|
Sometimes there doesn't need to be an explanation given by the player as to why it would fit.Its actually really rude for the GM to shut down any communication back and forth though. He doesn't have to accept the idea, but to say you don't even have to talk about it is rather rude. Its not feeling entitled to ask questions or talk about compromise. You can still say no, and you can sometimes really add to the game without breaking the setting at all.
edit: When did he say you must allow anything Ciretose? How did he even come close?
How is it being rude?
It seems to me that the player is the one being rude because they are trying to imply the reason I am banning something is because I don't know how to fir it in my campaign and at the same time, trying to undermine my decision to not allow something.
I don't need an explanation as to how something can fit in my campaign and that's not being rude. You think just because you have an explanation for something that I am automatically supposed to listen to it. There is a point where it doesn't matter how good of an explanation you think you are giving because the my answer isn't going to change.
|
|
You are creating a scenario no one is proposing to illustrate a GM that no one is advocating for.How is no one proposing that? I've been told that, if the setting is LotR, the choices are human/dwarf/halfling fighter/ranger/rogue. PERIOD. Any deviation from that will "water down the setting" or "interfere with the DMs vision" and is therefore not open to discussion, will be banned without recourse, and that I'm "entitled" if I consider it. That's exactly what some people (yourself mercifully not included) are advocating for.
By the same token, I'm sure there are players who would expect the cleric to be allowed. I'm not actually one of them, contrary to popular opinion, but I could see it.
Simple.
Either choose to play with the restrictions or don't play in the campaign.
Sometimes there doesn't need to be an explanation given by the player as to why it would fit.Its actually really rude for the GM to shut down any communication back and forth though. He doesn't have to accept the idea, but to say you don't even have to talk about it is rather rude. Its not feeling entitled to ask questions or talk about compromise. You can still say no, and you can sometimes really add to the game without breaking the setting at all.
edit: When did he say you must allow anything Ciretose? How did he even come close?
How is it being rude?
It seems to me that the player is the one being rude because they are trying to imply the reason I am banning something is because I don't know how to fir it in my campaign and at the same time, trying to undermine my decision to not allow something.
I don't need an explanation as to how something can fit in my campaign and that's not being rude. You think just because you have an explanation for something that I am automatically supposed to listen to it. There is a point where it doesn't matter how good of an explanation you think you are giving because the my answer isn't going to change.
Its not rude to shut down communication... okay?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it doesn't matter how good of an explanation you think you are giving because the my answer isn't going to change.
This says it all. Straw man, Ciretose? Hardly.
|
You are creating a scenario no one is proposing to illustrate a GM that no one is advocating for.How is no one proposing that? I've been told that, if the choices are human/dwarf/halfling fighter/ranger/rogue, than ANY deviation from that is not open to discussion, will be banned without recourse, and that I'm "entitled" if I consider it. That's exactly what some people (yourself not included) are advocating for.
By the same token, I'm sure there are players (myself not included) who would expect the cleric to be allowed.
Banned? You are told the options for the game and you can choose to play or to not play in that game.
If the GM says you can never play with the group again if you don't join this particular campaign, you might have a point.
When my friend runs his microlite zombie campaign, am I banned because I don't really want to play in that game with that system?
No.
He decided to play a game I'm not interested in playing. HOW DARE HE!
If a GM decides that they want to run a very specific setting, because they think it would be fun, and they can find four people who also think it will be fun, if you don't agree no one is making you participate.
On the other hand, it seems that asking someone to actually participate in what was agreed to is somehow an excessive burden.
When my friend decides to run microlite, it isn't because he is spiteful toward me. It is because he thinks it will be fun, and other people think it would be fun, so they are doing it.
The fact I don't like it is beside the point. The world does not revolve around me. My friend doesn't have to create games to accommodate my personal desires and wishes.
His job is to create a game he things will be fun for the people who want to play that game.
If you don't want to play that game, you don't have to.
I don't have to play microlite. You don't have to play in a rigid campaign concept the GM has proposed.
