|
I really don't think the GM should compromise TOO much. If a GM compromises very much, then they aren't going to be as into the game as they could be. And given that their contributions color the experience for the entire group, having a GM that just isn't really into it is a LOT more destructive than having a player that has gained the same level of indifference.
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.
I'm just pushing back. In an ideal situation, both parties would be willing to accommodate the other, and it's just a matter of deciding which accommodation is best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I'm just pushing back. In an ideal situation, both parties would be willing to accommodate the other, and it's just a matter of deciding which accommodation is best.
Should the GM try to find a way to accommodate that fits within his world? Absolutely. If there are some minor - or even significant - changes made to make it work that don't harm the feel or theme? Absolutely. But if it comes down to the absolute final decision whose is it? The gms ... Absolutely.
If you invite someone to play in a game, you tell them the theme and restrictions of the game, and the first thing they do when coming in is bring a character that violates those restrictions and themes, then they have somewhat of a problem with basic human respect.
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.
As long as it is this bunny.
|
As long as it is this bunny.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.
You sure it isn't this bunny?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a couple points...I would reply directly to a couple posts...but this thread grows by leaps and bounds.
1) One thing I don't get is how a character option completely blow up a GM's story/plot/campaign. I mean do GMs really decide what exactly is going happen from the start, middle and end? If you do I can see why you can't be open minded or flexible. I mean generally I run sandbox campaigns. But if I have a idea of a campaign at most I come up with a very loose idea. IE...a military them...or the current one I am running about PCs discovering they have inherited a very magical ship from their unknown father. While I have some ideas for possible adventures...I wait till I get my players character backgrounds( either via e-mail or they can just tell me their general concept). At which point I come up with a very general outline. But I keep everything mutable and changeable...IE the idea I have for the ending can be completely different.
2) GMs need to put themselves sometimes in the player's shoes. Lets say no one in your allows guns. Do you have any idea how frustrating it for that player who wants to try something a little different? Sure it is easy for you to say "Well they can play it in some one elses game." But that player has try every other GM in the area and got either No...even with a reasonable explanation..it gets a little old. This not a reason to cave in allows guns in your game...but you can certainly empathize with this player just a little and ignore what maybe a emotional reaction on tgeir part.
3) I am known as a ban breaker by some. Generally quite by accident. I GM so when I hear that a GM bans something due be being 'broken' I generally ask Why? Because I want to know if I need to ban something. And about I'll say 75% of the time I get a story about how guy x did this with x and it completely broke the game. Knowing the rule pretty good I pick up on either a bending of the rules or out right breaking of the rules. I generally point it out to the GM and usualy they reverse their ban. I am very curious on how the GMs in this thread would react to this conversation? Please note I can also recognize some thing will be broken in one game...but not in another game due to play style also.
4) Lastly...I almost never care one way or another about banning something due to flavor. I am imaginative enough...and willing to change my veiws on this to incorporate most things in the main line of books( 3rd party stuff I take with a case by case basis..I have learned not to trust most of it). So if I am running a group and Bob wants to play a gunslinger...but I know Tim hates guns in a fantasey setting. I'll often let the group discuss it and reach a compromise and go with the players united descsion. As anybody else does this? Or even would think of it? Please note I do this via e-mails discussion so it does not eat into game time.
5) I think it was this thread...maybe it was one of the many threads on this topic...but some raise the question are their more jerk player or more jerk GMs...I have to say my trhinking it is the GMs. Power corrupts...and the GM has more power...also with great power come greater responisbility.
Every GM in this thread that has been it is always(or mostly) the players fault side believe the GMs has more power...so how do you resist the corruption of the power you claim?
So, is it okay to ban a class ( Gunslinger and Summoner for me ), because I think their mechanics are broken as hell, aside from their flavor not really fitting with the world I want to GM in? Or am I now a badwrongfun GM tyrant for some here?
So, is it okay to ban a class ( Gunslinger and Summoner for me ), because I think their mechanics are broken as hell, aside from their flavor not really fitting with the world I want to GM in? Or am I now a badwrongfun GM tyrant for some here?
Is that a response to my post?
