|
But we all agree to defer to the GM.Pretty much. No one said the GM has to do something. Should maybe, but if you run into a problem where a player or GM is refusing to play someone has to go. Its usually the player unless your rotating GMs a lot. Hopefully you all reach a compromise instead. I don't think either side has a right to demand, but does have a right to respect. That's more of a thing about human beings than gaming though.
Several people have said the GM has to allow something or they are wrong, prejudiced, etc...
That is basically saying the GM has to do something.
One very easy solution exists.
Become the GM.
A samurai isn't just 'a fluffy fighter'.
Agreed.
He has different mechanics, which can easily be fluffed as a mounted fighter.
Or in the case of the Sword Saint, a knightly duelist.
That mindset has to develop based on culture and background - and if that doesn't fit, I'm not allowing it.
And again, this is your issue.
The mechanics have nothing to do with the fluff. Period. They are not connected in any way. You gain nothing by connecting them. At all.
In fact, you can LOSE something, as demonstrated by the "Screwing your player because he came up with a cool backstory for why he has the Celestial Bloodline is not just okay, but EXPECTED!" scenario in the other parts of the forum.
I regularly deny the monk class
I have my own very biased beef with this ban, as you can probably tell.
for example, because I don't think it fits the 'classical' fantasy setting which is pseudo-European. The guy flying across bamboo stalks or walking through walls just doesn't fit.
Any more than the guy whose sheer anger lets him grow wings and eat magic?
What "fits" is entirely subjective. The Monk can be anything you decide you want it to be as long as what you want it to be involves smacking people around with certain weapons and having some limited magical power.
Re-skinning a race and re-skinning a class/archetype are two VERY different things. Any race has certain abilities that are the result of it's culture and environment. Change those things, and the race will change. It is nearly impossible to shove a race's abilities into a new form. (all of the races in my campaign are built ground-up). For a race the "fluff" creates the mechanics of the race.
Classes/archetypes are very different. They are made to be broad, and rather all encompassing. I have never banned a class based on "fluff" (anti-paladin and gunslinger are banned, and I'd allow gunslingers if they used a sling or something instead). It isn't that hard to take the very generic abilities of a class and re-skin it to fit into a campaign setting. I have banned specific race/class combinations, but that is a result of the race in question, not the class (The Rah'si [lizardfolk] can't use sorcery. That is a function of the specific race, not the generic class "sorcerer").
Comparing the "fluff" of races and classes/archetypes is like comparing apples and parakeets. For races "fluff"--> race. For classes class --> "fluff".
A samurai isn't just 'a fluffy fighter'. That mindset has to develop based on culture and background - and if that doesn't fit, I'm not allowing it. I regularly deny the monk class, for example, because I don't think it fits the 'classical' fantasy setting which is pseudo-European. The guy flying across bamboo stalks or walking through walls just doesn't fit.
Here's a place I disagree. The samurai has nothing to do with walking through walls or flying across bamboo stalks. There is no mysticism or extraordinary things about him beyond his mettle and resolve. Iajustsu from the sword saint archetype is incredibly themed and Asian, however the nilla' samurai isn't. He's just a cavalier who trades out some of the horse stuff for ground things, which is actually very good because the cavalier is probably too horse oriented for many campaigns. Samurai is just his name really, he's not much different than the cavalier when mechanics get involved. None of his mechanics are eastern oriented. You may as well ban cavaliers in the same game.
But we all agree to defer to the GM.Pretty much. No one said the GM has to do something. Should maybe, but if you run into a problem where a player or GM is refusing to play someone has to go. Its usually the player unless your rotating GMs a lot. Hopefully you all reach a compromise instead. I don't think either side has a right to demand, but does have a right to respect. That's more of a thing about human beings than gaming though.Several people have said the GM has to allow something or they are wrong, prejudiced, etc...
That is basically saying the GM has to do something.
One very easy solution exists.
Become the GM.
I have to ask, but who and where was this stated? I remember in another thread someone said he should, and he was prejudiced, but they didn't say he had to budge.
The GM doesn't have to budge his campaign for you. You might disagree with his opinions. Just the same the player shouldn't bend over backwards for you, but he does still need to stay within the limits of the campaign. You can disagree and question him, and sometimes the GM is wrong or being a jerk or even prejudiced, but you can't change him and you don't can't force him. Both sides have the right to walk away or remove the other. Though in much different manners.
