oh sure I did that with Paladin in Skull & Shackles
so wait does that make me a terrible human being
or do I win
But this repeated (and, at this point, unquestionably deliberate) maiming of our positionOf course I'm maiming your position. Your position is illogical and ridiculous.
Then why do you need to misrepresent it in order to attack it?
If you're not here for honest discussion, Jeff (and, since you're acknowledging that you're purposefully maiming others' arguments, it doesn't sound like you are here for honest discussion), you'd probably be better off doing something else with your time.
|
Despite me literally having said, repeatedly, that I don't think players should always get their way - including having provided examples where I wouldn't let the player have his or her way - you're trying to tell me that I think players should always get their way?
Of course not! I am free to deny something to my players.
I mean, I don't get to decide. That would be silly. It has to have the Scott Betts Seal of Reasonableness.
But once I have that, it's all good.
I always win, and I like to share the win with you.
oh sure I did that with Paladin in Skull & Shackles
so wait does that make me a terrible human being
or do I win
shake & bake!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was one occasion where I disallowed Gunslingers, just because I hadn't played a campaign without one in forever and needed a change. To justify this, I said the players were being sent to a back-water village that has been out of contact for decades (gunpowder being a recent invention of some insane gnome wizards).
However, one player was adamant about playing a Gunslinger. He pestered me. I gave in. This is AFTER I made the plot decision. This in no way effected my writing process.
The PCs arrive in the village, and all the villagers are arguing about how to accommodate the newcomers. The Gunslinger gets the brilliant idea to fire his pistol in the air. That shut all the squabbling villager's mouths! However, not knowing what gunpowder is, they assumed he was some sort of demon and burned him at the stake (along with all his gunpowder in his power horn. They assumed the explosion was a sign from the gods).
Long story short, if you pester a GM, you might be pulling a tiger's tail. Sometimes, heaven forbid, a GM knows what will best fit his campaign.
Despite me literally having said, repeatedly, that I don't think players should always get their way - including having provided examples where I wouldn't let the player have his or her way - you're trying to tell me that I think players should always get their way?Of course not! I am free to deny something to my players.
Did you read the question you responded to? Because that response doesn't have anything to do with it. It was also asked so that Arssanguinus could clarify, which you don't appear to have done for him.
Are you sure you want to continue this? It doesn't look like you're really contributing anything to the thread's topic, and every post of yours is inching closer to personal attack territory. Maybe take a break, or something? I don't know.
There was one occasion where I disallowed <fill in the blank>, just because I hadn't played a campaign without one in forever and needed a change...
And is this what people are objecting to, with respect to GM's being inflexible? When a GM tells me about a new campaign, I usually have three or four concepts immediately running through my head, that I winnow down as I talk with the GM and see what the other players are thinking. On the other hand, one of my players in the campaigns I run has two solid concepts ready to go for a WotW campaign plus a half-dozen others less thought-out but also interesting to him.
Why is it that the one or two classes/races/books that get banned (for whatever reason, but perhaps only because the GM wants a break from them) suddenly become the be-and-end-all of a player's ability to participate in and enjoy a campaign and define a GM as being inflexible? There are like... a bajillion other classes... why does the one class/race/feat/spell that I banned reduce me to being a mean jerk? As long as I didn't ban it based out of personal animus towards the player, what does it matter? And if that singular decision is such a profound source of dissatisfaction for the player, is it not reasonable to question that player's intent? "Why, no, you cannot play a Half-fiend." "Why not!? It's what I want to play. Why won't you accommodate my self-defined reasonable desires?"
(And, mind you, I do think players have a right to expect a GM to clearly spell these things out at the beginning and not spring random changes on them mid-campaign. And, despite having said all that, I am actually looking at it from the other perspective and reconsidering my initial decision to ban ninjas and samurai from my WotW campaign. If someone can make a good story as to why a Tien immigrant winds up on a xenophobic, holier-than-thou island three weeks sail from Varisia/Cheliax... maybe I should let 'em. Or not. Fudge it. It's Friday and I need a drink.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dear god, just lock this thing already.
|
Why is it that the one or two classes/races/books that get banned (for whatever reason, but perhaps only because the GM wants a break from them) suddenly become the be-and-end-all of a player's ability to participate in and enjoy a campaign and define a GM as being inflexible?
