When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick?


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 1,184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Tri, that sounds eerily familiar to exchanges we've had in our groups.

So, now you see, we are not so...different, after all.

Yeah, it disturbs me too. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Cinderfist wrote:

Because the GM is doing all the work. The player just has to show up and enjoy it.

If I bake a cherry pie(adventure) and invite you to have a piece. All you have to do is show up with a spoon(character) to enjoy it.

It is DAMN RUDE to show up and complain that the pie isn't apple, or that you brought a fork and are having a hard time eating said FREE pie.

Know what's depressing?

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Those people are depressing. Every single one of them.

DAMN RUDE? It's damn rude to invite a bunch of people over to your house and promise to feed them and when they arrive you've made lasagna. Only they're lactose intolerant.

It's damn rude to not let the diabetic guy bring his own sugar-free foods and drinks.

It's damn rude to assume that because it's your house you should feel free to dictate the actions and preferences of everyone in it.

Look, it's one thing to have rules. "No smoking" is reasonable. In game terms that might be "no evil characters allowed". It's entirely another thing to apply your personal preferences to your GUESTS. "I like cherry pie so we're having cherry pie." That's the game equivalent of "no gunslingers, no elves, no bards, and no greataxes".

It's your house. It's your game-world.

Yes.

It's your JOB to adapt the game-world such that it's interesting and enticing to your players. If that means adapting the game-world so it's not fun for you to run, it's time to invite new players to your house/game. But if you only allow things in your game that you like, you're being a dictator. And by dictator I mean... really rude host.


TOZ wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Tri, that sounds eerily familiar to exchanges we've had in our groups.

So, now you see, we are not so...different, after all.

Yeah, it disturbs me too. :)

Point of order here TOZ, I think I am perhaps the poster on these boards who most commonly says "we aren't so different after all" in lots of different situations. So it doesn't disturb me. I think the vast majority of "differences" expressed on these boards are greatly exaggerated by the impersonal nature of posting text on a public site.

I am a big believer in what I call the "Sociological Principle" which is based on the "Cosmological Principle". Put simply the cosmological principle is a statement about the fundamental constancy of natural laws in the universe. It is usually stated as some variation of "from any random location in the universe, if you look around, the universe looks pretty much the same as it does from any other random location."

So the "sociological principle" could be stated as: "from any random social situation, if you look around, the social environment looks pretty much the same as it does from any other random social situation."

This implies, for example, that the social dynamics and interactions in the US House of Representatives is quite similar to those of any state House of Representatives which is itself quite similar to any local school board or bridge club. People form alliances or cliques, a relatively consistent percentage of the group are smart, witty or jerks.


We played a game in a world with no humans once. Before I'd learned the idea of the setting, I'd come up with a half-elf character. When the GM pointed out that wouldn't work with no humans, I would have dropped it, but he suggested that my human mother was a visitor from another world. She'd returned home before the game started.

I was an oddity in the game world, but still rooted in it. A human character wouldn't have worked, since they would have had to be a total outsider.

Fun game. My origins came back to haunt me by the end. Part of the plot involved a bad guy bringing in monsters from another world. The same one Mom was from.

Some concepts can be worked around, even when they don't seem to fit at first. Some can't. It's worth exploring the idea rather than jumping immediately to ultimatums. Sometimes it still won't work out. Sometimes something cool will come out of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

... this is one of those things that is pretty alien to me.

99% of the games I've played in, 100% of those I've run, have been in game settings designed by the GM.

Sometimes there have been GM restrictions that I would rather weren't part of the game -- but I've ALWAYS been able to find something fun to play regardless of those restrictions.

Often, players don't like MY restrictions when I set up a world. Some of my restrictions are negotiable... some of them are ironclad. Usually, I discourage debate over them in either case. [E-mail discussion is usually fine, but I won't have possible game time wasted with an argument over whether or not I'm going to allow (x).]

