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


Gamer Life General Discussion

351 to 400 of 1,184 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Wraith, I am currently running a Kingmaker campaign. I dont have any restrictions as we are in the base world. As stated, I am not fond of firearms in this setting, but have not expressed it to my players, nor have banned any classes. Right now the rules that I do have in place is no talking combat strategy in depth during combat. The other rules are more about clarifications on how I handle magic, etc.

I have ran a homebrew where monks were not around much as there simply wasn't an oriental region. I do see the monk class based off of the Shao Lin movies of the 60s more than the Western Culture version,as do my players. In my opinion there are classes that fit and those that simply dont, based on how the world and cultures of the regions are.

The main point of this game is simply to have fun. The GM can decided to go homebrew or go default world. There might be things that they enjoy or not. I have my characters have an alignment, another might throw the alignment system out entirely. Each GM has a different style to their game, and as such the player can decide if he wants to be a part of it or not. If he can't find what he/she is looking for then they can run their game the way that they see fit. If they want all options available to them then I recommend the Pathfinder Society...oh wait...they impose restrictions as well (granted not on classes). Nix that idea.


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.

+1.

when people agree to play in Duskrunner1 world they agree to play HIS setting.
If he say "hey I can GM this celtic/fey campaing" the players can say "ok" agreeing to abid to the restriction of the game.
or they can say "nah, we want to play something else this time" and then everyone look for some other style of game.


Nicos wrote:

+1.

when people agree to play in Duskrunner1 world they agree to play HIS setting.
If he say "hey I can GM this celtic/fey campaing" the players can say "ok" agreeing to abid to the restriction of the game.
or they can say "nah, we want to play something else this time" and then everyone look for some other style of game.

Have you read through this thread? We've sort of been over this already.


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

+1.

when people agree to play in Duskrunner1 world they agree to play HIS setting.
If he say "hey I can GM this celtic/fey campaing" the players can say "ok" agreeing to abid to the restriction of the game.
or they can say "nah, we want to play something else this time" and then everyone look for some other style of game.

Have you read through this thread? We've sort of been over this already.

Yes you have been over this. that does not means you have been right.


Nicos wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Nicos wrote:

+1.

when people agree to play in Duskrunner1 world they agree to play HIS setting.
If he say "hey I can GM this celtic/fey campaing" the players can say "ok" agreeing to abid to the restriction of the game.
or they can say "nah, we want to play something else this time" and then everyone look for some other style of game.

Have you read through this thread? We've sort of been over this already.
Yes you have been over this. that does not means you have been right.

Sure, but it seems a little regressive to post what you did. In all likelihood it'll just lead to pointless rehashing of discussions that have already happened.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
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.

I have been disagreeing with you vehemently until now. That, sir, was well-said.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


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.

And there is no reason to exclude the GM from this conclusion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Sorry, been awhile since my Intro to Sociology class.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:


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.
And there is no reason to exclude the GM from this conclusion.

And why does every single person seem to try to make it "if everyone else at the table is "

The conversation has been almost explicitly about ONE player insisting. Not the entire table revolting,.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:


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.
And there is no reason to exclude the GM from this conclusion.

I didn't. Go back and read the post.


Tri, try having a degree in philosophy (and history!)!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Hey, I loved my Intro to Philosophy class. Easiest A ever!

But I'm a tech guy, most of that is way above my head. I just argue it here like the layman I am.

Sovereign Court

iLaifire wrote:
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?

The first question. No I did not. I had available to myself at the time the CRB, Bestiary 1, and the first two Kingmaker Paths. I invited people I knew if they wanted to play, and gave them the run down of what the story was. Each individual wanted to play. Since I only had the CRB those were the classes to choose from. Over time I purchased the APG and Ult. Magic and worked into the storyline the reason why there were new classes. The players were given an option to rework their PCs as they saw fit. The only thing they could not change was abilities, hp, and race. The requests the PCs have made have been attempting to acquire new spells/items. I have made the items/spells in the two books to be rare and hard to acquire as they are new. However with new levels any class that gets additional spells can choose from those books. The PCs have also throw monkey-wrenches into the overall story that I have had to incorporate. As such each PC has their own separate story thread to the main one (which is pushing the Kingmaker story into the background). The group is also asking for me to create an adventure and abandon Golarion. At this point no one else as purchased a single book.

