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


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,184 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

sometimes, like now, I begin to wonder if the problem described here, and in similar threads, is something that gets "talked about" a lot more than it actually arises.

Sovereign Court

NobodysHome wrote:
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.

IMO the gunslinger class is banned in my campaign if I am running a certain style of campaign. Normally I abhor firearms in a fantasy setting, but I needed to take a step back with that Hansel and Gretel movie that took place. Upon conclusion I realized that it does fit in certain settings (Carrion Crown it fits perfectly). If you are wanting the Grimm Fairy Tale type of world it fits. If you want a fantasy based steampunk world it fits. If you are playing in a world that is bronze age, it doesnt fit.

I am also not a fan of the monk/ninja/samurai classes. The campaign I am running now it really doesnt fit as there is no setting for those to come from (monks are in however). With Jade Regent I took a reverse stance when the group wanted me to run that.

That being said taking the basic class and switching out the weapon for a crossbow and running with it as an archtype in a dark age / mythical setting can fit.


NobodysHome wrote:


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.

No you're reading the same thread. As has been pointed out over and over and over again, the frequency of jerk players is fairly similar to the frequency of jerk GMs.

Your example is, most likely, deliberately chosen to present a reasonable GM and a jerk player. It is equally likely that a GM/Player problem is more like this:

GM: "I have prepared a world for you."
Player: "OK, cool, here's a gunslinger I'd like to play."
GM: "You can't play a gunslinger."
Player: "Why?"
GM: "Because I'm the GM and I say so!"

In the real world the issue is generally less ridiculous.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
n00bxqb wrote:
I think it's safe to say that most GMs have played the game before, likely before they started to GM.

Safe, but there are people like my wife who were introduced to the game by her friends saying 'we want you to run this game for us'.


Arssanguinus wrote:

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.

If the position of the DM is that they can't have fun unless no one plays that one specific class...

You get the picture.

EDIT: I also think this ties into the larger issues of certain (and too many) gamers acting like they can't have fun unless everything is exactly the way they want it. Not the right system? Won't have any fun. Not the right character creation guidelines? Won't have any fun. The DM runs his game too "anime"? Won't have any fun.

You have to be insanely invested for any of that to be true. Any reasonable person might have less fun, but all else held equal he'll probably still enjoy himself. If you're the sort of person who really won't have any fun in one of the above situations, please take a step back and examine why those things are so important to you. Whether as a player, or as a DM.


n00bxqb wrote:
I think it's safe to say that most GMs have played the game before, likely before they started to GM.

Sure. But the fact that they now see themselves as GMs, and that they are unable to put themselves in the position of a player in their own game, is what's causing the ridiculous imbalance in online discussions on the topic.

To put it simply, players have almost no voice in this discussion, despite making up the majority of any given game table.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sorry Scott, but I have to disagree with you on that last line.

I have sat on both sides of the screen, and until the last couple of years have been a player. The ruleset that my first good DM imposed was that you dont pick your family. You rolled your ability scores and they were locked into the first stat, rinse, repeat until you were done. Then if you wanted to be a race other than human you rolled percentile. Guess what? Humans had the largest chance of being and the range for them was right in the middle. Paladins were not allowed at all (this was back in 1st and 2nd ed).

Guess what? I had fun anyways. Now a question that I pose to you. Have you ever ran a long standing campaign?

Shadow Lodge

The black raven wrote:
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.

Funny, cos I see far more posts on this forum where everyone dog piles on the GM after hearing only the player's version of the story. A few posters here have expressed the sentiment that they go into a game assuming the GM is an incompetent power-mad dictator until he proves himself otherwise.


Duskrunner1 wrote:
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.

Sorry Scott, but I have to disagree with you on that last line.

I have sat on both sides of the screen, and until the last couple of years have been a player. The ruleset that my first good DM imposed was that you dont pick your family. You rolled your ability scores and they were locked into the first stat, rinse, repeat until you were done. Then if you wanted to be a race other than human you rolled percentile. Guess what? Humans had the largest chance of being and the range for them was right in the middle. Paladins were not allowed at all (this was back in 1st and 2nd ed).