I lay out my changes and house rules ahead of time, when people are starting to think on character concepts, before actually getting down to generating the stats. So everyone knows what they're looking at.

I've had a couple players balk, and opt out. I've had, oh, I think three (over a gaming lifespan of 32 years) start playing and be so disruptive that I've uninvited them.

I guess my point here is that, when I'm a player, I do my best to adapt to what the GM wants to run -- and I do expect a similar courtesy from players in my games. If someone is willing to waste a lot of time arguing that I should allow (x) in my game when (x) is called out before hand as not allowed... I probably don't want them at my table anyway, not because they want to have (x), but because they're being argumentative and detracting from everyone else's fun by wasting time we could be playing.

I've had VERY FEW occasions of a player being unwilling to adapt; I agree that the forums aren't a good example of real life gaming that way. I appreciate the guys who decided to not play (and they did come back to other campaigns, with different settings, and play just fine). It's much less disruptive to deal with than the guys who said "ok, let's play" and spent their time trying to end the campaign.

Anyway... been following along for a while now and just thought I'd try contributing. Though I think most of what I've had to say is echoing earlier posts. So, eh, my two filed-down cp worth.

:)


To reply in TriOmega fashion:

"I learned that your name is Steve"

And I have to reiterate...can you seriously not play a game if the DM happens to decide that dwarves or gunslingers don't exist in his current setting?? Are people not even willing to try something different?

Players managed to get by just fine and enjoy the game in 2E before Master Summoners and Tieflings existed...but now that they do exist they simply MUST have them in their game and able to play them or the game just isn't fun?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
kmal2t wrote:

To reply in TriOmega fashion:

"I learned that your name is Steve"

He can be taught, ladies and gentlemen!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:


It's not one or the other. I enjoy GMing for many reasons, some that you've listed and some that you haven't. But if I say at the start of a campaign there are no Gunslingers, then respect my authority as GM and don't ask to play a Gunslinger.

In the real world with real players at real tables in real games the situation usually goes something like this:

GM: "I don't like gunslingers and so none will be allowed in my game."
Player: "Really, that sort of sucks, I really wanted to play a gunslinger. I don't think they are overpowered and guns actually overlap the medieval swords and armor timeline historically, could you make an exception?"
GM: "No, I don't like them."
Player: "Well, I really don't agree with this decision, but I can play an archer for this campaign."

Actually in our games it's more like this.

GM* has laid out the setting and is asking people what they're looking to create

Player: I want to run a gunslinger.

GM:the only problem is that the world hasn't discovered firearms. Can you think of something else you'd rather play?

Player: Let me think awhile. Do Player 2 while I'm thinking.

And that's usually the resolution of it.

Silver Crusade

If I make a mistake with a ruling then I expect to be called out on it because it was error on my part. Now if I don't allow something then its done on purpose, I wouldn't accidently disallow dwarves.

I run a tight game and I have learned to make my decisions and stick with them. When the result is going to be the same no matter how much I explain or how little then I take that time and put it to better use.


Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Asking why is a challenge to ... authority.

...said every damned dirty dictator in human history.

Ah an internet troll reveals himself. Because obviously a friendly helpful GM to friendly helpful players is a dictator when she stops problem players in their tracks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can do this all day, or can I?

Ok but back to the topic...if we are going to carry on this "cherry pie analogy"

Someone invited you over to their house to eat. Generally you don't say "What are you making? I have to have fried chicken!" You say ok and go over.

Now lets say you get there and the food is awful or its something you don't like. You try to make the best of it with whats there. Maybe you ask for more bread. Maybe you point out you can't eat pork because of a religious issue and the host will try to accomdate you the best he can. Either way he took the time to make a meal for you and others so you choke down what little you can to be polite and next time will probably make an excuse of why you can't go over to eat. Same thing with the game. If its so horrible to your liking you'll sit through one session and not come back.

