| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, guys, if your enjoyment is so hung up with playing just this particular class, maybe complaining about "lack of flexibility" is not really something you should do.
By the way, I have a summoner in my current campaign and based on feedback on these boards, I sat down with the player and we worked out his eidolon together and went over things like summoning hordes of creatures. He assured me that he didn't want to deal with an army either and wasn't planning on playing that way.
His summoner has, so far, been a completely reasonable and balanced character. No issues at all.
Still no gunslinger in my world though. I am still dreading the day someone asks to play one...
Look, guys, if your enjoyment is so hung up with playing just this particular class, maybe complaining about "lack of flexibility" is not really something you should do.
So, in the hypothetical scenario I just went over Magnuskn, I, the hypothetical player, agreed to play according to your, the hypothetical GM's" rules, in spite of wishing that I could play something else.
That's pretty much the definition of "flexibility" in this context Magnuskn.
You are now arguing that my being "disappointed" but playing anyway is just as "inflexible" as your refusal to adjust your own rules.
Do you see why this debate has been so impossible?
I don't even give a damn about the class. I just object to DMs being so damn hardass about things.
Yeah, well. That is just another way of saying "But why don't I get to make all decisions?"
So, in the hypothetical scenario I just went over Magnuskn, I, the hypothetical player, agreed to play according to your, the hypothetical GM's" rules, in spite of wishing that I could play something else.
That's pretty much the definition of "flexibility" in this context Magnuskn.
You are now arguing that my being "disappointed" but playing anyway is just as "inflexible" as your refusal to adjust your own rules.
Do you see why this debate has been so impossible?
Okay, so because I didn't let you play the class you wanted, while still explaining in detail how I, with prior experience in seeing the class in action for a whole campaign, do not want to see it once more break a campaign and don't think I really need to invest an inordinate amount of time into fixing a class which I really, really dislike... that makes you so disappointed that you can't enjoy the whole rest of the campaign at the same level as if I'd had you let you get your way. HOW IS THIS NOT INFLEXIBLE?
Sorry, but I am really getting angry about the level of hypocrisy involved in saying something like that.
Yeah, well. That is just another way of saying "But why don't I get to make all decisions?"
No, it's not. Not at all. Just the opposite in fact.
We are now to the point where I am saying "OK, I'll play your way, but it's disappointing" and you saying that is the equivalent of you saying "my way or the highway."
Seriously. No kidding.
And that's been the point that people like me, Tri and others have been saying for days now.
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?
Um... why is he supposed to allow something based on the fact that you are SELF LIMITING yourself to just him as a GM? That's just a silly as a GM who selects one guy who has consistently shown a lack of aptitude at playing casters and a dislike for divine characters to be forced into the role of cleric.
The internet will honestly let you play literally ANY type of character you could ever dream up even Pun Pun if you wish. So clearly he isn't your only option.
The whole premise is ridiculous. Apparently, not getting to play one class makes full enjoyment of a campaign impossible. But, yeah, it's the GM who is inflexible. Pffft.
Yep. There's the attitude. Right on schedule.
Yeah, I prefer honest anger to blasé snarking.
Yep. There's the attitude. Right on schedule.
Exactly TOZ but why shouldn't you give attitude to a player who is deliberately being a jerk.
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?Um... why is he supposed to allow something based on the fact that you are SELF LIMITING yourself to just him as a GM? That's just a silly as a GM who selects one guy who has consistently shown a lack of aptitude at playing casters and a dislike for divine characters to be forced into the role of cleric.
The internet will honestly let you play literally ANY type of character you could ever dream up even Pun Pun if you wish. So clearly he isn't your only option.
Lots of things to address here Aranna.
1. Maybe I don't like playing on the computer. I like being at the table with other human beings, sharing a brewskie and talking about our kids between battles.
2. Maybe I just like the GM in question as a good friend and know how much time and effort he has invested in his world and want to make sure he gets a chance to get to do the GMing that he loves so much. But at the same time I also wish he'd learn to be more appreciative of his players so that there was more collaboration and less arbitrary rigidity.
3. Maybe I live in a tiny town and there's only five people who play and if I want to play, it's the (literal) only game in town?
Anyway, it is clear that this discussion is impossible to move from the polarized extremes and into a reasonable middle ground. The GM-is-god contingent simply will not accept the premise that a GM should try to accommodate player requests even if that means the GM might have to expand the rigid boundaries of their game playing.
