Removed some posts. Don't be a jerk.
This thread is going to keep you busy.. :/
No kidding. I'll make it easier by just faving the posts I agree with.
|
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?
In the last thread, it was prejudiced to not allow furries.
Much of this thread has been about telling the GM to "reskin" or "adapt" because you must not be creative if you can't find a way to make it work.
But what if you just don't want to make it work, because you don't like it.
This talk reminds me of breaking up with someone and asking for explanation, when sometimes the answer is "I don't like you enough to want to invest my time and energy, and frankly I have better options"
Which is quite often what the GM is saying when the say "I don't like that one, what else you got"
They are saying "Not good enough"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You are feeding into the hyperbole and letting people lead you into discussing strawmen rather than getting back to the root issues.
At root, Kirth is arguing you shouldn't be a jerk to your friends, and if you invite people into a game, you should listen to them. He is right about that, but he is glossing over the fact that he is also saying don't invite anyone who is going to cause problems at your game...which are the people we are talking about.
Rynjin and MrSin seem to be arguing that you should always find a way to make a concept fit as a GM, because that is the job of the GM, and not being able to do so shows a lack of creativity...which sounds nice until you step back and realize what they are actually saying it "The GM needs to make my idea work, because asking me to come up with a new idea is wrongbadfun, but me telling the GM what to do with the game they are running is fine."
You aren't helping, because you are feeding into the narrative of "GM tyrant"
Which is frankly a myth in my opinion beyond a session or so, because people will stop showing up...unless that is the only game they can get because people are tired of dealing with them.
And that sad, pathetic group is providing a public service to other groups who don't have to deal with those annoying GMs and players.
Bless them.
|
|
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.
Asking isn't a problem. Not taking "Because I don't want to run it" or "It doesn't fit" as an answer is a problem.
Because sometimes that is the answer. And if it is, accept it and make a choice to either find something that does fit or not play.
Again, when my favorite GM runs the zombie game I don't like, I'm not asking him why he is running it. I know why. He thinks it will be fun. So does my wife and most of the rest of the group.
I am the outlier.
So the "not a jerk" thing to do is accept I'm not interested in that game, not try to make everyone have to play something else.
Which is what demanding the GM find a way to fit your concept when they don't want to is doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sometimes the answer is "I don't like you enough to want to invest my time and energy, and frankly I have better options"
Which is quite often what the GM is saying
Really, is that something you want to say to your friends? I don't think you would, and I know I wouldn't. I still can't comprehend why anyone would invite people to their game that they would treat that way. Apparently many people do, though, and then get surprised when not everyone can agree on stuff? Why?
|
|
Really, is that something you want to say to your friends? I don't think you would, and I know I wouldn't. I still can't comprehend why anyone would invite people to their game that they would treat that way. Apparently many people do, though, and then get surprised when not everyone can agree on stuff? Why?sometimes the answer is "I don't like you enough to want to invest my time and energy, and frankly I have better options"
Which is quite often what the GM is saying
It isn't something I wanted to say to my ex-girlfriends, either, which is why I went with "It's not you, it's me"
And why GMs have said to me "It doesn't really fit, what else have you got"
You have literally said in other threads than you have had people bring concepts to you that you were hesitant about.
Stop acting like people are being victimized when the GM doesn't like every idea they have.
At root, Kirth is arguing you shouldn't be a jerk to your friends, and if you invite people into a game, you should listen to them. He is right about that, but he is glossing over the fact that he is also saying don't invite anyone who is going to cause problems at your game...which are the people we are talking about.
Rynjin and MrSin seem to be arguing that you should always find a way to make a concept fit as a GM, because that is the job of the GM, and not being able to do so shows a lack of creativity...which sounds nice until you step back and realize what they are actually saying it "The GM needs to make my idea work, because asking me to come up with a new idea is wrongbadfun, but me telling the GM what to do with the game they are running is fine."
