| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the GM does, there isn't.Incorrect. Unless the GM leaving destroys the group somehow, there is still a game.
Let's make this straight, we're not talking about no games occur. Rather the game that was pitched by the GM doesn't occur. Other games may indeed be played, but under a different premise, different GM, whatever. What is at stake is the particular game under consideration.
Of course, if that happens to be the only game that GM wants to run and nobody else is willing to take up the screen and GM, that may put an end to playing for a while. I know that's often not the case... but it sometimes is.
To illustrate, if I want to run a Caesar's Legions in Gaul campaign and pitch the idea of players being legionnaires, auxiliaries, or other specialists in Caesar's armies, there will be certain thematic limitations applied to the game. Lots less spellcasting, particularly of the flashy types. No firearms. If some player insists on playing a gunslinger with firearms, my requirement that there are no firearms isn't going to budge. If he won't budge, he won't play. If, for some reason, he can't be left out, that game goes on the shelf. I'm not going to run it with firearms. Someone else needs to pitch the game they want to run. If nobody does and I don't really want to run anything else right now, we either watch movies or play board games.
|
I think if we were to stop using absolutist arguments here, this thread would screech to a halt.
Every poster here, that I've seen, has already stated that discussion and compromise are how things almost always shake out. The only person who continues to bring it up -- even though, because it's been stipulated to by every party, it's irrelevant -- is Adamantine Dragon.
Apparently he finds something ineffably thrilling about continuing to state the ways in which he and his group are so much better and more reasonable than the rest of us ... because, you know, they do exactly the same stuff the rest of us do, I guess?
It's just another variation on the "I wouldn't play with you guys" theme. Just repeated every third post.
So, the "compromise and move on" phase is done. We all agree. The only fact in contention at this point is "who has the ultimate power over the content of a game?" So that's the argument I've presented.
Well Jeff, if you guys keep running into this issue, then I stipulate quite directly my group games better than yours.
And if you don't, then what the hell is this argument even about? Other than rhetorical chest thumping I mean.
And if you don't, then what the hell is this argument even about? Other than rhetorical chest thumping I mean.Increasing my post count.
Is there any actual value on these boards to having a high post count? Other than simple bragging rights that is. I know some boards actually do provide some benefits for high post counts, but I didn't think this one did.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well Jeff, if you guys keep running into this issue, then I stipulate quite directly my group games better than yours.
(1) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
(2) "If you guys keep running into this ... " Even though I said, maybe two posts up, that it almost never happens. Yet another: "My game is too good for you" post.
(3) Obviously some people do have significant problems with player-entitlement (or believe themselves to be entitled, which is the same issue from the player's POV).
In which case, yes, your group is probably a better group, but that doesn't mean you are superior to the person asking for guidance or opinions, however much you keep saying so. (Deny it all the like, but when you keep calling other people "absolutist nutcases" and similar, it's exactly what you're saying. And you know it.)
And if you don't, then what the hell is this argument even about? Other than rhetorical chest thumping I mean.
(1) It's about which party -- the GM or the players -- has ultimate authority over the content of a particular game. Not over the activities of a gaming group. Not over the people comprising that group. Over the content of a particular game.
(2) Rhetorical chest-thumping is fun. Literal chest-thumping hurts my knuckles.
Well, I'm referring mostly to one particular poster's comments. Almost everyone here has agreed that compromise is the best route forward. It's just that his definition of compromise seems to be "the GM bends over and takes one for the team".
No, Kthulhu, my definition is that SOMETIMES "the GM [ALSO] bends over and takes one for the team." Instead of "the GM [NEVER] bends over and takes one for the team."
Jeff, I'm truly sorry that you feel my description of my gaming and my group somehow implies an insult of your gaming and your group.
I personally believe the insult is inferred.
And while I could come up with all sorts of personal observations about your character (as you have done with mine) to explain that, I prefer not to.
|
|
Jeff, I'm truly sorry that you feel my description of my gaming and my group somehow implies an insult of your gaming and your group.