The more likely situation is you go to a BBQ and you might have a hankering for ribs and instead the host is serving steak. It isn't exactly what you wanted but its still tasty and you can have a good time. You may not get 100% of what you want in a game or even 80% but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game and are going to leave because "the BBQ didn't have ribs".


Actually to continue this analogy further...

if people kind of wanted ribs but were like eh steak is good too and you said, where are the ribs? Well why didn't you buy any? Well you should go buy some or take those ones out of the freezer... YOU are the one hurting the fun of the game not the DM. A player that wastes everyone's game time whining about something others likely don't give a crap about means you are the problem, not the DM.


Generally in my social groups if someone is hosting a dinner, the menu is circulated in advance and usually most of the attendees offer to bring tidbits of their own to share.

Just sayin'.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Asking why is a challenge to ... authority.

...said every damned dirty dictator in human history.

Ah an internet troll reveals himself. Because obviously a friendly helpful GM to friendly helpful players is a dictator when she stops problem players in their tracks.

Then why are you worried about questioning the GM's authority when a friendly, helpful player asks why something is disallowed? I think Ravingdork has a good point.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Asking why is a challenge to ... authority.

...said every damned dirty dictator in human history.

Kthulhu wrote:
What if the reasoning, in full, is simply "I don't like X"? Should the GM have to run a campaign with X, despite his dislike of it, just because he doesn't have a fully rational reason for that dislike? At what point do the GM's likes and dislikes begin to be considered?
Then he should at least be able to explain the reasons WHY he doesn't like X. Even if the player doesn't like or agree with the reasons, at least then there is mutual understanding.

Sometimes there is no reason. Sometimes people just dislike something, without there being an underlying reason.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Asking why is a challenge to ... authority.

...said every damned dirty dictator in human history.

Ah an internet troll reveals himself. Because obviously a friendly helpful GM to friendly helpful players is a dictator when she stops problem players in their tracks.

Then why are you worried about questioning the GM's authority when a friendly, helpful player asks why something is disallowed? I think Ravingdork has a good point.

I am not. I make the distinction between good and bad players and go from there. Have you read all my posts and not just the bits trolls pick out to attack?

The reason I even bring up bad players first is because nothing really needs to be said of the majority of good players out there. There is nothing about them to complain about. They get their accommodation and we all have fun.

It is far more helpful to explain how to shut down the bad players.


First off, let me start by saying I am a fairly green GM. I only have two or three campaigns under my belt, but I think the points I am about to outline apply in general to any social contract.

I view GMing a lot like hosting a dinner. My gaming group is the same group of guys I gamed with in college, even though we are forced to game online. I know their tendencies and preferences pretty well. Therefore, when I start a new game, I try to keep those in mind just as I would keep their dietary preferences in mind if I were to cook everyone dinner. That way, I can avoid deliberately alienating one of my friends.

Thankfully, their tastes align pretty well with mine. There is no one who demands on playing a large squirrel-folk gunslinger who can shoot lasers out of their eyes and speaks Japanese. In other words, to go back to the dinner analogy, let's say I am deathly allergic to peanuts. I really do not like eating anything with peanuts, and it would be detrimental to my health (fun) to do so. However, one of my players shows up and demands that I cook Pad Thai with peanuts. It is rude for that person to demand that I cook them something that I would have an allergic reaction to, and cannot eat. If one of my friends is kosher, we wouldn't order a sausage and bacon pizza. Same concept.

But like I said, this is a fairly consistent group of close friends, in which more room for adjustment can be made. In a pickup group or gaming with someone I don't know, I always develop a character that fits within a campaign setting, because it is my choice to game with them or not. I choose to create a character that allows me to play with them. I would not insist on playing a gnome in a game that disallowed gnomes for the same reason I would not storm into a Taco Bell and order a Whopper. I may approach the GM and say, "Hey, I know there are no gnomes, but could we work out a race that is fairly similar?", but if his answer is "No" then I will respect that and play something else. And I do have a long list of unplayed character concepts. I am not "that guy" who only plays the dude with the katana and the trenchcoat.