You aren't helping, because you are feeding into the narrative of "GM tyrant"
Which is frankly a myth in my opinion beyond a session or so, because people will stop showing up...unless that is the only game they can get because people are tired of dealing with them.
And that sad, pathetic group is providing a public service to other groups who don't have to deal with those annoying GMs and players.
Bless them.
Touching several things, here, so bear with me as I try to remain sequential. First off, if those are the people you don't invite how is it even a problem?
I have never argued the GM has to do something. I've argued that there are 100s of ways to be a jerk, but I constantly state you don't have to do things. I also state refluffing and talking things out is easy and my preferred way to do things. Is that where you get the confusion from?
I could say the same of "entitled", but I feel like that last part was extremely insulting and had quiet a bit of hate in it.
Also, "its not you its me" and "I don't like it, what else have you got?" are phrases I don't like. They tell nothing. They are dishonest. Not liking something is a pretty meh reason to reject it. Can't stop it, but its easier to talk out why I think.
Whats with this "Victimized" thing. Who was saying that?
|
|
If the honest answer is "I don't like your character" you say that is mean, so the GM is not allowed to say that.
But if the GM says anything else, they are often lying. Because generally the GM doesn't like your character and want you to pick something else, because they would...crazy as this sounds...like to run a game with "good" ideas that will be "fun".
But you are creating a scenario where there is no way for a GM to reject a character they don't want to run, because if they say they don't like it they are mean and "you don't like it"
So you are providing no way to say "No" to something they don't want to run.
Refluffing a turd makes a fluffy turd. Sometimes you just think the concept sucks. And you don't say that, because it is rude to say that I think your concept sucks.
So instead you say "What else have you got" or "That really doesn't work" or something nicer than "I don't like your idea and I want you to come up with something better, because I think you can come up with something better than that, and I don't want to run a game with the idea you just gave me."
And the player isn't a victim, the GM isn't a tyrant. The player just needs to come up with something else or not play in this game.
And life goes on.
Or the player can whine because the GM didn't love their idea and argue that the GM should like the idea because it is totally cool...
Which surely is going to make things great and fun and not cause any conflict...
|
|
And the victim thing is Kirth saying "treat that way". As if asking for a player to come up with more ideas is killing their puppy.
If someone is so sensitive that telling them to come up with another idea because the one doesn't work, I wouldn't want to game with them. And if they were so uncreative they can't think of another concept, I really wouldn't want to game with them.
Rynjin and MrSin seem to be arguing that you should always find a way to make a concept fit as a GM, because that is the job of the GM, and not being able to do so shows a lack of creativity...which sounds nice until you step back and realize what they are actually saying it "The GM needs to make my idea work, because asking me to come up with a new idea is wrongbadfun, but me telling the GM what to do with the game they are running is fine."
Sort of but not quite.
I'm not saying every concept needs to be approved. I'm not saying the GM needs to significantly change his game world to accomodate every concept.
I'm just saying that if a concept could be made to fit fairly easily, ESPECIALLY if the player promoting it comes up with that justification (meaning no work required for the GM to accommodate it), it should be allowed.
If you're playing a no-magic campaign, yeah a spellcaster ain't gonna work. Perhaps an Alchemist (which might be one I ask for, I like that class), but that's stretching it a bit with all the overtly supernatural-ish Discoveries.
But if you're playing a campaign in the apparently fairly common Not-Eastern-Land I don't think it's asking that much if the player wants to play the Samurai class with the flavor of the standard Cavalier (or a Sword Saint as a ground soldier), or a Ninja reflavored as your standard Rogue but with a utility belt, or (again this one stretches it a bit) a Tengu or other animal race as a human from a tribal clan of people who wear animal totem masks that have the same/similar racial traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have literally said in other threads than you have had people bring concepts to you that you were hesitant about.
If nothing else, please learn to use this word correctly. It's not something one can just throw about for general emphasis.
You have literally said in other threads than you have had people bring concepts to you that you were hesitant about.