Guess what? I had fun anyways.

I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that your exposure to a social dynamic in which the DM imposed ridiculous character creation restrictions has contributed to you viewing this sort of thing as totally okay and normal.

Quote:
Now a question that I pose to you. Have you ever ran a long standing campaign?

That depends on how long you consider a "long standing campaign."

Shadow Lodge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
As has been pointed out over and over and over again, the frequency of jerk players is fairly similar to the frequency of jerk GMs.

I think it's more like a ratio of 4-5 jerk player to 1 jerk GM. Which makes sense.


Kthulhu wrote:
The black raven wrote:
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.
Funny, cos I see far more posts on this forum where everyone dog piles on the GM after hearing only the player's version of the story. A few posters here have expressed the sentiment that they go into a game assuming the GM is an incompetent power-mad dictator until he proves himself otherwise.

That's because we love to judge other GMs. It makes us feel better about our own GMing skills. Which, frankly, I think every GM is at least nominally insecure about.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:


EDIT: I also think this ties into the larger issues of certain (and too many) gamers acting like they can't have fun unless everything is exactly the way they want it. Not the right system? Won't have any fun. Not the right character creation guidelines? Won't have any fun. The DM runs his game too "anime"? Won't have any fun.

You have to be insanely invested for any of that to be true. Any reasonable person might have less fun, but all else held equal he'll probably still enjoy himself. If you're the sort of person who really won't have any fun in one of the above situations, please take a step back and examine why those things are so important to you. Whether as a player, or as a DM.

I agree with you on this. Over a few months ago I had a player who used to run a Warhammer Fantasy game. He kept complaining that the Pathfinder ruleset was a bad and broken system (he wanted a higher AC to his back for wearing a shield for example). I had to explain that the overall AC takes everything into account, etc. He constantly interrupted the game to complain about "the broken ruleset" when he really wanted to play was a different game.

The overall point as to why we play the game is to have fun. Sometimes trying something different is good.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that your exposure to a social dynamic in which the DM imposed ridiculous character creation restrictions has contributed to you viewing this sort of thing as totally okay and normal.

Or it could be that those DM impositions are perfectly OK and normal. The fact that there are other methods that are also perfectly OK and normal doesn't negate that.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that your exposure to a social dynamic in which the DM imposed ridiculous character creation restrictions has contributed to you viewing this sort of thing as totally okay and normal.
Or it could be that those DM impositions are perfectly OK and normal.

Sure! Maybe they are!

But I was simply pointing out that his attitude towards DMs imposing arbitrary restrictions on their players is, at least in part, due to the fact that he had lots of arbitrary restrictions placed on his own characters as he was learning the game from a role-model.


Kthulhu wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
As has been pointed out over and over and over again, the frequency of jerk players is fairly similar to the frequency of jerk GMs.
I think it's more like a ratio of 4-5 jerk player to 1 jerk GM. Which makes sense.

I'll challenge that. In my experience the people who tend to move into the GM role are more assertive and confident than people who don't. And while assertiveness and confidence are not traits that determine jerkiness, there is definitely a correlation there.

Also, while being a GM the job itself affords many more opportunities for natural jerkiness to exhibit itself.

So I'd put the ratio much closer to 1-1...


On asking: Why why why??

In the case of the gunslinger not being allowed, there are two basic questions that must be answered:
1) Why is it not allowed?
2) Why does it have to be played?
If it not allowed from personal preference, the GMs answer can simply be "I do not like it". The GM should then ask why the player wants to play it so much. If the player says "I cannot have fun playing anything else." then there is a true impasse. However, it more likely seems like the the GM could come up with a more specific reason. (I do not think pistols belong in the game world, I have only seen crazy gun nuts play them, I do not have the time to learn a completely new class' mechanics). The player likely can come up with a more specific reason too (I like the mechanics, I like westerns, I like cutting edge ranged weapons, I played one in another game, and had fun, but think I could have developed the character better, and would like another chance).

