OK, and why do you feel entitled to dictate the terms of another person's fun?While I'm running the game? No, pick a different option you will also enjoy. Next time around, someone else can run a game in which everyone plays gunslingers.So, tri, he can ONLY have fun playing a gunslinger out of all of the nearly infinite options in the game?I ask again, can he NEVER play a gunslinger then?Why do they feel entitled to dictate mine?
Oh, come on. You must see where this is headed.
Oh, come on. You must see where this is headed.
I had the bit in my HAND Scott, in my HAND!
Arg....
Oh well, Tri got him close enough to the destination I was taking him.
Unfortunately, yes. Because I wouldn't ENJOY running that game,
Really? It just wouldn't be enjoyable for you? At all? It would suck that hard? Despite having all the same people sitting around the table? Despite using the same rules system? It would just suck all the fun out of it?
Don't be so dramatic. Of course it wouldn't. You'd just enjoy it a little less. But you'd still have a good time, in all probability. And, if you didn't have a good time, you probably weren't going to enjoy yourself anyway for reasons totally unrelated to throwing this particular player a bone.
You just don't want to budge because enjoying the game a little less is a non-starter for you. So, instead, enjoying the game a little less is what the players have to deal with.
So the question remains: why do you get to win?
Because I'm the one that they chose to run the sessions. They know my preferences, including that not having gunslingers is among them. Sorry, but there are nearly infinite other choices out there,
Sorry, but you aren't going to convince me that the player should be able to dictate additions to a game world. My decision that I'm not going to run a game with Gunslingers in it is at least as valid as his decision NOT t play in any game without them. Arguably more so because insisting on one specific combination is in handle more restrictive than not allowing one class out of a multitude.
Unfortunately, yes. Because I wouldn't ENJOY running that game,Really? It just wouldn't be enjoyable for you? At all? It would suck that hard? Despite having all the same people sitting around the table? Despite using the same rules system? It would just suck all the fun out of it?
Don't be so dramatic. Of course it wouldn't. You'd just enjoy it a little less. But you'd still have a good time, in all probability. And, if you didn't have a good time, you probably weren't going to enjoy yourself anyway for reasons totally unrelated to throwing this particular player a bone.
You just don't want to budge because enjoying the game a little less is a non-starter for you. So, instead, enjoying the game a little less is what the players have to deal with.
So the question remains: why do you get to win?
If they want to get the tie breaking vote, then they need to run the game. I'm perfectly willing to sit back while another player gms. In fact, I probably enjoy playing more than GMing, frankly.
And now we see how you "win" D&D.
Class dismissed.
Because I'm the one that they chose to run the sessions.
Yeah, maybe they like how you describe scenes. Or maybe they like that you know most of the rules. Why do you think that their decision to make you GM entitles you to dictate the terms of the game in a unilateral fashion?
Sorry, but there are nearly infinite other choices out there,
There are far more world and setting possibilities than there are classes to choose from. But you'd never force yourself to make that choice.
Sorry, but you aren't going to convince me that the player should be able to dictate additions to a game world. My decision that I'm not going to run a game with Gunslingers in it is at least as valid as his decision NOT t play in any game without them. Arguably more so because insisting on one specific combination is in handle more restrictive than not allowing one class out of a multitude.
It's incredible that you don't realize that the game world you choose to use is its own "specific combination" that imposes restrictions on your players.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If every D&D world had everything D&D in it, with no changes, limitations, or expansion, there would be no point in having custom worlds, and everyone could just play in a kitchen sink setting like Golarion. What fun would that be? World creation and discovery is one of the most awesome things about this hobby, and it is an aspect that I believe is becoming less and less common.
It should not be a hard concept for a player to understand that some things just don't fit in certain settings.
So if there are no DMs willing to run for his gunslinger, he's SOL?
Of course. Similarly, if there's no one willing to give me $1,000,000, I'm out of luck too...
But with the internet and all, there are lots of play-by-post or virtual tabletop games to choose from -- I'm sure at least one would let him play a gunslinger (or an anthropomorphic duck or a Jedi Knight or whatever other specific Pathfinder PC he has his heart set on).
Why do you think that their decision to make you GM entitles you to dictate the terms of the game in a unilateral fashion?
