| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am now happily married with two kids, but I still have to fight the reflex to, "Never, ever speak the terms dungeon, dragon, armor class, alignment or elf in mixed company. Never mention that you game until you've been dating at least six months, AND IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, Never introduce her to your group until they have all showered and changed clothing.I am also married with two kids, and my wife roleplays with me. I met her my first day of college, actually, and talked about roleplaying the first week when it came up. I got her and our other mutual college friends to try it, and she's been hooked since.
I'm going to be totally honest and say that I don't think I would be happy married to someone who didn't roleplay. I'm kind of shocked other people involved in such a life-consuming hobby could.
Everyone and every couple is different.
I know a couple who own their own RPG company, they've been pretty successful at it too.
She hates gaming with other couples though, she thinks a couple's dynamic upsets a gaming groups dynamic. Since she doesn't want to impose a rule on others that she won't follow, that means she doesn't game with her husband anymore (or at least not on a recurring basis). Besides, their work life is also gaming related, so I think they do other stuff together, like go out to eat or spend time with their kids.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there IS a place for quibbling over rules in message board (and other) forums. We don't understand a rule, ask for various opinions, glean from them what we are hoping to understand. We want some advice on a character build or how to build a certain concept. We indeed want to point out a rules discrepancy that seems hard to reconcile.
These things in general aren't bad things to bring up. While the answer to many rules questions is ultimately "house rule it" there is nothing inherently wrong with asking for others' ideas on the matter. Or indeed, asking them how THEY would house rule it, which is especially useful if you're a GM and you're stumped. Some GMs are better are coming up with on the fly rulings than others, and why not take advantage of asking the advice of those who might have a better idea?
So I don't want to see any and all rules discussions crushed and taken away, just because some people are jerks. I don't think that was really the OP's intent, but I just feel I want to make that clear. Yes, we can house rule it, but seeing what other people think and/or how they would deal with a situation can be quite worthwhile.
That said, of course the onslaught of the Wrongbadfun Brigade can turn what could be fascinating discussion of different rules interpretations into a flame war or pissing match in an instant. Members of the Wrongbadfun Brigade also seem to have a massive amount of time and Internet access on hand (not that I have much room to speak here, mind) so they can absolutely bulldozer what was a great conversation into a "YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME WRONG, CEASE HAVING FUN IMMEDIATELY" hatefest right quick, filling your innocent thread with page after page of bickering during the time you took to make a sandwich before coming back to the thread.
And here's the thing. You cannot make the Wrongbadfun Brigade go away. No matter how brilliant you think you can argue something, you absolutely positively cannot convince them of the error of their ways, because that would make them have to admit they could sometimes be wrong, and that is something that a member of the Wrongbadfun Brigade is simply by hard-wiring incapable of.
This is the hard part, this is the part that people screw up all the time, absolutely myself included:
The only way to disarm the Wrongbadfun Brigade is to ignore them. They are a highly intelligent and conversant form of troll, and they exist solely to turn your lovely threads into muck, and thrive on the attention they get from all the people who dare argue with them. I'm fairly certain in fact most members of the Wrongbadfun Brigade don't actually play Pathfinder, because it would take away from their message board posting time.
The important thing to remember is that the Wrongbadfun Brigade are irrelevant, no matter how loud they are or how frequently they post. They out of the gate are out to ruin things and thus their advice is instantly worthless, because you can't take advice from someone who only lives to tell you you're having fun wrong. You cannot take seriously anything they say, and moreover you absolutely, positively cannot take what they have to say personally.
When you read a post of the Wrongbadfun Brigade, laugh heartily, and move on responding to the people who are just offering ideas and trying to have a fun conversation.
(Reminds self to practice what one preaches more often.)
If the Wrongbadfun Brigade is doing a good job of utterly smearing a thread with their filth, or you just have trouble ignoring them, I suggest liberal application of AnotherMage's ignore script for the Firefox plugin Greasemonkey. I rarely use it myself but I have found it handy. Since Paizo will never do us the kindness of giving us an ignore button, this is your best bet.
I'm going to be totally honest and say that I don't think I would be happy married to someone who didn't roleplay. I'm kind of shocked other people involved in such a life-consuming hobby could.
And if that works for you, awesome.
But there are other considerations for me as well, as I am sure there are for other people, that in the end are more important:
Do they drink alcohol, use illegal drugs, or smoke? This is far more important to me than marrying a gamer. I have no use for the consumption of either and couldn't share my life with someone that does.
Do they share my views on parenting and education? I hate public schools and want my children to go to a Catholic school like I did.
Unfortunately for me, the gaming had to come after those. And I was willing to settle for someone who gave me time to play, rather than someone who would partake of the games, too. That isn't to say that I don't try to convince her to play every once in a while...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to be totally honest and say that I don't think I would be happy married to someone who didn't roleplay. I'm kind of shocked other people involved in such a life-consuming hobby could.
Hobbies, hobbies, hobbies...
In my experience there aren't a lot of hobbies that can't become life-consuming if done "right".
