When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick?


Gamer Life General Discussion

451 to 500 of 1,184 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

TOZ wrote:
Once you start arguing, you have already lost.

(( Looks at religion, looks at government. ))

Indeed


Now, RadiantSophia, do you really think giving everyone sticks won't lead to a free-for-all melee that ends in tears?
:)


kmal2t wrote:

lol its a function of the game??

So is the banker in Monopoly a tyrant too for holding the money and not letting everyone else handle the money?

Is the referee in football or basketball a tyrant?

Is the guy who flips the little hourglass thing in games then tells you your time is up a tyrant too for lording over the other players and telling you how to play?

I think you have failed to grasp what I was actually saying.

Quote:
I think the word tyrant is getting thrown around way too much in gaming now just so players can get away with pretty much anything they want...

You realize that the fact that you don't even think twice about using language like "just so players can get away with pretty much anything" is evidence for my argument, right?


Bill Dunn wrote:
That's because, no matter what anyone else here is saying, you're pretty much spinning it in negative terms. We're not all shallowsoul with his abrasive phraseology. Dragonamedrake didn't say that any prospective player had to like it or be out in the cold.

"Out in the cold" here being a metaphor for having to track down a new GM who will be more accommodating, given that GMs are already fairly uncommon and GMs that don't consider their campaign world more important than their players are even less common than that.

Yes, they really were saying that their players should either like it, or find a new GM.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out what the menu is. Core PF? All PF base classes? All published PF material? Including Golarion specific material even if you're not playing in Golarion? 3rd party stuff? Old 3.5 stuff? Stuff the player just made up off the top of his head?

Somewhere in there has to be a line. Me, I'd put it wherever the GM wants it, as long as he's up front about it. Some here seem to think that banning anything is a sign of "GM entitlement", but I have to assume they'd still draw the line somewhere.

I want to play a Neutral Good Chaos Space Marine with Spider-Man's powers, Thor's strength, and telekinesis. Oh, and she's a catgirl, too.

If you don't create mechanics to perfectly mirror exactly what I want, then you're a evilbad GM, and I will badmouth you on Paizo.com.


kmal2t wrote:
I think he'd prefer to be a drama queen and cry right at the table if he didn't get his way...that or try to start a coup against his "Stalinist Hitler-Mao" GM and wear a Che beret to demand power to the people...

Hahaha oh, man.

I have to say, kmal2t, you are rapidly becoming my new favorite poster. Between this and the "Response to Female Gamer Threads" thread, I'm beginning to think it's really a shame you didn't show up earlier.


Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out what the menu is. Core PF? All PF base classes? All published PF material? Including Golarion specific material even if you're not playing in Golarion? 3rd party stuff? Old 3.5 stuff? Stuff the player just made up off the top of his head?

Somewhere in there has to be a line. Me, I'd put it wherever the GM wants it, as long as he's up front about it. Some here seem to think that banning anything is a sign of "GM entitlement", but I have to assume they'd still draw the line somewhere.

I want to play a Neutral Good Chaos Space Marine with Spider-Man's powers, Thor's strength, and telekinesis. Oh, and she's a catgirl, too.

If you don't create mechanics to perfectly mirror exactly what I want, then you're a evilbad GM, and I will badmouth you on Paizo.com.

Yep, that's definitely a reasonable summary of our argument!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

C'mon dude, tell me that wouldn't be an awesome character to play in a game based on Arthurian legend!


Kthulhu wrote:
C'mon dude, tell me that wouldn't be an awesome character to play in a game based on Arthurian legend!

Awesome, sure, but maybe a little stage-stealing, unless all the other PCs were similarly awesome.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Okay.

It wouldn't be an awesome character to play in a game based on Arthurian legend.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Its interesting that everything must be painted in it's worst possible light to make a winning argument.
That's because there is no winning argument.
Well, I think the winning argument is "It's a shared gaming experience and no one person should be dictating to others. Important decisions should be shared in advance and discussed as a group and the GM's primary role is to direct the story and be the referee during game play."