But I suppose the GMs who are flexible enough and empathetic enough to their player's needs/desires have long ago dropped from this thread since they don't play the way the GM-is-god contingent continues to defend with the determination of a paladin before the gates of hell.
Yeah, well. I hate hypocrisy and strawman-ing.
Yep. There's the attitude. Right on schedule.Yeah, I prefer honest anger to blasé snarking.
Then maybe you should try not starting it Magnuskn. Seriously.
Apparently, not getting to play one class makes full enjoyment of a campaign impossible. But, yeah, it's the GM who is inflexible. Pffft.
Which, by the way, is exactly the sort of "strawmanning" that you then decry as something you "hate".
Which brings me to "hypocrisy"...
Anyway, this is clearly pointless. If you were flexible enough to address what Tri and I are saying, you would already have conceded the point.
Have fun. I'm sure that the rest of your GM repertoire is more than good enough to offset this area of rigidity, but for your players' sake, I do wish you were more open to their needs/desires.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Ergh, sorry, wall of text. TLDR-version: both sides have reasonable expectations and both sides need to be reasonable. It's called maturity and mutual respect.)
People jump to some huge assumptions about "the other side" in discussions like this. I was once accused on these forums of thwarting players' reasonable expectations because I said it was a GM's prerogative to change rules s/he didn't think worked well. What the other person (falsely) assumed is that I don't spell all of this out to my players before the campaign starts (which I think a GM should try to do).
For Way of the Wicked, I've written my own 40-freakin'-page Players Guide. It sets out not only the background information for the campaign that players need, but also two -- count them, two -- pages of House Rules, most of which are just adopting official variations on the rules, or incorporating suggested house rules from the AP. But, I have banned Gunslingers, Ninjas and Samurai. Not because I think any of them are broken, but because they don't fit with the story I want to tell with my players.
As a GM, I'm inviting you into my home. I've invested the time to read, re-read and read again 360~600 pages of adventure path material (whether it's a Paizo AP or WotW)... in addition to the rules responsible for each and every one of the PCs and NPCs that are in the campaign. I don't think it's unreasonable to set some parameters around that, as long as the players are given notice. If a player can't accept that (and there's absolutely only one character concept they can possibly imagine playing and it hinges on the one thing I've banned or changed), then I really don't want a personality like that in my home and taking up my time. I accept that for all the GMs who run campaigns in which I play; I expect players to extend me the same respect.
That said, while it's the GM's home (at least in my case), it is everyone's gaming table. Players do, shock of shocks, have reasonable expectations. They start with the core rules. IMO, a GM has an obligation to set forth any known changes to those rules at the beginning of the campaign. Once the campaign starts, it's the GM's job to (a) interpret those rules while (b) keeping the campaign moving. You can disagree with how the GM does it, and hopefully the GM isn't a tyrant (they do exist). I think the GM should listen to a player's reasonable arguments and be open to reviewing arguments here on the forums and especially FAQ responses by Paizo.
And there are ways to completely break the rules, which can require (in the case of an "entitled player") GM intervention. As an example, I played a high-level Master Transmogrifist in a 3.5 campaign. If you combine a Hydra's 12 attacks with a bone ooze's ability drain (1d6 off STR, CON *and* DEX per hit), with wraithstrike cast as a swift action (resolving each attach as a touch attack), I was able to insta-kill anything subject to ability damage. I did it... once. After I did it, I looked at the DM and I said, "I will never do that again," because I knew that although it was completely legal and within the rules, it was also completely broken. I also knew that if I didn't voluntarily refrain from doing it, the GM would have been within his rights to tell me to stop, and may have had to enact limitations/rules that could have actually ruined my reasonable expectations. A player who doesn't recognize there are situations that require GM intervention (and a change of the rules) is, I would say, an entitled player.
But, in the end, assuming everyone is inflexible and maintains their original position, there are (at least) two choices: Stay at the GM's campaign, or leave. If everyone leaves, that sucks for the GM (and should send a pretty clear message). The players who leave can start their own campaign or pick up where the old one left off (with rules they like). Or, stay at the table -- maybe the player's complaint isn't so serious after all, and they're just being whiny.
Well, that depends on if he is actually being a jerk.