Due to how things have played out it attracted other players (Kingmaker currently has nine pcs). I have a waiting list of people wanting in, so I decided to offer those on the waiting list a separate campaign, with the selection of whatever AP they wanted to play. The selection was Carrion Crown. That is where the orc barbarian came in as ork was a optional race in the player's guide. The player of the orc got a hold of the Orks race book and read up on them and orc society and brilliantly played the orc. However the start of that AP is none of the PCs know each other and that is where the problem lies. The other was the play style of the group. Even though they wanted Carrion Crown they didn't want the research/mystery aspect of it. As such after three sessions that campaign was nixed and Rise of the Runelords is now being played.

In each at the end of a major story point I ask the players how things are for them gamewise. I have had some drop game. The reasons with the exception of one wasnt due to how I was running things (move away, work hours change, etc). One of them even came back. The one that did drop was due to the mechanics of Pathfinder itself. That individual can go to any GM running Pathfinder (including Scott) and would not be happy, because they want to play Warhammer Fantasy.

I have been on both sides of the screen, and have gone looking for groups to game with. If the GM's style isnt to my liking I just go to a different group. That is the choice that a player has, to become a part of that world or not. I have joined groups where any humanoid race is playable, and where magic wasnt properly understood as to how it functions. Have even been in a Pathfinder Society group where the magic effect that as I understand it (from multiple GMs) was different than the one that I cast per Gm rule. This isnt saying that the GMs were bad, or that I as a player was bad. It is just that the world as it was presented to me wasnt to my liking. In your case if you are experiencing a GM that is saying no to a particular class I dont see why asking them the reason is out of line. They might have an actual reason for it beyond "Cause I say so". If the answer isnt to your liking then you have the choice to do something differently in that world setting, or go elsewhere that is more to your liking. It is the same as going to McDonald's and wanting Taco Bell.

Project Manager

Removed a lot of individual back-and-forth sniping with no content about actually playing the game. Please keep it civil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to admit, I've never come close to a 350+-post thread I've enjoyed more. I especially appreciate Adamantine Dragon's input, as it seems that (he)? and I might get along admirably at a table, but we're still going to butt heads here.

About a hundred posts ago, I said something along the lines of "GM bans gunslinger. Player demands gunslinger. Who is wrong?" Adamantine Dragon stated that I posted the question in a biased manner: If I'd said, "GM starts game, player brings gunslinger, GM bans gunslinger", the GM would clearly be at fault.

But from trolling the threads for well over a year now (clearly a biased sample), the posts I see from both GMs and players tend to support the "GM creates world and states restrictions, player balks at restrictions and tries to work around them" model.

Yes, trolling the internet is a horrifically pathetic way to gather data.

But I have yet to see a real-life example from any poster where the GM said, "OK, make your characters and let me see them," the player made a character in complete honesty trying to fit into the GM's world, and the GM turned around and said, "Oh, no; I don't allow THOSE."

Every example I've seen has been a GM saying, "This is my world, this is my vision, and this is what I disallow," and the player turning around and saying, "How DARE you disallow XXX? It's been my lifelong dream to play an XXX! You're a crappy GM if you can't somehow fit an XXX into your world!"

I will state for the record that I fundamentally disagree with the posters who believe the GM MUST adapt the world to allow the players to play/own/do whatever it is they want. I believe it is the GM's job to create a wonderful world for the players to cavort in, and the players' job to live with whatever restrictions the GM chooses to impose in terms of races/classes/equipment/spells, as long as those restrictions are clearly stated BEFORE the players generate any characters. One of the best campaigns I've ever been in was one where we were all human, all of the same nationality, with no gear, forced to get by in a world with which we were totally unfamiliar. Because we had to play our characters, not our races, classes, or equipment.