Where did I say this?
Why are you so defensive?
|
So what are the outcomes?The GM gives, or the player gives.
It seems around here that the player must always give.
Once again, it is a stated fact that the DM is the final arbiter and once again it has already been explain why.
The problem here is the question has already been answered correctly but a few people just don't like the right answer.
So, is it okay to ban a class ( Gunslinger and Summoner for me ), because I think their mechanics are broken as hell, aside from their flavor not really fitting with the world I want to GM in? Or am I now a badwrongfun GM tyrant for some here?Is that a response to my post?
Where did I say this?
Why are you so defensive?
Not to you in particular, but I am getting more than a bit defensive because of some people just making a blanket statement that its badwrongfun to exert GM discretion.
Of course I invite detailed criticism why it would be a bad thing to ban those classes, derived upon my perception of their broken mechanics. You seemed to indicate in your post above that you can talk everybody out of banning them, so I would be curious how you'd approach talking to me about that topic.
So what are the outcomes?The GM gives, or the player gives.
It seems around here that the player must always give.
Once again, it is a stated fact that the DM is the final arbiter and once again it has already been explain why.
The problem here is the question has already been answered correctly but a few people just don't like the right answer.
Actualy it is not a stated fact...it is some way GMs choose to run their games.
I am not saying you are wrong in running your game your way...but neither am I, or I am inferring TOZ runs our game wrong.
Everything you have stated to give you the 'power' is by choice.
You buy all the books...sorry but I know players who do so too...and I know GMs and that don't have the resouces...so should the player who has the most money have the power?
You do all the work...again your choice. In my game my player do about equal work. Because it is my choice to give them this freedom.
You choose to run the game at your place...my groups tend to run it at the player's place that is most central for everyone who can host the game. We do this because it is considerate.
And finally having power does not mean you have the wisomn to use...or more importantly when not to use it.
Personaly I have no problem with how you run your game. Really I don't. My problem stems from two things...
1) The general tone of posts that a player is wrong all the time and the GM is always right. Nobody is perfect. Or are you saying this a secret GM power?
2) I actualy worry about my players who wander in games run by GM like the ones who post here and how you treat players who might question. I see things in this board the suggest immediate bans...and short tempered rude response...and even physical attacks and name calling. Atleast if one of your player end up in my game...they are treated with respect and kindness even if my liberal GM style does not work for them.
2) I actualy worry about my players who wander in games run by GM like the ones who post here and how you treat players who might question. I see things in this board the suggest immediate bans...and short tempered rude response...and even physical attacks and name calling. Atleast if one of your player end up in my game...they are treated with respect and kindness even if my liberal GM style does not work for them.
I am curious if you can point to a specific example where someone advocated ( in a serious tone ) to physically attack players who disagree with your decisions as a GM, because that sounds really quite extreme.
Consulting with the playgroup we get...
1.) If I am GM, I have the right to ban gunslingers in my world.
2.) If I am GM, I have the right to GM my world, but others are not required to play in it. If the table majority wants to play something different, we play something different.
3.) I do NOT have the right to be the GM. That is a privilege.
4.) I have the right not to GM. If the majority decide to play something different, I don't have to be the GM.
5.) I have the right not to play in something the majority decide to play (this one has, honestly, never come up. I'll still play, even if I'm only partially into the concept, and I usually end up having a lot of fun anyway)
6.) I, as a player, do not have the right to whine about what we are playing after the majority has decided.
This may mean I am entitled, or maybe the players are entitled, or something. But these are OUR table rules.
So, is it okay to ban a class ( Gunslinger and Summoner for me ), because I think their mechanics are broken as hell, aside from their flavor not really fitting with the world I want to GM in? Or am I now a badwrongfun GM tyrant for some here?Is that a response to my post?
Where did I say this?
Why are you so defensive?
Not to you in particular, but I am getting more than a bit defensive because of some people just making a blanket statement that its badwrongfun to exert GM discretion.
Of course I invite detailed criticism why it would be a bad thing to ban those classes, derived upon my perception of their broken mechanics. You seemed to indicate in your post above that you can talk everybody out of banning them, so I would be curious how you'd approach talking to me about that topic.