It's not. I just think that the player has a valid point when he says 'I've had five GMs turn me down for this character, when do I actually get to play him?'
And to pre-empt the idea of 'run the game and include him as an NPC', I'll point out that most people get upset at GMPCs.
Why is it that the one or two classes/races/books that get banned (for whatever reason, but perhaps only because the GM wants a break from them) suddenly become the be-and-end-all of a player's ability to participate in and enjoy a campaign and define a GM as being inflexible?
It doesn't, by itself.
But when the GM acts like he should never or rarely have to make compromises to his setting concept to accommodate a player's character concept, and expects that players should always or usually have to compromise their character concept when it clashes with the GM's setting concept, that might lead to him being seen as inflexible.
It's not. I just think that the player has a valid point when he says 'I've had five GMs turn me down for this character, when do I actually get to play him?'
And to pre-empt the idea of 'run the game and include him as an NPC', I'll point out that most people get upset at GMPCs.
Absolutely agree on the second point. It's a bad idea for GMs to do that. I understand the desire and have been tempted by it myself, but it's just a bad idea (IMO).
As to the first, I guess I'd wonder why the player's been turned down five times for that character. ;-) Actually, what I try to do in my campaigns is leave open some pretty expansive and unusual options in some respects (and push my own boundaries/comfort zones), but maybe close off a few others. If I had a player who really had his heart set on something... and I trusted the player to work with me on integrating it into the campaign... I'd probably allow it, despite being all hard-ass in my initial house rules. But, as a GM, I've also been burned by munchkins and sliding slopes where my generosity and good-faith have been taken advantage of or opened the door to a can of worms (and bottle of Tylenol). I think experiences like that can be hard for a GM to get over, particularly with new players who are really strongly pushing one particular concept (and is why I try to be patient with other GMs).
Edit @ Scott -- As someone else said (maybe you?), for me it kind of comes down to a question of trust. Why is the player pushing this one concept so hard? The few times I've had a player do that (always under 3.5, not 3.P), it's because they had a powergaming agenda that wound up skewing the rest of the game. Maybe you've had GMs who banned things out of an arbitrary sense of power (or they really were a jerk), but maybe they had a reason they just didn't feel like explaining to a new person. I just know I'm a lot more relaxed with a player I trust, but I also feel that making exceptions for one player can lead to an expectation I'll do the same for others (and then I have to explain why Player 1's idea was good but Player's 2 is inappropriate, which isn't fun, either). It's not easy running a game, as you probably know. Trust and mutual respect makes it easier (which is why, to my fellow players' constant grumbling, I help other GMs with the rules even when it cuts against me as the player).
|
|
Absolutely agree on the second point. It's a bad idea for GMs to do that. I understand the desire and have been tempted by it myself, but it's just a bad idea (IMO).
I've done it myself with some success. But that's not the argument of this thread.
As to the first, I guess I'd wonder why the player's been turned down five times for that character. ;-) Actually, what I try to do in my campaigns is leave open some pretty expansive and unusual options in some respects (and push my own boundaries/comfort zones), but maybe close off a few others. If I had a player who really had his heart set on something... and I trusted the player to work with me on integrating it into the campaign... I'd probably allow it, despite being all hard-ass in my initial house rules. But, as a GM, I've also been burned by munchkins and sliding slopes where my generosity and good-faith have been taken advantage of or opened the door to a can of worms (and bottle of Tylenol). I think experiences like that can be hard for a GM to get over, particularly with new players who are really strongly pushing one particular concept (and is why I try to be patient with other GMs).
Yeah, I've got no beef with any of this here, I do much the same. And I have had a few conflicts with some players, although that has been more my fault than theirs I think.