The same reason that my boss's decision to hire me allows me to demand that I get paid.
;-)
Because I'm the one that they chose to run the sessions.Yeah, maybe they like how you describe scenes. Or maybe they like that you know most of the rules. Why do you think that their decision to make you GM entitles you to dictate the terms of the game in a unilateral fashion?
Sorry, but there are nearly infinite other choices out there,There are far more world and setting possibilities than there are classes to choose from. But you'd never force yourself to make that choice.
Sorry, but you aren't going to convince me that the player should be able to dictate additions to a game world. My decision that I'm not going to run a game with Gunslingers in it is at least as valid as his decision NOT t play in any game without them. Arguably more so because insisting on one specific combination is in handle more restrictive than not allowing one class out of a multitude.It's incredible that you don't realize that the game world you choose to use is its own "specific combination" that imposes restrictions on your players.
Oh, absolutely it does. And that's entirely intentional. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either.
And this is why I run blank slate settings.
I have absolutely no interest in gming a blank slate setting, just like I have no interest in a white bread sandwich.
I will gladly take any proferred sangwich
and I keep reading these comments that essentially say 'to each their own' while implying that their own is slightly better than the other each's choices for their own.
If every D&D world had everything D&D in it, with no changes, limitations, or expansion, there would be no point in having custom worlds, and everyone could just play in a kitchen sink setting like Golarion. What fun would that be?
Ignoring the obvious issue of you being unable to see the point in a custom world if all character options are allowed (I have a hard time believing you're actually that uncreative), I think it's pretty clear that people have no trouble whatsoever having fun in Golarion.
And, frankly, if you were being honest with yourself, you would too.
I will gladly take any proferred sangwichand I keep reading these comments that essentially say 'to each their own' while implying that their own is slightly better than the other each's choices for their own.
In an absolute sense? Of course not.
But with the internet and all, there are lots of play-by-post or virtual tabletop games to choose from -- I'm sure at least one would let him play a gunslinger (or an anthropomorphic duck or a Jedi Knight or whatever other specific Pathfinder PC he has his heart set on).
So, as a DM, you get to have exactly the game you want. As a player, you have to settle for hunting down a mythical DM willing to run an internet game for you (all the while hoping the DM doesn't turn out to be just like the one you left behind). And that doesn't strike you as a one-sided way of doing things?
The same reason that my boss's decision to hire me allows me to demand that I get paid.
That's sort of exactly our point.
You don't see this as a game that you are playing with your friends in which each of you ought to have a say in the workings of the game. You view it like the relationship between an employer and an employee. We're saying that's a pretty dysfunctional way of internalizing the situation.
And this is why I run blank slate settings.I have absolutely no interest in gming a blank slate setting, just like I have no interest in a white bread sandwich.
Yet another food analogy... what is it with food analogies?
I personally love a wide variety of sammiches. White bread, wheat bread, pumpernickel, homemade sourdough, pita... bring 'em all on!
But with the internet and all, there are lots of play-by-post or virtual tabletop games to choose from -- I'm sure at least one would let him play a gunslinger (or an anthropomorphic duck or a Jedi Knight or whatever other specific Pathfinder PC he has his heart set on).So, as a DM, you get to have exactly the game you want. As a player, you have to settle for hunting down a mythical DM willing to run an internet game for you (all the while hoping the DM doesn't turn out to be just like the one you left behind). And that doesn't strike you as a one-sided way of doing things?
The same reason that my boss's decision to hire me allows me to demand that I get paid.That's sort of exactly our point.
You don't see this as a game that you are playing with your friends in which each of you ought to have a say in the workings of the game. You view it like the relationship between an employer and an employee. We're saying that's a pretty dysfunctional way of internalizing the situation.
Yeah Scott, he WON!
You show up and the setting gets built around you.And this is why I run blank slate settings.I'm curious what that means. Not a term I've heard before.
It's like a sandbox with no sides...
Yeah Scott, he WON!