At the end of the day, it is important for people to come together and compromise when they can. But GMs are just as important as players, and it is incumbent upon me to respect their tastes and preferences if no compromise can be reached. No one is forcing me to play with them, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Cinderfist wrote:

Because the GM is doing all the work. The player just has to show up and enjoy it.

If I bake a cherry pie(adventure) and invite you to have a piece. All you have to do is show up with a spoon(character) to enjoy it.

It is DAMN RUDE to show up and complain that the pie isn't apple, or that you brought a fork and are having a hard time eating said FREE pie.

Know what's depressing?

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Those people are depressing. Every single one of them.

DAMN RUDE? It's damn rude to invite a bunch of people over to your house and promise to feed them and when they arrive you've made lasagna. Only they're lactose intolerant.

It's damn rude to not let the diabetic guy bring his own sugar-free foods and drinks.

It's damn rude to assume that because it's your house you should feel free to dictate the actions and preferences of everyone in it.

Look, it's one thing to have rules. "No smoking" is reasonable. In game terms that might be "no evil characters allowed". It's entirely another thing to apply your personal preferences to your GUESTS. "I like cherry pie so we're having cherry pie." That's the game equivalent of "no gunslingers, no elves, no bards, and no greataxes".

It's your house. It's your game-world.

Yes.

It's your JOB to adapt the game-world such that it's interesting and enticing to your players. If that means adapting the game-world so it's not fun for you to run, it's time to invite new players to your house/game. But if you only allow things in your game that you like, you're being a dictator. And by dictator I mean... really rude host.

If I bake a cherry pie, and tell you, "Hey I baked a cherry pie, if you want a piece c'mon over and bring a spoon."

You show up with a knife, and start complaining that I didn't bake an apple pie.

So which person is being rude?

Just to be sure, you are saying that is OK for guests to dictate (and by dictate I mean... be really rude guests) to the person that owns the home, but it isn't OK for the home owner to set rules for his guests?


Anguish wrote:
Cinderfist wrote:

Because the GM is doing all the work. The player just has to show up and enjoy it.

If I bake a cherry pie(adventure) and invite you to have a piece. All you have to do is show up with a spoon(character) to enjoy it.

It is DAMN RUDE to show up and complain that the pie isn't apple, or that you brought a fork and are having a hard time eating said FREE pie.

Know what's depressing?

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Those people are depressing. Every single one of them.

DAMN RUDE? It's damn rude to invite a bunch of people over to your house and promise to feed them and when they arrive you've made lasagna. Only they're lactose intolerant.

It's damn rude to not let the diabetic guy bring his own sugar-free foods and drinks.

It's damn rude to assume that because it's your house you should feel free to dictate the actions and preferences of everyone in it.

Look, it's one thing to have rules. "No smoking" is reasonable. In game terms that might be "no evil characters allowed". It's entirely another thing to apply your personal preferences to your GUESTS. "I like cherry pie so we're having cherry pie." That's the game equivalent of "no gunslingers, no elves, no bards, and no greataxes".

It's your house. It's your game-world.

Yes.

It's your JOB to adapt the game-world such that it's interesting and enticing to your players. If that means adapting the game-world so it's not fun for you to run, it's time to invite new players to your house/game. But if you only allow things in your game that you like, you're being a dictator. And by dictator I mean... really rude host.

Should you build a handi ramp up the stairs for the guy in the wheel chair too? I mean since you are accommodating everyone?

Or possibly just play at the hand cap guys house because he already has a handi ramp?

That's the game equivalent of "if you dont like it, you can run it"

How many people do you know that go out of their way to deliberately disallow things for no reason?

The diabetic kid brings is stuff and leaves trash everywhere and spills stuff on the carpet.

