|
And if as a player, you aren't willing to give a GM the power to run the game, you shouldn't let that person be the GM.I feel that this stance (or maybe just this sentence) is too black and white for my taste.
What if I am willing, as a player, to give my GM the power to run an enjoyable game but not to run roughshod about my expectations for my character ?
In other words, is it okay for players to attract the attention of their GM to the fact that they are still by and large okay for him to continue to GM but that they do not like such and such point about the way he does it ? And to expect said GM to take their opinions into account and change the way he GMs so that they can all keep on having fun ?
I think as a player you have to set as goal #1 not ruining the fun for everyone else.
If everyone else but you is happy, you need to change, not them. Pointing out a rule is fine, arguing at the table is not cool, stopping play for everyone for any length of time to argue with a GM who made a ruling you disagree with is really not cool.
People make mistakes, the rules are hard, presumably the GM is doing the best they can and often there are things going on that you don't know about.
Put me down as a 4, with the caveat that my players are generally mature enough and responsible enough to require very little babysitting on my part.
My point ... If everything is debated, the will be very little time for actual PLAY.sometimes the debate needs to just be cut off and play resumed.
Closest numerical rating would be about a 6. Most of the lower numbers (by the descriptions) seem to privilege the rules too much over rulings, whereas they're there to provide a framework that I may have to adjust to enable what the players are trying to do.
My point ... If everything is debated, the will be very little time for actual PLAY.sometimes the debate needs to just be cut off and play resumed.
My point... mature players don't sit there and debate during the game. Mine never did. Out of courtesy to the other players, they wait until after the session. Then we discuss the issue, suggest houserules as needed, and vote on them -- with me abstaining except to break a tie.
You can do this with mature, experienced players -- but I wouldn't try it with immature and/or inexperienced ones.
I'll make a DMPC named Nigel Tufnel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I love gaming, I have a certain amount of social anxiety. It usually surfaces before and after games, but it can trigger during games when I have to deal with challenging players. I have to intentionally be assertive, it doesn't come naturally. I love debating and hate arguing. So I love a collaborative world-building adventure, and only really try to assert table-control when I'm worried a player is going to ruin the other players fun.
But I have a hard time finding the right line to take, as it doesn't come naturally. For example, how to react to a mostly reasonable argument, but with provisos the player feels are non-negotiable or he walks. Finding the right words on the spot to say that I don't find his demands particularly unreasonable, but the fact that they are demands rather than discussion makes me uncomfortable and worried about what will happens if you want something that isn't fair to the other players later.
It looks good on paper, but delivering that properly and handling the correct social behaviors later is hard, and something I still haven't got the knack for.
I want to be a 5, on a good day I'm a 3, on a bad day I'm a 1.
As much as I love gaming, I have a certain amount of social anxiety. It usually surfaces before and after games, but it can trigger during games when I have to deal with challenging players. I have to intentionally be assertive, it doesn't come naturally. I love debating and hate arguing. So I love a collaborative world-building adventure, and only really try to assert table-control when I'm worried a player is going to ruin the other players fun.
But I have a hard time finding the right line to take, as it doesn't come naturally. For example, how to react to a mostly reasonable argument, but with provisos the player feels are non-negotiable or he walks. Finding the right words on the spot to say that I don't find his demands particularly unreasonable, but the fact that they are demands rather than discussion makes me uncomfortable and worried about what will happens if you want something that isn't fair to the other players later.
It looks good on paper, but delivering that properly and handling the correct social behaviors later is hard, and something I still haven't got the knack for.
I want to be a 5, on a good day I'm a 3, on a bad day I'm a 1.
If you don't mind some advice.
Implement a rule that rule ot whatever debates happen after the game via e-mails. But during the game the group will go with what I say. I figure a e-mail conversation maybe easier on you as both sides would have time to read and respond. Also if you wait till after the game hopefuly tempers have cooled a little.
I guess I'd be best located at "6".
As much as I love gaming, I have a certain amount of social anxiety. It usually surfaces before and after games, but it can trigger during games when I have to deal with challenging players. I have to intentionally be assertive, it doesn't come naturally. I love debating and hate arguing. So I love a collaborative world-building adventure, and only really try to assert table-control when I'm worried a player is going to ruin the other players fun.