Well, if you're truly sorry, maybe you'll take away this point: I have absolutely no problem with your characterization of your gaming group. I also have a fantastic group that I'm proud to have been a part of my literally decades now.
My problem is with your characterization (and thus dismissal) of those people, or the people they're representing by posting here, who are less fortunate than us as "absolutists nutcases" and similar phrases.
If somebody isn't as fortunate as we are, whether with a player or as a player, that doesn't make them less than us, and it's actually counter-productive to imply that they are.
We have great groups. Let's talk about how great our groups are, and why and how, rather than speculatively denigrate the players of other groups. Okay?
I personally believe the insult is inferred.
It's definitely inferred. You do realize that inference doesn't preclude implication, right?
And while I could come up with all sorts of personal observations about your character (as you have done with mine) to explain that, I prefer not to.
Probably wise.
Well, I'm referring mostly to one particular poster's comments. Almost everyone here has agreed that compromise is the best route forward. It's just that his definition of compromise seems to be "the GM bends over and takes one for the team".No, Kthulhu, my definition is that SOMETIMES "the GM [ALSO] bends over and takes one for the team." Instead of "the GM [NEVER] bends over and takes one for the team."
Actually, I believe he is referring to Scott.
|
Actually, I believe he is referring to Scott.Well, I'm referring mostly to one particular poster's comments. Almost everyone here has agreed that compromise is the best route forward. It's just that his definition of compromise seems to be "the GM bends over and takes one for the team".No, Kthulhu, my definition is that SOMETIMES "the GM [ALSO] bends over and takes one for the team." Instead of "the GM [NEVER] bends over and takes one for the team."
Ding ding!
Does anyone remember the name of that soda that was green and had so much sugar in it that it made your teeth ache and caused you to stay up half the night?
I don't remember it, but my liver probably does.
|
|
Seriously what's next?
DM: There is a giant troll that walks through the forest towards you
Player: No there isn't. You're being a tyrant and dictating the game too much and being a control freak. I say it's a horse.
Player 2: Actually I say its a frog
Player 3: No I say its a bunny
Player: Ok are we all agreed then? Now its a bunny.
"Next"? It's already happened. Not only are there indie RPGs out there that do this -- unsurprisingly, some that don't have GMs -- there are tools that move this way for traditional RPGs (such as Plot Twist cards).
I'd be terrible at them (not because I'm not capable of spontaneity and ad-libbing, but because I'm a control freak), but I do understand the appeal and I have no doubt that they're fun for the groups that play them.
Anyway, this isn't intended to refute or support your point, but just as information.
They cannot come to an arrangement.
While this may happen, one factor that I have seen roundly ignored by some (not you!) people in this thread is that the GM being willing to discuss his reasoning rather than refusing to do so makes this impasse less likely to occur at all.
|
|
I have zero issues with playing by the DM's rules, and have rarely met gamers in my age category who do. I've had character concepts shot down before, and I have TONS more that I'd like to play. Re-file nixed concept, pull out new one, move on.
I'm totally down with a Benevolent Monarchy when it comes to gaming.
-Vaz
Invariably, there is ALWAYS "that guy" who wants to be the Paladin in Skull & Shackles, the drow in Council of Thieves, the ninja/samurai/Tian Xia native in Jade Regent, etc. etc.
|
|
[T]he GM being willing to discuss his reasoning rather than refusing to do so makes this impasse less likely to occur at all.
I haven't seen it ignored. I've seen it discussed. Most people agree with you. As do I.
I have seen arguments about when the "why" itself might be problematic -- such as giving away spoiler info -- but I don't think I've seen anybody who will disagree with the premise that a GM who is able and willing to discuss reasons for decisions is a better GM, with happier players, and fewer problems.
It just seems so obvious and so settled, I'm not sure why it even needs to be said (again), honestly.
