|
'Kay...
So yeah, there is a tangential relationship between your... ahem... exchanges (nice, neutral-value description there, I think) with Icyshadow and the issue of the thread at hand.
And, I do agree with your stance viz-a-viz GM vs. Player entitlement.
It's just kinda depressing watching you bait him, rather than going on with the rest of the discussion.
:/
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think the point should go unchallenged. I can see where you would think it may be "baiting", but I don't agree.
Icyshadow brought up an example from his experience to make a point, as he (I assume he) has many times in the past, and I think his point illustrates the opposite.
There are few things more disruptive to a night of gaming than a rage quit. It is childish, would be unacceptable in pretty much every other life context, and is exactly the behavior of an entitled player who puts themselves before the group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And here lies the true problem. You translated this situation...
Me: "Yeah, I'm done. Have fun finding a new group." *Gets up and walks off*
...and instead pictured this.
Me: *Roars and flips table* "F*** YOU AND YOUR F***ING GAME!!" *Wrecks stuff while stomping off*
Maybe we could both stop using the word ragequit so you could stop getting the wrong message.
That is, unless you want to get the wrong message. But why in the name of all that makes sense would you want that?
I picture this actually.
Maybe we could both stop using the word ragequit so you could stop getting the wrong message.
That is, unless you want to get the wrong message. But why in the name of all that makes sense would you want that?
Yeah, that was not the case. I didn't ask anyone to come with me, I just left and the two others followed.
And the actual ragequit I had (yeah, there is only one if we go by your definition) was like 5 or 6 years ago.
Wait, I thought you were baiting me and not the other way around. What is this sorcery?!
Bait jokes aside, anyone have their own stories to share about the player entitlement issue?
How does it feel to WANT?
...eh, I know better feelings than just wanting.
|
Some of you on these boards actually make me a bit angry because of the neck you have when ot comes to someone else's game and what they don't allow.
If you ever told me in real life that I was a bad DM because I didn't let you play something I banned then I would ban you so fast it would make your head spin.
A player doesn't tell the DM what he is going to allow, the DM tells you what he disallows and you decide if you want to play or not. I'm not sure what kind of DMs you have where you play but they sound like pushovers if they let player's get away with that kind of behavior.
I dare someone to come to my game and tell me that I can't disallow something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of you on these boards actually make me a bit angry because of the neck you have when ot comes to someone else's game and what they don't allow.
I'm not sure what kind of DMs you have where you play but they sound like pushovers if they let player's get away with that kind of behavior.
Some of you on these boards actually make me a bit angry because of the neck you have when ot comes to someone else's game and what they don't allow.
If you ever told me in real life that I was a bad DM because I didn't let you play something I banned then I would ban you so fast it would make your head spin.
A player doesn't tell the DM what he is going to allow, the DM tells you what he disallows and you decide if you want to play or not. I'm not sure what kind of DMs you have where you play but they sound like pushovers if they let player's get away with that kind of behavior.
I dare someone to come to my game and tell me that I can't disallow something.
I wouldn't tell you that you are a bad DM objectively. I would say, "I do not like your style but if your players do, good for them". What really bothered me when I went back to read some of Ciretose's posts was this whole "if you had a bad DM experience it is your own fault for not walking out" thing, especially after reading up on the bad experiences other people have had with such.
Back in the day, I didn't know any other DMs, for example. I didn't know what to ask about the setting either, because I was new to the game and focused on my chara. But anyway, I actually take pride in the fact that I do NOT disallow things as much as others yet still manage to run games just as fun (if not more so) than others with my players. And really, I'm tired of seeing (and hearing) how everyone else is having fun playing PF / D&D when my first experiences with the game usually fill me with nausea instead of joy.
That, and it just seems that all the DMs who allow more than just "Core only" are an endangered species!
|
|
Eh, one guy I've played with has the tendency to play a rogue like a rabid Kender on steroids, much to the detriment of the party and irritation of his fellow players.
I (my character) geased him to make him stop. IC solution to OOC problem, yeah, but it worked for a while.
Whereas our group would have a meatspace conversation about him needing to not play rogues anymore.
We have a guy who can't play Paladins anymore, because he sucks at Paladin. Honestly, he more or less needs to play neutral or lawful evil, because he is eventually going to end up playing lawful or neutral evil anyway, so why not just say it up front...
Good gamer, not so good with the playing good part.
|
|
GM's who allow more than core are an endangered species specifically because of the bad experiences they have had with entitled players blowing up games with splatbooks and refusal to even try to create a concept over the mechanics.
If you show you aren't going to be "that guy", over time the GM will either loosen the reins or you can run and show that if you loosen in some areas the game doesn't collapse.
But with some players if you give a little rope you end up arguing with them about infinate wish machines and it gets to the point you don't want to even run anymore, regardless if anyone bothers showing up.
|
|
Some of you on these boards actually make me a bit angry because of the neck you have when ot comes to someone else's game and what they don't allow.
If you ever told me in real life that I was a bad DM because I didn't let you play something I banned then I would ban you so fast it would make your head spin.
