"Using absolute statements is always wrong."
You just used an absolute statement.
Therefore you've just declared your own statement invalid.
It's nice when someone willfully misses the point because they know their side (the third side in this argument, composed of only yourself) is absurd beyond belief but don't want to admit it because it would spontaneously cause a few inches of their e-peen to disintegrate.
Only a Russian Sith deals in Absolut.
That would be a Swedish Sith.
Vert der ferk!
- Swedish chef
"Using absolute statements is always wrong."
You just used an absolute statement.
Therefore you've just declared your own statement invalid.
Yes.
And yet my "side" was me making an obviously sarcastic comment. Uh oh, I feel my "e-peen" growing.
I'm not sure it was entirely sarcastic based on some other posts you've made.
Your side, as I see it, opposed to the other two, runs something like this:
Side 1: "Players should always listen to the DM because he makes the rules. Either that, or they need to find a GM better suited to their playstyle." I call this the Ciretose (and somewhat Shallowsoul) camp, as well as many others.
Side 2: "The game should be a collaborative effort between GM and players. Most things should be discussed between the two, and the GM should always have a reason to do so before exercising his Fiat." My camp, as well as quite a few others.
Side 3: "If the GM bows down to his player's wishes, even slightly, he is sacrificing his artistry by bowing to popular opinion. The players need to deal with it or GTFO." This is pretty much just you. I think Shallowsoul leans towards it but eh.
Your side is much like side 1, but taken to its logical extreme.
There is no dearth of GM hate or player hate on these boards, so really a multi-page thread claiming either is true is probably totally unnecessary.
Why is it that a player saying "X is in the official rules, so I can play X" is considered "player entitlement", but the statement "You can't do/play Y because of Z" from the DM is not seen as "player entitlement"? In both cases it is one person at the table trying to dictate how the game will be played to all the other people at the table, so why does almost everyone on these boards perfectly fine with that happening if the person is a DM, but completely against it when it is anyone else?
Threadhopping
Look. I'm building a campaign setting right now where I'm not allowing players access to any class archetypes. This is part of my campaign settings rules. If a player comes in with a bladebound magus and demands I let him play it despite the fact that I've already stated that players can't have archetypes then he is being entitled.
He would be asking me to break rules I've set down and that everyone else has agreed to just because he wants something special. Please tell me how that's not entitlement.
The simple fact is that the DM is making the world and has set down the rules. The book gives the DM ultimate discretion in what he does and does not allow. If a player knows something in't allowed in the DM's game and wants to play it so bad, I have to wonder why he's trying to shoehorn it into that game instead of finding a game where he can play it.
...I have to wonder why he's trying to shoehorn it into that game instead of finding a game where he can play it.How many times must he be told no before he can be told yes? Ten? A hundred? Never?
If he's asked 100 GM and all of them have said no, maybe the problem is that his idea is broken or stupid. Just saying.
|
No, the alternative is to discuss WHEN the GM can run that concept. So the player knows if the answer is never.
If he's asked 100 GM and all of them have said no, maybe the problem is that his idea is broken or stupid. Just saying.
Or 100 GMs are not interested in working with their players. Just saying.
Why is it that a player saying "X is in the official rules, so I can play X" is considered "player entitlement", but the statement "You can't do/play Y because of Z" from the DM is not seen as "player entitlement"? In both cases it is one person at the table trying to dictate how the game will be played to all the other people at the table, so why does almost everyone on these boards perfectly fine with that happening if the person is a DM, but completely against it when it is anyone else?Threadhopping
Look. I'm building a campaign setting right now where I'm not allowing players access to any class archetypes. This is part of my campaign settings rules. If a player comes in with a bladebound magus and demands I let him play it despite the fact that I've already stated that players can't have archetypes then he is being entitled.
He would be asking me to break rules I've set down and that everyone else has agreed to just because he wants something special. Please tell me how that's not entitlement.
The simple fact is that the DM is making the world and has set down the rules. The book gives the DM ultimate discretion in what he does and does not allow. If a player knows something in't allowed in the DM's game and wants to play it so bad, I have to wonder why he's trying to shoehorn it into that game instead of finding a game where he can play it.
But do you have any reasoning for the decision, or is it just "I feel like disallowing archetypes"?
Or 100 GMs are not interested in working with their players. Just saying.
Yes, because the DM has banned a single race or class for whatever reason, that totally means he's not willing to work with you. This is exactly what people complain about when they complain about player entitlement right there.
If you ask every girl in the world on a date and every girl in the world says no, the problem is you.
But do you have any reasoning for the decision, or is it just "I feel like disallowing archetypes"?
That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about at all. If everyone agreed to something and one person is demanding to get special treatment the problem is with him not DM, regardless of whatever reasons the DM may have for disallowing something.
(In response however, I will say that I have flavor and personal preference reasons for it.
Personal preference: I hate how there seems to be a need for there to be a class for everything now. You can play a ninja just fine by playing a rogue and flavoring him as one, you can play a drunken master just fine by playing a monk and making him a drunk etc.
Flavor: In my campaign world most people don't have access to Player Class levels at all. The fact that the players do is something that sets them apart from the common rabble. Only the most powerful boss level characters in the setting have access to archetype levels.