Well, people tend to think their own arguments are the winning ones. That's why we get so many people who post /thread in threads that mysteriously continue afterward.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
C'mon dude, tell me that wouldn't be an awesome character to play in a game based on Arthurian legend!
Awesome, sure, but maybe a little stage-stealing, unless all the other PCs were similarly awesome.

But isn't it their fault, as well as the GM's, for not wanting to create just as awesomesparkling vampire my little pony robot demigods to smash the carefully-crafted medieval campaign world together? I mean, one player's all-permissive fun is more important than everyone else's, right? It would be cruel to say no to anything.

We're all playing Rifts, right?


Mechalibur wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Well, I think the winning argument is "It's a shared gaming experience and no one person should be dictating to others. Important decisions should be shared in advance and discussed as a group and the GM's primary role is to direct the story and be the referee during game play."
Well, people tend to think their own arguments are the winning ones. That's why we get so many people who post /thread in threads that mysteriously continue afterward.

Well, sure... but there is more than one way of "winning".

I think my argument "wins" not because it's going to convince the folks here on the boards that they are wrong, but because my style of play tends to avoid the whole "entitled player" or "tyrant GM" issue entirely, so we don't tend to even have the problem behaviors being described at my table.

That's how I define "winning".


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And someone with a completely different opinion might have just as successful of a gaming group without any entitlement issues being brought up.


Mechalibur wrote:
And someone with a completely different opinion might have just as successful of a gaming group without any entitlement issues being brought up.

Yeah, well I still say the best approach is to improve the overall "jerk filter" of the group and you won't have to worry about "entitled players" or "tyrant GMs" in the first place.

Sovereign Court

This conversation makes me wonder about campaign worlds that have limitation imposed on them, and if players feel that they should have what they want due to it being in any official source book. The example I am using is the Dark Sun world (not the 4e version as I do not know what changes have taken place).

As it was written when it came out the world (Athas if I remember correctly) was broken off from the rest of the "known" cosmos and was basically on its own. There were no gods, only elemental powers. There were limitations that were imposed on the setting in both items, classes, races etc., and the environmental was overtly hostile. Metal and water was scarce, and guns were non-existent. Dragons basically decimated the environment due to life force being what powered arcane spells. There are all these restrictions that are being places on the players due to what the flavor of that world is. There were however new options put into place.

At that point should the GM override what the designers originally have created in order for one individual out of a group of people to get something that doesn't fit storywise in the world? Even though the other players in the group want these restrictions in place as they was to experience that world as is.

Curious to see thoughts on this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


Yes, they really were saying that their players should either like it, or find a new GM.

The choice of negatively tinged metaphor is yours. That behavior is perfectly reasonable. Nobody should be pressed into GMing something they don't want to GM. If any player or group of players wants to play something different, they need to find or be the GM that will run it.

Sovereign Court

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Well, I think the winning argument is "It's a shared gaming experience and no one person should be dictating to others. Important decisions should be shared in advance and discussed as a group and the GM's primary role is to direct the story and be the referee during game play."
Well, people tend to think their own arguments are the winning ones. That's why we get so many people who post /thread in threads that mysteriously continue afterward.

Well, sure... but there is more than one way of "winning".

I think my argument "wins" not because it's going to convince the folks here on the boards that they are wrong, but because my style of play tends to avoid the whole "entitled player" or "tyrant GM" issue entirely, so we don't tend to even have the problem behaviors being described at my table.

That's how I define "winning".

What? No tiger blood?


TOZ wrote:
Once you start arguing, you have already lost.

This IS why I allow no argument at my table.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The question is, are questions arguments?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The question is, are questions arguments?

No, they are not.


Bill Dunn wrote:
The choice of negatively tinged metaphor is yours. That behavior is perfectly reasonable. Nobody should be pressed into GMing something they don't want to GM.

Right, and this plays into the critique of gamers who overreact to having to make even small concessions. The GM, in all likelihood, will not go from, "Awesome, I can't wait to GM this game!" to "Damn, I wish I didn't have to GM this game!" based solely on having to find a place for an atypical character concept in the game world. At most, we might see the GM derive slightly less satisfaction from running the game, while the player able to use his character concept will likely being significantly more satisfied with the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The question is, are questions arguments?
No, they are not.

