Why are players today so entitled?

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

even with a sandbox

you are still preparing multiple possible scenarios in advance. unless you are really good at creating spontaneous numbers on the spot, like tuesday tony was.

[kyrt-ryder]

Stefan Hill wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I think this might be a conflict of GMing styles. Personally speaking at least, I'm not interested in telling a story. I'm interested in creating a story with the help of my players. I play the world, they play the main characters of their own story (not of the world, just their own personal story with who knows how many other stories going on around them- mostly in the background but perhaps occasionally having a slight convergence) and together we see what happens.

If I'm sand-boxing then 'see what happens' is fine but if I'm running, say a Paizo AP, then there is a story and hopefully at the end of the AP the players all have a sense of what it was and the part they played.

Point taken. The Adventure Path gameplay style is pretty foreign to me because I'm so much more interested in watching a story write itself than presenting an existing one for players to fill in the gaps.

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Stefan Hill wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I think this might be a conflict of GMing styles. Personally speaking at least, I'm not interested in telling a story. I'm interested in creating a story with the help of my players. I play the world, they play the main characters of their own story (not of the world, just their own personal story with who knows how many other stories going on around them- mostly in the background but perhaps occasionally having a slight convergence) and together we see what happens.

If I'm sand-boxing then 'see what happens' is fine but if I'm running, say a Paizo AP, then there is a story and hopefully at the end of the AP the players all have a sense of what it was and the part they played.

Point taken. The Adventure Path gameplay style is pretty foreign to me because I'm so much more interested in watching a story write itself than presenting an existing one for players to fill in the gaps.

i beleive adventure paths are good for 2 things

a crutch for newbie DMs who need a quick campaign in a can

or

dungeonmasters who don't want to learn the skill, dedicate the time, nor devote the effort effort to run a sandbox.

i can understand it for insecure newbies to build skills over time

but the other thing, just proves lazy DMing.

[thejeff]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I don't know.

If the question is, "Is the player entitled?" (a yes-or-no question) ... "I don't know" is a clear answer.

I'm not sure which way though. Was I saying they were entitled or not?

You'll also notice that I asked for follow up information. I didn't know, because I didn't know all the facts. If I couldn't take the level of sorcerer, but my buddy the full-time sorcerer could go right ahead and take another level, I'm wondering why. He doesn't have magic either.

[TOZ]

...

[kyrt-ryder]

I wouldn't quite say that Lumi. There are a lot of DMs who lack the talent (not skill, talent. I'm not sure this is a skill that can be learned...) to run a spontaneous sandbox, and don't have the time to prepare one. That doesn't make them lazy.

[Rynjin]

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

i beleive adventure paths are good for 2 things

a crutch for newbie DMs who need a quick campaign in a can

or

dungeonmasters who don't want to learn the skill, dedicate the time, nor devote the effort effort to run a sandbox.

i can understand it for insecure newbies to build skills over time

but the other thing, just proves lazy DMing.

Or, you know, they get run because they're fun to play.

But you stay up there on your high horse.

[iLaifire]

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

i beleive adventure paths are good for 2 things

a crutch for newbie DMs who need a quick campaign in a can

or

dungeonmasters who don't want to learn the skill, dedicate the time, nor devote the effort effort to run a sandbox.

i can understand it for insecure newbies to build skills over time

but the other thing, just proves lazy DMing.

Yes, as a player I would rather have no game to play in at all rather then have a DM running store bought adventures. Also, if a woman doesn't have time to spend 20 hours a week in a gym and the money to buy the most fashionable clothing I don't want to date her.

[thejeff]

Stefan Hill wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

The issue with that is that it was all risk, and no reward whatsoever. That's why I don't really agree with your "Rule 0 is the only rule, respect it" approach as a whole. The rules are there to protect the players from a GM as well. If you tried to Rule 0 that a Skeleton had an instant death no save touch attack at +30, I think I'd be very well within my rights to say 'Okay first off, skeletons can't do that, secondly, that ability doesn't exist anyway, and thirdly, that's f+!+ing ridiculous".

I agree only IF that sort of power was completely over the top given the level/context of the game. So killer GM syndrome aside, what is the problem?