Many people are not used to deeply considering the reasons for their own preferences, and so being told they must is too much. Many people might be embarrassed to admit the truth (I do not know all the rules, I have a crush on John Wayne). But the more willing people are to communicate, the more likely problems are to get resolved. If a player seems to be constantly asking "why, why, why", it is much more likely that they feel you are not even trying to listen to them, and are trying to force some sort of conversation that it is they are as emotionally mature as Mindy.

Silver Crusade

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.

Why do you think it's about being better?

Having authority over something doesn't make you better, it means that you have been given the responsibility of deciding what is allowed and what isn't.

If I invite you to my game and lay out what I require then you can either opt out or play. It's not about who is better, it's about me hosting a game, with a certain criteria, and it's your job to either play or don't play.

"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."

Seems to me that we are faced with a bunch of players who think they get to strong arm the DM into allowing something that he doesn't want in his game. Wouldn't work on me a damn bit because I'm all geared up to run and geared up to play so I don't shed a tear if the group doesn't want to play in my game.


John Kerpan wrote:

On asking: Why why why??

In the case of the gunslinger not being allowed, there are two basic questions that must be answered:
1) Why is it not allowed?
2) Why does it have to be played?
If it not allowed from personal preference, the GMs answer can simply be "I do not like it". The GM should then ask why the player wants to play it so much. If the player says "I cannot have fun playing anything else." then there is a true impasse. However, it more likely seems like the the GM could come up with a more specific reason. (I do not think pistols belong in the game world, I have only seen crazy gun nuts play them, I do not have the time to learn a completely new class' mechanics). The player likely can come up with a more specific reason too (I like the mechanics, I like westerns, I like cutting edge ranged weapons, I played one in another game, and had fun, but think I could have developed the character better, and would like another chance).

Many people are not used to deeply considering the reasons for their own preferences, and so being told they must is too much. Many people might be embarrassed to admit the truth (I do not know all the rules, I have a crush on John Wayne). But the more willing people are to communicate, the more likely problems are to get resolved. If a player seems to be constantly asking "why, why, why", it is much more likely that they feel you are not even trying to listen to them, and are trying to force some sort of conversation that it is they are as emotionally mature as Mindy.

Sure. But the issue seems to be that, even when both sides are able to provide cogent reasons for their preferences, a lot of people apparently believe that the DM should still come out on top, as it were.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:


Quote:
I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that your exposure to a social dynamic in[ which the DM imposed ridiculous character creation restrictions has contributed to you viewing this sort of thing as totally okay and normal.

The paladin rule was imposed by TSR as the campaign world was based in Dragonlance. The rest of the creation process as a very interesting dynamic that I was willing to try. His race table actually made sense because all of the races of that world (exception being kender and humans) tend to stay at small localized areas due to what occured in the history of the place.

It was my choice to go to a different DM, however I had heard good things about his guy and am happy that I did. Over time that character creation process was discarded. However what I did learn about it was that when you became a race of something that really wasn't out and about in the world it became something special as opposed to commonplace.

Quote:
That depends on how long you consider a "long standing campaign."

I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Sure. But the issue seems to be that, even when both sides are able to provide cogent reasons for their preferences, a lot of people apparently believe that the DM should still come out on top, as it were.

This whole discussion keeps returning to the GM's authority and continues to dance around or sidestep entirely the GM's responsibilities.

Yes, the GM has the authority to dictate to his players. But he also has the responsibility to listen to his players' requests and do his level best to accommodate them.

Accepting authority without also taking responsibility is badwrongfun.

There, I said it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
John Kerpan wrote:

On asking: Why why why??