A friend of mine has a hobby of off-road motorcycling. He is in Moab or some other off-road paradise pretty much every weekend that the weather allows. When he's not on the trail he's tuning up or reconfiguring his bike, and when he's not doing that, he's shopping for biking stuff. His girlfriend doesn't ride.
Another friend of mine is an amateur photographer. She spends thousands of dollars every year on equipment, classes and special trips to exotic locations (Alaska, Hawaii, New Zealand, Cost Rica, just to name a few) all for the purposes of taking photos.
My wife quilts. She has plastic tubs full of quilting material. She spends weekends either quilting or shopping for quilting materials.
My oldest brother is a fisherman/hunter. There are parts of the year his wife doesn't even see him for several days at a a time.
My dad used to golf two days a week. Pretty much all day.
My other brother is a fantasy sports fanatic. He's either fantasy football/baseball/basketball or else he's collecting and analyzing stats on players he wants to draft to his team.
In reality I know few couples who share the same hobbies. In fact there is a significant body of evidence that having hobbies that allow couples to pursue interests apart from each other is a good way to keep a relationship stable.
As I traipse about these very boards I am struck by how much creativity I see in my fellow players. There are so many magnificent ideas flowing forth that my favourite button must be worn out by this point.
A wonderful thread is cooking along without need for censure and then someone wanders in and feels the need to quibble over some piece of minutia, brandishing their dictionaries like weapons, and holding a game to a level of scrutiny that nothing could withstand. Why? I have absolutely no clue.
Like blood in the water the same travelling troop of quibblers (Actual Pictoral Evidence) congregate to tilt at windmills ad nauseum. What is left is 25 solid posts of unity and 14 pages of the same old chestnuts about why class Z is worse/better than it was before or than class 8 (note: mentioning the word "monk" appears to be akin to setting a daycare on fire these days). What's worse is that with all the talking there is so little listening. Only the most inflammatory voices persist and even more rush in to take up the call to arms to put down the insurrection of the inflammatory. What is left is a thread devoid of substance with people yelling until they are hoarse.
I imagine most of the masses simply ignore it as a bunch of people yelling and not listening, and they simply wander off to play the game with friends and have a good time (Video Evidence this Time).
I guess no matter what you do there will always be a vocal minority that need to seek out something to complain about. This game is amazing, it has flaws and this company is working to make it better.
I join the "if you disagree then just house rule it" camp. It is a game of imagination where a skeleton had been provided, and if you want it taller just add a vertebrae or 6.
Just my 2.5 cp
p.s. if I had anyone at my table start a "RAW vs. RAI" diatribe...sheesh, I'd probably stab them with a spork.
Love the title, tired of hearing about RAW and RAI. It is all about the good times and going with the flow, rules are just a framework, not the code of Hammurabi.
I'm going to be totally honest and say that I don't think I would be happy married to someone who didn't roleplay. I'm kind of shocked other people involved in such a life-consuming hobby could.And if that works for you, awesome.
But there are other considerations for me as well, as I am sure there are for other people, that in the end are more important:
Do they drink alcohol, use illegal drugs, or smoke? This is far more important to me than marrying a gamer. I have no use for the consumption of either and couldn't share my life with someone that does.
Do they share my views on parenting and education? I hate public schools and want my children to go to a Catholic school like I did.
Unfortunately for me, the gaming had to come after those. And I was willing to settle for someone who gave me time to play, rather than someone who would partake of the games, too. That isn't to say that I don't try to convince her to play every once in a while...
Yeah, making sure someone totally fits within your clique and sub-culture can be taking it too far. Change is the universal rule, they can be introduced to your likes over time.
My wife is a bit more of a gamer now than when we met. I shouldn't be forcing her to play or get out though, that is just crazy.
Then why do we need multiple printings of a book if we can just house rule it?
People want consistency in the rules because when you sit down at a table to play then you know everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
That is what Society Play is for. For your home campaign, the "rules" are guidelines.
I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules? Is he the arbiter of fun?
I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules? Is he the arbiter of fun?
The arbiter of the gameworld - how things work and/or how different situations will be adjudicated. (At least, that's what we want at our table).
Certain games attract certain players more.
Games like DnD especially PF (with bringing in PFS) and DnD 4.0 Are going to attract more rules lawyers
WoD games are going to likely bring in more roleplay flexible players. Can you imagine some of these PF players trying to play oWoD Mage: Sorcerers Crusade? They'd have a stroke with the amount of flexibiliy and GM discretion there was.
I've run both, and brought players along for the ride. As much as the systems are different, I think it's more about what you try to do with them. I don't think I'd use PFRPG for deep courtly intrigue, but not because it couldn't be used for it, it's simply not the system's strong suit. Likewise I probably wouldn't use oWoD for a dungeon crawl. Neither game can only be played by a particular kind of person.
(Edit: phone typing trouble.)
I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules? Is he the arbiter of fun?The arbiter of the gameworld - how things work and/or how different situations will be adjudicated. (At least, that's what we want at our table).