Depends on the type of question, eh? "Why is it that your nose is that ugly?" is an argumentative question. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
The choice of negatively tinged metaphor is yours. That behavior is perfectly reasonable. Nobody should be pressed into GMing something they don't want to GM.
Right, and this plays into the critique of gamers who overreact to having to make even small concessions. The GM, in all likelihood, will not go from, "Awesome, I can't wait to GM this game!" to "Damn, I wish I didn't have to GM this game!" based solely on having to find a place for an atypical character concept in the game world. At most, we might see the GM derive slightly less satisfaction from running the game, while the player able to use his character concept will likely being significantly more satisfied with the game.

I actively despise Gunslingers because they break one of the core defense mechanics of the game and raise a gazillion uncomfortable campaign setting questions. I actively despise Summoners because they are an overcomplicated mess of a class and the eidolon creeps me out.

Both classes are banned at my table and if I'd allow them to be not adversarial, it would make my GM'ing experience quite worse. I'm sorry, but I'm just not that selfless that I want to GM where I have to put up with stuff like that.

Luckily my players are understanding that I am not perfect and that I have my own hang-ups.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course there's a winning argument.

Consider Player1. Consider GM. They get along well. In addition to Player1, there are also Player2 though Player6, who have their PCs and are ready to play.

Player1 comes to GM with Concept X. GM nixes it. Player1 and GM discuss it, reasonably and at length. They cannot come to an arrangement. Eventually their positions are:

Player1: I don't feel like playing unless I can play Concept X.

GM: I don't feel like GMing if I must accommodate Concept X.

What happens? Assume both Player1 and GM are being truthful, non-passive aggressive, and non-acrimonious. How does it shake out?

There is a clear outcome here, however much some of y'all obviously really, really, really wish it were something different.


Is all this snide "his 'precious campaign world' talk even a little bit productive?

Face it. A well designed campaign world is the gms character, and WAY more work goes into that than to any individual character. And if a player can't just adapt and either pitch his concept in a manner that doesn't violate his dms campaign restrictions or just actually bite the bullet and try something different then he's being a poor sport. If I'm plqying in someone ese's campaign world I consider it just plain good manners to respect his boundaries. You can't always ger what you want, but if you try, sometimes, you might find, you can get what you need ...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jeff Wilder wrote:
There is a clear outcome here

Two of them, actually. The fact that you imply there is only one is the entire point Scott has been arguing.

Liberty's Edge

As an aside, is there any chance we can agree on a ban of the "Well, I'd never play with you as GM" and "I'd never let you be a player in my game" responses? Even when it's true?

Full disclosure: I've said it a time or two in the past, but it's become blindingly obvious how passive-aggressive and -- worse -- silly it is. Whenever I see someone whose opinions are otherwise reasonable and well-stated, and they throw that in there, I actually wince at this point. It's just -- even if it's true -- a credibility-killer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
The choice of negatively tinged metaphor is yours. That behavior is perfectly reasonable. Nobody should be pressed into GMing something they don't want to GM.
Right, and this plays into the critique of gamers who overreact to having to make even small concessions. The GM, in all likelihood, will not go from, "Awesome, I can't wait to GM this game!" to "Damn, I wish I didn't have to GM this game!" based solely on having to find a place for an atypical character concept in the game world. At most, we might see the GM derive slightly less satisfaction from running the game, while the player able to use his character concept will likely being significantly more satisfied with the game.

Depends on what it is. If the GM has to significantly rework the game world and/or campaign premise to fit a character it may become a game he doesn't want to play. And maybe the player has a backup idea he'll be almost as happy playing.

As a player, I want the GM to push back if my first idea isn't a good fit for his game. I don't want him to have restructure his game to accommodate me unless I'm really dead set on this character and have a way to make it fit. As a GM, I don't want the player to have to quit or play something he doesn't want, unless it just doesn't fit the game at all. Then maybe we should talk about the premise. If we're setting up a pirates game and someone desperately wants a paladin, we've got a conflict.