And what did I do in that case? Hint: I didn't say, "Your idea isn't worth my time!" I talked it over with the player, and we found a way to make it work, to the relief of the player, the enrichment of the setting, and the betterment of our game together. In such a case as an idea couldn't be worked out, I'd still be honest about hearing the player out and considering whether something of the idea could be salvaged.
And the victim thing is Kirth saying "treat that way". As if asking for a player to come up with more ideas is killing their puppy.
No, "treat that way" is refusing to listen and acting like the player is your inferior in some sort of rigid chain of command, rather than your friend/peer. Asking for more ideas is fine, but only after I've honestly considered the ones already brought up.
Actually?You have literally said in other threads than you have had people bring concepts to you that you were hesitant about.If nothing else, please learn to use this word correctly. It's not something one can just throw about for general emphasis.
A much better choice, in this situation.
|
|
Seriously Kirth, stop the hyperbole.
I am not telling the player "Your idea isn't worth my time!".
I am asking them to come up with other options. It is not an unreasonable request.
You have never asked a player to come up with another option, or had the expectation of multiple options being brought by the players for selection?
Actually?You have literally said in other threads than you have had people bring concepts to you that you were hesitant about.If nothing else, please learn to use this word correctly. It's not something one can just throw about for general emphasis.
You literally said "they can say "No" and ask for another option."
If I said "You told that if he doesn't like a player..." that is not literally. that is a paraphrase.
Literally is metaphrase.
|
|
And the victim thing is Kirth saying "treat that way". As if asking for a player to come up with more ideas is killing their puppy.No, "treat that way" is refusing to listen and acting like the player is your inferior in some sort of rigid chain of command, rather than your friend/peer. Asking for more ideas is fine, but only after I've honestly considered the ones already brought up.
You are projecting animosity and conflict into conversations.
What I am saying
"If a GM doesn't like an idea, they are not spiteful to say no and you are not a victim if they do say no."
What I am not saying
"Tell your player that they have a dumb idea and they need to do better or sod off."
What I am saying
"Players are not entitled to force the GM to run any concept they come up with"
What I am not saying
"Asking the GM to play a concept that they reject means you suck and are entitled"
What I am saying
"If your GM says the idea doesn't fit or they don't like it, common sense and courtesy should lead you to want to come up with something else rather than argue with the GM about why it does fit or why they should like it."
What I am not saying
"Even asking the GM why means you should die in a fire"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the honest answer is "I don't like your character" you say that is mean, so the GM is not allowed to say that.
Mean aside, it's a pretty lousy reason. I mean, really, does everything have to be exactly the way you want it, or you pack up your books and send everyone home? It seems like there's maybe some room for give-and-take. You don't like the idea as-is, but the player comes up with a way to modify it that doesn't inadvertently rub at some weird childhood trauma of yours, and you see that he's willing to work with you, and maybe suggest another modification that makes it even more palatable. Yeah, that requires a bit of work, and yeah, I understand that the DM is oh-so-overworked and can't handle the pressure, but really, I did so while rebooting a homebrew campaign world, writing original adventures, rewriting the entire rulebook... and incidentally receiving accolades and a bonus at work for the hours and effort I was putting in there (in case someone pulls the "I have a job" card). It's really not that much extra effort to give the player the time of day.
Kirth, stop the hyperbole.You are projecting animosity and conflict into conversations.
Mea culpa -- the "you" was misplaced. But I'm not projecting that or using hyperbole -- I'm responding to what is considered by at least two people to be a totally reasonable stance.
You have never asked a player to come up with another option, or had the expectation of multiple options being brought by the players for selection?
Sure, but see above. I've never done so without talking it over with the player, and making every effort to meet him or her halfway. I consider it a personal failing on my part as a GM -- of my own creativity, and the player's -- if we can't think of some way to mesh at least part of his/her concept into the game to both our satisfaction. I can think of cases where that might not work -- "I want to play R2D2!" for example, but that's not really something that a player has ever brought up. A fox-person straight out of the rulebook? We could probably work something out -- maybe not a kitsune exactly, but something along those lines that wouldn't be out of place in the setting.