I would like to think my players would be thinking "Did you see what that skeleton just did? Do we have a plan B considering I'm buggered if I know what we are up against!" I would say as soon as such an ability is used it DOES exist, in your game. The idea that just because a player doesn't understand something or the GM doesn't adheres 100% to the 'rulez' the GM is wrong, bad, or insane is the 'player entitlement' issues I encounter. I like surprises, and with a little bit of trust in your GM they can add to the game.

And no I don't think that automatically means a PC can EVER learn such a power - unless the GM thought it appropriate.

Aren't there already plenty of powers that monsters have that PCs can't take? What's one more?

The skeleton is bad monster design because it's got an overpowering attack and no defenses. There's no level it's an interesting challenge for. You could make a just as broken skeleton for all practical purposes using powers used by other monsters.

Assuming of course that it's otherwise a normal skeleton. If it's a giant basilisk skeleton or something and has hps/AC etc to make it a challenge for high level PCs then it's not so bad.

[Fake Healer]

Wow. A lot of elitist bs going down....
Some people use adventure paths because they don't have the available time to create a fully fleshed out story or world for PCs. Calling people with difficult jobs, a couple of kids in various activities, and way too many things that NEED to be done, lazy is stupid. I am an experienced DM/GM that doesn't use the paths as a "Newbie Crutch" and can and have run sandbox campaigns in the past. I use the Paths as a tool to help me facilitate a game world where I can throw my limited time into making up creative replacement foes, little side-quests, and tailored encounters to lessen the "on the rails" feel of being on a Path.
Please stop acting like "my way is right and anyone who can't do it my way is lazy". Screw that noise.

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

my buddy, tuesday tony

though he wasn't a very experienced DM at the time

had amazing sandboxing skills

he could improvise countries, cities or continents on the spot, create spontaneous monster/NPC numbers on the spot, even if they didn't correlate to hit dice.

he could improvise XP as he saw fit

and could weave a fresh world together quite well, that allowed PC actions to change the course over time, and felt quite beleivable, even if a little unrealistic or impossible at times.

he used 3.5 and may have had a few heavily unbalanced homebrew classes/races.

such as a tenken class that was a better monk than the freaking monk. by simply swapping out a few features (like spell resistance or ki strike) for the ability to flurry with any weapon they are proficient in (even in light armor), real full bab, perpetual air walk at thier absurd land speed as an extraordinary ability, and move as a swift action without provoking a limited number of times per day (1 ki per flash step). the downside of the class was it's d6 hit dice, limited Ki pool and it's multiple attribute dependancy (int instead of wis). instead of getting immunities, it got int to saves. int tertiary instead of wis tertiary. it could also recover ki through confirming critical hits, dropping a creature below 0 hit points, or inflicting a coup de grace on a helpless foe. another downside was you had to specialize in a single weapon group. it's flurry mechanic was also the 3.5 version that stacked with 2WF and worked with 2handers (including all 2hand goodies).

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

iLaifire wrote:

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

i beleive adventure paths are good for 2 things

a crutch for newbie DMs who need a quick campaign in a can

or

dungeonmasters who don't want to learn the skill, dedicate the time, nor devote the effort effort to run a sandbox.

i can understand it for insecure newbies to build skills over time

but the other thing, just proves lazy DMing.

Yes, as a player I would rather have no game to play in at all rather then have a DM running store bought adventures. Also, if a woman doesn't have time to spend 20 hours a week in a gym and the money to buy the most fashionable clothing I don't want to date her.

well. i agree that a storebought adventure is better than no adventure

but if i had the choice of Kyrt's Sandbox or some Guy Running RotRL anniversary edition for a third group. i'd choose the sandbox any time.

but if the AP were the only thing available, i'd still play it.

i like being able to leave an impression on the setting. AP's don't let that happen. too railroady.

[GM_Beernorg]

And there it is, well said Fake Healer. Plenty of very experienced and damn good GM's, including myself, use both AP's and work very hard on their own worlds and sandbox games. I think some folks soap boxes need to bet shortened a bit. And just for you Mr. Steffan, the horrible horrible post has gone bye bye.

[Freehold DM]

This thread makes me laugh.

drive by posters make me cry.