Giving attitude at the wrong time just begets attitude in return. That's why I try to be neutral when discussing the game.
Oh TOZ I shall feint if you actually take a neutral position on something.
Ok say he IS being a jerk. Will you now acknowledge the right to give this player attitude?
Anyway, it is clear that this discussion is impossible to move from the polarized extremes and into a reasonable middle ground. The GM-is-god contingent simply will not accept the premise that a GM should try to accommodate player requests even if that means the GM might have to expand the rigid boundaries of their game playing.
But I suppose the GMs who are flexible enough and empathetic enough to their player's needs/desires have long ago dropped from this thread since they don't play the way the GM-is-god contingent continues to defend with the determination of a paladin before the gates of...
Likewise the "players über alles" faction will not acknowledge that the GM has the authority to not allow certain things in his campaign while remaining perfectly flexible in most other regards, as is the case with how I run my games. No, they complain about GM inflexibility while apparently not even being aware how their strawman about a player who can't enjoy a campaign fully anymore due to being denied his super-fervent wish to play just this one class and no other is just as inflexible if not more than what they excoriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, not even needs. I don't NEED anything in this game, except maybe good friends.
Well, as for me Tri, I do "need" gaming as a means of dealing with stress. I suppose some other activity could substitute for it, but everyone "needs" something that they can turn to when the rest of their life may be giving them difficulties.
In my group right now one of my players is fighting cancer. He has made it clear that gaming is one of his most pleasurable outlets to deal with the stress, pain and uncertainty of fighting cancer.
If he wanted to play a gunslinger, I'd rewrite half of my damn campaign world to accommodate him.
In a weekend if I had to.
Anyway, this is clearly pointless. If you were flexible enough to address what Tri and I are saying, you would already have conceded the point.Have fun. I'm sure that the rest of your GM repertoire is more than good enough to offset this area of rigidity, but for your players' sake, I do wish you were more open to their needs/desires.
A moment, I need to get a rag to wipe off that arrogance which is oozing out of my monitor.
A moment, I need to get a rag to wipe off that arrogance which is oozing out of my monitor.
Anyway, this is clearly pointless. If you were flexible enough to address what Tri and I are saying, you would already have conceded the point.Have fun. I'm sure that the rest of your GM repertoire is more than good enough to offset this area of rigidity, but for your players' sake, I do wish you were more open to their needs/desires.
LOL:
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye
|
Ok say he IS being a jerk. Will you now acknowledge the right to give this player attitude?
Nah. That just drags you down to his level, losing you any moral high ground you might have held. The best thing to do with jerks is to treat him the way he obviously isn't treating you, and let him hang himself.
A moment, I need to get a rag to wipe off that arrogance which is oozing out of my monitor.
Anyway, this is clearly pointless. If you were flexible enough to address what Tri and I are saying, you would already have conceded the point.Have fun. I'm sure that the rest of your GM repertoire is more than good enough to offset this area of rigidity, but for your players' sake, I do wish you were more open to their needs/desires.
LOL:
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye
Sorry, but I got a different beam in my eye than the one which is jutting from your eyesocket. Mine is wrath, while yours is pride.
Sorry, but I got a different beam in my eye than the one which is jutting from your eyesocket. Mine is wrath, while yours is pride.
Whatever makes you feel justified in your anger Magnuskn. I can't do much about that.
I'm not angry at all myself, in spite of your personal attacks. I've grown used to this response to my tendency to simply be honest and direct.
I came to post things, but frankly it looks like the situation is well in-hand.
I came to post things, but frankly it looks like the situation is well in-hand.
LOL, I'll stop now. I've more than made my case I think anyway.
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?Um... why is he supposed to allow something based on the fact that you are SELF LIMITING yourself to just him as a GM? That's just a silly as a GM who selects one guy who has consistently shown a lack of aptitude at playing casters and a dislike for divine characters to be forced into the role of cleric.
The internet will honestly let you play literally ANY type of character you could ever dream up even Pun Pun if you wish. So clearly he isn't your only option.
Lots of things to address here Aranna.
1. Maybe I don't like playing on the computer. I like being at the table with other human beings, sharing a brewskie and talking about our kids between battles.