This in no way denotes an unwillingness to work with people. I had a guy who wanted to play a goblin fire bomber because he wanted to do fire damage with all bombs, so I offered to let him do it with a feat or discovery. Like I said, I just don't think there needs to be a class for everything.)
Yes, because.....there are numerous possibilities, one of which is that the player is at fault, one of which is the DM is at fault. And random hypothetical statements cannot determine which it is.
If you feel that way, you should refrain from asking random hypothetical questions.
How many times must he be told no before he can be told yes? Ten? A hundred? Never?
So if 60 other GMs say no to having a gunslinger in their campaign I or the next 10 GMs aren't obligated to allow it when its not what I wanted in my campaign and is going to put a damper on my fun when I don't like guns in my games. No GM has any obligation to allow alternate rules or some crazy build just because the player got denied a bunch of times before. If you can't find anyone willing to allow your character MAKE A NEW CHARACTER.
I generally agree if a GM has a reason that is correct and not based on what one player did or what somebody did on a message board.
And yet again anything outside the CRB is intended to be OPTIONAL where the DM can cherry pick what he wants and what he doesn't. It gets old how accessory books get abused and players think just because something is published somewhere they have an absolute right to play it. Does it need to be in huge red letters on the first page for players to get this? Maybe on the bottom of every page? Maybe on the cover: Advanced Players Guide: OMG OPTIONAL NOT CORE RULEZ! SRS!
A couple of points...
1) Everything is optional even what is in the CRB.
2) A better game would be the GMs and players together cherry picking the options.
3) 99% of the 'abuses accessory books' are due to a misunderstanding of the rules by both the GM and player.
Questions: Lets say you banned something from your game that a player later points out to you that you were reading the rules wrong or points out a very simple houserule to fix it...
1) would you than allow it?
2) Is the player that pointed out being 'entitled'?
3) Would you even listen to the player? Or continue covering your ears shouting "la la la' to aviod listening to your player?
Look. I'm building a campaign setting right now where I'm not allowing players access to any class archetypes. This is part of my campaign settings rules. If a player comes in with a bladebound magus and demands I let him play it despite the fact that I've already stated that players can't have archetypes then he is being entitled.
Cool I am writting a campaign setting right now that also limits thing such as races, crafting feats, and there is no guns currently in the setting. Now there are something I would not be flexable on(the crafting feats as I want to run a low magic world and magic items are extremely rare and special) but as for races and guns...I don't see how I am breaking a rule or if a player is being entitled for asking if a concept can work.
If a player wanted to be a gun slinger...I could work with him on his background to allow it...Example He/She is the first to invent guns.
Or a banned race...well in the setting there is a evil empire who created halflings other such creation is possible.
He would be asking me to break rules I've set down and that everyone else has agreed to just because he wants something special. Please tell me how that's not entitlement.
Again why are such rules fixed into stone?
If a player knows something in't allowed in the DM's game and wants to play it so bad, I have to wonder why he's trying to shoehorn it into that game instead of finding a game where he can play it.
Maybe because he/she thinks you are a really good GM and the other GMs in your area completely suck?
Maybe the player has played in more flexable GMs game that he could actualy be creative in and thinks all games such a way?
I can think of a 100 reasons of why that has nothing to do with player entitlement or anything to do with that player.
Also I am not against a GMs right to ban anything...I just don't get the inflexability GMs show when they do so...and alot of GMs resistance to actualy giving a reason for it.
If he's asked 100 GM and all of them have said no, maybe the problem is that his idea is broken or stupid. Just saying.
It doesn't need to be 100, that was simply an extreme for illustration. It's quite possible (and probably not uncommon) for a player to have a DM turn down his character concept - not because it's broken or stupid, but rather because of an arbitrary personal preference on the DM's part, such as, "Archetypes are dumb because classes are everything you should ever need to express yourself mechanically, and players who want their character's mechanics to line up better with their character's flavor are entitled, except when they want to play something I personally think is funny, like a goblin firebomber, in which case I'll skirt my own arbitrary restriction on class archetypes by creating a feat/discovery out of whole cloth that allows him to play his concept, mechanically," - and that's probably pretty disheartening. If he really wants to give that concept a go, he'll have to find a new DM. And so he does, only to find out that that DM doesn't like the idea either (perhaps for different, but equally arbitrary personal reasons). And so he has to keep searching, until he eventually finds a DM whose set of arbitrary, non-negotiable restrictions don't prevent him from playing his character. Or until he runs out of DMs.
This is the imbalance that we spent pages of this thread trying to get people to internalize. DMs don't see any problem with bringing arbitrary restrictions into the game, and then labeling them off-limits for discussion once the group has agreed (or most of the group has agreed). Meanwhile, players are incentivized to agree to the DM's requests/whims/desires so as to avoid the label of "entitled problem player", even when those desires might conflict with their own. On top of that, a DM with a player who doesn't want to compromise has a straightforward, easy solution: tell that player to find another game. On the other hand, a player with a DM who doesn't want to compromise has to find a new DM, something that is (for most of us) much more difficult.
Yes, because.....there are numerous possibilities, one of which is that the player is at fault, one of which is the DM is at fault. And random hypothetical statements cannot determine which it is.If you feel that way, you should refrain from asking random hypothetical questions.