As for the refluffing races/classes gig, it really depends on how far you go. You can refluff both sure, I mean I could give humans all the stats of dwarves and a hatred of their own. I'd say he's a little stocky, but he wouldn't be that weird. Now if I said he had the kitsunes tails or assimar's wings then I probably just went too far.
The samurai has nothing to do with walking through walls or flying across bamboo stalks. There is no mysticism or extraordinary things about him beyond his mettle and resolve.I was talking about the monk.
I know, but you pointed out samurai at the beginning and went on about monks. Thought I'd point out the samurai isn't very eastern. I don't see the monk's walking through walls either, and I've built barbarians more acrobatic than them.
I could see a monk as just being any unarmed fighter. With knee and fist they break face! Agile and light armored! The fighter archetype does it better though if I remember right. That's another topic altogether though.
It's the GMs call to make that determination. It's *his job* to set the parameters of the game. If you say 'no tengu' and I say 'the Nazgul have speeder bikes' - it's the GM's role to establish those boundaries.
Correction:
"In our group, it's the GMs call to make that determination. In our group, it's *his job* to set the parameters of the game. If you say 'no tengu' and I say 'the Nazgul have speeder bikes' - we have decided that it's the GM's role to establish those boundaries. However, for other groups, roles and responsibilities may differ.
There is a difference between someone posting 'my group does X and it works' VS 'THE GM HAS NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO!@?!?!'
I've seen some of both in this thread. I don't think the 'generally accepted' role of the GM has changed in the past 30 years, to be honest.
If someone works for your group - more power to you.
What's "generally accepted" for your group, or in your mind, isn't universal.
When a player says "The GM has no right!" I'm reading "I, personally, as a player, wouldn't put up with that, so either loosen up -- or better yet, just don't bother inviting me -- and we'll both be a lot happier."
And when a GM posts "I make all the decisions and you can abide by all my setting decisions and restrictions or else leave!" I read that as "Kirth and people like you, you would be unhappy in my game and in my company in general; I'm warning you in advance."
I could see a monk as just being any unarmed fighter. With knee and fist they break face! Agile and light armored! The fighter archetype does it better though if I remember right. That's another topic altogether though.At 19th level monks get 'empty body' which allows them to....walk through walls. I've seen people say 'a monk is just an unarmored fighter and is fine for typical pseudo-European fantasy' - which I don't buy. They get a variety of powers which is much closer to Kung Fu movies than anything you see in 'typical' fantasy. I think they fit fine in an 'Asian' setting where you would have monks, ninjas, etc. But they don't fit the standard sword/sorcery model. (this is entirely and completely my opinion)
Well if you ban them for getting a super power at 19th(which most games never see...) don't forget to ban barbarians for being able to blow up spells and grow wings and every class that can do spell casting. That's stuff is just crazy. Also, let all spell casters start at a much higher level because its rare you ever see a weak one in fantasy. Seriously, you'd just be left with fighter...
Look, I've never endorsed any kind of 'screw the player, TPK' approach or whatever.
I do... when I'm refereeing Call of Cthulhu.
Edit: To be fair, it's what my players expect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I've never endorsed any kind of 'screw the player, TPK' approach or whatever.
Nor have I ever implied that you do. What you do endorse, however, are extremely rigid (indeed, totally inflexible) campaign restrictions, which cannot deviate an iota from what you consider "canon" or "pure," in either fluff or mechanics, and that all players are expected to be extremely happy (or at least grudgingly accepting) that you handle all the creative work for them. This sort of a setup is NOT "generally accepted."
When do barbarians get wings? (I didn't get that reference the first time)
Dragon totem.
I didn't say these things weren't 'realistic' - they simply don't fit the vision of the setting.
I simply don't remember there being magic eating, flying Rage monsters in Europe, is all I'm saying.
If I boot up my Excalibur DVD and see Arthur and the Knights riding their steeds and Merlin skulking around in the shadows using his magic - I just don't expect to see ninjas dropping from the trees throwing shuriken at Uther Pendragon.