[GureiKun]

Allright! I'm a noob, i've obviously not read every single post in this thread (just the first page), and i MAY have had to doublecheck the meaning of verisimilitude <.<...

all that said i am loving pathfinder! I am a player in a local group and a GM a game with my ex gf and her best friend on roll20, so i thought i'd chip-in with my two cents or so, based upon experiences "at the table".

Without a doubt there are bad players and bad GMs... i'll admit i've never seem a bad GM (self flattery much?), however there is one player in my party who i really find to be a bit of an annoying player. She's why the OPs comments (despite thier flaws) resonated with me so much. This particular player routinely pouts and goes in a mood whenever any other player is able to do somthing her character can't. At our last gamming session she refused to move over to flank some kobolds to avoid frendly fire; all because this would mean she didn't take any direct offensive action for 1 round when the rest of us would "get to do somthing".

In short i think the annoying players are the annoying people, and both groups are almost always self centered. All the OPs examples basically come down to that i think?

When it comes to GMing i have an intersting example. One week it was just me and the rouge (my fav party member to roleplay with!), and we went on a little side adventure with a hired monk (healbot <.<) in tow. Well after a 7hour session me and the rouge finally got knocked out with only a few enemies left and our hireling still standing. Needless to say we were both a little peeved - though not "stroppy". While we were grabbing a pizza after the GM told us to "have our characters leveled up for next week" then he grinned.

So we each got up to level two a session early, and not only that we knew all week that we weren't "dead" afterall. However when the rest of the party finally found us we were buck naked and had absolutely no equipment, and the hireling was gone!!

Did the rouge or I bat an eyelid?... well ... yes!... but did we complain endlessly?... ok ... maybe just a little bit :P

But was it tottaly awsome? yes!... when i stop and think what made looseing all my stuff awsome it was because i knew i could trust my GM not to completely screw me forever and that i might therefore have a chance to pick up a few choice items again if i keep my eyes open. Even if i never do i'll still think it was a cool way to give us repercussions for getting KO'd as level 1 characters.

finally i'll end with a tip my GM gave me for my first session on roll20 as a GM... "you've got absolute power, you're god. If nobody is playing with you, then you know you're doing it badly!"

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I wouldn't quite say that Lumi. There are a lot of DMs who lack the talent (not skill, talent. I'm not sure this is a skill that can be learned...) to run a spontaneous sandbox, and don't have the time to prepare one. That doesn't make them lazy.

i guess there is a point there

maybe i overgeneralized

i don't think i have to talent to DM.

but if some new DM decides to write his own sandbox, sign me up. i'm not a fan of neither having the capability to choose my route, nor influence aspects of the world.

i miss tuesday tony's games. too bad his grandpa forced him to move.

[Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus]

"Entitled" that word just seems rather dirty, like it is innately undeserved. Perhaps player standards are just changing?

You have the standard to be able to make this post, well I would say you feel entitled. So try again and start over with a new thread.

[iLaifire]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

The problem is that because players have been given a much stronger codified framework (as opposed to what a 1E DM may have just kept in his head) and a staggering number of rules-legal choices, players think that the GM's power and say over his or her game has lessened. Players think that "power in the game" is a zero-sum proposal, so if they have "more," the GM must have "less." It's not true, and the 3E designers never intended that interpretation of the gift they were giving to players.

In 1E, a player actively and explicitly had to go to the GM to ask how to do something, in-game, because it simply wasn't codified. From the player's perspective, this meant the GM had immense power.

In 3E, so much of that stuff is codified that the players no longer have to go to the GM to ask how to do something. They can look at the rulebook.

What players don't realize is that the real power inherent in being a GM is, and has always been, "can my PC do this?" (with the answer depending on many, many factors, not all of which the player will or should be privy to), rather than "what is the rule to do this?"

I'm sorry, I'm going to use you as the example as you pretty much sum it up the best. This seems to be evidence in favour of GM entitlement and being upset that the game is becoming more fair. I'm not saying there aren't entitled players out there, because they do exist(there was a game I was in where a player wanted access to powerful magic items one session in). But the majority of the old GMs complaining that modern players are feeling entitled to things seem to be mostly upset because they no longer are getting away with doing anything they want and being required to play fairly.

