were not clear enough for you:
It's the same basic idea. Both are in a position of relative authority and both sometimes make unpopular decisions. The people that abide by those decisions sometimes complain about them.
Are they both in a position of relative authority? Yes.
Do they both sometimes make unpopular decisions? Yes.
Do people sometimes complain about the unpopular decisions from both? Yes.
Can you still be friends with someone who makes a decision you don't like? Yes.
So the ONLY difference here, which you seem to have fixated on, is the fact that one pays and the other doesn't. By that logic, if someone gives you, let's say, a car as a gift it's completely different than an identical make, model, and year of a car with all the same features that you bought yourself.
Ciretose, seriously, the whole "I take everything literally" thing just makes you look like an ass (and not a particularly smart one at that). I know 8 year olds who do the exact same thing.
The pay thing is the only difference in that analogy (and analogies do not need to be 100% perfect line-ups). You don't go picking apart "He moves like lightning!" to describe track stars, you don't need to focus on something irrelevant just because you can't find anything else in there you disagree with.
I think the consequences are very, very different.
Not that you should stay at a job you hate either, but Wu Tang Clan had a point about C.R.E.A.M.
The end results have different consequences, yes, but the scenario itself (which is self contained) is very similar.
|
|
I think the consequences are very, very different.
Not that you should stay at a job you hate either, but Wu Tang Clan had a point about C.R.E.A.M.
The end results have different consequences, yes, but the scenario itself (which is self contained) is very similar.
See, I think you really don't think I understand what you are trying explain to me, when in fact I just think you aren't getting that I am saying either you adjust to the table or you leave the table, because you are the problem, not the GM.
The GM set up a game and you can either join it or not. If you join it, you adjust to the table. If you can't, go see a movie, if the weather is nice try hiking perhaps.
You have many options with regards to how you spend your free time. You aren't paid to come to the table, and if you aren't going to have a good time, it's probably best you go enjoy those things and let someone else who will enjoy it take that slot.
And what I don't think you understand is that you can complain about something and still adjust to it. Like I said, if he's good at everything else, why would I leave the table just because I don't like that one thing?
And you yourself said there was a possibility everyone agreed that the guy should be GM, so if the entire group has a problem with this one thing, they should leave because the group is the problem and not the guy who runs it?
If the GM is in the minority of one who likes this ruling, then it should be the GM who should adjust.
|
|
Have you counted the number of gripe threads? You are talking about an occasional "My GM did this and so I couldn't play exactly as I wanted and that made me kind of annoyed for a little while, but it's all cool, I just needed to vent."
Is that what you are getting out of what a good number of people are posting on the boards?
Yeah, out of a lot of them.
Most of 'em seem to me like minor gripes that people blow out of proportion to get a good story to tell.
You can tell by the lack of details in most of them, they just give the parts that make the GM look bad without the context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably just a difference in opinion of what should be done about it, rather than a difference in opinion of what's going on.
Truce?