How many times must he be told no before he can be told yes? Ten? A hundred? Never?
That was a rhetorical question, not a hypothetical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is such a bunch of nonsensical bile that I have to split it up and respond to each nonsensical point separately.
It doesn't need to be 100, that was simply an extreme for illustration. It's quite possible (and probably not uncommon) for a player to have a DM turn down his character concept - not because it's broken or stupid, but rather because of an arbitrary personal preference on the DM's part, such as, "Archetypes are dumb..
Please point me to the point where I said archetypes are dumb. I didn't. I said I didn't like them in my homebrew campaign setting. Nice to know that you think anyone who does anything you don't like is having wrongbadfun.
because classes are everything you should ever need to express yourself mechanically, and players who want their character's mechanics to line up better with their character's flavor are entitled,
And again misrepresenting what I said. I said anyone who wants special treatment after everyone else has already agreed to the restriction is entitled why? because that's the literal definition of entitlement!
except when they want to play something I personally think is funny, like a goblin firebomber, in which case I'll skirt my own arbitrary restriction on class archetypes by creating a feat/discovery out of whole cloth that allows him to play his concept, mechanically,"
Yes because I don't think you should need to have a whole new class for a singe tweek I'm totally having badwrongfun! No one ever houserules!
- and that's probably pretty disheartening. If he really wants to give that concept a go, he'll have to find a new DM. And so he does, only to find out that that DM doesn't like the idea either (perhaps for different, but equally arbitrary personal reasons). And so he has to keep searching, until he eventually finds a DM whose set of arbitrary, non-negotiable restrictions don't prevent him from playing his character. Or until he runs out of DMs.
Too bad, so sad. I've been trying to find a DM who will let me play a soulknife for 15 years. You don't see me whining about it on the internet or starting arguments with my DM's.
This is the imbalance that we spent pages of this thread trying to get people to internalize. DMs don't see any problem with bringing arbitrary restrictions into the game, and then labeling them off-limits for discussion once the group has agreed (or most of the group has agreed).
Because, and this may be a shock to you, that's the way the game runs. The DM has final say on what rules are and aren't going to be used. It says so in the books themselves. Just because something was printed doesn't mean the players automatically get to use it. If everyone agrees with it except one guy, then it's that one guy who has the problem, not the DM.
Meanwhile, players are incentivized to agree to the DM's requests/whims/desires so as to avoid the label of "entitled problem player", even when those desires might conflict with their own.
If you feel like your DM is that overbearing don;t play with them. Simple solution. No gaming is better than unfun gaming.
On top of that, a DM with a player who doesn't want to compromise has a straightforward, easy solution: tell that player to find another game. On the other hand, a player with a DM who doesn't want to compromise has to find a new DM, something that is (for most of us) much more difficult.
See again:
Too bad, so sad. I've been trying to find a DM who will let me play a soulknife for 15 years. You don't see me whining about it on the internet or starting arguments with my DM's.
That's how the real world works. If everyone is fine with something except one guy, and he's asking for special treatment than he is entitled, because that's the definition of entitlement.
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Being willing to work with someone doesn't mean giving them every thing they want, and being wiling to compromise means finding something both of you can agree on. You know, like adding the one thing he wanted the archetype for as a feat. The thing you were just saying was wrongbadfun.
One last thing, way to respond to things that had nothing to do with the conversation thereby making me respond to your complete misreading of things that have nothing to do with anything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of points...1) Everything is optional even what is in the CRB.
2) A better game would be the GMs and players together cherry picking the options.
3) 99% of the 'abuses accessory books' are due to a misunderstanding of the rules by both the GM and player.
Questions: Lets say you banned something from your game that a player later points out to you that you were reading the rules wrong or points out a very simple houserule to fix it...
1) would you than allow it?
2) Is the player that pointed out being 'entitled'?
3) Would you even listen to the player? Or continue covering your ears shouting "la la la' to aviod listening to your player?
This is all more or less correct, but there is a vocal minority on the boards who scream and rant and rave whenever they hear that a GM has said no to a player about a given option. Hence the "entitlement" part.
And quite often it seems like that players is coming to the message board because everyone else involved is tired of them.
If you have an issue with your GM, it is also likely you are having an issue with the other 3 players as well if you are bringing it here rather than getting feedback from your fellow players.
Then said player, spurred on by strangers on the internet who have no context, charges back to the table saying "The people on the internet say you are restricting me from my entitled right to do 'X' and that is wrongbadfun" and I'm sure that all works out great for everyone involved.
No one is entitled to anything at a gaming table, because your seat, either in the GM chair as a player at the table, is always subject to forfeit if you aren't adding to the collective fun.
And being entitled, that is telling everyone else at the table what they have to do to make the game fun for you is something that will quickly lead to less gaming options for all involved.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player wanted to be a gun slinger...I could work with him on his background to allow it...Example He/She is the first to invent guns.
Or a banned race...well in the setting there is a evil empire who created halflings other such creation is possible.
I'm not saying you can't bend the rules. Or that doing so is worng. I'm saying that if you don't want to bend these rules for your campaign setting you shouldn't have to. There are a lot of classes to play other than the gunslinger and a lot of races to play other than halflings. If the player can;t accept that, then he should find a group that will allow it. And I don't know why saying that seems to be a bad thing. It's common sense. As an aside, if you are so willing to throw these rules away I wonder why you have them in the first place.