No on the gunslinger. My mechanical concerns stand, since I experienced one ( Pistolero archetype ) for a full campaign. My fluff concerns also still stand.
I was not actualy trying to convince you of anything. I was just showing you my approach. I don't have enough info about your world to see if I could see a way to make it fit with your world's lore. As to your mechanical concern...which if I gather correctly is what you don't like the whole vs touch AC thing...two things I would say to that
1) You do realize it is only touch to the first range increment? So we are talking about 50' for a vehicle mounted weapon...and 40' for the musket. While spellcaster get a tone of touch spells at greater range that either do greater damage or even worse debiltrating effects. So do you ban all touch attacks from the game? If you do...awesome. I can understand that.
2) Why not just houserule guns are vs regular AC? I mean it is very simple.
Of course this does not effect your fluff reasons. And atleast for me your fluff reasons are just as sound as fluff reasons to include guns.
Anyway sorry for the sidetrack...the point is does this make me one of those 'entitled players' for bringing up these points? Would I be veiwed as a jerk? By anyone here. With the caveat I am not doing it during a game of course.
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.
It is also the nature of opinions. IE just because you found guns mechanicaly broken does not mean other do so also. And while I am not accusing you of this personaly some anti guns in PF seem to think a desire to play a gunslinger is a sign of power gaming.
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.
Oh I completely agree I doubt anybody will be swayed on either side of this debate...heck reading some of the posters whom seem to be on my side I wonder if I am on my side at times. Scott Betts I respect...but he hold so strong to his opinions that he can be really close minded about being open minded.
Anyway my goal here is just really to say sometimes the 'jerk' is not being a 'jerk'. Rather it is a GM or a player.
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?"
Um..no I would not call that a rude response at all. Did I say anything that would lead to believe otherwise?
I can live that response as long as it is honest.
No a rude response would be...a couple I have heard...
Me:"I think I might want to play x"
GM:"No. What are you some kinda of butt monkey powergamer?"
Me:" I think might want to play a drow."
GM:"OMG what are some kinda of Drizzt fan boy."
Me: Um..no I don't like Drizzt at all...I have a concept..."
GM: cuts me off,"I said NO!!!"
Please note I am not attributing any of the above to anybody who posts on these boards. But these are not just some made up examples to prove my point. These actualy have happened.
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?"Um..no I would not call that a rude response at all. Did I say anything that would lead to believe otherwise?
I can live that response as long as it is honest.
No a rude response would be...a couple I have heard...
Me:"I think I might want to play x"
GM:"No. What are you some kinda of butt monkey powergamer?"Me:" I think might want to play a drow."
GM:"OMG what are some kinda of Drizzt fan boy."
Me: Um..no I don't like Drizzt at all...I have a concept..."
GM: cuts me off,"I said NO!!!"Please note I am not attributing any of the above to anybody who posts on these boards. But these are not just some made up examples to prove my point. These actualy have happened.
Its more ...
"This is banned because x. If you can accomplish the concept in a way that doesn't violate x, cool. But if you can't do it, the answer is going to be no."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*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.
Um...no as I said I often put things up for group votes...like ruling, banned things...to allow a new soucebook...houserules. And the group lives by the vote. So how do I have the final say? And obviously it has not 'always been done this way' as I don't do it this way.
I will say though the GM has the immediate say...meaning during the actual game we will go by the GMs ruling. But after the game(we usualy as a group hang out from a half hour to many hours) that ruling is put up for group reveiw and either a consenus is made or we vote on it.
So I am saying directly I do GM without the final say.
Also I find it highly amusing you are using the CRB suggestion as RAW...to defend your right to have the finale say...I call that ironic.
*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)
*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)
Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?
I wish I knew whether your stance was wise or unwise.
On one hand letting a jerk player be a jerk seems to be a path to undermine everyone's fun. On the other hand being mean back seems petty? But isn't it better to shut down a jerk as quickly as you can to preserve everyone's fun? Maybe there is no right answer... Maybe you are doomed as long as the jerk is sitting at your table.