If the honest answer is "I don't like your character" you say that is mean, so the GM is not allowed to say that
Didn't say that. Its not dishonest to tell someone what problems you have with something. You don't just not like something. You have reasons. I don't let little kids get away with that, why should I let myself? Most of the time you can just work things out. I don't say I don't like something without giving a reason. That's just dishonest. I'm probably going to say it nicely too. "I just don't like it" is not a reason. I didn't say he isn't allowed to say that. I said the last several times he can, I just won't like him for it and he might just be a jerk for it.
You can say no. No one said you couldn't. If saying no and adding to what you just said isn't saying no, then we've got some other issues here.
Refluffing a turd makes a fluffy turd. Sometimes you just think the concept sucks. And you don't say that, because it is rude to say that I think your concept sucks.
Where do you get this "fluff a turd" language from? I didn't say anything like that. That's helping things fit in the campaign. Its helping people get the mechanics and flavor of the mechanics to meet what they want. No ones idea is a turd. I may not like it, but if I say that about someone I'm truly disrespecting them. I'm not going to treat anyone like that, especially not people in my games. Its also not a good term for things. Its some dirty slang right there rather than saying something actually descriptive.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes their idea just doesn't mesh well. I'm not going to let someone bring sci-fi into my middle earth fantasy. That's the reason why though, and that's what I say. Their idea isn't at turd, just meant for another game. Maybe he can run it in another system that does it better. Say something like "Woah man, this is medival fantasy. You don't have something a little more low tech or magical you want for this? Because this just isn't going to mesh well. That stuff just doesn't exist."
I'm a little too tired to deal with the exaggerated examples today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been following this for awhile now and honestly I'm with Kirth. I've had to modify classes/ races but very few times have I ever had such an issue that something was banned( one example of banned is the Truenamer and that was a group agreement). On the other end I've had GMs ban classes at their whim or bad rules reading. Two GMs I've had banned monks completely one because they had read the rules horribly wrong ( they thought a monk could flurry with all of his limbs as in at 1st level 2x hands feet and head for 10 attacks). The other banned it because quivering palm was overpowered and broken. Even after being shown that an equal level wizard could install kill so much better and more efficiently he still thought it was a game ruining ability.
So I had to pass on my favorite class every time they ran ( which for years those were the only DND to be played) and go for something else. All because of very uninformed gms who didnt want to even try to listen to any reason.
|
|
If the honest answer is "I don't like your character" you say that is mean, so the GM is not allowed to say that.Mean aside, it's a pretty lousy reason. I mean, really, does everything have to be exactly the way you want it, or you pack up your books and send everyone home? It seems like there's maybe some room for give-and-take. You don't like the idea as-is, but the player comes up with a way to modify it that doesn't run at some weird childhood trauma of yours, and you see that he's willing to work with you, and maybe suggest another modification that makes it even more palatable. Yeah, that requires a bit of work, and yeah, I understand that the DM is oh-so-overworked and can't handle the pressure, but really, I did so while rebooting an entire campaign world, writing original adventures, rewriting the entire rulebook... and incidentally receiving accolades and a bonus at work for the hours and effort I was putting in there (in case someone pulls the "I have a job" card). It's really not that much extra effort to give the player the time of day.
You and I don't like Anime. It is a perfectly valid artform, many people I know like it a great deal, you and I are on record as not likely/getting it.
If I am GM, and someone brings me an anime style character, I'm not going to want to run it. It isn't something I am interested in having in a campaign I am running. It isn't "bad" it isn't "wrong" it just isn't my style and if I'm going to be running a game in my homebrew, I don't want it.
The people I game with agree generally. The ones that don't run games with those concepts, and I don't play in those games, just like I don't play in the microlite games.
This is my hobby. We have 4 GMs. Some of them like Anime concepts, you can run it with them. I don't. And you as a player can't make me run something I don't want to run in my free time, as my hobby.