He would be asking me to break rules I've set down and that everyone else has agreed to just because he wants something special. Please tell me how that's not entitlement.Again why are such rules fixed into stone?
Because if I didn't fix that rule "in stone" there would be no point in having it in the first place? I banned archetypes for specific personal and flavor reasons. And yes "I don;t want to deal with it in my game" is a legitimate reason to ban something as long as you're upfront about it.
If a player knows something in't allowed in the DM's game and wants to play it so bad, I have to wonder why he's trying to shoehorn it into that game instead of finding a game where he can play it.Maybe because he/she thinks you are a really good GM and the other GMs in your area completely suck?
If he really respected me as a DM he wouldn't ask for special treatment in the first place, so this should be a non-issue.
Maybe the player has played in more flexable GMs game that he could actualy be creative in and thinks all games such a way?
So I should do whatever everyone's last DM did? Ok mindflayer cohorts all around! After all, if you say your last DM said it was ok, who am I to argue?
EDIT: Also, thanks for implying that I don't let my players be creative. Being insulting really moves a conversation forward.
I can think of a 100 reasons of why that has nothing to do with player entitlement or anything to do with that player.
Expect the part where asking for special treatment is the definition of entitlement....
Also I am not against a GMs right to ban anything...I just don't get the inflexability GMs show when they do so...and alot...
Because if your "flexible" on the ban, then you haven't really banned anything, maybe?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he's asked 100 GM and all of them have said no, maybe the problem is that his idea is broken or stupid. Just saying.It doesn't need to be 100, that was simply an extreme for illustration. It's quite possible (and probably not uncommon) for a player to have a DM turn down his character concept - not because it's broken or stupid, but rather because of an arbitrary personal preference on the DM's part, \
And so what if they do?
In order for a game to occur, a few things must happen.
First, a group of people must have a desire to play.
Second, one of those people has to want to run the game.
Third, a group of people must be willing to play the game the GM is offering to run.
If you aren't willing to play the game the GM is willing to run, you are not entitled to make the GM run the game you want to play. You can ask, you can encourage, you can run your own...
But you are not entitled to make the GM run the game you want to play, period, full stop.
If no one wants to play the game the GM wants to run, it won't happen. The GM can then choose to change or not to change. They are the one who will have to do the most work and put in the most time.
The GM should be upfront about things, but at the end of the day no single player is more important than the group decision.
If a GM decides there are no humans in the campaign, they can do that.
And if a player decides they want to play a human, they have the option to not play in that campaign.
And if no one wants to play in that campaign, it doesn't happen. And that is fine.
But no one is entitled to the game of their choosing, not even the GM. Even the GM has to convince you to come back every week to keep playing in the world.
But what I think many of us are sick of is the player who comes on here to whine about the mean GM, and the player entitlement community telling them that they are right and screw everyone else in the group, etc, etc...
In part, because these are the same people who get angry and indignant when people call out a cheese move, screaming they are being accused of wrongbadfun by "just following RAW". And hypocrisy is annoying.
Please point me to the point where I said archetypes are dumb. I didn't.
You said, "I hate how there seems to be a need for there to be a class for everything now. You can play a ninja just fine by playing a rogue and flavoring him as one, you can play a drunken master just fine by playing a monk and making him a drunk etc."
I embellished the rest. You clearly have a problem with the fact that they exist.
I said I didn't like them in my homebrew campaign setting. Nice to know that you think anyone who does anything you don't like is having wrongbadfun.
Now who's putting words in others' mouths?
And again misrepresenting what I said. I said anyone who wants special treatment after everyone else has already agreed to the restriction is entitled why? because that's the literal definition of entitlement!
Yes because I don't think you should need to have a whole new class for a singe tweek I'm totally having badwrongfun! No one ever houserules!
Calm down.
Too bad, so sad. I've been trying to find a DM who will let me play a soulknife for 15 years. You don't see me whining about it on the internet or starting arguments with my DM's.
Ahh, there we go. You've had to deal with similar restrictions for a decade-and-a-half, and so you see no problem with adopting a similar system yourself. That's just the way the world works.
Because, and this may be a shock to you, that's the way the game runs. The DM has final say on what rules are and aren't going to be used. It says so in the books themselves. Just because something was printed doesn't mean the players automatically get to use it. If everyone agrees with it except one guy, then it's that one guy who has the problem, not the DM.
This attitude is why it's become pretty frustrating. DMs don't even realize that they're doing what they're doing. It's become a sad norm in some gaming circles.
If you feel like your DM is that overbearing don;t play with them. Simple solution. No gaming is better than unfun gaming.
Sure, so now he's not playing D&D. But you are, so hey, no problem, right?
That's how the real world works.
Hold up a moment.
That's okay to you? You can justify your own behavior and imposition with a wave of a hand, and a, "That's how the real world works," and you think that's supposed to make for a compelling defense?
Of course that's how the world works. There are a bunch of us who see that as a problem, and are far more interested in how the world (or how playing D&D, at the very least) ought to work.
If everyone is fine with something except one guy, and he's asking for special treatment than he is entitled, because that's the definition of entitlement.