A player doesn't tell the DM what he is going to allow, the DM tells you what he disallows and you decide if you want to play or not. I'm not sure what kind of DMs you have where you play but they sound like pushovers if they let player's get away with that kind of behavior.
I dare someone to come to my game and tell me that I can't disallow something.
I wouldn't tell you that you are a bad DM objectively. I would say, "I do not like your style but if your players do, good for them". What really bothered me when I went back to read some of Ciretose's posts was this whole "if you had a bad DM experience it is your own fault for not walking out" thing, especially after reading up on the bad experiences other people have had with such.
Back in the day, I didn't know any other DMs, for example. I didn't know what to ask about the setting either, because I was new to the game and focused on my chara. But anyway, I actually take pride in the fact that I do NOT disallow things as much as others yet still manage to run games just as fun (if not more so) than others with my players. And really, I'm tired of seeing (and hearing) how everyone else is having fun playing PF / D&D when my first experiences with the game usually fill me with nausea instead of joy.
That, and it just seems that all the DMs who allow more than just "Core only" are an endangered species!
Playstyles don't make you a bad DM. Being a bad DM is forgetting the rules, abusing rules etc... Banning things in your game doesn't make you a bad DM nor does running a game that that someone else just doesn't like, it's all subjective.
If I present you with a game and I'm disallowing XYZ then I expect your answer to be a yes to play or a no. If you sneak a please in there and I still say no then I expect the conversation to end with either yes or no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If i went through all this process, i now would have 5 players who are some kind of "supernatural and magic wonder group" in a world where i said most of the people have never seen such things as magic.
Non/very low magic games are fine, but in this scenario - where you seem to expect that your entire party is champing at the bit to play something magical, and this suppressed desire will burst out the instant you allow one player one magical thing, and you're unwilling to adjust to run with magical heroes in a low magic world - then maybe it would actually be best to then not run a non magic game?
If an entire group of players evidently wants to play magical characters, a nonmagic campaign may actually not be the ideal choice for their GM to run.
Just a suggestion, which may not actually be the case. Perhaps they all really don't care that much. As usual, there's only one way to find out, which would be to talk to the hypothetical players in this scenario.
|
|
To be perfectly honest, I think this is all hypothetical anyway. I don't think there is anyone whowould tell the DM that he cannot disallow something in his own game and then expect to be able to play.
Doesn't happen.
This is sarcasm, right?
I mean, you've been on the boards, correct?
What is said on an internet forum is a lot different than being at an actual table.
What people say on the boards might not reflect what happens at the tables, though.
Judging from what I see at least, they usually don't. Then again, it's a crazy world out there...
...and ninja'd by Shallowsoul!
And I don't think anyone has contested that a player shouldn't be allowed to challenge a ruling or question the DM.
Scroll up slightly from this post, my friend. :P
|
|
And I don't think anyone has contested that a player shouldn't be allowed to challenge a ruling or question the DM.Scroll up slightly from this post, my friend. :P
Who has said they shouldn't be allowed to challenge a ruling or question the GM?
You are allowed, there is a time and a place, but you are allowed. You just aren't entitled to having the GM agree with you and do what you say.
You can then decide what you want to do next.
If i went through all this process, i now would have 5 players who are some kind of "supernatural and magic wonder group" in a world where i said most of the people have never seen such things as magic.Non/very low magic games are fine, but in this scenario - where you seem to expect that your entire party is champing at the bit to play something magical, and this suppressed desire will burst out the instant you allow one player one magical thing, and you're unwilling to adjust to run with magical heroes in a low magic world - then maybe it would actually be best to then not run a non magic game?
If an entire group of players evidently wants to play magical characters, a nonmagic campaign may actually not be the ideal choice for their GM to run.
Just a suggestion, which may not actually be the case. Perhaps they all really don't care that much. As usual, there's only one way to find out, which would be to talk to the hypothetical players in this scenario.
Yeah, if they wanted to play something different, we would have played something different, i can't argue with that. And if my player didn't argue with it, but instead accepted i think it's because they wanted to (at least, i hope so...).
I made the example to stress the fact that a GM won't make exceptions if he is not ready to make the same exception for every member of the party, at least, this is how i deal with my rules. But sometimes making every member of the party be an exception, without a setting coherent reason in the story, requires a suspension of disbelief that may kick your setting coherence really hard where's really unpleasant... And most of the time, a GM who works really hard to deliver the setting atmosphere will have a hard time accepting it.
|
|
And I don't think anyone has contested that a player shouldn't be allowed to challenge a ruling or question the DM.Scroll up slightly from this post, my friend. :PWho has said they shouldn't be allowed to challenge a ruling or question the GM?
You are allowed, there is a time and a place, but you are allowed. You just aren't entitled to having the GM agree with you and do what you say.
You can then decide what you want to do next.
I said a player cannot change a ruling and I stick by what I said because the fact is they can't.
Can they question the DM? Sure they can but that doesn't mean something is going to be changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