2. Maybe I just like the GM in question as a good friend and know how much time and effort he has invested in his world and want to make sure he gets a chance to get to do the GMing that he loves so much. But at the same time I also wish he'd learn to be more appreciative of his players so that there was more collaboration and less arbitrary rigidity.
3. Maybe I live in a tiny town and there's only five people who play and if I want to play, it's the (literal) only game in town?
Anyway, it is clear that this discussion is impossible to move from the polarized extremes and into a reasonable middle ground. The GM-is-god contingent simply will not accept the premise that a GM should try to accommodate player requests even if that means the GM might have to expand the rigid boundaries of their game playing.
But I suppose the GMs who are flexible enough and empathetic enough to their player's needs/desires have long ago dropped from this thread since they don't play the way the GM-is-god contingent continues to defend with the determination of a paladin before the gates of...
Again SELF LIMITING is hardly an excuse to FORCE someone into a play style they are not comfortable with.
If you were truly friends you would find areas in gaming you BOTH liked and swallow your huge pride for a moment to try this new gunslinger online where the GMs are ready and eager to have gunslingers in their games. FORCING a GM to include content he doesn't like and as a result isn't likely to balance well is only going to damage the play experience for BOTH of you.
I AM the middle ground. I will absolutely love to work with a helpful friendly player to make whatever his concept is work within my game. BUT all I get from you is an adamant position that the GM is suppose to take one for the team regardless of how big a jerk the player is being. THAT I absolutely reject. You give me attitude as a player I am going to shut you down faster than I can say NO. AND I will be justified in doing so. Being a jerk player ruins the fun of me and all my players, you included so be ready for a GM response.
Sorry, but I got a different beam in my eye than the one which is jutting from your eyesocket. Mine is wrath, while yours is pride.Whatever makes you feel justified in your anger Magnuskn. I can't do much about that.
I'm not angry at all myself, in spite of your personal attacks. I've grown used to this response to my tendency to simply be honest and direct.
Yeah, well. If you'd couple that with a bit of humility, instead of just oozing a "I'm so much better than you" attitude like in the post I quoted above, you wouldn't need to grow used to this.
The problem here is that you feel the right to declare that you are sorry for my players because I don't accomodate every one of their desires above my own feelings, although I have made it clear several times that the few things I prohibit are the exceptions, not the rule.
If your more liberal attitude to player freedom is how you do in your games, more power to you. But you sitting like a judge on a high perch and making such arrogant judgements over other GMs opens you to criticism.
And that is, by the way, one of the things which has been prevalent in this thread. Some people arrogate themselves to judge the ( even a little bit ) more restrictive GMs as making their players unhappy, while I think no one of the "more restrictive GM" faction has said a peep about how they feel the players in your campaigns are getting a raw deal. Since you know exactly nothing about my players and how they enjoy the game, I think making such statements does not reflect at all well on your sense of fairness or humility.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I AM the middle ground.
As am I.
But you sitting like a judge on a high perch and making such arrogant judgements over other GMs opens you to criticism.
And I feel the same way about those who are more conservative towards player freedom.
Really, posting your opinion at ALL opens you to criticism. You can either respond to it, or ignore it, but it isn't going away.
OK, one last post.
Aranna, I have multiple times CLEARLY stated, once in a direct one-on-one exchange with Magnuskn that as a player I would quietly accept the dictates of a rigid GM and just play on.
In the context of what I personally think a GM should do, however, which is what this is really about, I find that sort of approach rigid and not empathetic to players needs/desires.
Your post is just another excellent example of how whenever anyone says "maybe the GM can be a bit more flexible" your response is that merely expressing a desire to play a "banned" class is somehow "jerkish" behavior and that by doing so we are attempting to FORCE (that word gets used a lot by your side) the GM to do "bend over and take one".
Fine, it's clear that this is an impossible debate because you are smashed hard up against one pole and yet you look around and somehow conclude that you are in the middle.
It's like politics. Or religion.
|
I do wonder why some in the hobby think that if the players don't bend over backwards to accomodate the DM that suddenly it means that no one will ever game again. I can tell you threatening to cancel the game if we don't follow the party line is going to get you laughed at in my neck of the woods. What all of a sudden DMs are part of some super secret order whose are limited in number. Please don't make me laugh. If gamer abc does not want to run the game anymore because his or her players refuse to follow his exact words to the then they find someone else who will. It may take weeks or months yet one can find another person to run the game. If not someone at the table who is a player will. That;s how I became a DM. Became tired of a playing with two bad Dms and decided to become one and I did.