Being an arbiter of a world is great. I DM myself because I enjoy creating. It is very rewarding to me. I encourage that. But if you are decided how things work and/or how different situations will be resolved without rules than you are just a storyteller. And don't get me wrong being a storyteller a big part of being a DM. But it isn't the DM's story only. It's a cooperative storytelling game. If the system we're using to tell the story of that world and of the characters the players are taking the role of in said world does not include rules but only "guidelines" than you aren't really playing a game. Well, you ARE...it's just an overly complex adventure version of mother-may-I.
But then, Pathfinder is not a game with guidelines. It's a game with rules. It's a game with some really clear rules and some not so clear rules. Mostly clear. It's also a game with ALTERABLE rules. You can change them to fit your needs. And some might argue that "well that's what I meant all along." except, that altering the rules requires that you know what they are in the first place. In which case, you essentially concede that the rules are actually important.
Being an arbiter of a world is great. I DM myself because I enjoy creating. It is very rewarding to me. I encourage that. But if you are decided how things work and/or how different situations will be resolved without rules than you are just a storyteller. And don't get me wrong being a storyteller a big part of being a DM.I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules? Is he the arbiter of fun?The arbiter of the gameworld - how things work and/or how different situations will be adjudicated. (At least, that's what we want at our table).
Yeah - I'm not a fan of making up stories without any structure, but I do prefer (as both player and DM) flexible guidelines rather than set-in-stone rules. (I see it as something of a continuum, really).
But it isn't the DM's story only. It's a cooperative storytelling game. If the system we're using to tell the story of that world and of the characters the players are taking the role of in said world does not include rules but only "guidelines" than you aren't really playing a game. Well, you ARE...it's just an overly complex adventure version of mother-may-I.
It doesnt feel that way to me. When we DM we're generally reasonably consistent, I guess. However, the main point of difference between how you play and how we do(I suspect) is that we dont know the rules very well, so when something comes up and the DM says "Roll a strength check" we dont notice if two months ago an identical situation came up and he said "Roll an athletics check". It also makes zero difference to us if climbing a slippery wall in the dark succeeded last year when we rolled a 17 but failed this year.
But then, Pathfinder is not a game with guidelines. It's a game with rules. It's a game with some really clear rules and some not so clear rules. Mostly clear. It's also a game with ALTERABLE rules. You can change them to fit your needs. And some might argue that "well that's what I meant all along." except, that altering the rules requires that you know what they are in the first place. In which case, you essentially concede that the rules are actually important.
Not really. I mean it's a little nitty, but i think it highlights the difference in style which might be puzzling to you. None of us know the rules very well at all. We're aware we're almost certainly doing them wrong though and that's cool - no matter what RPG we play, we put only the vaguest amount of effort into learning what the exact rules actually are and then go from there.
(None of that is an attempt to argue that it should be done that way, merely an attempt to clarify what "I want a DM-as-arbiter and I prefer rules to be treated just as guidelines" means).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes >> I actually wanted to point out that I truly appreciate that you can voice your stance and attitude towards a situation and still remain respectful of others. You show a vigilance towards understanding opinions.
A lot of this thread (a LOT not ALL) contains negativity over the whole thing. It essentially began boiling down to people complaining about complainers and that calling somebody's way of playing badwrongfun is obviously badwrongfun.
Rules lawyers getting flack on an internet forum is a fairly interesting form of hypocrisy. Geeks judging geeks like they don't already have enough judgmental prejudices against them.
Some people find the rules important, some people don't. Is it really so difficult of a dilemma to realize it's a preference and every form has merit? (can't wait for the people who respond with "but their way has no merit" and thereby cementing my point)
Let's get meta! Am I complaining about the complainers that complain about other complainers? :) I figure I'm just pointing out negativity, but I recognize the meta for what it is as well.
Yeah - I'm not a fan of making up stories without any structure, but I do prefer (as both player and DM) flexible guidelines rather than set-in-stone rules. (I see it as something of a continuum, really).
What is restrictive about set in stone rules? Okay, obviously something that is inflexible is inflexible, but ask yourself this, what exactly about set in stone, inflexible RULES makes for inflexible STORIES. We all want to tell really interesting stories. If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading Mistborn. The magic system (aside from just being REALLY cool) has strict rules that govern it. Yet those restrictions didn't actually confine the story.
Restrictions are what make stories interesting. A rule is restrictive by nature. But what can be accomplished with that rule is not necessarily. When a rule is clear and well written, it becomes very inflexible in how it works, but very flexible in the types of stories it can tell. LESS flexible, perhaps. But not inflexible.
It doesnt feel that way to me. When we DM we're generally reasonably consistent, I guess. However, the main point of difference between how you play and how we do(I suspect) is that we dont know the rules very well, so when something comes up and the DM says "Roll a strength check" we dont notice if two months ago an identical situation came up and he said "Roll an athletics check". It also makes zero difference to us if climbing a slippery wall in the dark succeeded last year when we rolled a 17 but failed this year.