The problem with this whole discussion is that we're looking at the real problem case when neither side is willing to budge, when in the vast majority of cases something can be worked out. One concept can be reworked or somebody won't be that attached to the original idea. In the few remaining cases, when neither side is willing to move is when we start to get the "entitlement" claims. In those cases, where the only character a player is willing to play doesn't work in the only game or world the GM is willing to run, then someone has to lose. And it's usually going to be the player, unless the other players agree with him.

Because we're so focused on the crux, the opinions from each side come across as "GMs should always cater to the whim of the player" or "GMs are petty tyrants" and ignore the fact that both sides agree that compromise is usually good.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that you imply there is only one is the entire point Scott has been arguing.

I'm guessing that you (and perhaps Scott) believe that "the players can pick a new GM" is the other path to take.

While true, consider the fact that that "solution" ignores: (1) the other players are ready to play and -- by implication -- fine with the GM, and (2) that by requiring the other players -- the entire table -- to change their plans, Player1 is, without question, demonstrating (IMO unreasonable, but it doesn't really matter to the argument) belief in his entitlement and importance relative to the rest of the group.

And that leaves aside whether the rest of the group is even willing, but of course that doesn't much matter to your Player1.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jeff Wilder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that you imply there is only one is the entire point Scott has been arguing.
I'm guessing that you (and perhaps Scott) believe that "the players can pick a new GM" is the other path to take.

Wrong.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that you imply there is only one is the entire point Scott has been arguing.
I'm guessing that you (and perhaps Scott) believe that "the players can pick a new GM" is the other path to take.
Wrong.

So what are the outcomes?

Given the stated positions, I see two.

Player 1 walks away from the game. The GM runs for Players 2-6.

Or

The GM walks away from the game. There is no game.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
The choice of negatively tinged metaphor is yours. That behavior is perfectly reasonable. Nobody should be pressed into GMing something they don't want to GM.
Right, and this plays into the critique of gamers who overreact to having to make even small concessions. The GM, in all likelihood, will not go from, "Awesome, I can't wait to GM this game!" to "Damn, I wish I didn't have to GM this game!" based solely on having to find a place for an atypical character concept in the game world. At most, we might see the GM derive slightly less satisfaction from running the game, while the player able to use his character concept will likely being significantly more satisfied with the game.

But not all concessions are small. If a GM and player can work something out, great. Very few of us have been saying that can't or won't happen. But not all concessions are going to be small on the GM's part. Nor are all of the concessions going to have be from the GM.

Yet, you're hitting about in this discussion like all GMs who advocate that they have the final say or won't concede everything to the players are tyrants, casting non-compliant players out into the void. It's like clockwork. Rather than leaving an answer in the GM's favor sit or agreeing with it, there goes the inevitable Scott Betts post hectoring it with allegations of tyranny, power struggles, and exile.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
So what are the outcomes?

The GM gives, or the player gives.

It seems around here that the player must always give.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
The GM walks away from the game. There is no game.

I did my best to rule this one out by making it clear that there were other players, that they had acceptable characters, and that they were ready to play. (When we've had player-GM impasses -- which does only happen very rarely -- this has been the case.)

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
The GM gives, or the player gives.

"Player1 and GM discuss it, reasonably and at length. They cannot come to an arrangement. Eventually their positions are:

Player1: I don't feel like playing unless I can play Concept X.

GM: I don't feel like GMing if I must accommodate Concept X."

Quote:
It seems around here that the player must always give.

And, as much as some of y'all really, really, really wish otherwise, there is a good reason for that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jeff Wilder wrote:
And, as much as some of y'all really, really, really wish otherwise, there is a good reason for that.

Besides 'that's the way it's always been'?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So what are the outcomes?

The GM gives, or the player gives.

It seems around here that the player must always give.

It's not necessarily that binary. The GM having final authority doesn't mean the player always gives because they can both give ground on any number of issues.