In the case of the gunslinger not being allowed, there are two basic questions that must be answered:
1) Why is it not allowed?
2) Why does it have to be played?
If it not allowed from personal preference, the GMs answer can simply be "I do not like it". The GM should then ask why the player wants to play it so much. If the player says "I cannot have fun playing anything else." then there is a true impasse. However, it more likely seems like the the GM could come up with a more specific reason. (I do not think pistols belong in the game world, I have only seen crazy gun nuts play them, I do not have the time to learn a completely new class' mechanics). The player likely can come up with a more specific reason too (I like the mechanics, I like westerns, I like cutting edge ranged weapons, I played one in another game, and had fun, but think I could have developed the character better, and would like another chance).

Many people are not used to deeply considering the reasons for their own preferences, and so being told they must is too much. Many people might be embarrassed to admit the truth (I do not know all the rules, I have a crush on John Wayne). But the more willing people are to communicate, the more likely problems are to get resolved. If a player seems to be constantly asking "why, why, why", it is much more likely that they feel you are not even trying to listen to them, and are trying to force some sort of conversation that it is they are as emotionally mature as Mindy.

Sure. But the issue seems to be that, even when both sides are able to provide cogent reasons for their preferences, a lot of people apparently believe that the DM should still come out on top, as it were.

As long as he's running the game? Yes, he gets the tiebreaking vote. I give the gm in any game I play in a tiebreaking vote. Small price to pay for getting someone else to take the job of trying to herd cats."


Duskrunner1 wrote:
I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.

Oh, well then sure.


So basically:

The "GM" side believes any player who refuses to abide by the DMs rules is childish.

The "Player" side believes that any GM who can't even tolerate a simple "Why" is being childish.

Both of these statements are 100% correct. Discuss.


Scott Betts wrote:

Sure. But the issue seems to be that, even when both sides are able to provide cogent reasons for their preferences, a lot of people apparently believe that the DM should still come out on top, as it were.

Ultimately, because part of the job of being a DM is having the final say. The player may have good reasons, the DM may have good reasons. If they can't be worked out then yes I think the default decision is to go with the DM's ruling. You may not agree with it, you may not like it but just like a rules argument that would never end you just need to say this is how it is lets move on. And yes this does leave it open for jerkish behaviour from certain people. Luckily, I've never really experienced something like this since I was playing with my brothers when I was a kid (you know because you're supposed to be a jerk to your brother)

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that your exposure to a social dynamic in which the DM imposed ridiculous character creation restrictions has contributed to you viewing this sort of thing as totally okay and normal.
Or it could be that those DM impositions are perfectly OK and normal.

Sure! Maybe they are!

But I was simply pointing out that his attitude towards DMs imposing arbitrary restrictions on their players is, at least in part, due to the fact that he had lots of arbitrary restrictions placed on his own characters as he was learning the game from a role-model.

No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

Also at the time I had a very fair understanding of the game, and had experienced other GMs who were not as structured and didn't breathe life into their game, but they also allowed anything to be played.

This goes back to what has been stated. The game is basically what you are trying to make of it. I want a game that falls along the lines of Babylon 5 and not a Monty Python movie. For myself it is about story and things making sense. As stated above I am not fond of the gunslinger, but i would allow that class in certain settings because it can work and fit into the overall story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

So basically:

The "GM" side believes any player who refuses to abide by the DMs rules is childish.

The "Player" side believes that any GM who can't even tolerate a simple "Why" is being childish.

Both of these statements are 100% correct. Discuss.

I GM a lot more than I get to play, and I see no reason why I can't explain things to a player. At worst he normally gains an understanding of why I do what I do, even if he disagrees with me. Understanding is normally a good thing. I fail to see what comes out of refusing to communicate.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Sure. But the issue seems to be that, even when both sides are able to provide cogent reasons for their preferences, a lot of people apparently believe that the DM should still come out on top, as it were.

This whole discussion keeps returning to the GM's authority and continues to dance around or sidestep entirely the GM's responsibilities.

Yes, the GM has the authority to dictate to his players. But he also has the responsibility to listen to his players' requests and do his level best to accommodate them.

