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


Gamer Life General Discussion

501 to 550 of 1,184 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
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.

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.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jeff Wilder wrote:
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.

Oh, well that's easy. The players.

Note: I consider the GM a player.


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.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

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.

Or, if you read some other posts, the GM must always give, else he's a tyrant.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Or, if you read some other posts, the GM must always give, else he's a tyrant.

I guess we read what we want to hear?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
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.)

Quote:
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.

Grand Lodge

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

It doesn't.

Shadow Lodge

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".


Kthulhu wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

Some people take one for the team when the team isn't even playing.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
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?

Quote:
I personally believe the insult is inferred.

It's definitely inferred. You do realize that inference doesn't preclude implication, right?

Quote:
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

magnuskn wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
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.

Ding ding!


If I wasn't lazy atm I'm sure I could pull out many examples of this...

but look at how ANY system describes what an RPG is. Do any of them describe the relationship between the DM and the Players as equal? The very definition of an RPG and what it is shows that the relationship is NOT equal. By the description of always being a ref of the game he is obviously not equal. If an NFL ref and the players were equal then obviously you'd never come to a decision on whether it was holding or not...that's why the ref is the final decider...except he isn't only the ref. He's the ref, the commissioner, the guy who makes the field and designs rules and brings in other players to play against you.

The fact is the DM/Player relationship is not equal and I would think most players would come into the game realizing that they concede some control of the game to the GM in order to have order because its his world and hes figuring out how to make it work so its challenging and he can still control it so it isn't chaos. He should take ideas into consideration as a fellow participant, but he is the final yay or nay on things until he gets so absurd that the players as a majority no longer want him running the game anymore. It usually would take something pretty extreme for this to happen.

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.


shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
kmal2t wrote:
Seriously what's next?

Slippery slope fallacy?

Liberty's Edge

kmal2t wrote:

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.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
kmal2t wrote:
Seriously what's next?
Slippery slope fallacy?

Slippery Slope Fallacy assumes I jumped from A to Z ...I think I jumped maybe to D at most.

We're already at them getting whatever classes and purchasable items via the CRB that they're heart desires.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

We are?

Liberty's Edge

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.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:
[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.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
Coriat wrote:
[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.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:
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" ... )

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.)


Jeff Wilder wrote:
(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.


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?

Actually, they have the potential to be. I'm not a big sports fan, but I just want to point to NFL game which had Lingerie Football League refs as replacement refs. Normally this doesn't happen in those games because there are also rules the restrict what those refs/bankers/hourglass-flippers can and can't do and no one out there will say they can make arbitrary decisions just because they are the ref/banker/hourglass-flipper.


And even with the replacement ref situation, everyone honored their position of authority and gritted their teeth with their decisions until it became so bad that people started disrespecting them and a really bad situation was eminent. With refs, players take the good with the bad. If in a game one ref calls holding different than another, players don't freak out and just throw a fit or walk out.

Player/GM is same thing. The players respect the DMs authority and deal with the good and the bad and how the DM arbitrates until he proves himself so incompetent and inconsistent in his rulings that the table degenerates into getting out of control. At that point a new DM is needed.


Duskrunner1 wrote:
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).

I'm going to quickly step aside to make a minorly related comment.

Spoiler:
For me there is a very direct correlation between the expected length of the game and the amount of restrictions I'm fine with. If I'm sitting down at a convention or a store's games day I'm perfectly fine with the DM handing me any pregen (even for a class/concept I dislike) because I will only deal with that character for a couple of hours. If the group of people I'm playing is sitting down for a game that will run for a month and end when this new game/campaign-setting/whatever is released, I'm perfectly fine with being told I can't play that character concept I want to play. But if we are sitting down to play a game with no intended end date, and the possibility of playing it for several years then I want to be able to have free choice of hat exactly I am going to play.

On the topic of campaign settings with restrictions, in general I am fine with them. My problem isn't so much the restrictions as it is the way those restrictions are handled I guess. Some examples I'm fine with are:

Spoiler:
If you come to me and say "Hey, I'm thinking of starting a Dark Sun, want to join in?" I am fine with that. I don't think the DM is being a tyrant in this case. But I expect to be allowed to say "You know, I'm not really a fan of Dark Sun, any chance you'd be interested in running a Golarion game instead?" without automatically being labeled a "entitled player".

Spoiler:
If you come to your friends and say "Hey, I want to run a Pathfinder game, is anyone interested in any specific settings?"

Spoiler:
In both of the previous examples players had input on the restrictions in advance. I'm even fine with the situation of there being a long running game with restrictions to which you invite a new player because switching settings would essentially destroy everyone else's work.


RDM42 wrote:

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).


RDM42 wrote:
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").


magnuskn wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
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.

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.


Scott Betts wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
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.
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.

And no one has said the GM should be a tyrant either. Or advocated tyranny, but that keeps coming up too.


iLaifire wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
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.


thejeff wrote:
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.


Arssanguinus wrote:
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.


iLaifire wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.)

Quote:
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.


ciretose wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.)

Quote:
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."

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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

Liberty's Edge

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.


Vaziir Jivaan wrote:
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.


ciretose wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

Coriat wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
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 or the player altering his request to something that cleaves closer to the GM's desired playstyle and/or world's flavor makes this impasse less likely to occur at all.

Fixed that for you.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
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.
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.

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.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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 :)

501 to 550 of 1,184 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick? All Messageboards