If the GM doesn't like your idea, why should they have to play it?
You don't have to play if you don't like the GMs idea.
|
|
it doesn't matter how good of an explanation you think you are giving because the my answer isn't going to change.This says it all. Straw man, Ciretose? Hardly.
So it's a strawman if my decision isn't going to change no matter how much of an explanation you give as to how it would fit into my campaign?
|
|
I'll agree Shallowsoul is being ridiculous if you will agree Rynjin is being equally ridiculous.it doesn't matter how good of an explanation you think you are giving because the my answer isn't going to change.This says it all. Straw man, Ciretose? Hardly.
How am I being ridiculous?
I have banned a certain class or race from my games because I choose to, not because I can't figure out how to make them fit.
So it's a strawman if my decision isn't going to change no matter how much of an explanation you give as to how it would fit into my campaign?
No. I'm pointing out to Ciretose that my argument -- that you would not consider or hear out alternatives -- was not a straw man, but an accurate representation.
Rynjin is being equally ridiculous.
How so, exactly?
I'll agree Shallowsoul is being ridiculous if you will agree Rynjin is being equally ridiculous.it doesn't matter how good of an explanation you think you are giving because the my answer isn't going to change.This says it all. Straw man, Ciretose? Hardly.
Man, almost had a deal. Lets stay impersonal here though.
There are lots of examples thrown around. I don't understand how this one is the first one to get attacked as a strawman. The guy who wanted Tie fighters in Morder or batman in king Arthur was probably much worse.
I have banned a certain class or race from my games because I choose to, not because I can't figure out how to make them fit.
Just my opinion, but banning a race, and banning a class are two very different things.
Similarly with attempts to compromise. Who gets to decide if the compromise is possible or if the offered one is enough of an effort?
Civil social interaction in general, and the exact path to compromises in particular, are often unclear, especially with no mathematical rules governing it. Some give and take is involved. That doesn't mean we should abandon all attempts at it altogether.
|
|
Similarly with attempts to compromise. Who gets to decide if the compromise is possible or if the offered one is enough of an effort?Civil social interaction in general, and the exact path to compromises in particular, are often unclear, especially with no mathematical rules governing it. Some give and take is involved. That doesn't mean we should abandon all attempts at it altogether.
Do you understand that sometimes a DM isn't looking for an explanation?
Sometimes he just doesn't want X class or Y race in his game.
Not really in my opinion.Just my opinion, but banning a race, and banning a class are two very different things.
I have banned a certain class or race from my games because I choose to, not because I can't figure out how to make them fit.
To expand, sometimes you can ban both because of cultural. Both have bare bone mechanics and both can be refluffed. Its a lot easier to refluff a class than a race though. Giant bird people just don't fit sometimes.
I'd listen to some discussion of other options
That right there means you and I agree more than disagree. Contrast that with Shallowsoul's stance.
|
|
I'd listen to some discussion of other optionsThat right there means you and I agree more than disagree. Contrast that with Shallowsoul's stance.
You misunderstand me. I haven't said that I never allow the input from a player or listen to suggestions but if I flat out tell you that Gunslingers are banned end of discussion then that means I haven't opened the channel to suggestions.
I guess you believe the channel should always be open.
You misunderstand me. I haven't said that I never allow the input from a player or listen to suggestions
Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you.
I guess you believe the channel should always be open.
More or less, if the person is a friend of mine, I feel like our association obligates me to listen to what he has to say -- that, and the fact that I invited him to play in the first place. As DM, I might still ban it, but only if there was no way I could see to make it work. In any case, I would definitely hear him out.
Not really in my opinion.Just my opinion, but banning a race, and banning a class are two very different things.
I have banned a certain class or race from my games because I choose to, not because I can't figure out how to make them fit.
When you ban a class (say bard) you are making a statement "no one has those powers (bardic music) in this world. It has ramifications on the world. A world without witches is very different than a world with witches. It is a much more important consideration than banning a race. An individual of any race can learn any skill set you allow in the game. So when you ban a class you are saying NO race can master those skills.