Maybe I'm just naive...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:


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.
And there is no reason to exclude the GM from this conclusion.
I didn't. Go back and read the post.

Ah yes, right you are. What I get for trying to catch up to two hours of posting in five minutes.


Duskrunner1 wrote:
That individual can go to any GM running Pathfinder (including Scott) and would not be happy, because they want to play Warhammer Fantasy.

I run 4e, so you never know. But if he was absolutely insistent upon playing Warhammer Fantasy, you're right: he'd probably still be unhappy. That said, again, I challenge the idea that something as trivial to the overall experience as the game's mechanics can actually take you from "Yaaaaay this game is awesome!" to "Boooooo this game sucks!" I think that, at worst, you'd probably be slightly less satisfied with your game experience (assuming you didn't let yourself get hung up on something; that's important).

For instance, I prefer 4e's mechanics, and frankly it's a bit grating to go back to a system based on d20 (I loved it back in the day, but what I've been exposed to since then is more appealing to me). That certainly didn't stop me from getting in a couple Pathfinder organized play games at PAX last year. Or from leaping at the chance to play in a friend's Pathfinder Council of Thieves game.

Getting hung up on the little stuff is a recipe for an unhappy life.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been pretty fortunate. After 25+ year of gaming no one has ever felt stifled or violated at being told "no", and often times they didn't even need a reason. They were good enough players where they had more then one concept tucked up their sleeve. I recall the earlier days of gaming where the "DM is God" mentality was more prevalent and no one really seemed to mind.

These days I just limit everything to the core rulebook and usually if someone has a concept outside that they bring it to me for discussion and we act like adults.

We discuss it.

Characters I WISHED I had said no to but didn't....
Kitsune Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger) named Nathaniel Rhodes.
Skittles, a kobold sorcerer of "light" (Wtf?!)
Characters that played that made me shake my head...
Seperatist Cleric of Desna who refused to heal the group when they were getting attacked by goblins...
Paladin of Ragathiel who stood by and guarded the cleric while he was busy NOT healing anyone.

Characters I LOVED....
Summoner Broodmaster (Mother of Dragons build), player loved it, I loved it, Soooo much fun.
Pizbik, the gnome rogue (sniper) with mechanically tinkered crossbow and retractable bayonet.
Bindle Bogfoot, Cleric of Plaugg, Deity of Mediocrity (build revolved around aid another and buffing others), "Plaugg may not be so great, but you are!"

YMMV

-Vaz

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
That individual can go to any GM running Pathfinder (including Scott) and would not be happy, because they want to play Warhammer Fantasy.

I run 4e, so you never know. But if he was absolutely insistent upon playing Warhammer Fantasy, you're right: he'd probably still be unhappy. That said, again, I challenge the idea that something as trivial to the overall experience as the game's mechanics can actually take you from "Yaaaaay this game is awesome!" to "Boooooo this game sucks!" I think that, at worst, you'd probably be slightly less satisfied with your game experience (assuming you didn't let yourself get hung up on something; that's important).

For instance, I prefer 4e's mechanics, and frankly it's a bit grating to go back to a system based on d20 (I loved it back in the day, but what I've been exposed to since then is more appealing to me). That certainly didn't stop me from getting in a couple Pathfinder organized play games at PAX last year. Or from leaping at the chance to play in a friend's Pathfinder Council of Thieves game.

Getting hung up on the little stuff is a recipe for an unhappy life.

I agree with you on this. However each person enjoys things differently, and how they express that displeasure also is different from person to person.

Definitely agree with the last line you wrote.


NobodysHome wrote:
I have to admit, I've never come close to a 350+-post thread I've enjoyed more. I especially appreciate Adamantine Dragon's input, as it seems that (he)? and I might get along admirably at a table, but we're still going to butt heads here.

Well thanks NobodysHome. I know I stake out some unpopular positions but I do really try to keep things rational and reasonable. Although I do have a bit too much snark in me that comes out...