Is that really why he's asking for it? Because he wants to be treated special? Or is it because he has a character concept that would be brought to life mechanically in a more complete sense if he were able to make use of an archetype?
Being willing to work with someone doesn't mean giving them every thing they want, and being wiling to compromise means finding something both of you can agree on. You know, like adding the one thing he wanted the archetype for as a feat. The thing you were just saying was wrongbadfun.
I didn't say adding a feat was badwrongfun. I didn't say anything was badwrongfun. I just thought it was laughable that you ban archetypes wholesale because "there shouldn't be a class for everything" (even though an archetype is not a new class, just a set of bundled alternate class features), but have no problem creating a brand new feat when someone finds a character concept that doesn't fit into a class.
Maybe just allow archetypes, next time? Banning them just strikes me as silly, and a recipe for a needless headache down the road.
One last thing, way to respond to things that had nothing to do with the conversation thereby making me respond to your complete misreading of things that have nothing to do with anything.
No one made you do anything. That includes you posting your justification for your own house rules.
If he's asked 100 GM and all of them have said no, maybe the problem is that his idea is broken or stupid. Just saying.It doesn't need to be 100, that was simply an extreme for illustration. It's quite possible (and probably not uncommon) for a player to have a DM turn down his character concept - not because it's broken or stupid, but rather because of an arbitrary personal preference on the DM's part, \And so what if they do?
In order for a game to occur, a few things must happen.
First, a group of people must have a desire to play.
Second, one of those people has to want to run the game.
Third, a group of people must be willing to play the game the GM is offering to run.
If you aren't willing to play the game the GM is willing to run, you are not entitled to make the GM run the game you want to play. You can ask, you can encourage, you can run your own...
But you are not entitled to make the GM run the game you want to play, period, full stop.
If no one wants to play the game the GM wants to run, it won't happen. The GM can then choose to change or not to change. They are the one who will have to do the most work and put in the most time.
The GM should be upfront about things, but at the end of the day no single player is more important than the group decision.
If a GM decides there are no humans in the campaign, they can do that.
And if a player decides they want to play a human, they have the option to not play in that campaign.
And if no one wants to play in that campaign, it doesn't happen. And that is fine.
But no one is entitled to the game of their choosing, not even the GM. Even the GM has to convince you to come back every week to keep playing in the world.
But what I think many of us are sick of is the player who comes on here to whine about the mean GM, and the player entitlement community telling them that they are right and screw everyone else in the group, etc, etc...
In part,...
You act like players and GMs are both incapable of acting in anything except rational self-interest. We're arguing for a different tactic. We're saying that GMs ought to recognize that a massive power imbalance exists between them and their players, which tends to lead to players putting up with things they don't like more often than GMs putting up with things they don't like. And, upon recognizing this, GMs should acknowledge that, in order to help alleviate this, rather than taking advantage of this power imbalance to try and run a game as close to their ideal as possible, they ought to make the conscious decision to allow the players to help dictate the terms of the game.
This includes being willing to revisit the precepts of the game should desires change down the road. After all, the GM has essentially unrestrained ability to alter the rules of the game to his whim in the middle. He should at least consider a player's request to do the same (especially if it doesn't affect anything beyond that one player).
|
|
And we are saying that there is no power imbalance that needs to be corrected.
The GM is able to GM only at the grace of the group. 4 people have to agree to give him power to run. We have a couple people in our group who want to GM but can't because no one is interested in playing for them when they have better options. It took me months to convince my group to let me try and run a game, and every session I don't make the game fun could be the last, given how many other games are in the pipeline that other people want to run with the limited gaming time we all have available.
Players don't know what is going on that might be effected by allowing some concepts, and frankly most of the people who complain on here about "mean GMs" sound like beggers who can't be choosers because their demands and complaints have gotten them uninvited to better games.
But you are correct that a GM should try to run a game as close to an ideal as possible. The ideal for the whole group, not an individual player.
This is why the objection is to player entitlement, singular. As in AN entitled player.
Because if the group has a problem with the GM, the GM isn't going to be GM for long.
@Wombatkidd:
Actualy no I don't mean what the last GM should have any effect on what you allow. My point though is not to judge the player as entitled because he might have had a GM that is more flexable in regards to what he allows.
My main problem is treating every player who dares to question the GM or even to ask for permission to do something as being badwrongfun. That is what I see here constantly.
Read my first post on this thread to get a better idea of what I am talking about.
As to my implying that you don't let your player be creative....sure I'll come out and say I allow my players to be more creative. As I allow my players to come up with their own feats, archtypes, etc(subject not to just my approval but the entire group) to realize their concepts if none exist in the game. How are you equaling that? Not saying your way is bad or wrong...or my way is correct, but my players are defintly allowed to be more creative than yours as they have to take what you give them.
This is all more or less correct, but there is a vocal minority on the boards who scream and rant and rave whenever they hear that a GM has said no to a player about a given option. Hence the "entitlement" part.
And quite often it seems like that players is coming to the message board because everyone else involved is tired of them.
If you have an issue with your GM, it is also likely you are having an issue with the other 3 players as well if you are bringing it here rather than getting feedback from your fellow players.
Then said player, spurred on by strangers on the internet who have no context, charges back to the table saying "The people on the internet say you are restricting me from my entitled right to do 'X' and that is wrongbadfun" and I'm sure that all works out great for everyone involved.