Accepting authority without also taking responsibility is badwrongfun.

There, I said it.

I respectfully disagree that it is the GMs responsibility to do his level best to accommodate his players requests.

For example if I create a world that has no Celestials or other Good Outsiders, the player, no matter how much he wants, can't play an Aasimar. If there is no reincarnation, he can't play a Samsaran. And there is no reason for me to change the entire world I have created to let them play one.

If I as a GM, having listed my changes to the rules, can't find players, then I won't run. Someone else can run, if their changes aren't acceptable to me, I won't play.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

So basically:

The "GM" side believes any player who refuses to abide by the DMs rules is childish.

The "Player" side believes that any GM who can't even tolerate a simple "Why" is being childish.

Both of these statements are 100% correct. Discuss.

??? Are you trying to set up some sort of antagonism between these two viewpoints? As I see them, they don't necessarily conflict at all.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.
Oh, well then sure.

Reason why I asked is during that time have you experienced one of your PCs question or asked for something that you know would break the overall story?


Aranna wrote:
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.

There is a significant difference between "no Tom, you can't play an X because you have played them before and every time shown that you shouldn't be allowed to play X", and "no one can play an X because I don't like them".


Bill Dunn wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

So basically:

The "GM" side believes any player who refuses to abide by the DMs rules is childish.

The "Player" side believes that any GM who can't even tolerate a simple "Why" is being childish.

Both of these statements are 100% correct. Discuss.

??? Are you trying to set up some sort of antagonism between these two viewpoints? As I see them, they don't necessarily conflict at all.

No. That's why I said both are correct.

Perhaps I should erase "The 'X' side believes" part and just leave you with:

If you absolutely refuse to follow the GMs rules you are being childish.

If you, as a GM, cannot stand someone asking for a simple explanation, you are being childish.


Rynjin wrote:

So basically:

The "GM" side believes any player who refuses to abide by the DMs rules is childish.

The "Player" side believes that any GM who can't even tolerate a simple "Why" is being childish.

Both of these statements are 100% correct. Discuss.

I would say neither of those are 100% correct.

The player that demands that GM allow something he has banned/changed or continually whines about it while playing is being childish. I had that happen in a campaign I was playing in, it made participation so unfun, that I left the campaign.

I don't think the GM is being childish, but a jerk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wyrd_Wik wrote:
Ultimately, because part of the job of being a DM is having the final say.

The final say. Not the only say. It seems that, too often, GMs believe them to be one and the same.


Duskrunner1 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.
Oh, well then sure.
Reason why I asked is during that time have you experienced one of your PCs question or asked for something that you know would break the overall story?

I have literally never encountered a situation where a player has said, "Hey, I saw this option and thought it was cool, could I use it?" and found myself in a position where there was no way to accommodate that option without ruining the setting or the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duskrunner1 wrote:
No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

In your head.

And yet I can throw countless, compelling fish-out-of-water stories where an outsider with no real place in the setting makes for a very interesting story thread.

I just don't think you're trying hard enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

In your head.

And yet I can throw countless, compelling fish-out-of-water stories where an outsider with no real place in the setting makes for a very interesting story thread.

I just don't think you're trying hard enough.

And who are you to judge him or his judgment over the game he GMs?

This is one reason players get hit with the entitlement label - continually arguing and never taking that GM no for answer. Duskrunner1 has giving you his rationale yet you utterly refuse to accept it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having been on both sides of the screen I try to work both with players and DMs. Asking why something banned or not allowed is not taboo at my table. Asling me over and over again is. If a DM refuses to give me more than just "its because Im the Dm that why" I just shut down as a player. I do minimal amount of roleplaying and running my character as possible. No I dont ruin the dms game I just refuse to waste time any energy if the DM refuses to exaplin everything.