Actualy what you posted about the reason you banned...I don't think I would try...because I agree with them. While I have also seen a gunslinger player and have not found it as broken...as I was able to challenge the player and the group up to high levels. I realize my GMing style might be very different than yours. I have weaknesses and you have weaknesses...we both also have strengths I am sure. So the fact that you found it broken while I don't means nothing if I am a player in your game as you are the one who has to come up with the challenges.
If you were willing to talk about it I would gladly exchange my ideas with you...but my goal would not be able to change your mind but to learn from you..and hopefuly you learn things from me. If at the end of the discussion you realize maybe it was not as broken as you think...than it is ok.
I actualy kinda agree with Summoners...not that they are broken...but a Conjurer wizard or druid fill that role and it is a headache to keep a eye one. Though I have not banned it from my games as I don't ban anything till I see it in play. Also I don't rule out the possinilty someone may RP a summoner in such away that I love it.
As to flavor bans I generaly don't have a problem with. But if a GM was willing to listen I would try to rework it so they don't have a problem with. For instance if you were willing to listen and if were problem is guns are too high tech/or why would they be develope in a world with magic. I would probably propose a idea the gunslinger are actualy a kinda mystical warrior(sorta like a monk) and there guns are actualy mystical in nature. Which would also allow to change something about these 'boomsticks' as they are not guns anymore so you would not find them broken.
Now of course you don't have to go with my ideas...but letting me have my say just make me more invested in your game. And who knows you might get a idea that makes your world better.
Now if a player continue and get hostile...that is defintly a case of 'player entitlement'.
Conversly if a GM treats to even a attempt to start this discussion with hostility....that is a GM who has let the power go to his head
2) I actualy worry about my players who wander in games run by GM like the ones who post here and how you treat players who might question. I see things in this board the suggest immediate bans...and short tempered rude response...and even physical attacks and name calling. Atleast if one of your player end up in my game...they are treated with respect and kindness even if my liberal GM style does not work for them.I am curious if you can point to a specific example where someone advocated ( in a serious tone ) to physically attack players who disagree with your decisions as a GM, because that sounds really quite extreme.
It is the internet...tone is hard to gauge. But you probably right...most of them are not serious...but I still don't like the implication as even in jest it shows alot of anger over what is a game.
Also not on this particular thread...but I have seen it on other thread about those 'jerk' players as well as those 'jerk' GM threads.
Thanks for the answers, John. :)
Thanks for the answers, John. :)
Care to elaborate.
Has my weakness of arguement confirmed everything you believe?
Have I convinced to allows guns in your game?
Or as I hope have I gotten to see it my point of veiw?
No on the gunslinger. My mechanical concerns stand, since I experienced one ( Pistolero archetype ) for a full campaign. My fluff concerns also still stand.
Your "weakness of argument" as you call it just shows that none of us are perfect in regards to convincing other people. If I'd post an elaborate analysis of why the Gunslinger is a bad class, no matter how cogent I'd write, there still would be disagreements. It's the nature of debate.
I definitely see your point of view, although I disagree on the details. Discussion is a process of absorbing and integrating other viewpoints, but only to a point. Just changing your opinion outright seldomly happens and normally only if one gets confronted with overwhelming facts.
So what are the outcomes?The GM gives, or the player gives.
It seems around here that the player must always give.
Once again, it is a stated fact that the DM is the final arbiter and once again it has already been explain why.
The problem here is the question has already been answered correctly but a few people just don't like the right answer.
Actualy it is not a stated fact...it is some way GMs choose to run their games.
I am not saying you are wrong in running your game your way...but neither am I, or I am inferring TOZ runs our game wrong.
Everything you have stated to give you the 'power' is by choice.
You buy all the books...sorry but I know players who do so too...and I know GMs and that don't have the resouces...so should the player who has the most money have the power?
You do all the work...again your choice. In my game my player do about equal work. Because it is my choice to give them this freedom.
You choose to run the game at your place...my groups tend to run it at the player's place that is most central for everyone who can host the game. We do this because it is considerate.