Putting an uppity player in his place has got to be worth, like, at least 500 DM experience points.
|
|
If every D&D world had everything D&D in it, with no changes, limitations, or expansion, there would be no point in having custom worlds, and everyone could just play in a kitchen sink setting like Golarion. What fun would that be?Ignoring the obvious issue of you being unable to see the point in a custom world if all character options are allowed (I have a hard time believing you're actually that uncreative), I think it's pretty clear that people have no trouble whatsoever having fun in Golarion.
And, frankly, if you were being honest with yourself, you would too.
I currently run or play a game set in Golarion every week, and I do have fun (or I wouldn't do it), but I also like the degree of discovery and mystery that only comes with home brew settings. So yes, it is all fun, I just like some diversity in my fun, and a lot of that diversity comes from custom worlds.
I'll add that our group does not allow gunslingers, even in our Golarion game. Fortunately all of us agree that we don't want gunpowder in our fantasy.
Sure, all character options can be allowed in any world, but it is going to change the feel and vision of that world, and I think the GM should have the right to preserve his vision of his world.
|
|
Ah, okay. I've done that before. I just didn't tell the players I was doing it. :-)You show up and the setting gets built around you.And this is why I run blank slate settings.I'm curious what that means. Not a term I've heard before.
Depending on how well you do it, the players never even know it wasn't written before they started playing.
Sure, all character options can be allowed in any world, but it is going to change the feel and vision of that world, and I think the GM should have the right to preserve his vision of his world.
That's really what this boils down to. We don't think the GM has that right - or, rather, we don't think he ought to have that right. Mostly because he's giving it to himself.
It's like a sandbox with no sides...You show up and the setting gets built around you.And this is why I run blank slate settings.I'm curious what that means. Not a term I've heard before.
otherwise known as a desert
Ignoring the obvious issue of you being unable to see the point in a custom world if all character options are allowed (I have a hard time believing you're actually that uncreative), I think it's pretty clear that people have no trouble whatsoever having fun in Golarion.And, frankly, if you were being honest with yourself, you would too.
By the same token, why would you assume that a player wouldn't have fun playing in a setting with a more restrictive palette of options? Is there some reason the GM can't have a particular vision in mind, pitch the game to the players, and if they sign on to it, hold them to that vision?
Indeed. It isn't as if I pitch one game then say, out of the blue "now that I have you in my catches, my pretties, I'm going to take things away from you!"
Its all right there in the vacation brochure.
By the same token, why would you assume that a player wouldn't have fun playing in a setting with a more restrictive palette of options?
I'm not assuming anything of the sort. As I've noted above (or maybe in the other thread; they're basically indistinguishable) I think the idea of being unable to have fun if something gets changed is wildly overblown.
Is there some reason the GM can't have a particular vision in mind, pitch the game to the players, and if they sign on to it, hold them to that vision?
Sure, that's fine. The GM should also make an effort to adapt that setting to the players' desires prior to them signing onto it, though. All we're advocating is that GMs stop being so unilateral in their decision making about what is and isn't part of the game.
By the same token, why would you assume that a player wouldn't have fun playing in a setting with a more restrictive palette of options?I'm not assuming anything of the sort. As I've noted above (or maybe in the other thread; they're basically indistinguishable) I think the idea of being unable to have fun if something gets changed is wildly overblown.
Is there some reason the GM can't have a particular vision in mind, pitch the game to the players, and if they sign on to it, hold them to that vision?Sure, that's fine. The GM should also make an effort to adapt that setting to the players' desires prior to them signing onto it, though. All we're advocating is that GMs stop being so unilateral in their decision making about what is and isn't part of the game.
But if they sign onto it they've said that they are implicitly buying into and accepting the premises of the game, after that point, trying to argue for the banned class is, yes, being childish. Discuss all you want before you sign on to play the campaign, sure. But once you've bought in, accept the terms of the agreement.
Sure, that's fine. The GM should also make an effort to adapt that setting to the players' desires prior to them signing onto it, though. All we're advocating is that GMs stop being so unilateral in their decision making about what is and isn't part of the game.
Looking at the other posts you've been making in this thread, it sure doesn't look like that's what you are advocating. Rather, it reads more like you're accusing GMs who do have restrictions are trying to "win" a power struggle between themselves and the players and otherwise engaging in badwrongfun. That's certainly the impression I'm getting in this thread.