From my experience I have less problems when players give me feedback then less. If my encounters are too railroady Im not going to learn that if my players never tell me anything. I think a balance is needed. Not to mention yes its hard to find a person to run the game. Yet players are the ones who have the true power over the dm. Anger and alienate enough members at the table and what you have left is DM solitaire. A DM may have control over how he builds the world. He has less than zero control preventing players leaving en masse if he tries to impose his will unfairlly too often.

As for deserving special consideration for making and creating a word. Spending time and money on books to do. A big hell no from me. No one is forcing anyone to either run a game. Or buy material needed to run a game. Or go out of their way to create a game world. THe DM ultimately takes on that responsability. Which was never forced on him unless he unwisely decides to run a game because he was pressured by others.

Unless your being forced at gunpoint no one is forced to do anything. Im both running and playing in a PF game at this time. I choose to take the time to run the game. The time spent was my choice. The money spent again is my choice. spent 10 years making up your own game world. I respect that. Im am not ginving you or anyone else who does something like that extra consideration. Or will treat you any different. Because again you took it upon yourself to do the extra work.

Liberty's Edge

First, let us define terms.

"Player Entitlement" means a player who feels "entitled" to getting what they want, how they want it, when they want it, etc...

The reason many of us have a problem with this is that it is not a solo endeavor, but rather a group endeavor.

And in any endeavor involving a group, if anyone, player or GM, feels "Entitled" they are basically saying "What I want is more important than what you want."

In the case of a player, singular, no one put them in charge. Literally, someone was put in charge, and it wasn't them.

If the whole table thinks the GM is a jerk, or even a majority of the table, they wouldn't put him in charge. But since he is the GM, they did, and since the player isn't the GM, they didn't put the player in charge.

So if most of the people at the table are happy, and you aren't, you aren't "entitled" to make the rest of the people unhappy because you can't adapt.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

In your head.

And yet I can throw countless, compelling fish-out-of-water stories where an outsider with no real place in the setting makes for a very interesting story thread.

I just don't think you're trying hard enough.

And who are you to judge him or his judgment over the game he GMs?

This is one reason players get hit with the entitlement label - continually arguing and never taking that GM no for answer. Duskrunner1 has giving you his rationale yet you utterly refuse to accept it.

It seems as though Duskrunner has decided in advance that he just won't allow X no matter what the player says. That is different from he does not think they will fit, but he will try to make reason to fit them in if he can.

However without access to his gameworld I that is just an assumption. Scott is judging him, by the way. He is doubting his effort to help the player. I see nothing wrong with doubting someone, until they give a good reason to not doubt them.


Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

In your head.

And yet I can throw countless, compelling fish-out-of-water stories where an outsider with no real place in the setting makes for a very interesting story thread.

I just don't think you're trying hard enough.

Fish out of water might work if you have one. If you have a whole party of fish out of water characters then that's probably a signal the players weren't that interested in the style.

As for trying hard enough... Just because you shoehorned a concept into the proposed setting doesn't necessarily make you more creative then the player that worked with the proposed setting/style.


Sometimes the players dont know they have a jerk GM because they have never had anything else. That also applies to other things in life. A lot of times a person's friendship will allow for certain behaviors. I have seen many GM's come here and say they wont kick player X out because he is a friend. I am sure some GM's get by with that same logic.
You are also assuming "the rest of the table" will be unhappy. Now I do think some players do have entitlement issues, but no GM should just say "because I said so", and be surprised when it's not taken well.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.
Oh, well then sure.
Reason why I asked is during that time have you experienced one of your PCs question or asked for something that you know would break the overall story?
I have literally never encountered a situation where a player has said, "Hey, I saw this option and thought it was cool, could I use it?" and found myself in a position where there was no way to accommodate that option without ruining the setting or the game.

I have. One of my players wanted to be an orc barbarian with an evil nature. It was against my better judgement. The end result of this choice was the entire party (with the exception of the orc player) not having fun and wanting to quit the campaign. The player did an excellent job of being an orc barbarian, but is was disruptive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
And who are you to judge him or his judgment over the game he GMs?