And finally having power does not mean you have the wisomn to use...or more importantly when not to use it.
Personaly I have no problem with how you run your game. Really I don't. My problem stems from two things...
1) The general tone of posts that a player is wrong all the time and the GM is always right. Nobody is perfect. Or are you saying this a secret GM power?
2) I actualy worry about my players who wander in games run by GM like the ones who post here and how you treat players who might question. I see things in this board the suggest immediate bans...and short tempered rude response...and even physical attacks and name calling. Atleast if one of your player end up in my game...they are treated with respect and kindness even if my liberal GM style does not work for them.
Short tempered rude response? Such as "I'll work with you if you work with me, but in the end it IS still my campaign and my table and if It can't be made to fit, it can't?
|
|
So what are the outcomes?The GM gives, or the player gives.
It seems around here that the player must always give.
Once again, it is a stated fact that the DM is the final arbiter and once again it has already been explain why.
The problem here is the question has already been answered correctly but a few people just don't like the right answer.
Actualy it is not a stated fact...it is some way GMs choose to run their games.
I am not saying you are wrong in running your game your way...but neither am I, or I am inferring TOZ runs our game wrong.
Everything you have stated to give you the 'power' is by choice.
You buy all the books...sorry but I know players who do so too...and I know GMs and that don't have the resouces...so should the player who has the most money have the power?
You do all the work...again your choice. In my game my player do about equal work. Because it is my choice to give them this freedom.
You choose to run the game at your place...my groups tend to run it at the player's place that is most central for everyone who can host the game. We do this because it is considerate.
And finally having power does not mean you have the wisomn to use...or more importantly when not to use it.
Personaly I have no problem with how you run your game. Really I don't. My problem stems from two things...
1) The general tone of posts that a player is wrong all the time and the GM is always right. Nobody is perfect. Or are you saying this a secret GM power?
2) I actualy worry about my players who wander in games run by GM like the ones who post here and how you treat players who might question. I see things in this board the suggest immediate bans...and short tempered rude response...and even physical attacks and name calling. Atleast if one of your player end up in my game...they are treated with respect and kindness even if my liberal GM style does not work for them.
*sighs* Yes it is 100% fact and has always been that way. All groups do not agree and to thinkthey do would be ignorance. That s why the game has given the final say so to the GM. Now you can post a million word response but you will he waisting your finger strength because it won't change the answer. You can discuss it as a group but in the end the GM gives the word. It's in the CRB.
|
|
Does everyone here fully understand why the game has given the final say so to the GM?
I would say no due to the reaponses so maybe it needs to be repeated.
We are talking directly about what is there. We aren't discussing elaborate arguments or the wisdom of people. The game isn't a conscious thing so it doesn't know anything. It can tell if a good DM is beind the screen or the worst one in history. All the game has is a universal rule that states the DM, whoever has been assigned or taken up the duty, has the final say so. It suggests that you work as a group but from what we have seen here, everyone at times does not agree with something. You waste valuable game time when you argue so that is when the DM steps in and makes the final call.
Now opinion is opinion and fact is fact. In this situation it is a cold hard fact that the DM has the final word, it's not an opinion.
It's not a hard concept to grasp so I'm not sure where the disconnect is coming from.
The reason the gm has the final say is because the gm isnt obligated to gm something he doesnt want to gm.
The reason the player has the final say is because the player isnt obligated to play something he doesnt want to play.
That either one of these is considered 'entitlement' is absolutely true on both counts. Both are entitled to and empowered to make the final call. They both have personal authority over the scenario and neither has authority over the other.
Sadly there are scenarios where the only game in town is a game you don't want to play or the only game in town is a game you don't want to run, and sadly sometimes that means you're stuck with a gm that wont let you game what you want, but never are you stuck with a player who plays what you don't want... That's not really 'power' or 'authority' though, and anyone who delusions (deludes?) themselves into calling it that has an overdeveloped sense of self-importance.
Sometimes the only game in town isn't your game and you've got to decide if you're willing to play it or not, and its a bummer either way but in the words of a certain grandpa...
Who said life was fair? Where is that written?
on another note...