Sometime people have bad days...I don't know maybe he/she had a bad day at work, maybe their SO left them, maybe their dog died...maybe their life is but one long country song. There is alot of reason that has nothing to do with you or the game that might make manner react in a 'jerk' manner.
I have found the best way to deal with the situration like this is to calmly inform the person,"Look we are friends here, I understand you are upset about something and I would like to work with to reach a solution that makes us all happy. Just step back and take a deep breath and remember this is just a game."
Now if the person continues he/she is likely a jerk...boot them. Being a jerk back to them does not stop them from being a jerk and it will always come back.
Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?
Such would be my hope. What I said was I still have concerns about these class-concepts fitting within the campaign, and it will require extra work on both our parts to make it happen, but if you really want it, I trust you enough to help me with it... "and remind me to delete this if anyone new joins the table." <_<
*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?
I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds like he already had a pretty solid grasp on that part.
I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds like he already had a pretty solid grasp on that part.*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?
And you? Do you think that player has any obligation to at least try to abide by the gms campaign restrictions?
|
*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.Um...no as I said I often put things up for group votes...like ruling, banned things...to allow a new soucebook...houserules. And the group lives by the vote. So how do I have the final say? And obviously it has not 'always been done this way' as I don't do it this way.
I will say though the GM has the immediate say...meaning during the actual game we will go by the GMs ruling. But after the game(we usualy as a group hang out from a half hour to many hours) that ruling is put up for group reveiw and either a consenus is made or we vote on it.
So I am saying directly I do GM without the final say.
Also I find it highly amusing you are using the CRB suggestion as RAW...to defend your right to have the finale say...I call that ironic.
Look, you say no until you are blue in the face but you will always be wrong. The GM is the final arbiter of what goes on. Do you understand what those words mean because you seem to ignore them and keep repeating the same thing over and over.
What you do in your games is up to you and your group but the overall argument is about who gets to decide what happens and that is of course the DM who has the core rulebook to back him up on it.
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?
Um I don't. I will present a very loose premise of the game...if I have one, they system of course. Than we create characters and determine how to get them to fit if need. Than I start developing the loose premise into something a little more solid...though always very flexable.
Note I am not saying your way is wrong...and my way is awesome. I am just showing you that no...not everyone does it the same way.
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?
You went into more detailed latter about this situration. It took place in Midnight( I wish I knew you I have been dieing to play in this campaign but no one I know runs it...:( ) and the player wanted to play a Monk from the CRB...which you are technically right that clas was replaced by the Defender. But there are...I forgot what they were called... but the PCs did gain supernatural powers based around a theme as they gained levels.
I would have personaly(or even work with the player to) created one of these that reflects the CRB Monk class and offered it to the player as a compromise. If he still did not want it...than well he did eventualy pick the channler. But atleast I tried. Where you just said no...when there is alternative in the campaign setting that would have made the player happy...and you would not loose anything as that is part of the campaign.
i don't think this tyranny...I think it might be a little closed minded...but we are a little close minded at times.
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?
Um I don't. I will present a very loose premise of the game...if I have one, they system of course. Than we create characters and determine how to get them to fit if need. Than I start developing the loose premise into something a little more solid...though always very flexable.
Note I am not saying your way is wrong...and my way is awesome. I am just showing you that no...not everyone does it the same way.
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?
You went into more detailed latter about this situration. It took place in Midnight( I wish I knew you I have been dieing to play in this campaign but no one I know runs it...:( ) and the player wanted to play a Monk from the CRB...which you are technically right that clas was replaced by the Defender. But there are...I forgot what they were called... but the PCs did gain supernatural powers based around a theme as they gained levels.
I would have personaly(or even work with the player to) created one of these that reflects the CRB Monk class and offered it to the player as a compromise. If he still did not want it...than well he did eventualy pick the channler. But atleast I tried. Where you just said no...when there is alternative in the campaign setting that would have made the player happy...and you would not loose anything as that is part of the...
