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


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 450 of 1,184 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

kmal2t wrote:
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?

It's not an issue of what he's allowed to do. It's a matter of how he ought to accommodate his players - you know, the other four people whose time he's responsible for.

Quote:
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?

Low magic settings are another thread entirely. I have a different set of issues with those.

As for a setting where gunpowder hasn't been invented, congratulations, you now know who invented gunpowder.

Quote:
Experienced or not, the alternate books are SUPPLEMENTAL.

Of course they are.

Quote:
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.

Why is it the GM's option, and no one else's? Why is it that he ought to have the only say? Because he's the GM? That's not good enough.


allyncoon wrote:
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.

There is nothing more inherently creative in playing a Witch than in playing a Druid.

Quote:
If your a player and you can't handle the DM's play style or fit in with the group find a new one!

And what we've been pointing out this entire thread is, "Find a new GM willing to accommodate you!" is indistinguishable from, "Looks like you don't get to play!" for a significant number of people, due to the inherent imbalance between players and GMs (not to mention the number of GMs who hold to similarly - or more extreme - restrictive guidelines).


John Kretzer wrote:
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.

I do, too!

I just can't imagine many scenarios nowadays where you'd run into that problem. All of the Pathfinder rules options are available in searchable online form for free. All of the D&D rules options are available in sortable, searchable online form (along with all the other DDI stuff) with a DDI subscription (which, let's be honest, you'd be silly not to have as a 4e DM).

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

I would have a serious discussion with my group about why they felt that one person using gunslinger rules would ruin their fun, and whether, in fact, it would just maybe make their game a tiny bit less enjoyable while making the game a lot more enjoyable for the guy playing the gunslinger, and that maybe they ought to accommodate him because the one thing he has control over is his own character and they probably wouldn't appreciate being told that they couldn't play their character of choice because the group decided it was bad, either.

Silver Crusade

I think one of the problems stems from coming up with a concept one day and getting really excited about it and wanting to play it at the next game that comes around.

I know I have but if a DM isn't allowing the type of character I made then I put it back and wait for the next game to come around that may allow it. Meanwhile I create something else that isallowed.


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

He took it out of context. I have explained over and over again I am targeting bad players with my arguments. I have repeatedly said I accommodate helpful players. Taking something out of context deliberately is the same as a misquote.


@Scott Betts
The only serious responses to that I can think of at this point are:
1. Run your own game and run the character in it.
2. Find a DM that is willing to maybe share a game with you switching off each module who's running it, every DM i've ever met is always happy for a break.

though id love to know where your at cause if i was reading your posts correctly you got a ton of DM's and I have trouble finding other people who want to run games. I've got 6 ongoing campaigns over 5 systems and only for the star wars D6, one of the pathfinder games, and the cyberpunk games do I have other people willing to run even short term story arcs


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

I do, too!

I just can't imagine many scenarios nowadays where you'd run into that problem. All of the Pathfinder rules options are available in searchable online form for free. All of the D&D rules options are available in sortable, searchable online form (along with all the other DDI stuff) with a DDI subscription (which, let's be honest, you'd be silly not to have as a 4e DM).

So is there any limit?

If I'm not to be a tyrant GM am I required to allow anything on the SRD? I apparently shouldn't ban anything for flavor reasons. Does that include races and prestige classes? Do I need to add Hellknight, Red Mantis and Pathfinder analogues to my homebrew world, just in case anyone wants to play them?
What about 3rd party stuff? If it's freely available or the player gets a copy for me, I shouldn't ruin his fun right?
Old 3.5 classes and abilities? They're compatible, right?

Why not? Is there a place to draw the line?

Liberty's Edge

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.

More like landlord.

The GM made a place where players can come to live and play. He chooses who gets to move in, he owns the building, but you have rights within your space to do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it doesn't damage the building or upset your fellow tenants.

If you don't like it move. If the rest of the people in the building don't like you, eviction.

But it usually goes best for everyone if everyone tries to get along and adapt to each other.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


Why is it the GM's option, and no one else's? Why is it that he ought to have the only say? Because he's the GM? That's not good enough.