Is this a kissing book?
Oh yeah. And its a double damn shame if the only game in town is being run by some double d-bag who thinks that just because you're gaming under his roof and eating his snacks means he has 'authority'... It still doesn't mean he has any authority, but it does mean he's spent more time drinking his own koolaid than most gms, and thats never a good sign. You just have to use your personal authority to decide if you love gaming enough to subject yourself to that kinda thing.
If you DO think that you have authority over a player because when he needs to go to the bathroom its your bathroom then you are running a toilet paper dictatorship and will be henceforth known as Lord poopaper. So mote it be. May your 'empire' be covered in sh*beep*[cencored]t.
I DM a lot, and view it sort of like being the dealer at a casual poker game: if I say "five card draw, aces wild," then those are the ground rules, but it's entirely up to the players after that whether to trade in cards, how many, whether to bluff, fold, double down, or whatever.
So I tell them, "OK, we're playing Kirthfinder -- here's a CD with all the rules, or if you prefer you can duke me some cash and I'll go out and print them for you at Kinko's. In exchange for being willing to use the new rule set, you can expect the following from me:
1. Rules
2. DM enables Player Options
3. Setting Integrity
4. Accountability/Transparency
This is just how I like to do things. To make sure it works, I screen players over drinks or lunch before inviting them to the table -- lack of maturity and/or basic "jerk" behavior means no invitation. I'll pay for your meal/drink, thank you for your time, and interview someone else. Alternatively, in most cases I'll allow an existing player to vouch for a friend, and that's worked out quite well, too.
|
Once again, it is a stated fact that the DM is the final arbiter and once again it has already been explain why.So what are the outcomes?The GM gives, or the player gives.
It seems around here that the player must always give.
Like all 'facts' about the game, it can be used or ignored as needed. I know. I've done it.
EDIT: Also, what Kirth said.
No on the gunslinger. My mechanical concerns stand, since I experienced one ( Pistolero archetype ) for a full campaign. My fluff concerns also still stand.
Your "weakness of argument" as you call it just shows that none of us are perfect in regards to convincing other people. If I'd post an elaborate analysis of why the Gunslinger is a bad class, no matter how cogent I'd write, there still would be disagreements. It's the nature of debate.
I definitely see your point of view, although I disagree on the details. Discussion is a process of absorbing and integrating other viewpoints, but only to a point. Just changing your opinion outright seldomly happens and normally only if one gets confronted with overwhelming facts.
The pistolero can cause a lot of trouble. Without going into a long tangent, why not just ban that archetype? It seems to be very powerful in the hand of a player who knows what he is doing.
PS:I am just asking why ban an entire class, not just the gunslinger, for an archetype. I am not really trying to get you to allow it.
The pistolero can cause a lot of trouble. Without going into a long tangent, why not just ban that archetype? It seems to be very powerful in the hand of a player who knows what he is doing.
PS:I am just asking why ban an entire class, not just the gunslinger, for an archetype. I am not really trying to get you to allow it.
Because, while the pistolero is a bit more powerful than the core gunslinger, the base class itself is just as broken in regards to circumventing a lot of the base limitations of the game. And because my fluff concerns are not that much lower than my crunch concerns.
|
|
It was a fun game and would have been completely different if a player had demanded to play a caster. That whole part of the problem would have needed to be dropped.
Not really. He would have had to deal with the fact that none of his magic abilities worked. Not sure the character would have survived to the end, but if it had, man would THAT be a story to tell!
|
|
Unless he was an old elf or something, not only would they not work, they never would have worked. It had been centuries. Who would have taught him? How do you practice when nothing works? If he was a sorcerer, would he even have known?
Clearly not. He would be the equivalent of a commoner with a better Will save and maybe some knowledges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, is it okay to ban a class ( Gunslinger and Summoner for me ), because I think their mechanics are broken as hell, aside from their flavor not really fitting with the world I want to GM in? Or am I now a badwrongfun GM tyrant for some here?
Magnuskn, everything is more or less by degrees.