If there is an alternative within the campaign setting and the player takes it then they are not in fact playing the banned class, but playing something that is .... Within the campaign setting. Which I don't think anyone ephere correct me if I'm wrong has said they would be unwilling to do. If I can find something else within the setting that fills their need and isn't the banned class, then we will both sing for joy of course.
Its more ...
"This is banned because x. If you can accomplish the concept in a way that doesn't violate x, cool. But if you can't do it, the answer is going to be no."
To me that would be the perfect response. Heck if I just had those GMs in the above examples I would probably hug you.
Personaly though as a GM, and this is no way a judgement of how you GM or anybody else, I just not so admandate in my ban list.
Its more ...
"This is banned because x. If you can accomplish the concept in a way that doesn't violate x, cool. But if you can't do it, the answer is going to be no."
To me that would be the perfect response. Heck if I just had those GMs in the above examples I would probably hug you.
Personaly though as a GM, and this is no way a judgement of how you GM or anybody else, I just not so admandate in my ban list.
Ban list is usually SHORT. But it IS there. Multiple levels of ban.
No.
No except in special circumstances.(which are x,y,z)
No to the fluff, fine with the mechanics if you describe it right.
Of course, and all my players accept this as far as I can tell willingly for me character creating is an interactive process between player and dm. So a character doesn't go forward until the player is comfortable with playing the character and I am comfortable that he fits within the milieu,in one way or another.
Look, you say no until you are blue in the face but you will always be wrong. The GM is the final arbiter of what goes on. Do you understand what those words mean because you seem to ignore them and keep repeating the same thing over and over.
What you do in your games is up to you and your group but the overall argument is about who gets to decide what happens and that is of course the DM who has the core rulebook to back him up on it.
You know I was just about to agree to disagree here....but I find this amusing so I'll continue...
Actualy no I use Rule Zero(which RAW) to change the 'rule' of Final GM say. So by CRB I am as much correct as you are.
Also what page is the 'rule' on? I think you are doing something my friend does by just reading the first sentence...and than ignoring the rest.
If there is an alternative within the campaign setting and the player takes it then they are not in fact playing the banned class, but playing something that is .... Within the campaign setting. Which I don't think anyone ephere correct me if I'm wrong has said they would be unwilling to do. If I can find something else within the setting that fills their need and isn't the banned class, then we will both sing for joy of course
Well yes and no. It has been awhile since I looked at the campaign setting book(it sit in my closet taunting me :( )...but I don't think there is a existing theme of powers that would would fit the bill. So it would require a little work on the GM's part.
I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds like he already had a pretty solid grasp on that part.*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?
And you? Do you think that player has any obligation to at least try to abide by the gms campaign restrictions?
I think that players have an obligation (as much as one can when we're talking about a board game) to respect the GM's final decision on the matter. And I think that any player who develops a character concept that might clash with the GM's setting has an obligation to be willing to work with the GM to make it work, or to suggest ways that the GM might find room in the setting for the character concept.
I think that players have an obligation (as much as one can when we're talking about a board game)
Hey Scott...I know you play 4th ed so it is hard to make the distinction but we are talking about Role-Playing Games...not board games.
I am kidding...I just could not resist the shot. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not kidding when I say that fourth edition gives me the hives thought. While personal tastes may vary,I abhore it.
I think that players have an obligation (as much as one can when we're talking about a board game) to respect the GM's final decision on the matter. And I think that any player who develops a character concept that might clash with the GM's setting has an obligation to be willing to work with the GM to make it work, or to suggest ways that the GM might find room in the setting for the character concept.I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds like he already had a pretty solid grasp on that part.*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?
And you? Do you think that player has any obligation to at least try to abide by the gms campaign restrictions?
Which is exactly what I have said with the exception that in the end analysis, if that doesn't work my no is still going to be what sticks, or the "final say".
|
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 omitted **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 omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Thank you for addressing this iLaifire. I am hoping that with discussing this aspect it might clear up some conceptions that people are auto forming. I believe that for the most part we are all arguing the same thing.