If that's your actual position, then there really is no use in discussing anything further with you. Players with attitudes like that are not invited to my tables. And remember this maxim if you persist that GMs and Players are absolutely equal in importance to a game.

A given group can suffer the loss of one player with more ease than suffering the loss of one GM.


I'd like to share with the board my experience with what I'd define "an entitled player".
The problem player starts with a character concept of "dashing pirate" that could very well be a divine caster of a maritime deity such as Valkur or Besmara, but adamantly refuses to play any of those because of real-life issues with religion. Problem player opts for melee class; group is now formed by a caster and two melee characters.

Campaign anecdote #0:

Upon suggestion that the campaign will be extremely difficult without a healer, problem player states that the DM will just have to add more potions.
Refused by the DM.

Campaign anecdote #1:

Upon being constantly outperformed by the other melee character, problem player starts grumbling on how overlapping roles in a party does not lead to much fun.

Campaign anecdote #2:

Group is often thrashed due to not having a healer -and- dumping party loot in potions. Problem player states that the DM should add a healer NPC to the group.
Refused by the DM.

Campaign anecdote #3:

Problem player never brings his own dice; upon asked why, he states that they cost too much.
He is gifted a simple set by the DM, but constantly forgets them at home; upon asked why, he flat-out says that is "unthinkable" to ask him to remember.

Campaign anecdote #4:

Problem player decides to multiclass into Cleric; an experienced player, he memorizes spells reading only the small description in the index; this results in his confusion and disappointment. Upon asked to know spell's duration, components and other traits, he states that is the DM's job, not his.
Refused by the DM.

Campaign anecdote #5:

Problem player slows game to a crawl as he checks his spells during battle.
He is lent a Core Rulebook by the DM to browse at home, and once again defines the idea as "unthinkable".

Campaign anecdote #6:

Problem player halts a gaming session for half an hour during a climatic battle while calculating stats for "Summon Nature's Ally". He states it's the DM's fault for not having the monster's stats ready.
Refused by the DM.

Campaign anecdote #7:

Problem player notices the lack of a "blaster" type caster. He volunteers to pick the Leadership feat to gain a Sorcerer cohort. He applies to his cohort his mentality regarding his own spells.

Campaign anecdote #8:

Problem player constantly cancels gaming sessions at the last moment. A recently added fourth player leaves the group because of this.

Campaign anecdote #9:

One day, problem player phones in and announces that he is not coming to play and he's leaving the group, with no excuse or forewarning.

That same night, after 1 year and a half, the campaign ends in a TPK due to not having a healer at level 11.

So this is how I'd define "entitled": an out of game problem in behaving like a reliable, level-headed human.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
iLaifire wrote:
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".

Or a less malevolent interpretation. "X simply does not fit in my game world." A GM has the right of personal aesthetic when it comes to designing his game world. Which may mean that the GM may be sympathetic as to how much you enjoyed Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series and really want to play a Roland, but firearms and gunslingers still don't exist on his world.

If you're not going to concede the GM the right to his or her aesthetic principles, then you are the textbook example of "Player Entitlement Syndrome".


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Morieth wrote:

I'd like to share with the board my experience with what I'd define "an entitled player".

The problem player starts with a character concept of "dashing pirate" that could very well be a divine caster of a maritime deity such as Valkur or Besmara, but adamantly refuses to play any of those because of real-life issues with religion. Problem player opts for melee class; group is now formed by a caster and two melee characters.

There's a lot of dysfunction there - GM included. Why would the GM refuse to add an NPC cleric if nobody wants to play the cleric? That's an entirely reasonable option. Why would the GM, who's the guy with the Bestiary, not be willing to kit up stats for the summoned monsters?

Sure, the player was a dick, but the GM's not blameless here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
allyncoon wrote:
1. Run your own game and run the character in it.

Because everyone loves a DMPC, right? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
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.

Let me attempt to give an example (drawn from a game I am a player in) of how asking why a GM disallows something isn't automatically equivalent to trollfacing the GM's authoritay, and how it can instead be a means to arrive at a satisfactory solution for the player, and why the GM explaining his ruling need not be equivalent to casting his GMly pearls before player swine, but instead can be a means to arrive at a satisfactory solution for the GM.