[kyrt-ryder]

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I wouldn't quite say that Lumi. There are a lot of DMs who lack the talent (not skill, talent. I'm not sure this is a skill that can be learned...) to run a spontaneous sandbox, and don't have the time to prepare one. That doesn't make them lazy.

i guess there is a point there

maybe i overgeneralized

i don't think i have to talent to DM.

but if some new DM decides to write his own sandbox, sign me up. i'm not a fan of neither having the capability to choose my route, nor influence aspects of the world.

The good pre-written campaigns (such as the Adventure Paths) actually do a pretty good job of disguising the rails and providing the illusion of choice, while allowing the DM enough freedom to have the world react to the limited real choices made on those rails.

Granted, such a game breaks a lot easier of a player isn't 'on board,' so to speak, but that's the price you pay for convenience.

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

at least i am not using backstory as an excuse to pick up a +5 holy avenger falcata at 1st level.

and just because some of my 'humans' may have real cat ears doesn't mean they are picking up an additional perception bonus.

and i don't use 'cute' as a means to get a charisma bonus, the most i would do, is have a fauxlita ignore the disguise penalties for disguising herself as a child due to her small frame and youthful features. only because she already appears young enough anyway.

i might explain a characters cuteness as attributed to their high charisma or high perception bonus as attributed to their unusual feline ears.

[thejeff]

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

i guess there is a point there

maybe i overgeneralized

i don't think i have to talent to DM.

but if some new DM decides to write his own sandbox, sign me up. i'm not a fan of neither having the capability to choose my route, nor influence aspects of the world.

i miss tuesday tony's games. too bad his grandpa forced him to move.

I've never been fond of the full blown sandbox. I like there being an overarching plot. Usually a main villain with cunning schemes to thwart.

Not a railroad. (Or at least not one whose rails I can find.) The villain has a plan. There's a hook, or multiple hooks, to get the PCs involved and then they react to each other. The story adapts to what the PCs do, but it's not the complete blank slate of the traditional sandbox. One way or another you're going to stop the bad guy or die trying, but how you go about it is up to you.

You can't really do too much of that in a published AP. It's too easy to get off track. A good GM can do good job of hiding the tracks and a certain amount of adapting the game to the crazy stuff the PCs try, but at some point it becomes as much work as writing your own campaign.

But mostly sandboxes just aren't my thing.

[Stefan Hill]

thejeff wrote:

The skeleton is bad monster design because it's got an overpowering attack and no defenses. There's no level it's an interesting challenge for. You could make a just as broken skeleton for all practical purposes using powers used by other monsters.

Assuming of course that it's otherwise a normal skeleton. If it's a giant basilisk skeleton or something and has hps/AC etc to make it a challenge for high level PCs then it's not so bad.

I have no idea what the skeleton in question can or cannot do? If for arguments sake and I did want such a creature it would be there for a purpose there wouldn't be a 'no win' situation set-up where the players had to stand-up fight such a monster without preparation time.

In character (Level say 2) if I saw a Skeleton walk into town and just start touching people and they fall down I would be getting quite nervous. A challenge doesn't have to mean, out with toy soldiers and the battle mat, look up the CR and work out the party has a 78.65% chance to win the encounter. In my (personal) experience I have found that my players that have complained the most are the ones who believe that all you need to 'win' PF is a highest DPR or best SoS spells. So as GM I reserve the right to (not over use) place unique (meaning mine) creatures that need to be overcome with more than just game rules alone - meaning the grey matter between my players ears. I make no apologies for this.

I think the specific example is clouding the point. The point being GM's shouldn't be afraid to use their imaginations and to bend/break the rules as required.

I have always held that PLAYERS HAVE RULES and GM's HAVE GUIDELINES.

[Liz Courts]

Locking thread. Here are the messageboard rules, since apparently people forgot about them in this thread:

Messageboard Rules wrote:

In order to keep our messageboards friendly and fun, here are some reminders about our policies:

• Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
  
• Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
  
• Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
  
• Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
  
• Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
  

Violating any of these rules may result in suspension or permanent removal from our messageboards.