For your first point I agree with you. When the session is a short lived one (conventions and such) the player normally doesn’t have a lot of investment into that character. The other aspect with that is when you are going to play a long campaign. You of course want to know what your options are and to be able to play them.
That is why I decided to use the Dark Sun world as an example. Paladins are non-existent there. It is part of the restriction that the designers placed on that world. Going into it you know that restriction. Bringing a paladin into that environment ( in this example) changes everything about that particular environment.
The majority of arguments that I have been reading seems to be GM vs. one PC. The overall aspect however has been mentioned at times is in regards to the group itself. The GM does need to think of the group overall.
So let us look at your next statement. I tell you about the Dark Sun world etc. and you are not interested due to there not being any paladins, as you are wanting to play one. However the rest of the group really wants to play Dark Sun in the way that it is laid out. Options are discussed with the group, but it breaks down that the group really wants Dark Sun What then? At this point I feel the option now lies with you to either join in with everyone, or find something else to do. The flip side also holds true. The GM really wants to run Dark Sun, but the group doesn’t (with maybe a player or two somewhat interested). The GM then needs to adjust to find what people want to play. At their point it is their option to either run that game (or play in it with some else picking the reins up), or find something else to do. I am hoping that we can all agree on this.
The last point you bring up also rings true. I as a GM need to take the overall group into account. If I have created a world that is a certain way with those players agreeing to those terms, and then much later invite a player who knows about those terms, but feels that regardless they should play whatever it has the potential to destroy cohesion, and the work of the other players.
As some have stated there does need to be a certain level of flexibility and adaptability on everyone’s parts. There are times when a GM shouldn’t allow certain things in order to safeguard various aspects of the game. In regards to settings (both homebrew and published), there are certain things that could place restrictions. Now to the opinion piece, with Golarion anything goes. I might not like certain classes as I for myself don’t feel that they fit in to a story that I might be running, but I wouldn’t outright ban them either (gunslinger, ninja, samurai). As the designer of a world I feel it is a different case. The environment might be set a certain way to purposely exclude various things. These exceptions should be made up front, but not necessarily need to be revealed as to why as they could place a part in the overall storyline (i.e dwarven race no longer about). If the group doesn’t want to play with those limitations that is perfectly fine. The creator can then decide what they want to do next, etc.
What I don’t do is outright ban something that has been allowed, and then all of a sudden it is not. I might make alterations to whatever to address whatever issue that I have. Wonder if anyone would take exception if all of a sudden humans were banned, or fighters.
No. It seems pretty clear that your position is that when push comes to shove, the player should always get his way, end of story.And thus you maim our argument again. Deliberately.
Our side has not been saying this at all. But since that's the only way you can defend your side, you will continue to claim that it is our side.
Which is why this debate has become pointless.
Can you actually find any post in, say, the last day in this thread, from any person who has devoted any serious effort to posting here that advances the position that all power should reside with the player and none with the DM?
Seriously, find a non drive by post that advances the position you are attacking? (I'm not even entirely sure I remember any drive by trollings advocating that lately).
|
|
I think that players have an obligation (as much as one can when we're talking about a board game) to respect the GM's final decision on the matter. And I think that any player who develops a character concept that might clash with the GM's setting has an obligation to be willing to work with the GM to make it work, or to suggest ways that the GM might find room in the setting for the character concept.I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds like he already had a pretty solid grasp on that part.*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?
And you? Do you think that player has any obligation to at least try to abide by the gms campaign restrictions?
Is it reasonable then for a GM to disallow that concept for the current gaming setting, but create a different setting that does allow for it at and latter date and time?
If you are saying the final say doesn't go with the gm you are sort of by default putting it in the other place it can go. In the final analysis the will be a decision maker.
If you are saying the final say doesn't go with the gm you are sort of by default putting it in the other place it can go.
What about a system that (as John Kretzer describes above) puts the final say to a group vote? This would seem to provide a direct example of a system where just because the GM isn't the final arbiter doesn't mean that the player is. And I feel compelled to mention this since he has been discussing his group's other way for, like, a lot of posts, including on this very same page as yours saying that there is no other way, and yet I have actually seen directreplies to his posts state that the way his group plays does not exist.