You might even call it... a mutually satisfactory solution.

I was running some spells past the GM, who has a policy of "if it isn't Core or APG, run it by me before using it." I was getting approval for the UM/UC spells I wanted, which he gave for all except one, Frightful Aspect.

Thankfully however he did not say "no, end of discussion" but instead said "I don't like that this spell makes you frightened without a save."

To which I replied "no, me neither really. It doesn't seem underpowered - without a save you can send someone to another plane, or make them dance, with eighth level spells too - but the flavor there is definitely kind of lame. In fact I think its kind of lame in the fear rules in general that you can stack up fear conditions without ever failing a fear save."

And we discussed it a bit. End result for me: we worked out a few modifications. The spell Shamash's Frightful Aspect is slightly different from the official version, in that it has a Will save vs. becoming frightened, but, to balance out that addition, becoming frightened does not reduce the duration of the fear effect.

I got what I wanted, which was the ability to transform into a nephilimesque giant while making like Gandalf and scaring the s%#& out of hobbits. He got what he wanted, which was not giving my wizard the ability to make people frightened without a save. And we both got a cherry on top in the form of hashing out a house rule to make the fear-stacking rules a bit more to our liking.

None of which would have occurred if my GM had adopted the line being advanced all over this thread in which the GM's word is law and a player should not even ask why rulings are made - his place is to either sit down and shut up, or walk, no third option.

(you are the best, Kain)


I'd just like to point everyone to DeathQuaker's excellent post which outlines a very moderate point of view that I wholly agree with.

/thread ;-)


Coriat wrote:
Quote:
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.

Let me attempt to give an example (drawn from a game I am a player in) of how asking why a GM disallows something isn't automatically equivalent to trollfacing the GM's authoritay, and how it can instead be a means to arrive at a satisfactory solution for the player, and why the GM explaining his ruling need not be equivalent to casting his GMly pearls before player swine, but instead can be a means to arrive at a satisfactory solution for the GM.

You might even call it... a mutually satisfactory solution.

I was running some spells past the GM, who has a policy of "if it isn't Core or APG, run it by me before using it." I was getting approval for the UM/UC spells I wanted, which he gave for all except one, url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/spells/frightfulAspec t.html]Frightful Aspect.[/url]

Thankfully however he did not say "no, end of discussion" but instead said "I don't like that this spell makes you frightened without a save."

To which I replied "no, me neither really. It doesn't seem underpowered - without a save you can send someone to another plane, or make them dance, with eighth level spells too - but the flavor there is definitely kind of lame. In fact I think its kind of lame in the fear rules in general that you can stack up fear conditions without ever failing a fear save."

And we discussed it a bit. End result for me: we worked out a few modifications. The spell Shamash's Frightful Aspect is slightly different from the official version, in that it has a Will save vs. becoming frightened, but, to balance out that addition, becoming frightened does not reduce the duration of the fear effect.

I got what I wanted, which was the ability to transform into a nephilimesque giant while making like Gandalf and scaring the...

I certainly don't mind someone asking why I object, if their motivation is to create the concept while avoiding whatever it is I object to.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe its my military background or the group I learned to play with, but some of the responses I have heard here kinda turn my stomach.

I host the game
I provide the snacks
I buy all the Modules and Books
I spend my time creating extra material/NPCs
I flesh out the world/campaign
I DM the game

Yes I feel more then entitled to make rules, set standards, ect.

There are classes I dont want in my game... it could be because I feel they are overpowered (underpowered), dont fit my campaign, or because, as a DM, I have trouble dealing with them. I set the Point Buy. I decide what rules we use, which are waved, and what costume homebrew we use. These are my decisions because I am taking the time to run the game. If someone doesn't like it then they are more then welcome to step up and DM, or find a different DM. Thats my opinion.

Now that doesn't make me a Tyrant. There are few classes I ban (Gunslingers are the only constant). I use a 20 point buy (Used to roll stats - talk about nashing of teeth when I changed that). I am open to homebrew or makeing custom stuff to help a player flesh out a concept. I have set down and created a custom prestige class for a player so he could play *insert consept*. I allow all PF books exept for custom Races. I will even consider old 3.5 material if it doesnt break the game. Basicly I am wide open.