If every D&D world had everything D&D in it, with no changes, limitations, or expansion, there would be no point in having custom worlds, and everyone could just play in a kitchen sink setting like Golarion. What fun would that be?Ignoring the obvious issue of you being unable to see the point in a custom world if all character options are allowed (I have a hard time believing you're actually that uncreative), I think it's pretty clear that people have no trouble whatsoever having fun in Golarion.
And, frankly, if you were being honest with yourself, you would too.
Not that I think my post will sway you but to chime in. Yes, Golarion is fun and for some games having all the character options available is fine. I don't think every game needs to take that approach necessarily. There is a plethora of different RPGs geared to different genres whether they be Call of Cthulhu, Cypberpunk etc. Even in fantasy RPGs, Harn presents a very different type of world, feel than Golarion or generic PF. They do posit some sort of baseline setting and a general genre but there is of course a wealth of character options in any of these games that should appeal to a wide range of tastes.
Players have enourmous freedom to create the type of character they want. If the GM puts some restrictions to guide the campaign to fit the desired genre this is a good thing because presumably the group agreed to play to that genre and these choices should help further that goal. There should be some back and forth and collaboration on that but if in the end the group agreed to do a stone age campaign then yes having a gunslinger in it probably will dampen the enthusiasm the group had for the idea. In the end I don't think reasonable restrictions are an affront to player creativity rather they should be an invitation to be creative in those guidelines.
Sure, that's fine. The GM should also make an effort to adapt that setting to the players' desires prior to them signing onto it, though. All we're advocating is that GMs stop being so unilateral in their decision making about what is and isn't part of the game.
Fair enough, I'd concur with the dislike of unilateralism. As I've mentioned in this and the other thread collaboration, cooperation are the cornerstones of any rpg.
Unfortunately, yes. Because I wouldn't ENJOY running that game,Really? It just wouldn't be enjoyable for you? At all? It would suck that hard? Despite having all the same people sitting around the table? Despite using the same rules system? It would just suck all the fun out of it?
Don't be so dramatic. Of course it wouldn't. You'd just enjoy it a little less. But you'd still have a good time, in all probability. And, if you didn't have a good time, you probably weren't going to enjoy yourself anyway for reasons totally unrelated to throwing this particular player a bone.
You just don't want to budge because enjoying the game a little less is a non-starter for you. So, instead, enjoying the game a little less is what the players have to deal with.
So the question remains: why do you get to win?
Speaking as someone who has banned Gunslinger in his campaigns ( after seeing one in action for an entire campaign of mine ): Because I buy all the books, I do all the prep time and I have enough other players that if someone feels so offended about not being able to play that specific class that s/he won't continue playing in my group, that's fine.
With great money and time investment, not to mention being the only one who actively wants to GM, there comes some power to dictate terms.
Also, my players are cool ( so far ) with me implementing some house rules to make both sides game experience better and nobody is in love with the Gunslinger and Summoner classes.
But if they sign onto it they've said that they are implicitly buying into and accepting the premises of the game, after that point, trying to argue for the banned class is, yes, being childish. Discuss all you want before you sign on to play the campaign, sure. But once you've bought in, accept the terms of the agreement.
Unless they change their mind later. Or a new book comes out with a new option. Or they find inspiration in a new piece of literature and want to make a character mimicking that. Or one of their friends gives them a cool idea.
So on, and so forth.
In all of those situations, the DM should be willing and able to do his damnedest to find a place for that concept.
Looking at the other posts you've been making in this thread, it sure doesn't look like that's what you are advocating. Rather, it reads more like you're accusing GMs who do have restrictions are trying to "win" a power struggle between themselves and the players and otherwise engaging in badwrongfun. That's certainly the impression I'm getting in this thread.
I think it would be more accurate to say that I feel that GMs who demand that players adhere to their world (as opposed to developing a world where your players have a place, and recognizing that this is a game and that your world and setting are not sacred) are doing their players a disservice.
The most important lesson I ever learned as a DM was how to enjoy the fact that my players were enjoying the game.
|
|
In all of those situations, the DM should be willing and able to do his damnedest to find a place for that concept.
I agree, but to go back to the gunslinger example that started this, if your concept hangs on using a particular weapon, you probably have not really gotten to the core of your concept.