But when you reach the point where the two are at ultimate loggerheads on a particular issue and one has to give because it is an issue over which there is no compromise, then it is the player who should give if that game is going to get off the ground. The whole guns issue is a pretty good one for this - either they're in the game or they're not. Or in my case, since I'd allow the gunslinger, either advanced firearms are in the game or they aren't (my position). I'm not going to budge on that. Either the player accepts that or we're not playing together in this setting. He can't force me to include them because he wants them, no matter how desperately he feels they are necessary for his concept. He will have to settle or not play because I'm not running with them. Full stop.

Is this really tyrannical? I don't think so.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The GM walks away from the game. There is no game.
I did my best to rule this one out by making it clear that there were other players, that they had acceptable characters, and that they were ready to play. (When we've had player-GM impasses -- which does only happen very rarely -- this has been the case.)

I agree that it's far more likely. It is a logical possibility however.

You had ruled out the possibility of either of the two yielding. Which as many people have pointed out, is what usually happens. The question at hand is what happens when neither party is willing to compromise. Or compromise enough to suit the other.

What happens then is that they don't play that game.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The question is, are questions arguments?

Of course the answer to that depends on how you ask the question.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The GM gives, or the player gives.

"Player1 and GM discuss it, reasonably and at length. They cannot come to an arrangement. Eventually their positions are:

Player1: I don't feel like playing unless I can play Concept X.

GM: I don't feel like GMing if I must accommodate Concept X."

Quote:
It seems around here that the player must always give.
And, as much as some of y'all really, really, really wish otherwise, there is a good reason for that.

This is only true if the premise of absolutes presented is at stake.

While that can happen, it has never actually been the case in any group I've ever played with.

There has always been a third option and the third option has always allowed the game to go on.

Because my group isn't composed of dictatorial, absolutist nutcases.

Thank God.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
And, as much as some of y'all really, really, really wish otherwise, there is a good reason for that.
Besides 'that's the way it's always been'?

Because when the player walks away, there is still a game.

When the GM does, there isn't.

It really is that simple.

Again, 99% of the time this doesn't happen. Someone gives. Both compromise. Something is worked out and the game goes on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'd like to point out that in my real world example from before, as DM I gave.

I didn't run that game.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
And, as much as some of y'all really, really, really wish otherwise, there is a good reason for that.
Besides 'that's the way it's always been'?

How about "because that game (at least between that player and the GM) doesn't occur otherwise"?

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

The question at hand is what happens when neither party is willing to compromise. Or compromise enough to suit the other.

What happens then is that they don't play that game.

I've never seen that happen. If there's a GM and enough players, the game always goes on. (That's why, when I talk about very real "player power," I'm careful to specify that it's a collective, not singular, power.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
When the GM does, there isn't.

Incorrect. Unless the GM leaving destroys the group somehow, there is still a game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Because my group isn't composed of dictatorial, absolutist nutcases.

Thank God.

I think if we were to stop using absolutist arguments here, this thread would screech to a halt.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Because my group isn't composed of dictatorial, absolutist nutcases.

Thank God.

I think if we were to stop using absolutist arguments here, this thread would screech to a halt.

Yeah, I know I've been screeching for hundreds of posts about how ridiculous it is to argue that this pasttime is overrun with tyrant GMs routinely exercising their dictatorial powers against entitled players who attempt to thwart the GM's will as a matter of personal pride.

I've never seen it happen.

NEVER. NOT ONCE.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The question at hand is what happens when neither party is willing to compromise. Or compromise enough to suit the other.

What happens then is that they don't play that game.

I've never seen that happen. If there's a GM and enough players, the game always goes on. (That's why, when I talk about very real "player power," I'm careful to specify that it's a collective, not singular, power.)

I've seen cases where one player's unwillingness caused plans to change and an entirely different game to be played.

In one case it was me. I tried, but I just couldn't cope with Champions any longer. I would have just taken a break, but they wrapped the game up and went on to something else for me.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
When the GM does, there isn't.
Incorrect. Unless the GM leaving destroys the group somehow, there is still a game.

I misspoke for brevity's sake.

There may be another game. Immediately or at some later date. It may be run by one of the original players, someone else, or even the original GM.
It will not however be that game. The one that the GM and Players 2-6 were ready to play.

451 to 500 of 1,184 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick? All Messageboards