But if I do decide that something doesnt work, or that something is too odd to be included... I expect it to be accepted. Sure players moan and groan at times... but they accept it and move on. After all... the alternative is to find a new group or start your own. Same goes for rules. If a rule comes up and no one at the table knows the answer off the top of their heads... I make a ruling. If you disagree you can show me the rule after the game and we can discuss it. If your right I can retcon if it caused an issue, or just keep it in mind for the future if it wasn't that impactful.

I dont mind listening to my players opinions
I like feedback on how Im doing
I want my players to have fun... thats number one
I want my players to feel have characters they feel are heroic and cool.
Im open to most concepts.

But I still think that someone needs to be in charge. And that someone is the DM. My 2 cents.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dragonamedrake wrote:
Maybe its my military background

Nah, can't be.


Morieth wrote:

I'd like to share with the board my experience with what I'd define "an entitled player".

The problem player starts with a character concept of "dashing pirate" that could very well be a divine caster of a maritime deity such as Valkur or Besmara, but adamantly refuses to play any of those because of real-life issues with religion. Problem player opts for melee class; group is now formed by a caster and two melee characters.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Wow that is one bad GM.

Please use one of Aranna's rules for good GMing: "Know your players"

This was a casual player with no dice and no books. Not unusual for a casual player. He was uncomfortable playing a divine character and had a cool melee concept. A concept the GM had no problem with.

So why on earth would the GM target HIM of all people to try to FORCE into a healer role?! The GM was actively sabotaging his own game! Why not ask the other melee person to make the healer? He should have known his player and realized this casual player wasn't a good choice to play a caster. Then he sets the game up to REQUIRE a class no one wanted to play AND refuses to add a cleric NPC to compensate... In light of this I highly doubt it was the casual guy that drove people away, it seems to be the GM doing that himself.


I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race also think that it is not o.k. for a GM to add a class or race.


RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race also think that it is not o.k. for a GM to add a class or race.

Huh? Why?! Are you truly saying that if you ban content from one splatbook you MUST ban content from ALL splatbooks???

As long as your players know in advance of character creation why would it not be ok to add new options?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race

I'd be interested in speaking to those people myself. Can you point them out?


Aranna wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race also think that it is not o.k. for a GM to add a class or race.

Huh? Why?! Are you truly saying that if you ban content from one splatbook you MUST ban content from ALL splatbooks???

As long as your players know in advance of character creation why would it not be ok to add new options?

No, no. I'm saying that if you don't think it's o.k. for a GM to ban x (class/race/feat/spell/etc.) from whatever source, because your logic is that "It's printed, therefore it must be allowed", then you should also NOT be o.k. with a GM adding custom classes/races/feats/spells/etc.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race
I'd be interested in speaking to those people myself. Can you point them out?

Ummm...

many players have said it is NOT o.k. for a GM to ban class/race x. Being told I shouldn't ban gunslinger in my case.


RadiantSophia wrote:
Aranna wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race also think that it is not o.k. for a GM to add a class or race.

Huh? Why?! Are you truly saying that if you ban content from one splatbook you MUST ban content from ALL splatbooks???

As long as your players know in advance of character creation why would it not be ok to add new options?

No, no. I'm saying that if you don't think it's o.k. for a GM to ban x (class/race/feat/spell/etc.) from whatever source, because your logic is that "It's printed, therefore it must be allowed", then you should also NOT be o.k. with a GM adding custom classes/races/feats/spells/etc.

Oh sorry I did misunderstand that.


RadiantSophia wrote:
Aranna wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race also think that it is not o.k. for a GM to add a class or race.

Huh? Why?! Are you truly saying that if you ban content from one splatbook you MUST ban content from ALL splatbooks???

As long as your players know in advance of character creation why would it not be ok to add new options?

No, no. I'm saying that if you don't think it's o.k. for a GM to ban x (class/race/feat/spell/etc.) from whatever source, because your logic is that "It's printed, therefore it must be allowed", then you should also NOT be o.k. with a GM adding custom classes/races/feats/spells/etc.

The problem here is that removing available options is not the equivalent of adding new options.