Banning a race isn't a big deal as long as there are races that are playable. A race is a whole package, rather than a set of choices, and as such, it is much less likely to be viable in a given campaign.
A class can be re-skinned to fit many different campaign's fluff, as they are most of them are generic. At least most of the core ones can. A race has the mechanics it has due to it's place in the world. If that place doesn't exist in your world, then the race likely doesn't either.
|
|
Do you understand that sometimes a DM isn't looking for an explanation?Do you understand that most people follow, to a greater or lesser extent, certain social conventions when dealing with their peers? Not just in a game, but in nearly every situation. Being in a game doesn't suspend those conventions.
Note: If you have an extreme form of Asberger's, then the answer might well be "no," and I can understand (and would probably make allowances for) your stance being as extreme as it is.
Where do you get this most people from?
It has nothing to do with having Asberger's. The fact that you just can't seem to grasp is that not everyone adopts your vision of the game. My playstyle and DMing method is not for everyone and I never claimed that it was. You are just upset that I won't always change my style to accommodate player's like you.
Social contracts work both ways and that's something you and Rynjin like to continuously ignore. You want people to open the channel and listen to your input as a player, like that somehow makes you more important, but when it comes to listening to the DM he apparently has Asperger's because he has made a final decision no questions asked.
Banned? You are told the options for the game and you can choose to play or to not play in that game.
If the GM says you can never play with the group again if you don't join this particular campaign, you might have a point.
But if a player simply ask can I do x that is not a option...he is being a 'entitled player' which you have said you would kick out of the group.
Also I have politly stepped out of a particular game. I just did not like the theme of that particular campaign. I even said this game is not for me, but I like what the group does generally play and would like to be invited back to the next campaign. After that campaign ended I did not recieve a invitation back because they thought that I hated them. They also accused me of being a entitled player for not playing in a game I would not enjoy.
The problem with this debate is that what is 'player entitlement' and what is 'GM tyranny' etc are something that is not very well defined.
For instance to me player entitlement is when a player expects the table to bow down to his desires no matter what(please note not just the GM but all the players).
For others it is simply asking for permission to do something outside of the box.
For others it is having the termity to question the GMs ruling for whatever reason..
etc.
So I am curious of all the posters here.
How do you define player entitlement?
How do you define a tyranntical GMs?
Try not to debate how others answear these simple questions...but I think it would be helpful to know where people are coming in at this debate.
|
|
You misunderstand me. I haven't said that I never allow the input from a player or listen to suggestionsNow we're getting somewhere! Thank you.
I guess you believe the channel should always be open.More or less, if the person is a friend of mine, I feel like our association obligates me to listen to what he has to say -- that, and the fact that I invited him to play in the first place. As DM, I might still ban it, but only if there was no way I could see to make it work. In any case, I would definitely hear him out.
Friendship swings both ways I'm afraid. My friends know, and even strangers because I tell them flat out what they are getting into, that when I say no to something no questions asked then you are better off coming up with another option.
|
|
Not really in my opinion.Just my opinion, but banning a race, and banning a class are two very different things.
I have banned a certain class or race from my games because I choose to, not because I can't figure out how to make them fit.When you ban a class (say bard) you are making a statement "no one has those powers (bardic music) in this world. It has ramifications on the world. A world without witches is very different than a world with witches. It is a much more important consideration than banning a race. An individual of any race can learn any skill set you allow in the game. So when you ban a class you are saying NO race can master those skills.
Banning a race isn't a big deal as long as there are races that are playable. A race is a whole package, rather than a set of choices, and as such, it is much less likely to be viable in a given campaign.
A class can be re-skinned to fit many different campaign's fluff, as they are most of them are generic. At least most of the core ones can. A race has the mechanics it has due to it's place in the world. If that place
doesn't exist in your world, then the race likely doesn't either.
Sometimes you have to understand that it's not about the re-skinning.