I would be very careful before threatening a table of gamers that if it's no your way than the game ends. First make sure it's at your place. Otherwise you and your books will be standing outside in the street. Second better make sure you own all the books. A DM that tried that type of BS will suddenly find all the books he borrowed to use from his game from a player more than likely no longer able to use them. Third and more importantly if the game falls apart because of it word of mouth will get around in the gaming community and he or she will be blacklisted. Rightfully so.
I AM the middle ground.As am I.
But you sitting like a judge on a high perch and making such arrogant judgements over other GMs opens you to criticism.And I feel the same way about those who are more conservative towards player freedom.
Really, posting your opinion at ALL opens you to criticism. You can either respond to it, or ignore it, but it isn't going away.
And that's fair. However, projecting a smug attitude of "Oh, I am so sorry for your players, nyehehehe" is not making any side budge any more.
Also, I don't think there needs to be any budging, anyhow. What AD does works for his group, what I do works for mine. I simply object to his characterization that my approach is inferior to his. And his self-satisfied arrogance in conveying said opinion.
I AM the middle ground.As am I.
But you sitting like a judge on a high perch and making such arrogant judgements over other GMs opens you to criticism.And I feel the same way about those who are more conservative towards player freedom.
Really, posting your opinion at ALL opens you to criticism. You can either respond to it, or ignore it, but it isn't going away.
And that's fair. However, projecting a smug attitude of "Oh, I am so sorry for your players, nyehehehe" is not making any side budge any more.
Also, I don't think there needs to be any budging, anyhow. What AD does works for his group, what I do works for mine. I simply object to his characterization that my approach is inferior to his. And his self-satisfied arrogance in conveying said opinion.
Magnuskn, I did not say "Oh, I am so sorry for your players, nyehehehehe". For someone who expresses such indignation over strawmen and hypocrisy, you seem to have an annoying proficiency for doing the same.
What I did say is that I am certain that your other GM abilities and techniques no doubt more than offset your rigidity in this area or else you probably wouldn't have players, so on balance you probably are a better than average GM. But that doesn't mean that I still don't wish your players had a less rigid environment to play in.
You seem extremely quick to take affront on this issue Magnuskn.
|
|
And that's fair. However, projecting a smug attitude of "Oh, I am so sorry for your players, nyehehehe" is not making any side budge any more.
Oh certainly, and I've tried to keep just such wastes of text out of my posts. Not that I've noticed anyone else doing so. :(
I admit, it is very hard not to.
I AM the middle ground.As am I.
But you sitting like a judge on a high perch and making such arrogant judgements over other GMs opens you to criticism.And I feel the same way about those who are more conservative towards player freedom.
Really, posting your opinion at ALL opens you to criticism. You can either respond to it, or ignore it, but it isn't going away.
And that's fair. However, projecting a smug attitude of "Oh, I am so sorry for your players, nyehehehe" is not making any side budge any more.
Also, I don't think there needs to be any budging, anyhow. What AD does works for his group, what I do works for mine. I simply object to his characterization that my approach is inferior to his. And his self-satisfied arrogance in conveying said opinion.
Magnuskn, I did not say "Oh, I am so sorry for your players, nyehehehehe". For someone who expresses such indignation over strawmen and hypocrisy, you seem to have an annoying proficiency for doing the same.
What I did say is that I am certain that your other GM abilities and techniques no doubt more than offset your rigidity in this area or else you probably wouldn't have players, so on balance you probably are a better than average GM. But that doesn't mean that I still don't wish your players had a less rigid environment to play in.
You seem extremely quick to take affront on this issue Magnuskn.
I was conveying the attitude, not the exact words. And here's the exact quote once more
Anyway, this is clearly pointless. If you were flexible enough to address what Tri and I are saying, you would already have conceded the point.
Have fun. I'm sure that the rest of your GM repertoire is more than good enough to offset this area of rigidity, but for your players' sake, I do wish you were more open to their needs/desires.
How exactly is that not arrogating yourself to judge about my style of GM'ing, huh? Anyhow, it seems you have a large blind spot in regards to what you yourself say. I'm off to play in my second round, where I get to be the player momentarily. Hopefully that will take the edge for me off this unpleasant business from here today. Good day, sir.