Let's say you have an ad for a local grocery store. You head there to buy some goodies for a party which are on sale. You get there and they don't have those items. You would not be happy. But let's say you get there and the DO have those items, but they also added some new items not in the ad. And you decide some of those are better than what you came for.

Adding and deleting are not the same thing. Saying "I expect what's on the menu to be available" is not remotely the same thing as saying "I can't eat here, they offer stuff not on the menu."


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


The problem here is that removing available options is not the equivalent of adding new options.

Let's say you have an ad for a local grocery store. You head there to buy some goodies for a party which are on sale. You get there and they don't have those items. You would not be happy. But let's say you get there and the DO have those items, but they also added some new items not in the ad. And you decide some of those are better than what you came for.

Adding and deleting are not the same thing. Saying "I expect what's on the menu to be available" is not remotely the same thing as saying "I can't eat here, they offer stuff not on the menu."

I'm not the local grocery store. Any "ad" will be completely factual.

i.e. any player will know beforehand, before any offer is made to play, what isn't allowed and what options are allowed that they don't know about.

Case in point: I don't allow gnomes, because I allow MY gnomes, rebuilt from the ground up to fit into my world.

Sovereign Court

Food again? We as gamers must be a hungry people.


Duskrunner1 wrote:
Food again? We as gamers must be a hungry people.

Food... grocery... restaurant... menu... I don't know what you are talking about.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
Aranna wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race also think that it is not o.k. for a GM to add a class or race.

Huh? Why?! Are you truly saying that if you ban content from one splatbook you MUST ban content from ALL splatbooks???

As long as your players know in advance of character creation why would it not be ok to add new options?

No, no. I'm saying that if you don't think it's o.k. for a GM to ban x (class/race/feat/spell/etc.) from whatever source, because your logic is that "It's printed, therefore it must be allowed", then you should also NOT be o.k. with a GM adding custom classes/races/feats/spells/etc.

The problem here is that removing available options is not the equivalent of adding new options.

Let's say you have an ad for a local grocery store. You head there to buy some goodies for a party which are on sale. You get there and they don't have those items. You would not be happy. But let's say you get there and the DO have those items, but they also added some new items not in the ad. And you decide some of those are better than what you came for.

Adding and deleting are not the same thing. Saying "I expect what's on the menu to be available" is not remotely the same thing as saying "I can't eat here, they offer stuff not on the menu."

I'm still trying to figure out what the menu is. Core PF? All PF base classes? All published PF material? Including Golarion specific material even if you're not playing in Golarion? 3rd party stuff? Old 3.5 stuff? Stuff the player just made up off the top of his head?

Somewhere in there has to be a line. Me, I'd put it wherever the GM wants it, as long as he's up front about it. Some here seem to think that banning anything is a sign of "GM entitlement", but I have to assume they'd still draw the line somewhere.

Silver Crusade

Does anyone remember the name of that soda that was green and had so much sugar in it that it made your teeth ache and caused you to stay up half the night?

Was it Surge?


allyncoon wrote:

@Scott Betts

though id love to know where your at cause if i was reading your posts correctly you got a ton of DM's

That's literally the opposite of what I've been saying.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
Aranna wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
I hope that those who think it is not o.k. for a GM to ban a class or race also think that it is not o.k. for a GM to add a class or race.

Huh? Why?! Are you truly saying that if you ban content from one splatbook you MUST ban content from ALL splatbooks???

As long as your players know in advance of character creation why would it not be ok to add new options?

No, no. I'm saying that if you don't think it's o.k. for a GM to ban x (class/race/feat/spell/etc.) from whatever source, because your logic is that "It's printed, therefore it must be allowed", then you should also NOT be o.k. with a GM adding custom classes/races/feats/spells/etc.

The problem here is that removing available options is not the equivalent of adding new options.

Let's say you have an ad for a local grocery store. You head there to buy some goodies for a party which are on sale. You get there and they don't have those items. You would not be happy. But let's say you get there and the DO have those items, but they also added some new items not in the ad. And you decide some of those are better than what you came for.