Some DM's are not looking for an explanation or a re-skin to make a class or race or anything for that matter fit.
They just don't want it in their games.
Friendship swings both ways I'm afraid.
For about the 50,000th time, I've never said otherwise. You and Blake Duffey have, and then attributed it to me -- which is not the same thing.
You are just upset that I won't always change my style to accommodate player's like you.
No, I couldn't care less -- like I said, I wouldn't come near your game. But not for the reasons you seem to think.
I'm sure some players do expect to always get their way. I think they're jerks. I also know there are any number of other people who don't believe that being the DM excuses a person for blowing them off and refusing to listen to anything they might say.
Also, plurals don't get apostrophes.
|
|
Banned? You are told the options for the game and you can choose to play or to not play in that game.
If the GM says you can never play with the group again if you don't join this particular campaign, you might have a point.
But if a player simply ask can I do x that is not a option...he is being a 'entitled player' which you have said you would kick out of the group.
Also I have politly stepped out of a particular game. I just did not like the theme of that particular campaign. I even said this game is not for me, but I like what the group does generally play and would like to be invited back to the next campaign. After that campaign ended I did not recieve a invitation back because they thought that I hated them. They also accused me of being a entitled player for not playing in a game I would not enjoy.
The problem with this debate is that what is 'player entitlement' and what is 'GM tyranny' etc are something that is not very well defined.
For instance to me player entitlement is when a player expects the table to bow down to his desires no matter what(please note not just the GM but all the players).
For others it is simply asking for permission to do something outside of the box.
For others it is having the termity to question the GMs ruling for whatever reason..
etc.
So I am curious of all the posters here.
How do you define player entitlement?
How do you define a tyranntical GMs?
Try not to debate how others answear these simple questions...but I think it would be helpful to know where people are coming in at this debate.
Some people will throw DM tyrant" around a little to easy and the same goes with "entitled player".
But the bottom line is this. DM's have a bit more in the overall equation than a player does. The GM is the one who comes up with the theme, prepares the game, and sometimes provides the place to play.
Now when I present a game it may come with terms that I specifically go over before any decision is made.
This is then presented to the group of player's and they decide if they want to play it or not.
Me sticking to my terms is not being a tyrant and a player asking if he can play something that was banned is not an entitled player. When a player becomes entitled is when he sits there and argues with the DM and tries to come up with everything under the sun to play that thing that was banned.
I am doing you a service by creating a game that you can level your characters up in so you either agree to my terms or the game simply doesn't go forward. Now if I am being open to suggestions for that particular then I will most certainly let you know.
Friendship swings both ways I'm afraid. My friends know, and even strangers because I tell them flat out what they are getting into, that when I say no to something no questions asked then you are better off coming up with another option.
I bet you have to say 'No' to alot of concepts than.
How about explaining why just to cut down on the number of times you have to say no. Not saying you have to change your mind...but it does help.
For some reason I can see a interaction between you and your play goes like this...
Player: My concept is a female elf oracle that grew up on thst streets as a kid.
You: No (the sercet reason is you dislike gender bender characters. Not saying you have a problem with it or not just for a example of not why asking why is a good thing)
Player: Why?
You: If you ask that you are out of my game...or you can come up with a a concept that works.
Player: ok what about a female HUMAN oracle that...
You: No
player: um ok a female human cleric...that grew up the streets?
You: No
And so forth.
Would it not be simpler to just tell the player why? Players are not telepaths after all.
Agreed. Discussion is good. If an answer can be found that satisfies everyone, that's great. If it can't then it's time to move on. To a different character concept. Or a different campaign idea.
And it's usually going to be the GM who gets to decide when that time comes. Though sometimes it's mutual. I've seen the entire group look up from their own notes and say "No!" to a character concept. Quite amusing.
Agreed all around.
|
|
Friendship swings both ways I'm afraid. My friends know, and even strangers because I tell them flat out what they are getting into, that when I say no to something no questions asked then you are better off coming up with another option.I bet you het lots of concepts that you say 'No' too.