I'm going to guess that when you roll for initiative your DM isn't cool with you using +3 in one battle and +18 the next just because it's only a guideline after all right? On the other hand you seem to be okay with a DM who just makes up an initiative score for NPC's regardless of what the actual initiative score would be for that NPC. My problem with that is that now both the NPC's initiative AND the players initiative are now meaningless. If your DM makes up an initiative score (or an AC or DC for a spell or whatever) and then asks you to roll some dice, he is asking you to waste your time.
When a DM flip-flops or can't decide what checks to use and what or DC should even be, he removes the players agency. By having you roll and then just taking the result and saying "meh, that feels like it could be right," he is actually robbing you of your ability to solve problems. Your characters static numbers don't mean anything when the numbers that the DM is using to challenge your numbers against are being pulled out of a hat.
Not really. I mean it's a little nitty, but i think it highlights the difference in style which might be puzzling to you. None of us know the rules very well at all. We're aware we're almost certainly doing them wrong though and that's cool - no matter what RPG we play, we put only the vaguest amount of effort into learning what the exact rules actually are and then go from there.
(None of that is an attempt to argue that it should be done that way, merely an attempt to clarify what "I want a DM-as-arbiter and I prefer rules to be treated just as guidelines" means).
That's fine. There is nothing WRONG with that kind of story telling session where everyone is basically just winging it and having a good time. Hell, I've done that before. With the right people it can be a hell of a lot of fun. But the game could be tweaked and evolved and that wouldn't really even effect that kind of game style much if any. In fact, the system you use wouldn't even be a big factor in the types of stories you can tell.
However, pathfinder doesn't present itself as a vague storytelling guideline. Players who come to play D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun or whatever, have a very reasonable expectation that the game they will be playing is actually the game they signed on for. As a DM who runs games both with friends and with random people at coffee shops and book stores, it is important to me that the rules are actually rules. I offer my players a detailed fantasy setting to explore and put challenges they can overcome in that world. As soon as I start fudging dice and being inconsistent with the rules, they are going to call shenanigans. And rightfully so. Because they aren't signing up to play that game. They want their choices to have an influence on the setting and plot and to be able be proactive and to overcome challenges in a meaningful way. That requires rules. They also want the rules to be arbitrated quickly to keep the game moving at a reasonable pace. That requires rules that are concise.
Yeah - I'm not a fan of making up stories without any structure, but I do prefer (as both player and DM) flexible guidelines rather than set-in-stone rules. (I see it as something of a continuum, really).What is restrictive about set in stone rules? Okay, obviously something that is inflexible is inflexible, but ask yourself this, what exactly about set in stone, inflexible RULES makes for inflexible STORIES. We all want to tell really interesting stories. If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading Mistborn. The magic system (aside from just being REALLY cool) has strict rules that govern it. Yet those restrictions didn't actually confine the story.
Restrictions are what make stories interesting. A rule is restrictive by nature. But what can be accomplished with that rule is not necessarily. When a rule is clear and well written, it becomes very inflexible in how it works, but very flexible in the types of stories it can tell. LESS flexible, perhaps. But not inflexible.
Sure. I'm not pretending that my way = better stories. All I meant was that I prefer playing in a game where the DM describes something (like a long underwater tunnel or something) and if we decide to swim up it he's free to say "roll less than you constitution on 2d10 or you'll drown" or to enter into a whole series of swim checks or something - depending on his mood and/or how he thinks it will play out best.
It's merely a preference - partly driven by the time-poor nature of our group I suspect, but also because that's what we used to do "back then" and it's just what we're most comfortable with.
It doesnt feel that way to me. When we DM we're generally reasonably consistent, I guess. However, the main point of difference between how you play and how we do(I suspect) is that we dont know the rules very well, so when something comes up and the DM says "Roll a strength check" we dont notice if two months ago an identical situation came up and he said "Roll an athletics check". It also makes zero difference to us if climbing a slippery wall in the dark succeeded last year when we rolled a 17 but failed this year.I'm going to guess that when you roll for initiative your DM isn't cool with you using +3 in one battle and +18 the next just because it's only a guideline after all right? On the other hand you seem to be okay with a DM who just makes up an initiative score for NPC's regardless of what the actual initiative score would be for that NPC. My problem with that is that now both the NPC's initiative AND the players initiative are now meaningless. If your DM makes up an initiative score (or an AC or DC for a spell or whatever) and then asks you to roll some dice, he is asking you to waste your time.
When a DM flip-flops or can't decide what checks to use and what or DC should even be, he removes the players agency. By having you roll and then just taking the result and saying "meh, that feels like it could be right," he is actually robbing you of your ability to solve problems. Your characters static numbers don't mean anything when the numbers that the DM is using to challenge your numbers against are being pulled out of a hat.
I dont mean to give the impression that it's as extreme as pulling numbers out a hat. Quick monsters tend to go first in initiative order, strong/fit characters tend to run further/longer than unfit ones.
It's not a totally incoherent world of randomness where assumptions are routinely violated - it's just not necessarily exactly the same as last time. It'll be in the ballpark though, it's just the mechanics might be a little different.