THAT's why he can't bring his own stuff. (you ever have buddies who always leave stuff like wrappers and trash in your car, happens to me ALL the time)

maybe it's cherry pie because that's all he can afford and it's all he has, and he is willing to share it with anyone who wants it?

Has the guy who is lactose intolerant TOLD you he cant eat the lasagna?

That's more like what USUALLY happens.

People say no to things because they have been gotten burnt before, real or imagined, their perception is their reality.

You dont have to eat or drink at the game anymore than you dont have to eat or drink at the office.
Players don't have to be 100% accommodated to play.

The only guy that really has a problem is the handicapped guy, who cant get up the stairs.

He has less choices, his house, the library, or don't play.

But when you accommodate him, the diabetic kid who leaves his trash all over the place, expects for equal treatment, so you get people who just withdraw and just say no.

That's your 'Tyrant GM" he just says NO NO no no no.

How did he get there? see the above.

The elusive entitled player is made just the opposite, he complains so much about what he doesnt like, the GM(s) he's had just say 'fine whatever', so he's encouraged to continually act that way, because in the past, it's gotten him what he's wanted, why stop now?

I dont like gnomes and halflings...generally I hate the small weapons and 1d3 1d2 weapon dice.... I have no logical reason for this, i just dont like it.

I normally discourage people from playing gnomes and halflings.

a few years ago this lady wanted to play a gnome witch.... no, no no, no, please, no, please...ok fine.

Then she proceeded to be as annoying as possible with her stupid little runt character. However, to be fair, she could done this playing a half elf, it just bothered me more than it was a gnome!

basically, I over ruled my normal, no gnomes and halflings, because the idea of a gnome witch seemed reasonable, given the race's connection to the first world.

my wife wants to play an all halfling group some day.... im going to have to stomach that campaign, eventually.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Moved thread.


Wow, I loged on today to over a hundred new posts, I'm trying to read through everything, but in case it hasn't been said already I wanted to add something.

shallowsoul wrote:

Why do you need to ask me again to find out information on preferences when I have already told you?

Okay lads, I'm running a campaign and im not going to allow XYZ.

DM, can I play X?

No, I already informed you what isn't allowed.

But why? I need to know so I won't ask again in the future.

*smiles* Seriously? Are you really saying his?

Where did you get a "screw you" from? Are you one of those people that take no personally?

No, if you say you aren't allowing "XYZ" (lets pretend gunslinger, ninja and samurai), I will ask why you don't allow them. If you say you don't like the rules for them, I can still play a gun wielding fighter, a eastern flavoured rogue, or a cavalier named Takeda Musashi who weilds a katana. If you say you don't like the theme, I will ask if I can play a "gun"slinger and swap out every reference of "gun" to "crossbow", a specialised "rogue", or a "cavalier" with the Order of the Warrior.

If you say "because" and leave it at that there is a possibility I will make a character who fits all the rules you said, but you still won't allow into the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I swore I'd give up this thread, but it's my lunch break, and I'm just too masochistic to let it go.

In response to Anguish, far above, it does not have anything to do with food allergies; it has to do with food preferences. And it goes something like this:

-----
GM: You are welcome to come to my home, and I have prepared salad, lasagna, and cherry pie (the world and NPCs). Feel free to bring your own dish (the PC). But I do not care for shellfish (the restrictions), so please do not bring any shellfish.

Player: WHAT!?!?!?! What do you mean I can't bring any shellfish!?!?! All of my best dishes are shellfish! I cannot possibly cook anything else! I am going to bring a shellfish dish (a disallowed class/race/whatever) and I am going to make sure everyone at the table eats it (all players, not just the GM, have to deal with the PC).

GM: OK. I understand. You like seafood. Well, I can tolerate ocean fish such as swordfish and tuna, so I suppose if you bring a dish with those I can deal with it.