Adding and deleting are not the same thing. Saying "I expect what's on the menu to be available" is not remotely the same thing as saying "I can't eat here, they offer stuff not on the menu."

I'm still trying to figure out what the menu is. Core PF? All PF base classes? All published PF material? Including Golarion specific material even if you're not playing in Golarion? 3rd party stuff? Old 3.5 stuff? Stuff the player just made up off the top of his head?

Somewhere in there has to be a line. Me, I'd put it wherever the GM wants it, as long as he's up front about it. Some here seem to think that banning anything is a sign of "GM entitlement", but I have to assume they'd still draw the line somewhere.

You have to draw the line somewhere. Why do you think games have rules anyway?

Grand Lodge

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

Does anyone remember the name of that soda that was green and had so much sugar in it that it made your teeth ache and caused you to stay up half the night?

Was it Surge?

Yeah, I remember that one. Used to get it after baseball practice during middle school.


thejeff wrote:

So is there any limit?

If I'm not to be a tyrant GM am I required to allow anything on the SRD? I apparently shouldn't ban anything for flavor reasons. Does that include races and prestige classes? Do I need to add Hellknight, Red Mantis and Pathfinder analogues to my homebrew world, just in case anyone wants to play them?

Personally, I'd ignore them until someone decided they wanted to play them, and then I'd refluff the PrC to fit the campaign world. That way you don't end up doing any unnecessary work.

Quote:

What about 3rd party stuff? If it's freely available or the player gets a copy for me, I shouldn't ruin his fun right?

Old 3.5 classes and abilities? They're compatible, right?

I think there's enough room for legitimate mechanical concerns when it comes to older, slightly-less-than-perfectly-compatible material, and 3rd party material. But that has nothing to do with the idea of protecting a sacred vision of the campaign world, and everything to do with making sure the game runs smoothly.


ciretose wrote:
More like landlord.

That doesn't strike me as a great relationship analogue for a bunch of friends playing a game, either. (Though my landlord is fantastic.)

Quote:
But it usually goes best for everyone if everyone tries to get along and adapt to each other.

I agree, as long as you make sure to apply this to the GM as well.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

Maybe its my military background or the group I learned to play with, but some of the responses I have heard here kinda turn my stomach.

I host the game
I provide the snacks
I buy all the Modules and Books
I spend my time creating extra material/NPCs
I flesh out the world/campaign
I DM the game

Yes I feel more then entitled to make rules, set standards, ect.

There are classes I dont want in my game... it could be because I feel they are overpowered (underpowered), dont fit my campaign, or because, as a DM, I have trouble dealing with them. I set the Point Buy. I decide what rules we use, which are waved, and what costume homebrew we use. These are my decisions because I am taking the time to run the game. If someone doesn't like it then they are more then welcome to step up and DM, or find a different DM. Thats my opinion.

Sure, and that's fine. We're just pointing out that this is kind of a dysfunctional, imbalanced power relationship.

And we've pointed out the obvious problems with telling players, "If you don't like it, find another GM!"

Quote:
Now that doesn't make me a Tyrant.

No, of course not. Not literally. You don't have enough power to actually be a tyrant. But the attitude of, "This is my house, these are my rules, and this is what I'm giving you, and you'll like it or you'll be stuck out in the cold," simply isn't the sort of thing I'd expect one friend to present to another over a game.

And yet.


lol its a function of the game??

So is the banker in Monopoly a tyrant too for holding the money and not letting everyone else handle the money?

Is the referee in football or basketball a tyrant?

Is the guy who flips the little hourglass thing in games then tells you your time is up a tyrant too for lording over the other players and telling you how to play?

I think the word tyrant is getting thrown around way too much in gaming now just so players can get away with pretty much anything they want...


Scott Betts wrote:


Quote:
Now that doesn't make me a Tyrant.

No, of course not. Not literally. You don't have enough power to actually be a tyrant. But the attitude of, "This is my house, these are my rules, and this is what I'm giving you, and you'll like it or you'll be stuck out in the cold," simply isn't the sort of thing I'd expect one friend to present to another over a game.

And yet.