That's fine. There is nothing WRONG with that kind of story telling session where everyone is basically just winging it and having a good time.Not really. I mean it's a little nitty, but i think it highlights the difference in style which might be puzzling to you. None of us know the rules very well at all. We're aware we're almost certainly doing them wrong though and that's cool - no matter what RPG we play, we put only the vaguest amount of effort into learning what the exact rules actually are and then go from there.
(None of that is an attempt to argue that it should be done that way, merely an attempt to clarify what "I want a DM-as-arbiter and I prefer rules to be treated just as guidelines" means).
I'm obviously not explaining myself very well. Our sessions are not like the bolded at all.
Hell, I've done that before. With the right people it can be a hell of a lot of fun. But the game could be tweaked and evolved and that wouldn't really even effect that kind of game style much if any. In fact, the system you use wouldn't even be a big factor in the types of stories you can tell.
I think this is definitely true. Although I have no real interest in nutting out what the rules are or exactly what they mean - it's pretty irrelevant to me if other people do. (I actually get quite a lot out of reading the various rules discussions - not because it impacts on how I run my game, but merely as "food for thought" when it comes time to make a ruling on the fly).
I certainly agree that the system is irrelevant to the story. Everything I play is set in Golarion - it might be DCC, 4E, Pathfinder or Swords and Wizardry (there's a decent chance I'll go back to rolemaster at some point - if we do, we'll still be playing Paizo APs and modules, I suspect).
However, pathfinder doesn't present itself as a vague storytelling guideline. Players who come to play D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun or whatever, have a very reasonable expectation that the game they will be playing is actually the game they signed on for. As a DM who runs games both with friends and with random people at coffee shops and book stores, it is important to me that the rules are actually rules. I offer my players a detailed fantasy setting to explore and put challenges they can overcome in that world. As soon as I start fudging dice and being inconsistent with the rules, they are going to call shenanigans. And rightfully so. Because they aren't signing up to play that game. They want their choices to have an influence on the setting and plot and to be able be proactive and to overcome challenges in a meaningful way. That requires rules. They also want the rules to be arbitrated quickly to keep the game moving at a reasonable pace. That requires rules that are concise.
Yeah, that all makes sense. FWIW, the bolded is not the expectation at our table (some of our players could literally not tell you what ruleset we were using), but in the context you play in, I can see that clear rules would be useful.
My whole entry to this thread was purely in response to: "I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules?" I'm not arguing that the rules-are-guidelines-to-be-followed-discarded-amended-at-will position is best for everyone (or even for most people). It is nonetheless what works best for us (whether we play a system like AD&D, in which such an approach is built in or whether we play a game from the 4E/PF end of the spectrum). I may have misunderstood, but it seemed you thought that position was incoherent - I can see that it wouldnt be very palatable to you, my only point is that I dont think it's nonsensical (clearly!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMing is part talent and part skill. If you lack the "GM Spark," you'll never be a good GM. Sorry. But even one with the talent can improve in skill. If someone is a "horrible" GM, they should not GM--they will not get better, it is impossible.
If someone is merely "eh" or "not great" or something, they can get better, and will if you give them the chance.
Hey! I vehemently disagree with this, both in the specifics of DMing and the general attitude. If it can be done, chances are anyone can learn to do it. Don't rule out people that are 'horrible'. We get better with practice.
Strictly from my own perspective, I think my initial attempt at being a DM was pretty horrible, and I learned a lot from it. I've gotten better, but still make plenty of mistakes, and we have fun regardless.
...FWIW, the bolded is not the expectation at our table.
And that's cool. There is no reason it has to be.
My whole entry to this thread was purely in response to: "I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules?" I'm not arguing that the rules-are-guidelines-to-be-followed-discarded-amended-at-will position is best for everyone (or even for most people). It is nonetheless what works best for us (whether we play a system like AD&D, in which such an approach is built in or whether we play a game from the 4E/PF end of the spectrum). I may have misunderstood, but it seemed you thought that position was incoherent - I can see that it wouldnt be very palatable to you, my only point is that I dont think it's nonsensical (clearly!).
No, I don't think it's nonsensical. Just very strange. The concept of someone who handles disputes is an arbiter. There is no confusion there. What seems strange to me is that without rules and only guidelines, he doesn't have a clear standard to use to make a judgement. Any judgement he makes (even if most of them use a clear standard and only some do not) are just kind of a gut feeling. Which you pretty much said you were cool with. Our positions don't actually collide. My group can try to stick to the rules as much as possible, discuss them, evolve them, etc. And your group can take a more relaxed approach. Our views don't require any compromise to coexist. We have opposed views, but opposed views that play nice with each other. For me, that pretty much ends the debate.
(I have to agree with GrenMeera that you are one of the more respectful people I've talked to about this. The usually response I get is something closer to "I hate you for wanting to play that way and I hope demons come to your house and steal all your bacon and nutella.")
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE the OP: The framework (not the 'code of Hammurabi' XD) is shoddy, needs patches in certain places and has various holes which doesn't hold up the entire structure. Why can we not discuss a broken framework?
|
And that stabbing would be well earned.
But at the end of the day, there is only one way to avoid rules disagreement in any game.
Have a person who is the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed.
The GM.