But I do miss stuff. Unless I'm directly involved in an exchange, as soon as I see something eye-roll worthy in a post, I tend to skip to the next post.
[T]he GM being willing to discuss his reasoning rather than refusing to do so makes this impasse less likely to occur at all.I haven't seen it ignored. I've seen it discussed. Most people agree with you. As do I.
[snip]
It just seems so obvious and so settled, I'm not sure why it even needs to be said (again), honestly.
As the perspective has been repeatedly advanced in this thread that asking for the GM's reasoning is a ridiculous and time-wasting player-entitlement ploy... yeah, it needs to be said.
However, I edited my post to make it clearer I wasn't referring to you. Within 30 seconds of posting, dang it. Stupid fast-moving threads! My MO is kind of to post right in the middle of thinking things through and then touch it up a bit after.
|
|
As the perspective has been repeatedly advanced in this thread that asking for the GM's reasoning is a ridiculous and time-wasting player-entitlement ploy... yeah, it needs to be said.
Well, those must've been posts I skipped. I tend to be even harsher on posts "on the same side" as I am, because it hurts my logical brain when folks use the wrong reasons to reach the right conclusion.
(In the interests of full disclosure, though, I should say that I believe "I really don't like X as a class/race/whatever" is a full and valid response to a "why" ... )
However, I edited my post to make it clearer I wasn't referring to you. Within 30 seconds of posting, dang it. Stupid fast-moving threads!
Oh, I didn't think you were directing it at me. I automatically assume everybody thinks I'm awesome.
My MO is kind of to post right in the middle of thinking things through and then touch it up a bit after.
Mine, too, if only because I inevitably have to fix typos that would otherwise make me look stupid. (Stupid but awesome, of course.)
(In the interests of full disclosure, though, I should say that I believe "I really don't like X as a class/race/whatever" is a full and valid response to a "why" ... )
I'm cool with this. Like apparently half of the people in this thread I despise gunslingers (or more accurately Paizo's gun rules), and would excoriate them with prejudice from the face of any campaign I ran. I would also however be open to explaining this to a player and if he really wanted we would probably work together to create firearm rules that both of us could live with.
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.
But if the GM can't just adapt or bite the bullet and allow something different, he's just being a strong GM, right?
Besides, all this does is force you to answer the question of whether the situation would be the same if the GM were using a published campaign setting (which is to say, the GM didn't put more work into it).
Actually, I believe he is referring to Scott.Well, I'm referring mostly to one particular poster's comments. Almost everyone here has agreed that compromise is the best route forward. It's just that his definition of compromise seems to be "the GM bends over and takes one for the team".No, Kthulhu, my definition is that SOMETIMES "the GM [ALSO] bends over and takes one for the team." Instead of "the GM [NEVER] bends over and takes one for the team."
It really doesn't matter who he's referring to. Literally no one in the thread has advocated what he's saying has been advocated. Which makes me wonder why he's repeatedly tried to act like it has.
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 ...My opinion on this is heavily biased by the fact that in every game I've been in, none of the (home brewed) campaign settings sprang forth fully grown as Athena from Zues' head. Yes, through the course of many games the world became developed and things that may imply restrictions may have formed. But if the DM can't adapt a half-paragraph idea to fit something a player wants to play then I believe the DM is the one being a poor sport (unless like Adamantine Dragon's example in another thread which had no dwarves but the concept seems to have been "all the dwarves have been murdered and you are going to restore them").
But if the Player can't adapt a half-paragraph idea to fit something a dm wants to fit into his world then I believe the Player is the one being a poor sport.
And no one has said the GM should be a tyrant either. Or advocated tyranny, but that keeps coming up too.
When I talk about the GM acting like a benevolent tyrant (which I've done all of once), I'm talking about the sort who lives by the "You'll take what I give you and like it, or you'll find another GM," attitude. Which is an attitude shared by a number of posters here.
And I've explained this three times now, so I'm not sure what excuse you have for perpetuating anything to the contrary.