NobodysHome wrote:
About a hundred posts ago, I said something along the lines of "GM bans gunslinger. Player demands gunslinger. Who is wrong?" Adamantine Dragon stated that I posted the question in a biased manner: If I'd said, "GM starts game, player brings gunslinger, GM bans gunslinger", the GM would clearly be at fault.

Actually even in your second case I wouldn't necessarily say it's the GM's "fault". I'd really say the same thing as your first case, which is "maybe there's some middle ground that can be worked out." I certainly would make an effort to if it were me.

NobodysHome wrote:
But from trolling the threads for well over a year now (clearly a biased sample), the posts I see from both GMs and players tend to support the "GM creates world and states restrictions, player balks at restrictions and tries to work around them" model.

My experience doesn't match yours here. It would if I took the GM entitlement defined as "GM bans gunslinger. Player demands gunslinger." as the norm and looked for examples like that. But GM entitlement of that sort is not usually brought to the boards because the vast majority of gamers would say "GM banned gunslinger. That's the breaks dude." What I see is more along the lines of "HALP! GM is NERFING MY XXXX!" Then there is a long discussion of how a GM has ruled in an arbitrary fashion that ability X, spell Y or feat Z works a particular way "in his world." And that has blown a player concept out of the water. But by far the most common example of how GM entitlement ruins player fun is the availability and cost of magic items. GM entitlement is absolutely rampant in that area.

Everyone keeps jumping to these crazy extreme examples of jerk behavior, but the real problem is in the far more common but less extreme behavior that doesn't end up with players being evicted but instead ends up with steady resentment and lack of fun week after week.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

My experience doesn't match yours here. It would if I took the GM entitlement defined as "GM bans gunslinger. Player demands gunslinger." as the norm and looked for examples like that. But GM entitlement of that sort is not usually brought to the boards because the vast majority of gamers would say "GM banned gunslinger. That's the breaks dude." What I see is more along the lines of "HALP! GM is NERFING MY XXXX!" Then there is a long discussion of how a GM has ruled in an arbitrary fashion that ability X, spell Y or feat Z works a particular way "in his world." And that has blown a player concept out of the water.

But by far the most common example of how GM entitlement ruins player fun is the availability and cost of magic items. GM entitlement is absolutely rampant in that area.

Everyone keeps jumping to these crazy extreme examples of jerk behavior, but the real problem is in the far more common but less extreme behavior that doesn't end up with players being evicted but instead ends up with steady resentment and lack of fun week after week.

Fair enough. I pretty much skip those threads because I am absolutely guilty of such things. If you're in Podunkville, Golarion, population 32, and you level up and have 60,000 g.p. burning a hole in your pocket, you're not buying that Sun Blade on my watch. You're actually going to have to roleplay through traveling to a city that might stock such an item, and that trip might take 2-3 full sessions.

Yeah, I'm a jerk GM.

Shadow Lodge

Podunkville shouldn't even have 60k gold pieces laying around, what nonsense!

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that also the person coming to the message board to complain is very often coming here to get validation from strangers that they were unable to get from the people who actually know them, know all the circumstances, and are at the table.

Which is why I tend toward the skeptical when an individual is bringing a dispute with a group to random strangers.


NobodysHome wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

My experience doesn't match yours here. It would if I took the GM entitlement defined as "GM bans gunslinger. Player demands gunslinger." as the norm and looked for examples like that. But GM entitlement of that sort is not usually brought to the boards because the vast majority of gamers would say "GM banned gunslinger. That's the breaks dude." What I see is more along the lines of "HALP! GM is NERFING MY XXXX!" Then there is a long discussion of how a GM has ruled in an arbitrary fashion that ability X, spell Y or feat Z works a particular way "in his world." And that has blown a player concept out of the water.

Everyone keeps jumping to these crazy extreme examples of jerk behavior, but the real problem is in the far more common but less extreme behavior that doesn't end up with players being evicted but instead ends up with steady resentment and lack of fun week after week.