But I have a hard time finding the right line to take, as it doesn't come naturally. For example, how to react to a mostly reasonable argument, but with provisos the player feels are non-negotiable or he walks. Finding the right words on the spot to say that I don't find his demands particularly unreasonable, but the fact that they are demands rather than discussion makes me uncomfortable and worried about what will happens if you want something that isn't fair to the other players later.
It looks good on paper, but delivering that properly and handling the correct social behaviors later is hard, and something I still haven't got the knack for.
I want to be a 5, on a good day I'm a 3, on a bad day I'm a 1.
If you don't mind some advice.
Implement a rule that rule ot whatever debates happen after the game via e-mails. But during the game the group will go with what I say. I figure a e-mail conversation maybe easier on you as both sides would have time to read and respond. Also if you wait till after the game hopefuly tempers have cooled a little.
I don't mind the advice at all. I think it's a good idea, and quite workable.
I just have trouble dealing with the cool temper style, "this is what you'd need to agree to or I'm out, and I'm already cutting it back because the other players would whine" kind of deal. I would agree to it. It's quite reasonable. But I also need to shut down your powerplay because it's poison to group dynamics and I don't have the off the cuff conversational agility to pull it off.
I think once I learn to handle that, I can get the control I need to get the games running more smoothly.
I'll make a DMPC named Nigel Tufnel.
Will this be the Spinal Tap continuity Nigel Tufnel, or the earlier Lenny and the Squigtones Nigel Tufnel?
Will this be the Spinal Tap continuity Nigel Tufnel, or the earlier Lenny and the Squigtones Nigel Tufnel?
Nice! "Ming the Merciless" can be the first drum mook! (But I wouldn't want anything to happen to Peter Criss.)
Will this be the Spinal Tap continuity Nigel Tufnel, or the earlier Lenny and the Squigtones Nigel Tufnel?Nice! "Ming the Merciless" can be the first drum mook! (But I wouldn't want anything to happen to Peter Criss.)
I hear that Peter Criss says it's not him. So either he doesn't want to be associated with it or it's some unknown mystery drummer. Conspiracy theory afficionados, Activate!
Would you want to be a Squigtone? I mean, seriously.
Who wouldn't want a chance to play "Creature without a Head" or "Foreign Legion of Love"?
I have to get my turntable hooked back up so I can play the album again.
I don't mind the advice at all. I think it's a good idea, and quite workable.
I just have trouble dealing with the cool temper style, "this is what you'd need to agree to or I'm out, and I'm already cutting it back because the other players would whine" kind of deal. I would agree to it. It's quite reasonable. But I also need to shut down your powerplay because it's poison to group dynamics and I don't have the off the cuff...
I don't know your players but I do know sometimes the GM use me to support him in these areas before. Though it helps that I GM too. But sometime having players help in this regard can sorta help.
Also while I firmly believe players should have a say...I also firmly believe all players (GM included) should work together to create a game...a "my or way or I am gone" approach sometimes the best response is "Well sorry to see you go, but good luck with your future gaming".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sit at a high five or a low six. I actively encourage my players to do things that may not be in the rules, and try to find ways in the rules to make it possible, albeit at an occasionally higher difficulty.
Using shatter on a giant scorpion's stinger to deprive the beast of some ability to damage the party may be more difficult, but it's highly creative.
Throwing raw sewage at an enemy that is assaulting a party mate may not be the ideal way to bring down the enemy, but I'm sure I can drop a sickened condition on there, if only for a short time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the time players want a GM who keeps firm control of the game. When I first started GMing I was timid and let my players get anything they wanted. In return they b$%$%ed endlessly about my games and treated me poorly. Then I was watching other successful GMs and realized the one thing they all did... they all took control of their games. It was hard at first becoming firm about my game and I probably came across as a tyrant in those first days when I switched styles. I DID get a lot of whining about my restrictions BUT I noticed the b!*+$ing about game play had dropped by more than half. And with practice I can now flawlessly come across as a benevolent dictator and complaints have dropped to near zero. So don't believe players when they claim to want their way. They want you to take charge even more than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one advocates starting them all at 20th level with straight 25s in stats and a fleet of star destroyers. What is advocated is easing up on the banhammer when it comes to rules-legal options for their PCs -- being quicker to work out a solution, maybe by modifying the flavor and/or mechanics, rather than prohibit outright.
It has also been pointed out that more experienced, more mature players need strict control a lot less than do less experienced, less mature players. One style doesn't really fit all.