No one is entitled to anything at a gaming table, because your seat, either in the GM chair as a player at the table, is always subject to forfeit if you aren't adding to the collective fun.
And being entitled, that is telling everyone else at the table what they have to do to make the game fun for you is something that will quickly lead to less gaming options for all involved.
I completely agree about any GM or player who comes here to get their problem solved. The only real advice anybody can give since we have no idea of the situration is to talk with the GM or player or group.
"The GM is a being a dick" is as useful as "You are a player shut up and take it" which I see both being given as 'advice'.
And we are saying that there is no power imbalance that needs to be corrected.
Are you saying that the power imbalance doesn't exist? Or that it exists, but it's okay that it exists?
But you are correct that a GM should try to run a game as close to an ideal as possible. The ideal for the whole group, not an individual player.
I have a difficult time seeing how allowing a single archetype would affect the enjoyment of the game in a significantly detrimental way to the group.
This is why the objection is to player entitlement, singular. As in AN entitled player.
Because if the group has a problem with the GM, the GM isn't going to be GM for long.
That's assuming they have perfect mobility. It's the same problem policy experts are forced to address when dealing with why people live in municipalities whose politics they disagree with.
I think the notion that most player groups have perfect (or near-perfect) mobility when it comes to choosing GMs is probably wrong.
|
|
I completely agree about any GM or player who comes here to get their problem solved. The only real advice anybody can give since we have no idea of the situration is to talk with the GM or player or group."The GM is a being a dick" is as useful as "You are a player shut up and take it" which I see both being given as 'advice'.
Gaming groups are like significant others. If you don't like the one you are with, you aren't going to change them. And you are an arrogant prick if you expect them to change to meet your needs.
You decided to be with them, and either you want that to happen and you need to compromise to make it work, or you need to accept that it won't and move on.
What I mean my entitled is those people who act as if the group and the GM are there to serve them and meet their needs.
They aren't.
Please point me to the point where I said archetypes are dumb. I didn't.You said, "I hate how there seems to be a need for there to be a class for everything now. You can play a ninja just fine by playing a rogue and flavoring him as one, you can play a drunken master just fine by playing a monk and making him a drunk etc."
I embellished the rest. You clearly have a problem with the fact that they exist.
Not really. I've used them. I just don;t want to use them in the setting I have comming up and everyone agreed to it. So who do you think you are to tell me I'm doing something wrong by banning them?
I said I didn't like them in my homebrew campaign setting. Nice to know that you think anyone who does anything you don't like is having wrongbadfun.Now who's putting words in others' mouths?
I'm not. You're the one saying DMs shouldn't be allowed to ban things.
And again misrepresenting what I said. I said anyone who wants special treatment after everyone else has already agreed to the restriction is entitled why? because that's the literal definition of entitlement!
Yes because I don't think you should need to have a whole new class for a singe tweek I'm totally having badwrongfun! No one ever houserules!
Calm down.
I like exclamation marks! Sue me!
Too bad, so sad. I've been trying to find a DM who will let me play a soulknife for 15 years. You don't see me whining about it on the internet or starting arguments with my DM's.Ahh, there we go. You've had to deal with similar restrictions for a decade-and-a-half, and so you see no problem with adopting a similar system yourself. That's just the way the world works.
Ahh, there you go making baseless, insulting assumptions about me. I don't have any malice because of it. A lot of DMs don't like psionics at all and even the ones who do don't really like the soulknife. I get it and they have the right to ban it if they want to. I just rolled something else up or didn;t play their game. You know, like someone who's not an entitled brat does.
Because, and this may be a shock to you, that's the way the game runs. The DM has final say on what rules are and aren't going to be used. It says so in the books themselves. Just because something was printed doesn't mean the players automatically get to use it. If everyone agrees with it except one guy, then it's that one guy who has the problem, not the DM.This attitude is why it's become pretty frustrating. DMs don't even realize that they're doing what they're doing. It's become a sad norm in some gaming circles.
DMs know exactly what they're doing. Building a campaign world that may or may not involve banning some rules.
Sure, so now he's not playing D&D. But you are, so hey, no problem, right?
If you feel like your DM is that overbearing don;t play with them. Simple solution. No gaming is better than unfun gaming.
If he didn't want to play by the rules of the group, he wouldn't have had fun in the group anyway, and as I said before no gaming is better than unfun gaming.
Hold up a moment.
...Of course that's how the world works. There are a bunch of us who see that as a problem, and are far more interested in how the world (or how playing D&D, at the very least) ought to work.
Oh please. So I should just accept any idiotic or broken thing anyone wants to make just cause they ask for it? So I was wrong to not let that guy play a ghost sorcerer or an adamantine golem wizard in the campaign I'm ending now?
I see now that it was so unfair of me to not let that guy make the character he wanted! I'm totally going to let the next guy who asks to make an adamantine golem wizard do so. How could I have imposed my arbitrary personal preference against player characters being adamantine golems get in his way. :'(
I can justify my "imposition" because everyone else at the game agreed to it. I'll be damned if I'm going to give someone else special treatment because they don't have enough respect for me as a DM to make characters within the limits everyone else agreed to.