Fair enough. I pretty much skip those threads because I am absolutely guilty of such things. If you're in Podunkville, Golarion, population 32, and you level up and have 60,000 g.p. burning a hole in your pocket, you're not buying that Sun Blade on my watch. You're actually going to have to roleplay through traveling to a city that might stock such an item, and that trip might take 2-3 full sessions.

Yeah, I'm a jerk GM.

This would qualify as a fairly standard strawman response to this whole issue and is a good example of why it is so hard to have a reasonable debate on this (or really any other issue) on these boards.

Nobody said that a GM not allowing a PC to buy a SunBlade in a timely hamlet would qualify them as a "jerk GM". And these constant exercises in strawman hyperbole (which I now like to call "strawperbole") do nothing but excite the emotional responses of people already primed to react emotionally.

My take on GM entitlement is when the GM restricts magic items so much and so arbitrarily that it beggars verisimilitude in a world where people manifest the ability to cast spells spontaneously and learning how to craft a magic item is a trivial academic exercise that doesn't even take high intelligence to accomplish.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Nobody said that a GM not allowing a PC to buy a SunBlade in a timely hamlet would qualify them as a "jerk GM". And these constant exercises in strawman hyperbole (which I now like to call "strawperbole") do nothing but excite the emotional responses of people already primed to react emotionally.

Nobody in this thread, maybe. But there are certain posters who have said such things, on this message board.

And then presumably someone who couldn't get what they want from the group of people that know that person and that game in the actual real world, now takes the validation of strangers on the internet back to the actual people who said no and tells them the internet says they are wrong and that the player is "entitled" to X,Y, and Z.

Although I do plan to steal "Strawperbole" for future threads :)


ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Nobody said that a GM not allowing a PC to buy a SunBlade in a timely hamlet would qualify them as a "jerk GM". And these constant exercises in strawman hyperbole (which I now like to call "strawperbole") do nothing but excite the emotional responses of people already primed to react emotionally.

Nobody in this thread, maybe. But there are certain posters who have said such things, on this message board.

And then presumably someone who couldn't get what they want from the group of people that know that person and that game in the actual real world, now takes the validation of strangers on the internet back to the actual people who said no and tells them the internet says they are wrong and that the player is "entitled" to X,Y, and Z.

Although I do plan to steal "Strawperbole" for future threads :)

Ciretose, you have to know that even if someone is asserting that tiny hamlets should have magic shops that sell 60,000g magic items, NOBODY on EITHER SIDE is taking them seriously, right?

When someone makes that sort of argument in a debate I'm in, my default response is along the lines of "<snicker> let me know when you have an actual argument" or words to that effect. The fact that idiots post idiotic nonsense during an internet exchange has no bearing on the substantive discussion and you clearly have the intellectual capacity to recognize idiocy from substantive debate.


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.

"And they argue through the night

Black is black and white is white
Walk away both knowing they are right"


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

This would qualify as a fairly standard strawman response to this whole issue and is a good example of why it is so hard to have a reasonable debate on this (or really any other issue) on these boards.

Nobody said that a GM not allowing a PC to buy a SunBlade in a timely hamlet would qualify them as a "jerk GM". And these constant exercises in strawman hyperbole (which I now like to call "strawperbole") do nothing but excite the emotional responses of people already primed to react emotionally.

My take on GM entitlement is when the GM restricts magic items so much and so arbitrarily that it beggars verisimilitude in a world where people manifest the ability to cast spells spontaneously and learning how to craft a magic item is a trivial academic exercise that doesn't even take high intelligence to accomplish.

I'll accept the hit -- it was a strawman argument. The problem is the vast grey area between "I can buy any magic item in any town" and "You cannot have any magic item I don't give you."

And I completely agree with your previous indication that this is where most "My GM's a jerk/My Player's entitled" arguments arise.

The difficulty is: Who draws the line in this vast sea of grey? I do have a tendency to lean towards the GM, as it is his/her world. But I will certainly make no claim that there aren't GMs who draw the line too strictly. Unfortunately, we could get this thread to 3000 posts and never come to an agreement on where the line 'belongs'.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
And there is no reason to exclude the GM from this conclusion.