If I were a player in a campaign and the GM said "I don't allow gunslingers or summoners because their mechanics are broken as hell and their flavor doesn't really fit the world I want to run" I might have a few questions, such as:
1. Do you allow druids or summoning wizards/clerics? Because if so, it's not clear to me how that is OK but a summoner has some campaign breaking "flavor."
2. Can't "broken mechanics" be fixed at the individual character level? Surely not everything about the class is 'broken' and there should be some way to allow the class without the broken parts/spells/abilities. I'm a reasonable guy, can't we work this out?
3. OK, I totally get the "guns don't belong in my campaign" perspective, but you're the only GM I play with, and I'd really like to play a gunslinger. Are you telling me that I'll NEVER EVER get to play one?
1.) Yes. I am not too wild about a plethora of animal companions / summons on the battle field, as combat takes up already enough time of the game, but both those classes ( and Ranger ) are long established and the animal companions have always appeared balanced ( although the large cat is just so definitely better than the other animal companions that it isn't even funny ).
2.) No, I don't think so. The gunslingers base mechanic is attacking against touch AC and my experience with one for a whole campaign showed me that this is just something which utterly annihilates challenges which should have been something to occupy the whole party. Not just one time or two, but many, many times. The summoners core mechanic is his eidolon and the modular rules for it are a mess of rules lawyering and extra work waiting to happen. I am not here to completely rewrite classes for your enjoyment, when there are good alternatives you could play instead.
3.) Yes, I am telling you that. Sorry. Please look for other class choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magnuskn, while I would not react to your responses with "yes, you are a jerk GM", I am afraid that my reaction to your responses is "I find it sort of sad that you find it that difficult to be responsive to your players' needs and desires."
But I wouldn't complain and would still play, but that's primarily because I'm also a GM and I do have other options. If you truly were the only GM I had, I would find my gaming to be less enjoyable than it otherwise could be due to what I would consider to be rigid and arbitrary limitations of your GMing.
Does it matter if it's "Guns don't belong in this campaign" or "Guns don't belong in the world I've created that I run all my games in"?
3. OK, I totally get the "guns don't belong in my campaign" perspective, but you're the only GM I play with, and I'd really like to play a gunslinger. Are you telling me that I'll NEVER EVER get to play one?
Maybe, depends on if you are willing to run a module or something sometime that lets me play what you won't allow in your world.
Magnuskn, while I would not react to your responses with "yes, you are a jerk GM", I am afraid that my reaction to your responses is "I find it sort of sad that you find it that difficult to be responsive to your players' needs and desires."
But I wouldn't complain and would still play, but that's primarily because I'm also a GM and I do have other options. If you truly were the only GM I had, I would find my gaming to be less enjoyable than it otherwise could be due to what I would consider to be rigid and arbitrary limitations of your GMing.
Well, that's okay. Nobody said that every campaign and GM are for everybody. Considering that I am quite responsive to most other requests from my players ( as listed a few pages ago, I got pretty weird race/class combinations and player-beneficial homebrewn rules which came up because of discussion with my players ), I think I'll be fine even with your disapproval.
Well, that's okay. Nobody said that every campaign and GM are for everybody. Considering that I am quite responsive to most other requests from my players, I think I'll be fine even with your disapproval.Magnuskn, while I would not react to your responses with "yes, you are a jerk GM", I am afraid that my reaction to your responses is "I find it sort of sad that you find it that difficult to be responsive to your players' needs and desires."
But I wouldn't complain and would still play, but that's primarily because I'm also a GM and I do have other options. If you truly were the only GM I had, I would find my gaming to be less enjoyable than it otherwise could be due to what I would consider to be rigid and arbitrary limitations of your GMing.
Magnuskn, it is highly unlikely that you would even be aware of my "disapproval". I would call it "disappointment" anyway, not necessarily "disapproval". However, if you were to ever ASK me my opinion of your GM approach, I would tell you what I think.
If I were in one of your games I would respect your wishes and keep my opinion of your lack of flexibility to myself and do everything I could to enjoy myself as much as I could even without being able to do some stuff I think might just possibly make the game even more fun.
As I said. It's all degrees. As my dad used to say, a day of bad golfing is still a day of golfing.