Player: NO!!! It MUST BE SHELLFISH, and YOU MUST EAT IT!!!!
-----

Obviously, this is an extreme example of player entitlement, but as Adamantine Dragon keeps pointing out, we are not looking at reasonable, resolvable-at-the-table situations; we are looking at situations where things get out of hand and the GM and player cannot resolve their differences, and they end up on messageboards being endlessly debated by people not involved.

Yes, there are GMs who say, "I'm cooking lactose-free lasagna with soy cheese and Brussels sprouts, and you're going to eat it," but in that case, only one person has to walk away from the table, or not show up at all.

When a player says, "I'm bringing shrimp scampi and everyone has to eat it," everyone at the table is affected.

So back to the OP's point, why do players get the short end of the stick? Because *if* the GM is doing his/her job, everyone knows what's coming from him/her up front and can choose not to show up at all. If the GM allows the player who *must* be different, everyone is affected, whether or not they agreed to play with such a player in the first place.


shallowsoul wrote:

If I make a mistake with a ruling then I expect to be called out on it because it was error on my part. Now if I don't allow something then its done on purpose, I wouldn't accidently disallow dwarves.

I run a tight game and I have learned to make my decisions and stick with them. When the result is going to be the same no matter how much I explain or how little then I take that time and put it to better use.

In general, when I ask a GM why about something like character or race limits, it's not because I want to make him change them or think he made a mistake(?), it's because I want to know why? Whether it's a mechanical dislike, a flavor dislike, a quirk of his gameworld, a plot point for the game? Whatever it is, it let's me know more about the world or the game. More about what will be acceptable and appreciated.

Asking why isn't a challenge to your authority. It's an expression of interest in your world or your gaming style.

If I get your answer and then try to tell you why it's wrong, then feel free to slap me down.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.

I have had players try to strong arm me for something. If they want something that I disallow there better be a good reason why it is there. I have had other players complain that the overall ruleset is broken ( player was a warhammer fantasy player) and wanted me to incorporate that ruleset instead. The bottom line is the GM sets the overall rules. The players get to decide if they want to take place in that story or not. If they don't want to there is nothing stopping them to playing somewhere else that does fit into the playstyle and rules that they like.

The main reason why I GM is to present a compelling story. If there are things that I see as not fitting I will not allow it. It doesnt mean that I am not willing to hear arguments, but at the same time a if a player comes at me wanting to play a character with a born lycanthope condition that is a half dragon celestial paladin is simply going to get a resounding NO. Simply put I dont run that kind of game, and that player should look elsewhere.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.

And you fail to understand that everything including the Core Rulebook and Bestiary is optional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything ...

is optional.

There I cleaned that up for you :)

edit...son of a...TOZ (fist shaking in the air)

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.
And you fail to understand that everything including the Core Rulebook and Bestiary is optional.

You are right. It is my option to run at game with the rule set as I see fit. It is the player's option to decide to play in it. If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Duskrunner1 wrote:
If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.

Indeed, even if that one is the current one minus the current GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

Know what's depressing?

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Those people are depressing. Every single one of them.

Damn right. And they need to take a serious look at why they GM, and their relationship with their players.

Yes, I "create" the world. Yes, I invest hours of my time into planning the game. Yes, it's my house that they come to to play.

Does this make me better than them? Does this entitle me to rule with an iron fist? Of course it doesn't. I do the things I do because I enjoy them. I enjoy pouring hours into creating exciting encounters. I enjoy watching my players enjoy themselves.

I reject the idea that GMs are justified in their awful attitudes but players are somehow overly-entitled when they want a say.

You want to know the real reason why players get the short end of the stick when it comes to discussing who is entitled?

It's because the people participating in the discussion are overwhelmingly GMs with seemingly no ability to empathize with the position of a player at their own table.


Aranna wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Asking why is a challenge to ... authority.

...said every damned dirty dictator in human history.

Ah an internet troll reveals himself. Because obviously a friendly helpful GM to friendly helpful players is a dictator when she stops problem players in their tracks.