But some dudes in leather armor who chuck knives at him after dropping from the trees wouldn't be out of place.
I don't expect to see Wyatt Earp with his six-gun nor do I expect to see Batman swooping in spraying Morgan Le Fey with shark repellant. They simply don't fit what I see as the game world.
These things are not the same sort of example, is the thing.
I'm trying to develop that for my players - a high fantasy feel with flying ships and teleportation booths. A gritty feel with magic being extremely rare. A 'Japanese' feel with a shoguns, samurai and a strict caste system. Each one of these would be (hopefully) unique in play.
I'm still not seeing how "Guy on a horse" doesn't distract from your "teleportation and flying ships" thing while "Guy on a horse who also does stuff on the ground" does.
Now, there's been a lot said here, but I have a one thing that really bothers me... Why would batman spray Morgan Le Fay with shark repellent?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your premise means I can only run a single type of campaign - open ended, high fantasy, every race/class exists.
Nope. False dichotomy. I endorse an approach in which minor re-skinning of mechanics and/or (especially) fluff can be used to accommodate reasonable requests. You specifically called this out as "ruining the setting." A gnome character can be treated as a variant Hobbit, without all the sudden allowing Warforged, for example.
That's what "compromise" is -- you can meet in the middle. The player wants a tengu gunslinger. For some reason you want to run a Middle Earth setting. The only possibilities you're allowing are (a) The player plays a human or hobbit, and only a fighter, ranger, or rogue; or (b) everyone plays everything and the entire setting becomes Moss Eisley instead. But that's very much ignoring the wide scope for compromise that exists in between. For example, you're ignoring and/or discounting the possibility in which you and the player sit down, and agree that he plays a character with an actual sling (as opposed to a gun), but uses all the Gunslinger mechanics, and he wears a raven mask (like the dark masks worn by those LOTR guys) and uses the Tengu racial mechanics. He's got his Tengu gunslinger; you've got a Human Haradrim slinger, still good for your LotR setting.
Now, I'm not saying you, personally, have to do this, because you've said often enough that you never would. But it can be done without automatically having an all races/all classes smorgasbord.
|
gunslinger...he plays a character with an actual sling (as opposed to a gun)So will that be a sling-slinger? :Pp
In a more serious tone, while I get your idea of re-skining everything in order to make it fit in with the campaign and allow all players to play whatever it is they wish to play, thus creating less restrictions and, ultimatley, more fun.
Up to a certain extent I think you have a great point. For example, in a game I played once a player was an oracle of Gozrah, and he asked me to create a re-skinned magic missile spell that will have the missiles looking like shard edged leafes - which I allowed, because it was cool, fir the character well and wasn't in any way gamebreaking.
However, such things should have a logical limit. Let me explain: In a Pathfinder game, usualy the only person to have a well established grasp of how each and every situation looks like in "the game world" is the GM - it is only through his descriptions that players can get any sort of idea about what's going on. That's the great joy of being a GM in the first place - YOU are the one creating a world for your friends to explore and adventure in.
Given the tender situation in the game, where players depend entirely on the GM to understand what's going on, an increased awerness of consistency HAS to take place. If you describe an NPC garbed in nothing but a robe, when in fact that NPC has the benfits of a full plate armor in it's stats, you create confusion in your players. They would have no idea at all that in combat that NPC will be tough to hit but slow to move and mostly unable of any acrobatic movement. A player might choose not to buff his attack with any sort of special effect, because hey, the NPC isn't armored! surley there are high chances of hitting anyway...Players relay on their GM to provide a description that will hold all the information they will logically have on any given situation. Once it's established that things could look like something they aren't, you open a can of worms that's really better off being closed, preferably in some dark attic half a world away. Same goes for the player characters themselves - the world HAS to be consistent.
Now, if what you meant in your example was that there is an entire class of "sling-slingers" in the game worlds, in it is established IN A CLEAR WAY BEFORE THE GAME STARTS that slings = guns, that's cool. However, just re-skining everything on the spot to accomodate the will of players creating PCs can create more problems than it solves.
A final point is also that players, as well as GMs, should be able to show some restraint. If the group agreed to do a middle earth capaign, than the players should embrace that concept just as much as thier GM does! why agree to do a middle earth camapign if what you are looking to do anyway is just play a gun wielding bird person? It's the big middle earth capaign, play an orc hunting elf or adventurous Hobbit rouge, a stoud dwarven fighter! why go against the idea that the group decided it wants to explore?