Speaking as someone who has banned Gunslinger in his campaigns ( after seeing one in action for an entire campaign of mine ): Because I buy all the books, I do all the prep time and I have enough other players that if someone feels so offended about not being able to play that specific class that s/he won't continue playing in my group, that's fine.
With great money and time investment, not to mention being the only one who actively wants to GM, there comes some power to dictate terms.
Sure, and that's fine in any normal situation. "I have the tools, therefore I have the power, therefore I make the rules," is how most of the world works.
Except that this is a game that you play with your friends sitting around your kitchen table, and the above mentality is not indicative of the sort of relationship I would call "friendly".
You might disagree with that, though, so let's take it a step further: What if you didn't spend any prep time (because you're running a pre-made adventure/setting)? What if you didn't buy any books (because you got them all online for free)? And what if you didn't have a stable of potential players waiting in the wings?
Would you still have the right and power to dictate terms to your players? If so, obviously having all the toys isn't important to your justification. If not, shouldn't the power belong to the player who invests himself the most in the game - the one who spends hours on his backstory, the one who brings pizza to the table, or the one whose house you play at? Either way you slice it, you have to make a choice: Should the title of GM - by itself! - mean that you have the power to make unilateral decisions on behalf of your players? Or is the investiture of that power simply a function of who brings the most to the table? And, if it's the latter, why is it all-or-nothing? Shouldn't each person therefore have an amount of say commensurate with how invested they are in the game? And how do you even decide how much someone is invested?
In all of those situations, the DM should be willing and able to do his damnedest to find a place for that concept.I agree, but to go back to the gunslinger example that started this, if your concept hangs on using a particular weapon, you probably have not really gotten to the core of your concept.
I think it's probably up to me to decide what the core of my concept is. It's an arbitrary idea to begin with.
Speaking as someone who has banned Gunslinger in his campaigns ( after seeing one in action for an entire campaign of mine ): Because I buy all the books, I do all the prep time and I have enough other players that if someone feels so offended about not being able to play that specific class that s/he won't continue playing in my group, that's fine.
With great money and time investment, not to mention being the only one who actively wants to GM, there comes some power to dictate terms.
Sure, and that's fine in any normal situation. "I have the tools, therefore I have the power, therefore I make the rules," is how most of the world works.
Except that this is a game that you play with your friends sitting around your kitchen table, and the above mentality is not indicative of the sort of relationship I would call "friendly".
Is it friendly to insist on playing the one thing excluded from the setting?
Is it friendly to insist on playing the one thing excluded from the setting?Speaking as someone who has banned Gunslinger in his campaigns ( after seeing one in action for an entire campaign of mine ): Because I buy all the books, I do all the prep time and I have enough other players that if someone feels so offended about not being able to play that specific class that s/he won't continue playing in my group, that's fine.
With great money and time investment, not to mention being the only one who actively wants to GM, there comes some power to dictate terms.
Sure, and that's fine in any normal situation. "I have the tools, therefore I have the power, therefore I make the rules," is how most of the world works.
Except that this is a game that you play with your friends sitting around your kitchen table, and the above mentality is not indicative of the sort of relationship I would call "friendly".
If it gets to the point where someone is forced to insist anything, we're probably not talking about a particularly friendly relationship to begin with, are we?
Speaking as someone who has banned Gunslinger in his campaigns ( after seeing one in action for an entire campaign of mine ): Because I buy all the books, I do all the prep time and I have enough other players that if someone feels so offended about not being able to play that specific class that s/he won't continue playing in my group, that's fine.
With great money and time investment, not to mention being the only one who actively wants to GM, there comes some power to dictate terms.
Sure, and that's fine in any normal situation. "I have the tools, therefore I have the power, therefore I make the rules," is how most of the world works.
Except that this is a game that you play with your friends sitting around your kitchen table, and the above mentality is not indicative of the sort of relationship I would call "friendly".
So, if we take this logic a step further, if someone comes up to me and says he wants to play a vampiric WH40K Space Marine in my Pathfinder game, it's on me to make it happen, or I am being unreasonable and not a good friend?