Is that really why he's asking for it? Because he wants to be treated special? Or is it because he has a character concept that would be brought to life mechanically in a more complete sense if he were able to make use of an archetype?
If everyone is fine with something except one guy, and he's asking for special treatment than he is entitled, because that's the definition of entitlement.
Well, let's see. Everyone agreed to a restriction. He's asking to not be heald to the restriction everyone else is held to. So he's asking for a special rule that only applies to him. Yep that's the literal definition of asking for special treatment.
I didn't say adding a feat was badwrongfun. I didn't say anything was badwrongfun. I just thought it was laughable that you ban archetypes wholesale because "there shouldn't be a class for everything" (even though an archetype is not a new class, just a set of bundled alternate class features), but have no problem creating a brand new feat when someone finds a character concept that doesn't fit into a class.Maybe just allow archetypes, next time? Banning them just strikes me as silly, and a recipe for a needless headache down the road.
Oh, so my ban of archetypes isn't badwrongfun, it's just laughable. Well that's a world of difference /sarcasm
How about this. You stop commenting on how my houserules that all my players agreed to are laughable and I'll stop calling you out on being insulting because you don't like the way I've chosen to play. Sound fair.
No one made you do anything. That includes you posting your justification for your own house rules.
Rynjin asked me politely why I banned them, so I politely informed him why even though it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation, because he was curious.
You're the one who got insulting about it. If you say insulting untrue crap about me you should expect a response.
|
|
And we are saying that there is no power imbalance that needs to be corrected.Are you saying that the power imbalance doesn't exist? Or that it exists, but it's okay that it exists?
But you are correct that a GM should try to run a game as close to an ideal as possible. The ideal for the whole group, not an individual player.I have a difficult time seeing how allowing a single archetype would affect the enjoyment of the game in a significantly detrimental way to the group.
This is why the objection is to player entitlement, singular. As in AN entitled player.
Because if the group has a problem with the GM, the GM isn't going to be GM for long.
That's assuming they have perfect mobility. It's the same problem policy experts are forced to address when dealing with why people live in municipalities whose politics they disagree with.
I think the notion that most player groups have perfect (or near-perfect) mobility when it comes to choosing GMs is probably wrong.
1. I am saying the player and GM both decide to come to the table, and the GM serves at the permission of the group.
2. Just one more, it is wafer thin...someone has to decide where the line is, the GM was nominated to do that job, not the player. If the GM says the line is at archetypes, that is the line. If the group doesn't like it, they have all the power. You can't GM an empty table...I mean, I guess you could, but how sad...
3. Perfect mobility exists. Today I took my daughter to the park, and we didn't game at all. Going to the park was a better option today than gaming. Life is full of many options.
But let us assume there is only one game. What kind of arrogant prick player do you have to be to dictate the terms of the only available game in town, when you weren't even chosen to be the GM.
The logic works both ways...
@Womatkidd: Your above post had those quote be mine....when they are all Scott Betts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wombatkidd:
My main problem is treating every player who dares to question the GM or even to ask for permission to do something as being badwrongfun. That is what I see here constantly.
I'm not saying that either. All my responses have been in regards to players who ask for things that other players have agreed not to use.
If a restriction or new rule has been added and everyone agreed to it, but one guy is asking to not be held to it, he is the one with the problem and should live with the stipulation or find a new group. Simple as that.
To answer the treads original question more completely: the reason people don't call "DM entitlement" on the threads is because if the DM is really being such a jerk he won't have any players and "DM entitlement" won't be a problem.
@Womatkidd: Your above post had those quote be mine....when they are all Scott Betts.
My bad, I'll fix it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a difficult time seeing how allowing a single archetype would affect the enjoyment of the game in a significantly detrimental way to the group.
Wow way to miss the point. The point is that no matter what the houserule is if everyone agreed to it than the person asking for special treatment is being a jerk. It doesn't matter what the rule is or for what reason it was imposed.
The DM is allowed to houserule, the players agreed to the houserule, so if one player is asking for special treatment than he is being entitled!
Again for at least the 4th time, that is literally the definition of being entitled!
Also, if you could stop being insulting to me because I am imposing a houserule you don't like in a game that you are no way involved in that would be great.
I completely agree about any GM or player who comes here to get their problem solved. The only real advice anybody can give since we have no idea of the situration is to talk with the GM or player or group."The GM is a being a dick" is as useful as "You are a player shut up and take it" which I see both being given as 'advice'.
Gaming groups are like significant others. If you don't like the one you are with, you aren't going to change them. And you are an arrogant prick if you expect them to change to meet your needs.
You decided to be with them, and either you want that to happen and you need to compromise to make it work, or you need to accept that it won't and move on.
What I mean my entitled is those people who act as if the group and the GM are there to serve them and meet their needs.
They aren't.
Again I agree. But that does not mean the 'entitled player' who post here does not have the group in mind. Anymore than a GM who ban things has the group in mind.
Lets put it this way Wombatkidd simplest solution in inventing a feat/discovery to allow the player is to instead to have that archetype. He did not because than he proably forsees every player wanting a archetype all of sudden. Probably because he imagined alot of work for himself. So really his ban on all archetypes has nothing to do with the group but has to do with self-interst. A much more group friendly rule would have been all archetypes must be approved by the GM.