By the same token, I can't make Mrsin or Rynjin play in the all human zombie microlite game, or the Dark Heresy game, or the all Shoanti game, etc, etc...
I am very much bothered by anyone who says that anyone must run something, as a player or GM. If a GM doesn't want something to be a part of the game they are running, the only time they have any option to prevent it is at this point. Once the character is in, as a GM you have to let the concept be played.
There are always tweaks that can be made to some concepts and ideas to make them fit. But sometimes you just have to say no, because the player and GM aren't on the same page and that concept isn't going to work.
And given that other concepts exist, why must we have something forced into the game that could be a problem.
The one guy earlier gave veto power to every single person in the group.
I'm just asking for one person to have approval that actually means approval.
|
|
You have never asked a player to come up with another option, or had the expectation of multiple options being brought by the players for selection?Sure, but see above. I've never done so without talking it over with the player, and making every effort to meet him or her halfway.
You are projecting not talking.
I described best practice as a GM running multiple campaign ideas out to the group then requesting multiple concepts from the players.
My point is a player coming to the table married to a single concept better have picked a concept they are confident will fit with the concept and/or the GM.
|
|
If the honest answer is "I don't like your character" you say that is mean, so the GM is not allowed to say thatDidn't say that. Its not dishonest to tell someone what problems you have with something. You don't just not like something. You have reasons. I don't let little kids get away with that, why should I let myself?
Actually you do let little kids "get away" with that. My daughter says she doesn't like broccoli, I know that she doesn't like it.
That is her reason, she doesn't like it. Period, full stop.
But she still has to eat it, because it's good for her and I'm her dad.
You aren't the GMs dad. The concept you have isn't "good for" the GM.
You say you want an answer from the GM, but you then say "But the GM has to be nice"
What you seem to really want is for the GM to give in and let you have what you want, even if they don't want it. Because it is "mean" to say no.
You aren't entitled to have the GM run any concept you come up with. A GM not liking your idea is a perfectly complete and valid reason for them to not want to run it, in the same way you not liking a GM's idea for a campaign is a perfectly valid and complete reason not to play in that campaign.
You and I don't like Anime. It is a perfectly valid artform, many people I know like it a great deal, you and I are on record as not likely/getting it. If I am GM, and someone brings me an anime style character, I'm not going to want to run it. It isn't something I am interested in having in a campaign I am running. It isn't "bad" it isn't "wrong" it just isn't my style and if I'm going to be running a game in my homebrew, I don't want it.
That's a pretty good example, because I knew Jess and TOZ were big Anime fans, and anticipated one of them eventually wanting a Super Giant Buster Bleach Cloud sword or whatever it is at some point (neither one ever did, but that's mostly because they were exploring what the monk rewrite could do in game). I personally hate those silly swords that are like five feet across and ten feet long. But lots of people like them.
A compromise is clearly impossible -- or is it? I created a fighter talent allowing you to deal damage as if your weapon were one size larger. I simply picture someone who is well-trained enough to deal more damage, much along the lines of Weapon Specialization. The player, however, is specifically welcome to pretend his or her weapon is fifteen feet long for all I care, if that's what makes him/her happy. It's imaginary anyway, so there's no harm in us picturing it slightly differently in our heads. The rules are the same, but I get a non-Anime vibe, and they get an Anime one, and we're both happy.
That wouldn't work for a lot of other ideas, so I'd have to come up with other solutions for those. I'm sure some of them would strain even my ability to make things fit, and at some point I'll probably have to tell a player, "sorry, man, we tried, but I can't find a way to make this work." At that point, though, they'd see that it was a last resort, rather than something I start with.
Been following this for awhile now and honestly I'm with Kirth. I've had to modify classes/ races but very few times have I ever had such an issue that something was banned( one example of banned is the Truenamer and that was a group agreement). On the other end I've had GMs ban classes at their whim or bad rules reading. Two GMs I've had banned monks completely one because they had read the rules horribly wrong ( they thought a monk could flurry with all of his limbs as in at 1st level 2x hands feet and head for 10 attacks). The other banned it because quivering palm was overpowered and broken. Even after being shown that an equal level wizard could install kill so much better and more efficiently he still thought it was a game ruining ability.