Yes, players should be every bit as entitled to the campaign the group chose to play as the GM is. Just like you wouldn't want the GM to involve robots riding huge mutent parrots in the middle earth capaign you are in, th GM (and other players!) can expect you not to play a tengu gunslinger.
|
|
Look, I've never endorsed any kind of 'screw the player, TPK' approach or whatever.Nor have I ever implied that you do. What you do endorse, however, are extremely rigid (indeed, totally inflexible) campaign restrictions, which cannot deviate an iota from what you consider "canon" or "pure," in either fluff or mechanics, and that all players are expected to be extremely happy (or at least grudgingly accepting) that you handle all the creative work for them. This sort of a setup is NOT "generally accepted."
No, that is what is being projected.
You are making an assumption players aren't happy because "a" potential player may not be happy.
We are saying that some players feel so entitled that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
And you agree with this, because you ban these kinds of players from your game.
What the rest of us are trying to explain is that players have the same responsibility as the GM to try and make a party and campaign that works together with everyone else involved.
So if the GM thinks a Kitsune is going to be a problem, don't be a git and tell him he is an uncreative, prejudiced, wrongbadfun GM.
Just pick something else and act like a grown up.
|
It's relatively simple to be honest.
If I am going to run a game and I have certain guidelines that I want to adhere to then I'm going to do it. If I say no Gunslingers then don't ask me to play one. I don't care if you remake him to where he uses handcrossbows. I have already presented "my" terms for running the game and you can either accept those terms or A: be the only one who isn't going to play, or B: everyone decides they don't want to play and the game doesn't go ahead.
In all my years of gaming, the people that tend to try the "I want to play this anyway" maneuver always end up turning to leave but end up sitting back down because everyone else is busy making their characters.
Can't please everyone and I'll be damned if I am going to waste precious gaming time trying.
Now, this is silly... but what defines an entitled player?
Also, ultimatums are rarely the best solution in a social situation. It is a good way to end up with physical violence or hurt feelings though, neither of which are good. It also makes you look bad because your rejected their feelings as a human being.
There's an assumption in almost all the posts attacking restrictions that all the player is interested in is the mechanics. That the flavor of the character he's proposing is completely mutable. I don't know about you, but I tend to come up with the flavor first and am willing to try different mechanics to achieve it, not the other way around.
I picked a mechanical example because it was so easy to do. If the guy really just wants the fluff of being a bird-man without any of the mechanics, well, Middle Earth has giant eagles that talk, and intelligent giant spiders, and guys that turn into bears, and a single Balrog (even though it's been implied the others are extinct). I'm not seeing why a lone surviving bird-person -- maybe from a cave in the Misty Mountains or somewhere -- is so outrageous that it would automatically destroy the entire setting. Unless, of course, your setting isn't "Middle-Earth," but rather "Only the specific aspects of Middle-Earth shown in the movies, and absolutely no other possibilities will be entertained." It's been implied that the former is "impure" and "watered-down" and that the latter is the only acceptable possibility; but if I really thought that, I'd just go watch the movies again and not try to shoehorn a Pathfinder game into such a tiny inappropriate framework.
With regards to your spoiler, the details would have to be worked out and agreed upon. My guess is that any given player and I could figure that out in about 15 minutes, total. Refusing to even consider the idea because some details would have to be figured out is pretty lazy. Yeah, you could conceivably ban it for that reason alone, but that doesn't necessarily make you an awesome-er DM, just a lazier one.
|
|
There's an assumption in almost all the posts attacking restrictions that all the player is interested in is the mechanics. That the flavor of the character he's proposing is completely mutable. I don't know about you, but I tend to come up with the flavor first and am willing to try different mechanics to achieve it, not the other way around.I picked a mechanical example because it was so easy to do. If the guy really just wants the fluff of being a bird-man without any of the mechanics, well, Middle Earth has giant eagles that talk, and intelligent giant spiders, and guys that turn into bears, and a single Balrog (even though it's been implied the others are extinct). I'm not seeing why a lone surviving bird-person -- maybe from a cave in the Misty Mountains or somewhere -- is so outrageous that it would automatically destroy the entire setting. Unless, of course, your setting isn't "Middle-Earth," but rather "Only the specific aspects of Middle-Earth shown in the movies, and absolutely no other possibilities will be entertained." It's been implied that the former is "impure" and "watered-down" and that the latter is the only acceptable possibility; but if I really thought that, I'd just go watch the movies again and not try to shoehorn a Pathfinder game into such a tiny inappropriate framework.