I don't normally agree with RD, but asking "why" is part of normal discourse where I come from. The GM gets the final say, but I have never viewed myself or any other GM as an authority figure. I respect the time and effort they put into the game so I just don’t give the GM a lot of trouble, even when I disagree. That however is a far cry from the GM being above question.


Kthulhu wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Asking why is a challenge to ... authority.

...said every damned dirty dictator in human history.

Kthulhu wrote:
What if the reasoning, in full, is simply "I don't like X"? Should the GM have to run a campaign with X, despite his dislike of it, just because he doesn't have a fully rational reason for that dislike? At what point do the GM's likes and dislikes begin to be considered?
Then he should at least be able to explain the reasons WHY he doesn't like X. Even if the player doesn't like or agree with the reasons, at least then there is mutual understanding.
Sometimes there is no reason. Sometimes people just dislike something, without there being an underlying reason.

Nothing is without reason. You may not know the reason, but there is a reason for it.


Aranna wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Asking why is a challenge to ... authority.

...said every damned dirty dictator in human history.

Ah an internet troll reveals himself. Because obviously a friendly helpful GM to friendly helpful players is a dictator when she stops problem players in their tracks.

Then why are you worried about questioning the GM's authority when a friendly, helpful player asks why something is disallowed? I think Ravingdork has a good point.

I am not. I make the distinction between good and bad players and go from there. Have you read all my posts and not just the bits trolls pick out to attack?

The reason I even bring up bad players first is because nothing really needs to be said of the majority of good players out there. There is nothing about them to complain about. They get their accommodation and we all have fun.

It is far more helpful to explain how to shut down the bad players.

RD's quote of you did not single out "bad" players. Did he misquote you, or did you fail to specify?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duskrunner1 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.
And you fail to understand that everything including the Core Rulebook and Bestiary is optional.
You are right. It is my option to run at game with the rule set as I see fit. It is the player's option to decide to play in it. If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.

Right. Both parties can reject the other. So why does this justify you imposing your will on the players?

Because it's easy to find new players, and it's hard to find a new GM.

That's it.

That's the entire issue.

If they want a game that suits their desires, they have to leave your game and find someone else willing to serve as GM running that game. And, to boot, the people who are willing to be GMs are probably going to have the same suck-it-up-or-leave attitude that you do.

If you don't like your player, though, he's gone. All you have to do is find some other chump with less of a spine to fill his spot.

It's an asymmetrical relationship that shouldn't be asymmetrical but unfortunately that's how it works right now. And instead of trying to correct that, you're only interested in perpetuating it.

Liberty's Edge

iLaifire wrote:
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?

Because many posters here see themselves primarily as GMs rather than players.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Steady on. I'm a GM that is pro-players.

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.
Indeed, even if that one is the current one minus the current GM.

I agree. That then saves the GM's time from becoming wasted effort.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

*high five*

Liberty's Edge

NobodysHome wrote:
So back to the OP's point, why do players get the short end of the stick? Because *if* the GM is doing his/her job, everyone knows what's coming from him/her up front and can choose not to show up at all. If the GM allows the player who *must* be different, everyone is affected, whether or not they agreed to play with such a player in the first place.

Aha. By your own words you are defeated.

Because if the GM allows it, then it becomes THE LAW and all players have to conform.

Lest they become entitled.

Liberty's Edge

It seems that "entitled" has become synonymous with "player disagreeing with the GM".

Note that how you disagree (respectfully or not) and the reason why you disagree are not taken into account.

In other words, Good good GM. Bad bad player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never had a player press a contentious issue with me, God rest their character’s souls.


The black raven wrote:

It seems that "entitled" has become synonymous with "player disagreeing with the GM".

Note that how you disagree (respectfully or not) and the reason why you disagree are not taken into account.

In other words, Good good GM. Bad bad player.

I really think you and I are reading completely different threads.