Only because a rule ( and classes are nothing else but a large block of rules ) exists it doesn't mean that I have to put up with it if I deeply dislike it. My own enjoyment is not secondary to the one of the players. I already have to give up any traditional notion of "winning" encounters, because that's the players job as adventurers. So much of my joy as a GM comes from storytelling and having some control of the world. Hence my stance on "no evil PC's" and stuff like homebrewing the magic item crafting rules and not allowing Gunslingers and Summoners.
If giving up all control over which things exist in your setting is what makes you happy, more power to you. But please don't try to imply that I am doing something wrong with how I run my own game.
You might disagree with that, though, so let's take it a step further: What if you didn't spend any prep time (because you're running a pre-made adventure/setting)? What if you didn't buy any books (because you got them all online for free)? And what if you didn't have a stable of potential players waiting in the wings?
Would you still have the right and power to dictate terms to your players? If so, obviously having all the toys isn't important to your justification. If not, shouldn't the power belong to the player who invests himself the most in the game - the one who spends hours on his backstory, the one who brings pizza to the table, or the one whose house you play at? Either way you slice it, you have to make a choice: Should the title of GM - by itself! - mean that you have the power to make unilateral decisions on behalf of your players? Or is the investiture of that power simply a function of who brings the most to the table? And, if it's the latter, why is it all-or-nothing? Shouldn't each person therefore have an amount of say commensurate with how invested they are in the game? And how do you even decide how...
First off, I have been running APs for the last years and many sessions still give me at least an hour of prep time and additionally whole afternoons to plan out the more onerous tasks Paizo comes up with ( like planning the caravan route encounters for Jade Regent ).
And secondly, yes, GM's should have ultimate decision power over what goes and what doesn't in their games. I don't mind argueing with my players about their class choices and I am open to be persuaded on many things. But some things, about all of which I've seen in action before, are off limits and I think that is the prerogative of putting in the additional time. Writing a detailed backstory is cool, but it's a one-time task which I can do myself in a minuscule amount of time, compared to what time I have to invest to run the game.
First off, I have been running APs for the last years and many sessions still give me at least an hour of prep time and additionally whole afternoons to plan out the more onerous tasks Paizo comes up with ( like planning the caravan route encounters for Jade Regent ).
Sure, but you can run them on the fly, too. Prep time is nice, but not everyone has it.
And heck, I ran the Jade Regent caravan bits from chapters 1 and 2 on the fly less than a month ago. Totally doable. (And we weren't even playing Pathfinder!)
And secondly, yes, GM's should have ultimate decision power over what goes and what doesn't in their games. I don't mind argueing with my players about their class choices and I am open to be persuaded on many things. But some things, about all of which I've seen in action before, are off limits and I think that is the prerogative of putting in the additional time. Writing a detailed backstory is cool, but it's a one-time task which I can do myself in a minuscule amount of time, compared to what time I have to invest to run the game.
But what if you weren't? What if you, as the GM, invested less time in the game than your players did (and assuming they still wanted you to GM)?
But with the internet and all, there are lots of play-by-post or virtual tabletop games to choose from -- I'm sure at least one would let him play a gunslinger (or an anthropomorphic duck or a Jedi Knight or whatever other specific Pathfinder PC he has his heart set on).So, as a DM, you get to have exactly the game you want.
Not necessarily. Clearly a GM has veto power over anything in the game (since you can't have a game without a GM*), but it's equally clear that the players have veto power as well (since you can't have a game without players).
And I don't see how having a player go out and find a group he's more happy with is somehow a failure rather than a success.
You don't see this as a game that you are playing with your friends in which each of you ought to have a say in the workings of the game. You view it like the relationship between an employer and an employee. We're saying that's a pretty dysfunctional way of internalizing the situation.
I don't know what to tell you. The way you phrased it ("their decision to make you DM") sounds even more bizarre and dysfunctional to me; I certainly don't think the players should should be the "employers" and the GM should be the "employee", considering the GM has the harder job.
* No doubt someone will correct me on this point.
You show up and the setting gets built around you.And this is why I run blank slate settings.I'm curious what that means. Not a term I've heard before.
I am having this happen in my Darklight Sisterhood game. The PCs ask so many questions that I have to answer on the fly, it ends up filling in the dark corners of the map for me.