With regards to your spoiler, the details would have to be worked out and agreed upon. My guess is that any given player and I could figure that out in about 15 minutes, total. Refusing to even consider the idea because some details would have to be figured out is pretty lazy. Yeah, you could conceivably ban it for that reason alone, but that doesn't necessarily make you an awesome-er DM, just a lazier one.
The answer is simple.
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.
You say it's simple for the DM to just allow it well it's just as easy for you to put that concept on the back burner and wait for a game that will allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I say no Gunslingers then don't ask me to play one. I don't care if you remake him to where he uses handcrossbows. I have already presented "my" terms for running the game and you can either accept those terms or A: be the only one who isn't going to play, or B: everyone decides they don't want to play and the game doesn't go ahead.
Yeah, I've met lots of GMs like you. I'm careful to avoid them, because in my experience that attitude carries over into their interpersonal interactions outside of the game as well, and you super-authoritarian types just personally grate on me like fingernails on a chalkboard. Just as I don't invite people I don't like into my home game, by the same token I don't volunteer to play in games run by people I don't like.
Doesn't mean you can't attract players and have a game, but when an equal number of people stay away, maybe this will help you understand why. Just as people who want to play "LotR - the semi-role playing game" are careful to stay away from my home game.
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.
You say it's simple for the DM to just allow it well it's just as easy for you to put that concept on the back burner and wait for a game that will allow it.
But then the GM may as well be writing a novel... but then... but then... Oh god, its looping again!
|
|
But then the GM may as well be writing a novel... but then... but then... Oh god, its looping again!Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.
You say it's simple for the DM to just allow it well it's just as easy for you to put that concept on the back burner and wait for a game that will allow it.
Then don't play in his game?
|
|
Now, this is silly... but what defines an entitled player?
Also, ultimatums are rarely the best solution in a social situation. It is a good way to end up with physical violence or hurt feelings though, neither of which are good. It also makes you look bad because your rejected their feelings as a human being.
An entitled player is someone who believes they are "entitled" to play whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want.
Traits include saying "I only want to play X and I won't play unless you can find a way that I can play X"
Which is basically an ultimatum.
A GM telling a player they must play "X" is an ultimatum.
A GM saying they can't play X, but can play A-W, Y or Z is not an ultimatum.
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.
If the DM's vision is too narrow to allow for players to have input, well, there you have it. Like I said, I'd as soon avoid that sort of "game," and that sort of person. Other players might prefer it.
|
|
If I say no Gunslingers then don't ask me to play one. I don't care if you remake him to where he uses handcrossbows. I have already presented "my" terms for running the game and you can either accept those terms or A: be the only one who isn't going to play, or B: everyone decides they don't want to play and the game doesn't go ahead.Yeah, I've met lots of GMs like you. I'm careful to avoid them, because in my experience that attitude carries over into their interpersonal interactions outside of the game as well, and you super-authoritarian types just personally grate on me like fingernails on a chalkboard. Just as I don't invite people I don't like into my home game, by the same token I don't volunteer to play in games run by people I don't like.
Doesn't mean you can't attract players and have a game, but when an equal number of people stay away, maybe this will help you understand why. Just as people who want to play "LotR - the semi-role playing game" are careful to stay away from my home game.
And I know many DM's who avoid player's like you so what's your point?
I'm not out to win the all time DM of the planet award and try to be the best DM for "everyone" on the planet. As long as I please my current group and have people ringing me up to run games then that's all that matters to me.
I think the problem some of you have is that you think just because you can then you should. I can fit "any" concept into any of games if I wanted to but sometimes I want the game I run to remain a certain theme and I am going to keep it that way.
|
|
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.If the DM's vision is too narrow to allow for players to have input, well, there you have it. Like I said, I'd as soon avoid that sort of "game," and that sort of person. Other players might prefer it.