(not that my group uses such a system - the GM has the final say in my game, but if I ask for a seat at the table when he's working through something and deciding what the final say will be, he'll give it to me. Which is the actual position I - and as near as I can tell, a lot of other people who have been arguing on "my side" of the debate - are advancing).
Well, frankly that discuss it part has been advocated by almost everyone on my side, the main difference being that in the end we say that the final decision lies wit the gm.
I try not to post too much in here. I feel like we've all rolled up characters and collectively we're playing a character named Joshua in wargames.
We're going to play every version of this tic tac toe game a million times in 60 seconds and arrive at the conclusion that the only way to win is not to play.
The only thing that keeps the threadfire burning is people on both sides of the isle continuing arrogantly to defacto presume that their end has all the power, when in reality neither side has power or authority.
Because it's everybody's game, any decision should be put to the table.
The fact that the table can vote against the player proves the player, though entitled has no power.
The fact that the table can vote against the gm provees the gm, though entitled, has no power.
The argument that gms have all the power because you made them the gm is... Well... I won't say its bunk, but the problem with that statement is that its only true when its true. The problem is the presumption that it is always unilaterally true. My particular table is proof that it is not always unilaterally true.
I know i've put a gm in charge of my table then disagreed with his ruling, been supported by the rest of my players, and forced the gm to either back off his hard line or we pick a new gm. At my table a unanimous table wide vote of making him the gm *isnt* 'granting unilateral power' or being 'no longer subject to future votes'... The absoluteness and irreversability/permanency of voting for a gm is the fallacy. There are simply some tables (like my own) that actively rail againts certain limits and unilateral power in their gaming experience and an 'entitled gm' isn't going to get any traction trying to 'call the shots' or 'establish dominance'... These gms tend to leave our table and thats for the best.
On the flip side, the hard pill to swallow is that there are plenty of tables where everyone DOES vote on the gm's side (far more than average in fact), so in this case the gm aesthetically DOES have all the power and if you bring something to the table they don't like you're 'iceskating uphill'. These players tend to leave the table and thats for the best.
The real shame is when there's no other table to choose from and thats an unfortunate but unavoidable reality. And its a reality that more often bites players than gms just due to the fact that an established gm with established players are probably all friends and tend to vote together. That might be a bummer but its definitely the answer to the OP about 'why what should be a completely fair dichotomy ends up seeming slanted in the gms favor'...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that keeps the threadfire burning is people on both sides of the isle continuing arrogantly to defacto presume that their end has all the power, when in reality neither side has power or authority.THANK YOU!
Actually what is happening is that one side claims they have all the power while the other side is saying that their side ought to at least have some fraction of the power sometime, but that is too much for the first side to allow to concede because then they wouldn't have all the power.
That's been the true crux of the disagreement.
The only people claiming the player side is seeking "all the power" are the disingenuous GM-is-god folks presenting a fatuous strawman so their argument looks more "reasonable."
|
Is it reasonable then for a GM to disallow that concept for the current gaming setting, but create a different setting that does allow for it at and latter date and time?
I can't think of a more fitting example of player entitlement than a player expecting a GM to create an entire campaign world around a character that player wants to play.
While a gm who sits at a table with a bunch of his friends all tending to vote with him might seem like 'gm power', this is in fact cognitive bias and falls into the category of 'wishful thinking' or 'it is true because I want it to be true and it sure does feel like its true for me therefore it is true'.
While a player who sits at a table with a bunch of his friends all tending to vote down an 'entitled gm' might seem like 'player power', this is the same cognitive bias and logical fallacy because well...
The staunchest supporters on both sides will say that they'll always be right because 'it is what it is'
Problem is 'what it is' isnt defacto what it will be all the time at every table forever, no matter who you game with. Even if your table never changes and everyone's good friends there may eventually come a day when the table doesnt vote your way, and no matter which lie you believe, you're going to learn just how much power you have at that point.