How about explaining why just to cut down on the number of times you have to say no. Not saying you have to change your mind...but it does help.
For some reason I can see a interaction between you and your play goes like this...
Player: My concept is a female elf oracle that grew up on thst streets as a kid.
You: No (the sercet reason is you dislike gender bender characters. Not saying you have a problem with it or not just for a example of not why asking why is a good thing)
Player: Why?
You: If you ask that you are out of my game...or you can come up with a a concept that works.
Player: ok what about a female HUMAN oracle that...
You: No
player: um ok a female human cleric...that grew up the streets?
You: No
And so forth.
Would it not be simpler to just tell the player why? Players are not telepaths after all.
I have lot's of concepts that get turned down but I don't sit there and argue with the DM as to why because I know how frustrating it is to have to go through that. I accept that it was accepted and I on to one of the many many many more concepts that I would like to play.
I am doing you a service by creating a game that you can level your characters up in so you either agree to my terms or the game simply doesn't go forward.
Yes, I provide the same service -- but with a human at the other end of the customer service line, not a phone tree that says "choose 1 or 2 or hang up."
Sometimes you have to understand that it's not about the re-skinning.Some DM's are not looking for an explanation or a re-skin to make a class or race or anything for that matter fit.
They just don't want it in their games.
I was answering why it is different banning a class than a race, and you respond telling me you can ban anything. I never said you couldn't. I was saying why it is of different levels of campaign effecting. I can see you are only interested in starting a fight, and with someone who really didn't have a problem with what you were saying.
From experience you don't have to argue. You just say "This is why" and the player says "Oh, okay!". A good example is me asking "Hey, can I take Racial Heritage Assimar? I think it could add a bit of flavor" "Hmm... No, we have too many assimar in game already." I didn't sit and argue about how I felt there weren't too many assimar, nor point out that it didn't actually make me an assimar. I just said okay and dropped it because he gave me a reason. If he just said no and didn't give me a reason there would be a hint of animosity however...
|
|
I am doing you a service by creating a game that you can level your characters up in so you either agree to my terms or the game simply doesn't go forward.Yes, I provide the same service -- but with a human at the other end of the customer service line, not a phone tree that says "choose 1 or 2 or hang up."
What service are you providing for me exactly?
There are apparently others in the group who are ready to play so the game will go on with or without you.
The thing with me is if I can't run a game because the group doesn't want to run then I couldn't be arsed. Doesn't hurt my feelings in any way and I don't "need" to run a game. I just shelve it and see what happens next.
"Either you A) let me play this or B) I quit." It's the player being a douche, not the DM.
No argument here.
Proper etiquette would be that the GM doesn't scream CUZIAMTHELAW! The GM should politely respond that he wants a more authentic medieval feel and it doesn't fit his game.
Yes, this. And more so, if the player's request has an "authentic medieval feel," but you still won't allow it, maybe there's a good reason to think about why. And maybe discuss that with the player, even. Is that so hard?
What service are you providing for me exactly?I am doing you a service by creating a game that you can level your characters up in so you either agree to my terms or the game simply doesn't go forward.Yes, I provide the same service -- but with a human at the other end of the customer service line, not a phone tree that says "choose 1 or 2 or hang up."
I provide this service for others, as I'm typically the DM. I don't provide that service for you, because I didn't invite you. Likewise, I've already explained why I wouldn't try to crash your game, so your quote "I am doing you a service" is inaccurate; it would be better for you to say "I am doing my players a service."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people will throw DM tyrant" around a little to easy and the same goes with "entitled player".
Agreed this thread and other like this are prime examples of this.
But the bottom line is this. DM's have a bit more in the overall equation than a player does. The GM is the one who comes up with the theme, prepares the game, and sometimes provides the place to play.
That is how you GM. Not every GM plays the game that way. Sometimes players make certain requests for a type of campaign. I often ask my players what they want to do.
Also as a player I put a lot of work into my characters...even more than somer GMs I play with.