But if the Player can't adapt a half-paragraph idea to fit something a dm wants to fit into his world then I believe the Player is the one being a poor sport.You're right, I should have phrased it differently. They're both being bad sports.
Or to put it another way, as a gm, if the player isn't willing to,work with me to make things fit in my world, then I'm not particularly inclined to work with him to fit his concept.
|
|
More like landlord.That doesn't strike me as a great relationship analogue for a bunch of friends playing a game, either. (Though my landlord is fantastic.)
But it usually goes best for everyone if everyone tries to get along and adapt to each other.I agree, as long as you make sure to apply this to the GM as well.
Best landlord I ever had was my buddy when I rented a room in his house.
But it was always his house, and I always respected that.
More like landlord.That doesn't strike me as a great relationship analogue for a bunch of friends playing a game, either. (Though my landlord is fantastic.)
But it usually goes best for everyone if everyone tries to get along and adapt to each other.I agree, as long as you make sure to apply this to the GM as well.Best landlord I ever had was my buddy when I rented a room in his house.
But it was always his house, and I always respected that.
My landlord actually is a good friend of mine. There's a red accent wall in the dining room. He really likes it, but he let us know before we moved in that we could repaint it if we wanted to. Fortunately, we're cool with it, so we just repainted it with the same color to fix a couple blemishes. So yeah, his condo, but both sides of the arrangement recognize the value in compromising with the other. At no point could I ever see him responding to one of our requests with, "You'll take what you've got and like it, or you can find a new place to live."
|
|
And no one has said the GM should be a tyrant either. Or advocated tyranny, but that keeps coming up too.When I talk about the GM acting like a benevolent tyrant (which I've done all of once), I'm talking about the sort who lives by the "You'll take what I give you and like it, or you'll find another GM," attitude. Which is an attitude shared by a number of posters here.
And I've explained this three times now, so I'm not sure what excuse you have for perpetuating anything to the contrary.
Actually, that's just a tyrant. Nothing benevolent about it.
be·nev·o·lent
/bəˈnevələnt/
Adjective
Well meaning and kindly.
(of an organization) Serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.
Synonyms
charitable - kind - benign - benignant - kindly
Actually, that's just a tyrant. Nothing benevolent about it.
It's benevolent in the sense that the GM in question is under the impression that he's doing the player a favor by running the game, or by allowing them access to certain options, etc.
That may not be how others see it, but it's how he sees himself.
But as you said, his condo. If you painted without asking, or more egregiously made demands that he do things because you were "entitled" to them, he just might.
I would be astonished if, at the very least, he didn't talk it over with us and try and come to a compromise. But we certainly wouldn't try to change something significant in his condo without running it by him first.
Coincidentally, this is pretty close to how I'd like to see GMs handling things.
|
|
It really doesn't matter who he's referring to. Literally no one in the thread has advocated what he's saying has been advocated. Which makes me wonder why he's repeatedly tried to act like it has.Actually, I believe he is referring to Scott.Well, I'm referring mostly to one particular poster's comments. Almost everyone here has agreed that compromise is the best route forward. It's just that his definition of compromise seems to be "the GM bends over and takes one for the team".No, Kthulhu, my definition is that SOMETIMES "the GM [ALSO] bends over and takes one for the team." Instead of "the GM [NEVER] bends over and takes one for the team."
Perhaps I'm just confused by the fact that in every post of yours I've read on this topic, you are calling for the GM to bend to the player's will, with nary a mention of the player conceding ANY ground to reach an amicable solution.
|
|
But as you said, his condo. If you painted without asking, or more egregiously made demands that he do things because you were "entitled" to them, he just might.I would be astonished if, at the very least, he didn't talk it over with us and try and come to a compromise. But we certainly wouldn't try to change something significant in his condo without running it by him first.
Coincidentally, this is pretty close to how I'd like to see GMs handling things.
It's almost as if my comparison was apt :)