I ran into this once in a non-gaming environment. After dealing with it for a while, I finally had enough and left. But not before telling the "host" that he had let a thimble full of power turn him into a tin-pot dictator and I couldn't help but believe that any opportunity for more power would not have a positive effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A very extreme way to paint a social contract among friends.
It isn't any more the GM friend lording over the others, anymore than them being subservient to be respectful of his house rules as his friends. It swings both ways, to an extent, but at the end of the day it is his house. It is his campaign. If the others don't like it, they will express displeasure and discuss it like friends. Maybe they come to a conclusion that fits the GM's idea of how his world should be, maybe they decide someone else amongst the friends should run for a while. This has hapened amongst my friends quite a bit.

Possible GM: I wanna run a game that...(blah)
Players: Yeesh, sounds complicated...got any other ideas?
Possible GM: That's all I got for now...
Players: Ok, anyone else got any ideas?
New possible GM: How about an old fashioned hack n slash?
Players: Tell me more...

Its interesting that everything must be painted in it's worst possible light to make a winning argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


No, of course not. Not literally. You don't have enough power to actually be a tyrant. But the attitude of, "This is my house, these are my rules, and this is what I'm giving you, and you'll like it or you'll be stuck out in the cold," simply isn't the sort of thing I'd expect one friend to present to another over a game.

And yet.

That's because, no matter what anyone else here is saying, you're pretty much spinning it in negative terms. We're not all shallowsoul with his abrasive phraseology. Dragonamedrake didn't say that any prospective player had to like it or be out in the cold. They can choose to accept and participate or they can choose to do something else. Isn't that the case with all voluntary activities like going to the movies, out to dinner, or playing any other game?

If my friends, as part of our regular gaming group, decide they want to play Vampire or any other Worlds of Darkness RPG, they're not leaving me out in the cold if I decline to participate (which I will do and have done because I am not a fan of WoD). We're still friends and we still play other games together. I'm not offended by them getting together and playing something I don't like.


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


No, of course not. Not literally. You don't have enough power to actually be a tyrant. But the attitude of, "This is my house, these are my rules, and this is what I'm giving you, and you'll like it or you'll be stuck out in the cold," simply isn't the sort of thing I'd expect one friend to present to another over a game.

And yet.

That's because, no matter what anyone else here is saying, you're pretty much spinning it in negative terms. We're not all shallowsoul with his abrasive phraseology. Dragonamedrake didn't say that any prospective player had to like it or be out in the cold. They can choose to accept and participate or they can choose to do something else. Isn't that the case with all voluntary activities like going to the movies, out to dinner, or playing any other game?

If my friends, as part of our regular gaming group, decide they want to play Vampire or any other Worlds of Darkness RPG, they're not leaving me out in the cold if I decline to participate (which I will do and have done because I am not a fan of WoD). We're still friends and we still play other games together. I'm not offended by them getting together and playing something I don't like.

I think he'd prefer to be a drama queen and cry right at the table if he didn't get his way...that or try to start a coup against his "Stalinist Hitler-Mao" GM and wear a Che beret to demand power to the people...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Its interesting that everything must be painted in it's worst possible light to make a winning argument.

That's because there is no winning argument.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Its interesting that everything must be painted in it's worst possible light to make a winning argument.
That's because there is no winning argument.

Well, I think the winning argument is "It's a shared gaming experience and no one person should be dictating to others. Important decisions should be shared in advance and discussed as a group and the GM's primary role is to direct the story and be the referee during game play."

Shadow Lodge

Once you start arguing, you have already lost.


Winning Argument: Because it's MY stick, and I'm taking the long end. Get your own stick.

Of course, If I'm a player it's still my stick, and I'm taking the long end.


TOZ wrote:
Once you start arguing, you have already lost.

Looks like I win this one then.


RadiantSophia wrote:
Winning Argument: Because it's MY stick, and I'm taking the long end. Get your own stick.

Well, it's pretty much the whole "it's MY stick" attitude that makes me sad.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm all about everyone winning.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
Winning Argument: Because it's MY stick, and I'm taking the long end. Get your own stick.
Well, it's pretty much the whole "it's MY stick" attitude that makes me sad.

Well, then we should ALL get sticks! Problem solved.

401 to 450 of 1,184 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick? All Messageboards