So I had to pass on my favorite class every time they ran ( which for years those were the only DND to be played) and go for something else. All because of very uninformed gms who didnt want to even try to listen to any reason.
I'm kind of split on this whole thing. I ban Antipaladins (no CE psychopaths at my table), and nobody has taken me up on gunslinger after I told them what it would entail to play one. But I really do try to make a place for most any class or archetype you want to play. Individuals could lean an amazing variety of skill sets.
But the races in my world are the races that are in my world. There are currently 16 to choose from. They are all built ground-up for the campaign world. And no, You can't play a (insert random race). The political/social/economic situation between all of the races is mapped in detail.
You aren't the GMs dad. The concept you have isn't "good for" the GM.
One could flip that around and reply, "the Gm isn't your dad, just the facilitator of the game. And the GM doesn't have to run my character -- I do." But that would restart the argument on page one, so maybe we shouldn't go there, and just accept that, in game with your peers, NO ONE gets to be the "daddy" or "mommy."
@Ciretose
Funny you should stoop to generalizations, since Anime and Western themes can have overlapping tropes.
If a Western theme happens to suddenly remind you of this dreaded Anime, do you condemn it as well or do you let it slide?
See, I don't have to ask these questions from Kirth here because by now I can assume he'd be more reasonable about this and not force me to ask.
EDIT: Kirth, are oversized swords the only thing you hate that just happens to be prevalent in JRPGs ever since Final Fantasy VII? Just curious about this one.
Strangely Kirth your system actually works great for emulating a good number of the anime ideas I've considered for campaigns mostly due to its synergy mechanics and wealth of talents. Which is why I like it I can run the majority of things my players want with one system. Sure it might be hard to un-vibe the anime from some ideas but others work damn well for making everyone happy.
|
|
It is always a last resort. You hope your player is trying really hard to come up with something that will fit the campaign you described.
And if you game with people you like, they almost always do.
It is a rare occasion someone comes to the table with an idea that is just outside of what will fit in the world.
But when it happens, it is perfectly valid to say "That doesn't work"
That is my entire point, in contrast to Rynjin and Icyshadow who are explaining how I need to reskin X, Y, and Z to accommodate whatever they come up with, because the world is too rigid.
How about some responsibility on the player to communicate with the GM and the other players so that they come to the table off the bat with something that already fits.
Hell, I can't remember the last time we ran a game where all of us didn't drop ideas we initially wanted to run after hearing what other people were interested in so we could make sure everyone could have a reason to be together and to create synergies and motivations.
The entire concept of coming to a GM with a concept, singular, take it or leave it, is something my group would find rude.
|
|
You aren't the GMs dad. The concept you have isn't "good for" the GM.One could flip that around and reply, "the Gm isn't your dad, just the facilitator of the game. And the GM doesn't have to run my character -- I do." But that would restart the argument on page one, so maybe we shouldn't go there, and just accept that, in game with your peers, NO ONE gets to be the "daddy" or "mommy."
Again, I am not saying what you have to run when I rule one single option out.
You are telling me what I have to run when you demand one option be in.
Been following this for awhile now and honestly I'm with Kirth. I've had to modify classes/ races but very few times have I ever had such an issue that something was banned( one example of banned is the Truenamer and that was a group agreement). On the other end I've had GMs ban classes at their whim or bad rules reading. Two GMs I've had banned monks completely one because they had read the rules horribly wrong ( they thought a monk could flurry with all of his limbs as in at 1st level 2x hands feet and head for 10 attacks). The other banned it because quivering palm was overpowered and broken. Even after being shown that an equal level wizard could install kill so much better and more efficiently he still thought it was a game ruining ability.
So I had to pass on my favorite class every time they ran ( which for years those were the only DND to be played) and go for something else. All because of very uninformed gms who didnt want to even try to listen to any reason.