The fact that he has said his players have agreed to this does not mean anything. As 1) we only actualy have his word that they have all agreed to this...and 2) Maybe the players are just putting up with his rules for a number of reasons that has little to do with their enjoyment of the game. 3) heck they may not even think that a GM's ruling can be questioned as they have seen other who do so treated like crap by Wombatkidd.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Since this a absolutes staement...does that mean you are a sith?
|
|
Again I agree. But that does not mean the 'entitled player' who post here does not have the group in mind. Anymore than a GM who ban things has the group in mind.
And here is where we diverge.
If the group had a problem with it, this person wouldn't be posting on a message board for support. They would have the support of the group, which is all you need to get any GM to change anything. No group means no game.
If "The Group" wants something, it happens or the the GM doesn't get to run anymore. Unless the GM is really good and everyone is happy with how the game is going, and so they trust the GM has a good reason for whatever tweeks are in place.
Who else would a GM who bans things have in mind but the group? The GM believes, rightly or wrongly, the game will proceed best with the rules they put in place. They have no personal dog in the race other than trying to make the game awesome. They win when everyone enjoys themselves and comes back. They lose when they don't.
Not so for players, hence the problem.
Not really. I've used them. I just don;t want to use them in the setting I have comming up and everyone agreed to it.
Okay, but someone changed their mind. Why not revisit it? It's not like they'd ruin the setting; you're whole justification was that anything that archetypes do should already be possible with the base classes, so flavor clearly isn't a concern.
So who do you think you are to tell me I'm doing something wrong by banning them?
Some guy on the internet.
I'm not. You're the one saying DMs shouldn't be allowed to ban things.
I'm absolutely positive I didn't say that.
Ahh, there you go making baseless, insulting assumptions about me. I don't have any malice because of it.
I didn't say you did. I'm just saying that's what you're used to, and as a result you don't see anything wrong with it.
A lot of DMs don't like psionics at all and even the ones who do don't really like the soulknife. I get it and they have the right to ban it if they want to. I just rolled something else up or didn;t play their game. You know, like someone who's not an entitled brat does.
You don't like being insulted (even when no one insulted you), but you have no problem calling people who want a little more say than you had "entitled brats"?
Come on.
DMs know exactly what they're doing. Building a campaign world that may or may not involve banning some rules.
I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that a lot of GMs don't have a very solid grasp of what they're doing.
If he didn't want to play by the rules of the group, he wouldn't have had fun in the group anyway, and as I said before no gaming is better than unfun gaming.
The alternative would be for the group to make an effort to accommodate the way he wants to play the game (particularly if that involved an incredibly innocuous change, such as allowing a single archetype).
Awful, I know.
Oh please. So I should just accept any idiotic or broken thing anyone wants to make just cause they ask for it?
No.
And no one has said that you should.
Although "idiotic" strikes me as a less-than-ideal descriptor to throw around. What you find "idiotic" might be perfectly passable to someone else. Archetypes, for instance, are certainly not idiotic in my eyes (and in the eyes of most Pathfinder players/GMs, I'd wager).
So I was wrong to not let that guy play a ghost sorcerer or an adamantine golem wizard in the campaign I'm ending now?
Maybe, maybe not. I have no way of knowing. Those both sound like potentially interesting concepts, though. I'd just be concerned about mechanical issues.
I see now that it was so unfair of me to not let that guy make the character he wanted! I'm totally going to let the next guy who asks to make an adamantine golem wizard do so. How could I have imposed my arbitrary personal preference against player characters being adamantine golems get in his way. :'(
I can justify my "imposition" because everyone else at the game agreed to it. I'll be damned if I'm going to give someone else special treatment because they don't have enough respect for me as a DM to make characters within the limits everyone else agreed to.
Why should he? You obviously have very little respect for him (or for any of your players) if you're unwilling to revisit the precepts of your game (especially over something as benign as allowing an archetype). Respect goes both ways, and you clearly lack it for your players.
Well, let's see. Everyone agreed to a restriction.
Except the player in question, obviously. Or he changed his mind.
He's asking to not be heald to the restriction everyone else is held to.
Sure, because he has a character concept that he feels is better represented by an archetype. It's probably fine, mechanically, and it's also probably completely non-destructive to your setting to allow it )and, if it is, just reskin it), so I'm failing to see where the problem is. Your campaign's restrictions are not set in stone. You can change them. So why didn't you?
So he's asking for a special rule that only applies to him. Yep that's the literal definition of asking for special treatment.
Would he have been okay with the other players using archetypes, too? If so, he's not asking for special treatment. He just disagrees with the campaign's restrictions and wants to see one of them removed.
Oh, so my ban of archetypes isn't badwrongfun, it's just laughable. Well that's a world of difference /sarcasm
It wasn't the fact that you banned them. It was the fact that the reason you banned them for is immediately undermined by your willingness to create brand new feats to do part of what archetypes could have already done. Banning archetypes isn't laughable, by itself. Banning archetypes using that reasoning, though, is.
How about this. You stop commenting on how my houserules that all my players agreed to
Except the one.
are laughable and I'll stop calling you out on being insulting because you don't like the way I've chosen to play. Sound fair.
I don't really mind you calling me insulting nearly as much as you must think I do.