These fights all revolve around players not being willing to submit to the ruling of a GM, on either side of the debate.
All this would be real nice if all GMs were perfect beings, far from the many flaws of typical human beings.
Of course, since everything is "players' fault" in your world, then I guess the players do not partake of that same perfection that inhabits the GM.
I am left wondering what happens in such a world when a GM becomes a player. Does he suddenly lose all grasp on reality ?
And what of a player who becomes a GM ? Does he suddenly gets elevated above the common masses to some exalted state of omniscience and omnipotence ?
Let us be real. Players will be willing to "submit" to the ruling of a GM if their opinion is taken into account, if the GM shows them some respect and if the GM proves worthy of the players' respect.
RPGs really are closer to democracy than to any kind of GM-dictatorship.
|
|
The OP skillfully ignores that sometimes people do not see any problem with the rules (ie, no houseruling needed), but still so happen to have a different opinion of what the rules actually say.
The real problem, as mentioned by another poster in another thread, is difficulties in communication. Stopping short the discussions does not solve these problems. In fact it only makes things worse.
My "Fuzzy Friendly Rant" was directed only at a certain type of over the top, unproductive, minutia-based quibbling.
Discussion, questioning things, holding Paizo's proverbial feet to the fire, and disagreement never found themselves in my crosshairs.
GMing is part talent and part skill. If you lack the "GM Spark," you'll never be a good GM. Sorry. But even one with the talent can improve in skill. If someone is a "horrible" GM, they should not GM--they will not get better, it is impossible.
If someone is merely "eh" or "not great" or something, they can get better, and will if you give them the chance.
Hey! I vehemently disagree with this, both in the specifics of DMing and the general attitude. If it can be done, chances are anyone can learn to do it. Don't rule out people that are 'horrible'. We get better with practice.
Strictly from my own perspective, I think my initial attempt at being a DM was pretty horrible, and I learned a lot from it. I've gotten better, but still make plenty of mistakes, and we have fun regardless.
I would argue that you weren't actually horrible. You are basically arguing here that the concept of "talent" is false (since you suggest anyone can learn anything), and I just can't get on board with that.
mpl, this "anyone can learn" goes to what I call the "art/craft" divide.
Talent is generally about art.
Skill is generally about craft.
A skilled practitioner of just about anything can get the job done. Just about anyone can become skilled if they put in the time and effort.
A talented practitioner of just about anything has a natural knack and ability that was not necessarily learned. In general talent can't be taught, and when someone discovers a talent for something it is recognizable by everyone almost immediately.
For example, I play guitar. I can handle a whole lot of guitar "skills" including a pretty large array of chords, riffs, finger picking and techniques (like hammer-on, slide, pull-off, etc.)
But I have no actual talent, so while I can play, there's nothing I do that is really special. A friend of mine who has never "learned" anything about the guitar can pick one up and immediately start doing interesting and entertaining things with it.
It really bugs me. :)
Anyway, Gamemastering is like most things. You can do it purely on a craft level, but the great GMs are the ones with a talent for it.
GMing is part talent and part skill. If you lack the "GM Spark," you'll never be a good GM. Sorry. But even one with the talent can improve in skill. If someone is a "horrible" GM, they should not GM--they will not get better, it is impossible.
If someone is merely "eh" or "not great" or something, they can get better, and will if you give them the chance.
Hey! I vehemently disagree with this, both in the specifics of DMing and the general attitude. If it can be done, chances are anyone can learn to do it. Don't rule out people that are 'horrible'. We get better with practice.
Strictly from my own perspective, I think my initial attempt at being a DM was pretty horrible, and I learned a lot from it. I've gotten better, but still make plenty of mistakes, and we have fun regardless.
I would argue that you weren't actually horrible. You are basically arguing here that the concept of "talent" is false (since you suggest anyone can learn anything), and I just can't get on board with that.
Thank you.
I look at talent in much the same way as in-game ability scores and skills check interact. Any character can get a +5 to a particular skill. Some at level one, and others might need to be level seven or above, but all can learn to be functional. I think people are the same way.
Those without talent will never be able to reach the same performance level as those with talent that devote equal work, but both can learn to play "Johnny has gone for soldier" well enough that it is enjoyable and moving. I will agree that there are some exceptions, but they are few and far between, in my own experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I joke around with my friends that "Back in my day, you didn't find NORMAL people to game with, much less hot college-aged chicks with Dr. Who fetishes. You gamed with society's cast offs, because they were the only people willing to bring up their character in a public place. You gamed with the smelly guy, the 300 lbs. Wiccan with 20 lbs. of mascara, and the dude who peed himself a little every time he tried to talk to a woman. And you just kept growing that colony of weirdos until someone lassoed another couple of regular people into the group. Then, when you had three or four people who all showered, they snuck away together and formed a real group."+100
...
I am now happily married with two kids, but I still have to fight the reflex to, "Never, ever speak the terms dungeon, dragon, armor class, alignment or elf in mixed company. Never mention that you game until you've been dating at least six months, AND IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, Never introduce her to your group until they have all showered and changed clothing.
Fun times. Fun times.