If this is extended to the logical conclusion -- absurd, but logical -- a GM can't decide to "not GM" if doing so will make the other players unhappy.

It's a very odd position to stake out so firmly.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
And there is no reason to exclude the GM from this conclusion.

If this is extended to the logical conclusion -- absurd, but logical -- a GM can't decide to "not GM" if doing so will make the other players unhappy.

It's a very odd position to stake out so firmly.

It's an odd position to stake out so firmly because, like most of these sorts of rejoinders or arguments, it's absurd on the face of it.

Whenever we try to talk about degrees of behavior the responses are a flood of presumed absolutes as if there is no way for us to suggest that a GM should work with a player without someone (or several someones) asserting that anything other than the GM's utter and absolute dictating of terms is a complete and utter surrender by the GM to the player's entitlement mentality.

What we are suggesting is that human behavior should fall somewhere between one side in abject capitulation and the other side exulting in utter triumph.

But it's clear that it is virtually impossible to discuss anything but those outcomes.

Liberty's Edge

But there are some basic things we can presume when someone comes to the board to complain about the GM.

1. The group picked someone other than the player who is complaining to be in charge.

2. The person the group did pick to be in charge (The GM) has ruled against the player who is complaining, and yet is still allowed by the group to continue to be the person that is in charge.

Does this mean the GM is "right"? No.

Does this mean the player is "wrong"? No.

But what this does mean is that the majority of the table doesn't seem to think the complaint of the player rises to the point of mutiny.

Additionally, but not as definitively, we can guess that if the person is coming to the boards to complain, they are likely doing so because they didn't get the support of the rest of the table, and so must now turn to the internet for affirmation.

The problem being, they aren't generally gaming with the internet, they are gaming with the people at their table.

There are many, many people I would not let GM a game I play in. Some of them are people with whom I enjoy gaming. But if you let someone be your GM, you either need to let them be your GM (aka be in charge), find a new GM, or realize it is just a game and relax a bit.

Liberty's Edge

Jeff Wilder wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

If this is extended to the logical conclusion -- absurd, but logical -- a GM can't decide to "not GM" if doing so will make the other players unhappy.

It's a very odd position to stake out so firmly.

It's an odd position to stake out so firmly because, like most of these sorts of rejoinders or arguments, it's absurd on the face of it.

And yet it is the linear result of your stated support of ciretose's position that "[the GM is not] 'entitled' to make the rest of the people unhappy because [the GM] can't adapt."

I understand that you now want to back away from that claim ... and I don't blame you.

Of course the GM is entitled to do something that makes the rest of the table unhappy: namely, deciding to forgo GMing.

So the GM has the right to make the entire table unhappy, if the GM is not otherwise going to be happy running the game and therefore decides not to. Logically, the GM certainly therefore has the right to make a single player unhappy, if the GM is not otherwise going to be happy running the game.

The players have the right to not be players in that GM's game.

So the GM has the power to set the parameters of the game. The players have the power to accept or reject the GM. A GM that wants players will therefore work with the players to develop parameters they'll accept. The players that want the GM will therefore accept that the GM may not let them do everything they want to do.

It simply doesn't get more fair than that, and it's fair exactly because the GM's power over the game is balanced against the collective players' power over who GMs.


My problem is, my group is just so bloody easygoing. If one of my players wants to play something I think is absurd, game-breaking, or thematically inappropriate, we always manage to figure it out really easily. I've never had an argument about this stuff ever.

Which means I never get to say, " Okay, if you guys don't like my definitive 'no', I'd rather not GM. Can someone else run a game then?" So I keep on GMing, never getting to play a PC.

Sadface


Jeff Wilder wrote:


I understand that you now want to back away from that claim ... and I don't blame you.

I am not backing away from anything Jeff. The fact that you want to take a reasonable position and "linearly expand" it to an absurd limit to try to score a rhetorical point is the reason these sorts of online debates are generally totally and completely pointless.