Oh, come on. Judging other GMs for how they run their games is practically a national GM pasttime. It's like baseball for us.

Quote:
This is one reason players get hit with the entitlement label - continually arguing and never taking that GM no for answer. Duskrunner1 has giving you his rationale yet you utterly refuse to accept it.

I'm not his player. I don't need to accept anything he says if I feel his reasoning is lacking.

Dark Archive

Rynjin wrote:

So basically:

The "GM" side believes any player who refuses to abide by the DMs rules is childish.

The "Player" side believes that any GM who can't even tolerate a simple "Why" is being childish.

Both of these statements are 100% correct. Discuss.

Linked it for you


Duskrunner1 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.
Oh, well then sure.
Reason why I asked is during that time have you experienced one of your PCs question or asked for something that you know would break the overall story?
I have literally never encountered a situation where a player has said, "Hey, I saw this option and thought it was cool, could I use it?" and found myself in a position where there was no way to accommodate that option without ruining the setting or the game.
I have. One of my players wanted to be an orc barbarian with an evil nature. It was against my better judgement. The end result of this choice was the entire party (with the exception of the orc player) not having fun and wanting to quit the campaign. The player did an excellent job of being an orc barbarian, but is was disruptive.

That doesn't have anything to do with "breaking the story", though, and has nothing to do with character options. I can create an evil orc barbarian, play him as an evil orc barbarian, and still make a concerted effort to get along with the rest of the party and keep the story running.

The problem is that you had a player who was more interested in being disruptive than in participating in a cooperative game. That's an entirely different issue and an entirely different thread.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

In your head.

And yet I can throw countless, compelling fish-out-of-water stories where an outsider with no real place in the setting makes for a very interesting story thread.

I just don't think you're trying hard enough.

Wow... arrogant much? I don't think you are paying attention, you might want to read some of the previous posts that I have left.

I do listen to my Pcs. None of my playing group have wanted to play gunslinger/ninja/samurai. I have not told them my dislike for the classes for the current setting. As stated above STORY is more important and a reason for things to fit. Guess what? It doesn't fit. You can try all day to get a cow in a thong, it just doesnt work. AS GM I don't have to go out of my way to make some thing work. If the PC wants to develop the concept on their own and can justify it in a logical manner then yes, it would be entered into the game world.


Duskrunner1 wrote:

Wow... arrogant much? I don't think you are paying attention, you might want to read some of the previous posts that I have left.

I do listen to my Pcs. None of my playing group have wanted to play gunslinger/ninja/samurai. I have not told them my dislike for the classes for the current setting. As stated above STORY is more important and a reason for things to fit. Guess what? It doesn't fit. You can try all day to get a cow in a thong, it just doesnt work. AS GM I don't have to go out of my way to make some thing work. If the PC wants to develop the concept on their own and can justify it in a logical manner then yes, it would be entered into the game world.

So there's no possible way that fish-out-of-water story could work, but if a player came up with one that did you'd be cool with it?

Also, "logical manner"? We're talking about a fictional world that you created. You are the logic. So saying, "It has to fit logically," is indistinguishable from saying, "I have to be okay with it."

Don't pretend that this has anything to do with "logic". That's just a smoke screen you're using to avoid admitting that it's really just totally up to your own arbitrary whims, damn the players.

Sovereign Court

Scott....enjoy your game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duskrunner1 wrote:

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.

Two questions, when you decided what story you were going to tell, did you ask what story the players wanted to play in? After you made those exceptions, did you adjust your story to help fit in the changes or did you stick to the original story exactly?

If you didn't do either of those things, I think the blame lies mostly on you for the games not being enjoyable. Why is it ok for a DM to run a type of game without finding out if that is the game their players want, but not ok for a player to run a character without finding out if that is a type of character the DM wants? And why is a player who only wants to play one type of character a bad player, but a DM who only wants to run one type of game not a bad DM?

301 to 350 of 1,184 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick? All Messageboards