GM: "I have prepared a world for you. There are no firearms, and hence no gunslingers."
Player: "I absolutely MUST play a gunslinger, because no other class works for me."

Is this equally the fault of the GM and the player in your eyes? Does it matter whether or not the GM is willing to discuss his/her reasoning for disallowing firearms and gunslingers?

Honest question. I will say nothing more, because I'm very interested in the response.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.
And you fail to understand that everything including the Core Rulebook and Bestiary is optional.
You are right. It is my option to run at game with the rule set as I see fit. It is the player's option to decide to play in it. If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.

Right. Both parties can reject the other. So why does this justify you imposing your will on the players?

Because it's easy to find new players, and it's hard to find a new GM.

That's it.

That's the entire issue.

If they want a game that suits their desires, they have to leave your game and find someone else willing to serve as GM running that game. And, to boot, the people who are willing to be GMs are probably going to have the same suck-it-up-or-leave attitude that you do.

If you don't like your player, though, he's gone. All you have to do is find some other chump with less of a spine to fill his spot.

It's an asymmetrical relationship that shouldn't be asymmetrical but unfortunately that's how it works right now. And instead of trying to correct that, you're only interested in perpetuating it.

No I am interested in telling a story. I offer and present that story and set the boundaries. If someone takes issue with the boundaries I am willing to hear them out and present their argument. If afterwards their argument doesn't make sense then of course I will not allow it.

I have made exceptions to allow things in, against my better judgment, and in turn from my experience it destroyed the overall story and led to nobody having fun with the exception of the one who wanted special favors. On the other hand letting some things in had created a better overall story.

The game requires someone to set the guidelines. Otherwise you might as well play make-believe in the sandbox outside (or 4th ed.)


Scott Betts wrote:
Anguish wrote:

Know what's depressing?

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Those people are depressing. Every single one of them.

Damn right. And they need to take a serious look at why they GM, and their relationship with their players.

Yes, I "create" the world. Yes, I invest hours of my time into planning the game. Yes, it's my house that they come to to play.

Does this make me better than them? Does this entitle me to rule with an iron fist? Of course it doesn't. I do the things I do because I enjoy them. I enjoy pouring hours into creating exciting encounters. I enjoy watching my players enjoy themselves.

I reject the idea that GMs are justified in their awful attitudes but players are somehow overly-entitled when they want a say.

You want to know the real reason why players get the short end of the stick when it comes to discussing who is entitled?

It's because the people participating in the discussion are overwhelmingly GMs with seemingly no ability to empathize with the position of a player at their own table.

I have to say it but ... BS.

If the position of the player is that they cant have fun playing anything but that one particular class, then perhaps they need to reexamine themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:

It seems that "entitled" has become synonymous with "player disagreeing with the GM".

Note that how you disagree (respectfully or not) and the reason why you disagree are not taken into account.

In other words, Good good GM. Bad bad player.

It seems that "dictatorial". Or "bad gm" has become synonymous with not allowing the player absolutely anything they want.

Two can play the snark game.


Scott Betts wrote:
Anguish wrote:

Know what's depressing?

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Those people are depressing. Every single one of them.

Damn right. And they need to take a serious look at why they GM, and their relationship with their players.

Yes, I "create" the world. Yes, I invest hours of my time into planning the game. Yes, it's my house that they come to to play.

Does this make me better than them? Does this entitle me to rule with an iron fist? Of course it doesn't. I do the things I do because I enjoy them. I enjoy pouring hours into creating exciting encounters. I enjoy watching my players enjoy themselves.

I reject the idea that GMs are justified in their awful attitudes but players are somehow overly-entitled when they want a say.

You want to know the real reason why players get the short end of the stick when it comes to discussing who is entitled?

It's because the people participating in the discussion are overwhelmingly GMs with seemingly no ability to empathize with the position of a player at their own table.

I think it's safe to say that most GMs have played the game before, likely before they started to GM.

251 to 300 of 1,184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick? All Messageboards