This whole conversation of how players and GMs need to work together is repeatedly derailed by absurd "linear expansions" of simple common sense statements into assertions that if the GM or player gives up a nanometer of their position, then they are being "forced" into abject and total surrender.

Anyway, I'm done with this nonsense. Go on and keep arguing that if a GM is asked to reconsider a particular ruling, then that is the logical equivalent of a player choke-holding him and piledriving him into the floor until he yells "UNCLE!"

This thread is a stellar example of how the internet stifles reasonable conversation through the use of wild strawman exaggeration and absurdio ad reductio BS in order for someone to pound their chest and say "See! I WON!"

Pssshhhhtttt!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't believe I'm still here... but I am. So-o-o...

As a player, when a GM invites me to his/her game, I ask first about the setting -- are there standard races/classes not allowed and/or are there any nonstandard items of that sort on the table?

As a GM, when I have FINISHED setting the world up, and go on to invite players, I give them the Official Campaign House Rules. I don't try to construct a game setting around the nebulous set of possibilities that make up Schroedinger's Party.

My opinion, thusly, is that it is far easier and less taxing for a player to adapt their character to fit the setting than for a GM to have to re-write their game world.

And, not surprisingly, I tend to be MUCH less-flexible when I'm on the GMming side of the table. THIS [insert OCHR mentioned above] is the game I'm willing to run: my opening stance is largely take-it-or-leave-it.

On occasion, a player surprises me with a well-thought-out and non-argumentative discussion about changing this-or-that to let them run something that doesn't quite fit the setting I've created. I have, a few times, been persuaded. But not often -- either the pleasant manner of presenting the case for deviation, nor the persuading. The things I've disallowed generally are disallowed because they don't fit.

When I'm running for a group with whom I've gamed regularly, we rarely have any dispute; "Oh, no guns, huh? Well, I'll just play that Sorcerer Bloodline I've been lookin' at..." and characters get made up.


Players and GMs come here to complain about other player or GMs because people do have a need to rant. Personaly I never believed any situration to be exactly like the OP says it is. Even in threads when the other person comes in and explains their side of the story...I take it with a huge grain of salt. Neither are lieing...but people tend to shade things to make themselves appear in the best possible light.

What is happening in about 99% of these cases though is a failure of communication and people past baggage with jerk GMs and/or jerk players.


A lot of nonsense being thrown back and forth since I checked this thread only so many hours earlier...

A lot of this argument seems to be more about style than substance. People seem to be fine with the DM saying No as long as he isn't a total dick about it and at least considers your case.

As for classes, if the DM doesn't want to go buy APG/UM etc. and read up on the class (since the DM should be familiar with every class played) he doesn't have to. Its his call. he has enough work preparing the adventure and learning the setting and monsters without having to read up and learn the ins and outs of a master summoner or gunslinger or whatever to add to his workload. To someone who says "well I know about it and I'll just tell him the specs" no GM worth his salt would just take a player's word for it regardless of how trustworthy they are. A GM is not required to learn every expansion feature and rule so that you can use it. he's doing you a favor by learning it and allowing it.

Expansion classes/rules etc. are a privelage...not a right. They aren't core as a PHB 4 like DnD.


Duskrunner1 wrote:
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.

So now do you ban the orc barbarians of a evil nature?

If so lets say a new player said he wanted to play one....and you explain no because I allowed once and the player disrupted the game...

And that new player says to ,"But I am NOT that player." How do you respond to that.

Personaly I don't have to ban such a concept...as my players will do with that internaly.


kmal2t wrote:
A GM is not required to learn every expansion feature and rule so that you can use it. he's doing you a favor by learning it and allowing it.

Once again, the GM as benevolent tyrant. Glad we've moved forward in this thread.


Scott Betts wrote:
kmal2t wrote:
A GM is not required to learn every expansion feature and rule so that you can use it. he's doing you a favor by learning it and allowing it.
Once again, the GM as benevolent tyrant. Glad we've moved forward in this thread.