LOL!!! Lots of people thinking they are "cooler than the average gamer"!
I don;t discuss my roleplaying adventures with my wife (she thinks this isht is corny) and I hide all my miniatures in the closet until game-day.
That being said, all groups have the negative members who take things too far- the devil worshiping rock n' roll crowd, the weird non-bathing gamers, the prejudice -/bully jock, wanna be rap gangsters, overly religous goons, etc
So, where do I send the new keyboard too?But what about the people who are having fun wrong? How do they know unless we tell them so?Milk shot out of my nose.
This might be the greatest post ever penned.
My keyboard will wear the dairy like a badge of honour!
|
|
All this would be real nice if all GMs were perfect beings, far from the many flaws of typical human beings.Of course, since everything is "players' fault" in your world, then I guess the players do not partake of that same perfection that inhabits the GM.
I bet such well reasoned responses serve you well in getting along with your peers, and in letting your GM know exactly how flawed they are.
Why, I can't imagine why anyone would find such an approach disruptive (s)
|
Rules lawyers getting flack on an internet forum is a fairly interesting form of hypocrisy.
Well, in my eyes it's a natural reaction to some rule lawyers' arrogance to tell us that we're doing it wrong if we're not doing it according to the rules.
Though to be honest, I could live without both kind of arguments.
I'm going to be totally honest and say that I don't think I would be happy married to someone who didn't roleplay. I'm kind of shocked other people involved in such a life-consuming hobby could.
Most hobbies are life-consuming. You just have to be willing to let each other carve out that hobby time. It's super-convenient when they are the same, true, but it is not at all insurmountable when they are not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it really strange when people want DMs to be arbiters and to have final say but also want the rules to be vague guidelines. What is he arbiter of if not the rules? Is he the arbiter of fun?
I've found that it's usually GMs who want the rules to be "guidelines". Having a game with "guidelines" gives the GM a lot more power than having a game with "rules". In a game with rules, a GM is a president. He has a lot of power, but he has to follow the constitution.
In a game with "guidelines," he is a dictator. Sometimes you may find a dictator that gets along with your group, and that's great. But other times you don't, and maybe, instead of looking for a nicer dictator, you should consider having a president.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ugh I keep trying to harness my nerd rage in order to get going in this thread but you guys keep changing subjects so I am only at like nerd rage level alpha six and I need to be more at like omega protocol orange before I can really throw down
ugh I keep trying to harness my nerd rage in order to get going in this thread but you guys keep changing subjects so I am only at like nerd rage level alpha six and I need to be more at like omega protocol orange before I can really throw down
Keep your blonde wig and lipstick handy.
Its on now!
Its on now!
Its on now!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep your blonde wig and lipstick handy. Just in case.
ugh I keep trying to harness my nerd rage in order to get going in this thread but you guys keep changing subjects so I am only at like nerd rage level alpha six and I need to be more at like omega protocol orange before I can really throw down
Always.
He's always the dictator. No matter how many rules there are or how strictly they're followed, he still controls everything. He designs the world. Sets the plot. Creates the challenges. Decides how everyone and everything reacts to what you do.
Tis a good point.
I try to avoid bugging the DM that much, since their time investment and stress in dealing with player's bullshit is many factors beyond what a player ever has to contend with.
It's voluntary, and it's generally a thankless position to be in, which is why it is so hard to find the right masochist for the job at times.
There have been a lot of posts in this thread that have cracked me up. Thank you.
That being said, when I was doing strictly home games, I had very little use for this forum. Logic, fun, and the SRD were enough to drive it all. When I switched to PFS, I started using this forum a lot. The actual nitty gritty rules became more important, and this is an excellent resource to help clarify them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I joke around with my friends that "Back in my day, you didn't find NORMAL people to game with, much less hot college-aged chicks with Dr. Who fetishes. You gamed with society's cast offs, because they were the only people willing to bring up their character in a public place. You gamed with the smelly guy, the 300 lbs. Wiccan with 20 lbs. of mascara, and the dude who peed himself a little every time he tried to talk to a woman. And you just kept growing that colony of weirdos until someone lassoed another couple of regular people into the group. Then, when you had three or four people who all showered, they snuck away together and formed a real group."
I am going to print this (with an appropriate picture) and post it on my wall.
Best laugh I've had all day. Still scarily true at times.
|
|
He's always the dictator. No matter how many rules there are or how strictly they're followed, he still controls everything. He designs the world. Sets the plot. Creates the challenges. Decides how everyone and everything reacts to what you do.
If you can't trust him to be fair and run the game so it's fun for everyone, then it doesn't matter how strict the rules are.
You never realize how much this is true until you run. If you don't trust your GM, go watch a movie or something. There are better ways to occupy those hours...
|
I joke around with my friends that "Back in my day, you didn't find NORMAL people to game with, much less hot college-aged chicks with Dr. Who fetishes. You gamed with society's cast offs, because they were the only people willing to bring up their character in a public place. You gamed with the smelly guy, the 300 lbs. Wiccan with 20 lbs. of mascara, and the dude who peed himself a little every time he tried to talk to a woman. And you just kept growing that colony of weirdos until someone lassoed another couple of regular people into the group. Then, when you had three or four people who all showered, they snuck away together and formed a real group."I would think the obvious solution, rather than offering to GM or whatever, would be don't roleplay with troglodytes.