You seem extremely quick to take affront on this issue Magnuskn.I was conveying the attitude, not the exact words. And here's the exact quote once more
How exactly is that not arrogating yourself to judge about my style of GM'ing, huh? Anyhow, it seems you have a large blind spot in regards to what you yourself say. I'm off to play in my second round, where I get to be the player momentarily. Hopefully that will take the edge for me off this unpleasant business from here today. Good day, sir.Anyway, this is clearly pointless. If you were flexible enough to address what Tri and I are saying, you would already have conceded the point.
Have fun. I'm sure that the rest of your GM repertoire is more than good enough to offset this area of rigidity, but for your players' sake, I do wish you were more open to their needs/desires.
OK, you have a point here. I won't even defend it. I was out of line. I hope it didn't cause too much grief for you. Enjoy your gaming.
|
It's pretty F-ing simple but some people just like to drag it out.
If there is no compromise then you as a player can decide if you want to play or not. DM doesn't have to be the one to budge but if the whole group decides they don't want to play then the game just won't happen.
Trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Magnuskn, it is highly unlikely that you would even be aware of my "disapproval". I would call it "disappointment" anyway, not necessarily "disapproval".So not only do you want the GM to bend to your will, you require him to read your mind in order to do so?
There aren't enough faces OR palms to facepalm this as hard as it needs to be facepalmed...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm not understanding the probelm here.
If I'm offering to run for my group, I will present my idea for the premise of the game, the system, and the characters that would or would not fit, and why. It will be discussed, and either approved, or we'll do something else.
Doesn't everyone do this?
The only time I've seen this problem was an existing character's death mid campaign. After everyone had agreed on the terms for what character classes were allowed, the person who's character died complained when I would not allow a class that up-front had been accepted as non-playable at the onset of the campaign. I did not bend.
he played something else.
Was this GM tyranny?
It's pretty F-ing simple but some people just like to drag it out.
If there is no compromise then you as a player can decide if you want to play or not. DM doesn't have to be the one to budge but if the whole group decides they don't want to play then the game just won't happen.
Trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
We think it's actually a much more complex issue deserving of a good deal more attention and nuance than you're willing to give it.
And, notably, we've identified the fact that you're unwilling to give it attention as one of the root causes of the problem.
Magnuskn, it is highly unlikely that you would even be aware of my "disapproval". I would call it "disappointment" anyway, not necessarily "disapproval".So not only do you want the GM to bend to your will, you require him to read your mind in order to do so?
Are you serious?
The only time I've seen this problem was an existing character's death mid campaign. After everyone had agreed on the terms for what character classes were allowed, the person who's character died complained when I would not allow a class that up-front had been accepted as non-playable at the onset of the campaign. I did not bend.
he played something else.Was this GM tyranny?
I don't know; why didn't you bend?
The only time I've seen this problem was an existing character's death mid campaign. After everyone had agreed on the terms for what character classes were allowed, the person who's character died complained when I would not allow a class that up-front had been accepted as non-playable at the onset of the campaign. I did not bend.
he played something else.Was this GM tyranny?
No.
Maybe I'm not understanding the probelm here.
If I'm offering to run for my group, I will present my idea for the premise of the game, the system, and the characters that would or would not fit, and why. It will be discussed, and either approved, or we'll do something else. Doesn't everyone do this?
One would hope! And it's not tyranny if everyone agrees, is it?
|
|
It's pretty F-ing simple but some people just like to drag it out.
If there is no compromise then you as a player can decide if you want to play or not. DM doesn't have to be the one to budge but if the whole group decides they don't want to play then the game just won't happen.
Trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
We think it's actually a much more complex issue deserving of a good deal more attention and nuance than you're willing to give it.
And, notably, we've identified the fact that you're unwilling to give it attention as one of the root causes of the problem.
Hey, don't blame your crap on me. You're just mad because I've got the balls the enforce what's already there. I offer up my game, restrictions and all, and you decide if you want to play or not if no compromise can be made.
You are basically saying that a DM needs to give up his fun and continue to spend hours working on something that he doesn't want to run in order for you to have your fun. Well I've got news for you, a DM has just as much right to decline running a game as you do playing in one.
You are the cause of the problem to be honest.