You keep saying input.
No one is saying the player doesn't get input.
They are saying the GM has veto right.
Huge difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.If the DM's vision is too narrow to allow for players to have input, well, there you have it. Like I said, I'd as soon avoid that sort of "game," and that sort of person. Other players might prefer it.You keep saying input.
No one is saying the player doesn't get input.
They are saying the GM has veto right.
Huge difference.
Many of the example given don't involve input. They are ultimatums. Such as the way shallowsoul spoke of crossbow gunslingers.
|
|
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.If the DM's vision is too narrow to allow for players to have input, well, there you have it. Like I said, I'd as soon avoid that sort of "game," and that sort of person. Other players might prefer it.
Here's the spiff.
If the majority of player's don't agree to play the game then we don't to this far because the game isn't going to be run.
Now if the majority do want to play then why do you get to be the one who changes it? What makes you such a valued asset to the group that you get to dictate the game be changed for your sake?
I know lot's of player's who like specific themed games. You also tend to be stuck on this notion that there is only one game that will go on. I have ran many types of games in all my years of gaming from sandbox to specific themed so I cater to a lot of people but the bottom line here is you can't always have the type of game you want and what gives you the right to have it that way?
|
|
Many of the example given don't involve input. They are ultimatums. Such as the way shallowsoul spoke of crossbow gunslingers.Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.If the DM's vision is too narrow to allow for players to have input, well, there you have it. Like I said, I'd as soon avoid that sort of "game," and that sort of person. Other players might prefer it.You keep saying input.
No one is saying the player doesn't get input.
They are saying the GM has veto right.
Huge difference.
It's not an ultimatum. It's a clear cold fact that gunslingers will not be in my games if I say no. Where you go from there is up to you, not me.
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.If the DM's vision is too narrow to allow for players to have input, well, there you have it.
Don't confuse "not getting your way" with "not having input."
In reference to an earlier question, I think KG has just defined "player entitlement" right there.
A real-world example: a friend of mine has a rather serious corn allergy, as in "can die if he eats the wrong things." If we're going out to eat after or before a gaming session, Mexican restaurants are right out, because everything has corn in it. Most Asian places are fine, though.
I get input. If I don't want Chinese, I can suggest Indian, Thai, or Japanese. Or, for that matter, the local steakhouse, or a salad bar,....
But he gets a veto. No Mexican. Doesn't matter how badly I want it, I can get tacos on my own time.
And as I said, confusing these two things -- "I didn't get my way, therefore I didn't get any input!" -- is pretty much the mark of a player with entitlement issues.
what gives you the right to have it that way?
None at all -- you're not my friend, nor even real-life acquaintance, so there's no obligation on your part. You can be as apathetic as you like.
However, I play the game with people I know, and consider as friends -- or at least friendly acquaintances. And that personal relationship comes with minor obligations, like being willing to hear each other out, and/or find compromises to things. That has nothing to do with DMing. It has to do with living in a communal society with other humans.
|
|
Because that may not be how the DM envisions his world.If the DM's vision is too narrow to allow for players to have input, well, there you have it. Like I said, I'd as soon avoid that sort of "game," and that sort of person. Other players might prefer it.
You are automatically assuming your input is going to used.
But when I say no gunslingers then there is not input needed on the topic of gunslingers because I have already made my decision. I don't say no to things for the hell of it but when I say no to a concept or race or whatever then I stick to it.
I get input. If I don't want Chinese, I can suggest Indian, Thai, or Japanese. Or, for that matter, the local steakhouse, or a salad bar,....
In this analogy, the DM has already said "we're having Thai. Period. And we're going to Thao Cottage, not Thai Bistro. That said, you can order what you want off the menu -- as long as you avoid entrees numbers 1,2,4, and 7, which I won't allow you to eat. But there's no way we're having Chinese or Japanese or Korean or anything else except Thai, and it's going to be Thai Cottage."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not an ultimatum. It's a clear cold fact that gunslingers will not be in my games if I say no. Where you go from there is up to you, not me.
"You cannot play a Gunslinger or you have to leave and find a new GM" is pretty much the clearest example of an ultimatum in this thread.