I still see plenty of people like this. It's why my group and I are sooooo damn picky about new members.
I hear so much about these gamer stereotypes and have for 30+ years. My gamer groups have been a little geeky or nerdy, but I've never played with anyone that meets these extreme stereotypes. My gamer groups have always included gamers with pretty much normal inter-gender relatinships, normal jobs, normal interests and normal social interactions.
I will admit that I've seen some players in some game stores that seem to match some of the stereotypes but I've always managed to avoid them somehow.
|
|
Netflix!
I have a projector hooked up to a halfway decent surround sound system in my basement run through my Wii. Also have an X-Box set up, and they have tons of first releases and movies that aren't on netflix for about 4 bucks a pop. Had a buddy over last night and after we put the baby down we watched "Machete"
Projector was one of the best purchases I made since I moved into the house. My wife was a skeptic about it being all "college" but she fully admits now it is awesome.
|
|
I hear so much about these gamer stereotypes and have for 30+ years. My gamer groups have been a little geeky or nerdy, but I've never played with anyone that meets these extreme stereotypes. My gamer groups have always included gamers with pretty much normal inter-gender relationships, normal jobs, normal interests and normal social interactions.
I will admit that I've seen some players in some game stores that seem to match some of the stereotypes but I've always managed to avoid them somehow.
Then consider yourself lucky! I've seen people throw their books upon a character death, experienced some pretty funky smells, had people who weren't allowed to eat at the table to to abysmal table manners and knew one guy who routinely stole from... just about anything.
And none of that covers the IN character oddness. We had one guy (guy 1) who had a crush on another guy (guy 2). Guy 2 was cool with it and took it as a compliment but calmly explained that the feelings weren't returned. All was cool. Then Guy 1 created a female character who had a very obvious attraction to Guy 2's character in-game. Things got a bit odd then. I've also had the guy who always turns on the party and the guy who does annoying things just because he can do them like use ALL of his movement on his movement focused monk every turn.
It's been a fun ride :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for the minor necromancy. Took me a while to read through the whole thread.
All this would be real nice if all GMs were perfect beings, far from the many flaws of typical human beings.
*Snipping the sarcastic attack*
Let us be real. Players will be willing to "submit" to the ruling of a GM if their opinion is taken into account, if the GM shows them some respect and if the GM proves worthy of the players' respect.
RPGs really are closer to democracy than to any kind of GM-dictatorship.
Uh... I don't think Ciretose thinks all GMs are perfect.
Okay, so everyone's human and even GM's make mistakes. But you know those advice threads to new GM's where people say "if you get questioned about the rules during a session, make a temporary ruling to keep the session flowing and look it up later"? So imagine that two players are having a disagreement with each other about he rules. The GM's approach should be "Look, both of you may or may not be right. For now, let's just do it this way so that we can get back to having a fun session."
Okay Myst, but what if the player is disagreeing with the GM? Well, unless they both want to argue endlessly for the rest of the night, someone will have to be right. So the GM gets the tiebreaker vote so that people can move on. If the player has a big enough problem with it to bring it up later, they can review the rules and make a more permanent decision after the session. Sometimes this means coming up with a situation where the GM says "look, you ended up being right. But we're too far into the campaign now to retroactively change things. If this comes up again, now I know the rules. But as for this one ruling, it stands." Sure, it sucks when it happens, but I'd rather play for two more hours than stop the game because I (or worse- someone else int he group) has a rules disagreement. Even if the ruling is against me because of that.
But Myst, what if happens a lot more than occasionally? What if the GM is just being a jerk all of the time?
Well, at that point we go to the other solution that Ciretose seems to advocate: if you are a player at a table and you're not having fun anymore, your personal interests (as well as the table's) would best be served by bowing out. It sucks not to play but if you're not having fun then there's no point in playing, right? Better to bow out before things get ugly, especially if you're playing with friends. You have a better chance of staying friends with the members of your group by bowing out (politely) than you do by trying to take on the GM of the table.
As you said- it comes back to trust. Either you trust the GM to his players (IE you) well, or you don't. If you trust him, then accept his rulings. Sometimes they'll be wrong, but nobody's perfect right? And we want to keep the game moving. Afterwards you can explain things and (since you trust him to be reasonable) he'll listen. The two of you can go from there.
If you DON'T trust him, then you're going to end up arguing with him at the table a lot more. If the player and GM can resolve things quickly- all fine and dandy. But (as a piece of advice) I'd really try to work on communication and come to terms, because having an adversarial relationship with someone you're trying to have fun with isn't going to work long term. And if the player and GM can't agree to things quickly, then the game gets decidedly Less Fun for everyone. That's the point you should consider bowing out. You'll be happier in a group that's closer to your play style. You'll still be friends with the old group. That's really the best case scenario in a situation like that.
Do I have that about right, Ciretose?