No one advocates starting them all at 20th level with straight 25s in stats and a fleet of star destroyers. What is advocated is easing up on the banhammer when it comes to rules-legal options for their PCs -- being quicker to work out a solution, maybe by modifying the flavor and/or mechanics, rather than prohibit outright.
It has also been pointed out that more experienced, more mature players need strict control a lot less than do less experienced, less mature players. One style doesn't really fit all.
And the other thing that could be advocated Is the payer looking for a character idea that doesn't involve the banned area among the vast and open available field of possible other concepts.
And the other thing that could be advocated Is the payer looking for a character idea that doesn't involve the banned area among the vast and open available field of possible other concepts.
I think we're all pretty much in agreement there, provided that the available options and bans are agreed upon in advance by the participants, and are consistent with the group's expectations. Example:
But when I presented my cleric, built using the races, classes, domains, etc. allowed, and announced his backstory: "My character is The Morrigan (no proper name, just a title). He has existed in the kelp grove near the undersea city since before anyone remembers [I picked the longest-lived race, a plant-like critter], speaks of himself in the third person, and claims to know the voice of the tides and the will of the sea goddess," she didn't turn around and say, "No, I didn't really expect anyone to have a cleric with divination spells, because that messes up my story line, and also you all have to be new to the city because that makes my hooks work better, and I just don't think it's realistic that (using the point-buy alloted) you put so many points into Wisdom. Redo your character or leave!" She looked over the character, saw that it was rules-legal within the guidelines given, and said, "OK, that all stands, but" [noticing my zero ranks in Knowledge (local)] "I'm going to say that, because you spend all your time growing like a plant in the Sacred Grove and communing with the currents, you're totally out of touch with the latest court gossip in the city." Looking at those zero ranks in Knowledge (Local), I of course agreed!
Notice that the ground rules were presented in advance. No one showed up with a concept that was within those initial ground rules and found that, all of the sudden, what they thought was legal was actually banned because "it doesn't make sense to me," or "it interferes with how I planned the adventure to go," or whatever. No one's character or bakcstory were altered by the GM; rather, they were made to fit.
As it is, my lower water spell and enormous Sense Motive bonus ended up circumventing parts of an adventure that were probably supposed to be more challenging, but Mundane still provided us with an extremely enjoyable game without the need to announce out of the blue that some of my spells, skills, etc. just didn't fit with what she had planned, so she was going to retroactively not allow them.
And with practice I can now flawlessly come across as a benevolent dictator and complaints have dropped to near zero.
I am sure alot of dicators can say the same thing.
I am kidding.
GMs will run the game with the amount of control required by their players.
I liken the GM's authority to the ruler's "mandate of heaven" in Chinese philosophy.
In short, the ruler has absolute power, but is obligated to use that power in a wise and virtuous way or else the people will revolt and he will have nothing.
Evil Lincoln nailed it.
|
I have a con scenario I run for a different game (not PF). The players make characters together at the table, it takes about 30-40 minutes. I've already told them who the Big Bad is going to be and a little about him. At the end of character creation, I pick a player and ask them to tell me specifically why they think the Big Bad deserves to not only die, but be erased from history.
After they describe their chosen reason, I then interpret their response into a 'weapon' that he will use (special ability, henchman, item, etc). Every game, he turns out a little different, he becomes the players vision of what he is. His actions and personality in the final fight are extremely influenced by what they tell me about him.
I like this idea, of using the player's own suggestions to mould the BBEG's methods into something meaningful to them and their PCs.
Do you ever get a player who's tongue-tied, or doesn't appreciate being 'put on the spot'?
And how do you prevent the players (especially those who know your methods) using metagame knowledge to beat the campaign? Like, all agreeing to suggest the BBEG has some hopeless M.O., or reliant on minions who are easily exploitable?
"Everyone say Lord Fang uses trained monkeys, then we'll all go out and buy a ring of animal control, and monkey-bane weapons!"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is there yet ANOTHER thread about whiny, min/maxing, over-entitled players and/or overlording, power hungry, god-like GMs? Did the universe suddenly develop a player vs GM schism within the past few months? This is like, the 11th thread I've seen just in the past couple of days on this very subject. And after skimming through most of them, 90% of the posters are all in agreement: Players talk to the GM if you're not having fun. GM's talk to your players before the campaign starts. And the GM is always in control. Period.