So is that really a bottom line? It is certainly not universal
Now when I present a game it may come with terms that I specifically go over before any decision is made.
This is then presented to the group of player's and they decide if they want to play it or not.
Agreed I have played ith GMs like this before it not a bad thing.
Me sticking to my terms is not being a tyrant and a player asking if he can play something that was banned is not an entitled player. When a player becomes entitled is when he sits there and argues with the DM and tries to come up with everything under the sun to play that thing that was banned.
So at what point does a GM becomes a tyrannt? I agree with you on the line a player has to cross...but what about the GM?
I am doing you a service by creating a game that you can level your characters up in so you either agree to my terms or the game simply doesn't go forward. Now if I am being open to suggestions for that particular then I will most certainly let you know.
But understand this some players want more that to just 'level up'. Is wanting more than that entitlement to you?
I have lot's of concepts that get turned down but I don't sit there and argue with the DM as to why because I know how frustrating it is to have to go through that. I accept that it was accepted and I on to one of the many many many more concepts that I would like to play.
Who is agrueing in the above example? If you don't explain why the concept does not work...and a player comes up with alternatives to make it work...why is the player argueing or being 'entitled'.
In the above exzample the concept would work just fine if it was a male...why not just tell them that?
|
|
Some people will throw DM tyrant" around a little to easy and the same goes with "entitled player".Agreed this thread and other like this are prime examples of this.
But the bottom line is this. DM's have a bit more in the overall equation than a player does. The GM is the one who comes up with the theme, prepares the game, and sometimes provides the place to play.That is how you GM. Not every GM plays the game that way. Sometimes players make certain requests for a type of campaign. I often ask my players what they want to do.
Also as a player I put a lot of work into my characters...even more than somer GMs I play with.
So is that really a bottom line? It is certainly not universal
Now when I present a game it may come with terms that I specifically go over before any decision is made.
This is then presented to the group of player's and they decide if they want to play it or not.
Agreed I have played ith GMs like this before it not a bad thing.
Me sticking to my terms is not being a tyrant and a player asking if he can play something that was banned is not an entitled player. When a player becomes entitled is when he sits there and argues with the DM and tries to come up with everything under the sun to play that thing that was banned.So at what point does a GM becomes a tyrannt? I agree with you on the line a player has to cross...but what about the GM?
But understand this some players want more that to just 'level up'. Is wanting more than that entitlement to you?I am doing you a service by creating a game that you can level your characters up in so you either agree to my terms or the game simply doesn't go forward. Now if I am being open to suggestions for that particular then I will most certainly let you know.
A DM cannot make you play so in reality he can't be a tyrant. If a DM is being a dick then 9 times out of 10 you won't want to play in his game anyway. I've never seen a tyrant DM before, but I have seen dickish ones but since I don't tolerate that I just walk away.
Just because they can't make you do something doesn't mean they can't be a tyrant. He might be a tyrant, he just won't be your tyrant!
I often ask my players what they want to do.
You know, its been forever since I've been asked that, just a side note. I think its one of the best thing a DM can ask and listen to. It really tells a lot about your play style sometimes. My last player centric campaign actually came with more mandates and restrictions oddly enough.
A DM cannot make you play so in reality he can't be a tyrant. If a DM is being a dick then 9 times out of 10 you won't want to play in his game anyway. I've never seen a tyrant DM before, but I have seen dickish ones but since I don't tolerate that I just walk away.
Since you are using a gendered slur, I'm going to assume that this only applies to men.
Well, since I assume you are a female frome your name, you at the very least just proved that women can be a dick.A DM cannot make you play so in reality he can't be a tyrant. If a DM is being a dick then 9 times out of 10 you won't want to play in his game anyway. I've never seen a tyrant DM before, but I have seen dickish ones but since I don't tolerate that I just walk away.Since you are using a gendered slur, I'm going to assume that this only applies to men.
Lets not go there. Genders are equal, even if we sometimes use a gendered term.