Explain to me how that's tyranny. I must have been hit by falling power line because I'm so f*cking shocked that you're a 4e player. [/sarcasm]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kmal2t wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
kmal2t wrote:
A GM is not required to learn every expansion feature and rule so that you can use it. he's doing you a favor by learning it and allowing it.
Once again, the GM as benevolent tyrant. Glad we've moved forward in this thread.
Explain to me how that's tyranny. I must have been hit by falling power line because I'm so f*cking shocked that you're a 4e player. [/sarcasm]

That is what we need....lets add edtion wars to the fuel of this fire. Good idea that.


kmal2t wrote:
Explain to me how that's tyranny.

It's not literally tyranny. It's simply the attitude of a benevolent tyrant: "You'll take what I give you and like it, or you can find someone else to grovel in front of (not likely)."

Quote:
I must have been hit by falling power line because I'm so f*cking shocked that you're a 4e player. [/sarcasm]

Oh, yes.

Excellent.

Start down this road, kmal2t. You'll love where it leads.


If someone is running a Pathfinder game how are they obligated to buy and then learn every expansion class and feature for your hearts every desire and pleasure? I don't think so.

If they don't want to deal with the headache of certain classes or aren't experienced enough as a GM to feel they can handle some classes in what way are they only spoonfeeding you what they give out one spoonfull at a time?

You still have the option of a multitude of options of other classes and races. You make it sound as if the DM is there waiting to say yay or nay on every class when more likely they limit it to CRB only or no gunslingers/summoners etc.

That mentality of feeling oppressed and needing as much stuff as you can find in 10 books is the 4e mentality people got tired of besides a bad system..and why they're rushing to make a 5 to desperately win people back.


kmal2t wrote:
If someone is running a Pathfinder game how are they obligated to buy and then learn every expansion class and feature for your hearts every desire and pleasure? I don't think so.

Why would they need to buy anything? Just use the SRD.

I really don't think it's asking very much for a seasoned GM to give a quick once-over to four characters' worth of rules material.

Quote:
If they don't want to deal with the headache of certain classes or aren't experienced enough as a GM to feel they can handle some classes in what way are they only spoonfeeding you what they give out one spoonfull at a time?

If it's an issue of a new GM who isn't yet confident enough of his grasp of the game, that's fine. I'll give him a pass. But what he really ought to be doing is enlisting his players to help him develop his mastery of the system.

Quote:
That mentality of feeling oppressed and needing more stuff is what 4e seemed to be created for..and why they're rushing to make a 5 to desperately win people back.

Please.

Continue.


And what if an experienced Gm wants to keep his campaign simple with the CRB classes. He shouldn't be allowed to run his own campaign that way?

What if he makes a low-magic setting or a setting where gunpowder hasn't been invented. Should he still have to include all alternate classes?

Experienced or not, the alternate books are SUPPLEMENTAL. You aren't taking something away from players that they don't really have in the first place. Its the DMs option to ADD them in, he isn't SUBTRACTING them from the Pathfinder core rules and stripping you of your "right" to half-troll earthquake-dancer.


Personally I try to weed out possible disruptions to my game as a DM by making new players, players i'm not familier with, or even just people I haven't gamed with in a long time stick to the base book for character creation and then play those characters till I'm sure they can handle more creativity.
long term players in my game know that I tend to favor roleplaying and skills over hack and slash and that isn't for everyone.
My point being that: It's not a bad thing for a DM to try to have fun and keep his group having fun as well. and If your a player and you can't handle the DM's play style or fit in with the group find a new one!


Hey Scott...I agree with you that GM should work with his players and try to accomandate them.

But personaly I do think the GM has the right to ban things from souces he has no access to. That I would take as a valid reason to ban something.

Also I have no probnlem with campaign world excluding certain things. I don't think every game needs to mirror each other.

I am curious about something though...

Would you be ok with a ban on gunslingers if it came from the group and not just the GM?

351 to 400 of 1,184 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick? All Messageboards