I'm kind of split on this whole thing. I ban Antipaladins (no CE psychopaths at my table), and nobody has taken me up on gunslinger after I told them what it would entail to play one. But I really do try to make a place for most any class or archetype you want to play. Individuals could lean an amazing variety of skill sets.
But the races in my world are the races that are in my world. There are currently 16 to choose from. They are all built ground-up for the campaign world. And no, You can't play a (insert random race). The political/social/economic situation between all of the races is mapped in detail.
I agree races can be harder but even then a bit of flavor goes a long way.
I ban Antipaladins (no CE psychopaths at my table)
That's one that has a lot of potential to ruin games, so one has to be exceptionally careful. I had a group once in which half of them wanted to be heroes, and the other half wanted evil characters. Obviously they couldn't just keep adventuring together, especially when a paladin joined the party! I ended up splitting them off, and running two campaigns concurrently -- one for the heroes, one in which the PCs were villains. Eventually one of the players took over DMing the villain campaign, and invited me try it when I wanted a break from DMing (I'd never played an evil character before). Everyone got what they wanted there, too.
But if everyone is very keen on having only one set of characters -- you're running an AP, for example -- then banning evil characters is something that might have to be done in the interest of maintaining the group.
|
|
You and I don't like Anime. It is a perfectly valid artform, many people I know like it a great deal, you and I are on record as not likely/getting it. If I am GM, and someone brings me an anime style character, I'm not going to want to run it. It isn't something I am interested in having in a campaign I am running. It isn't "bad" it isn't "wrong" it just isn't my style and if I'm going to be running a game in my homebrew, I don't want it.That's a pretty good example, because I knew Jess and TOZ were big Anime fans, and anticipated one of them eventually wanting a Super Giant Buster Bleach Cloud sword or whatever it is at some point (neither one ever did, but that's mostly because they were exploring what the monk rewrite could do in game). I personally hate those silly swords that are like five feet across and ten feet long. But lots of people like them.
TOZ and Jess are also probably people who knowing you aren't into anime wouldn't try to force you to run that kind of stuff.
TOZ and Jess are also probably people who knowing you aren't into anime wouldn't try to force you to run that kind of stuff.
Either way, we were covered. If one of them did ask, "It's OK if you say no, but could we maybe..." I had a way to make it work already waiting, without needing to say "You're damned right I'm banning it!". Anticipating stuff like that is part of the DM's job.
I ban Antipaladins (no CE psychopaths at my table)That's one that has a lot of potential to ruin games, so one has to be exceptionally careful. I had a group once in which half of them wanted to be heroes, and the other half wanted evil characters. Obviously they couldn't just keep adventuring together, especially when a paladin joined the party! I ended up splitting them off, and running two campaigns concurrently -- one for the heroes, one in which the PCs were villains. Eventually the villain campaign split off under one of the players, who took over DMing and let me try it (I'd never played an evil character before). Everyone got what they wanted there, too.
But if everyone is very keen on having only one set of characters -- you're running an AP, for example -- then banning evil characters is something that might have to be done in the interest of maintaining the group.
I have a *soft* ban on evil characters. I have broken it a few times for exceptional players playing exceptional characters (all of them LE).
You are telling me what I have to run when you demand one option be in.
I'm not demanding anything -- but I'm expecting the DM to be willing to talk with me, and not just say "That's bad because I hate it for no reason so think of something else!"
Actually you do let little kids "get away" with that. My daughter says she doesn't like broccoli, I know that she doesn't like it.
That is her reason, she doesn't like it. Period, full stop.
But she still has to eat it, because it's good for her and I'm her dad.
Not passing judgement on your parenting first off, but I've had horribly painful experiences in my childhood with the "eat it all because it's good for you" thing with foods I especially dislike (mostly just anything in the squash family and sweet potatoes). Not saying she shouldn't have to eat her vegetables, but does it have to be broccoli?
Squash in particular was something it proved impossible to beat a tolerance into me for.
But this is quite off-topic and kinda tangential (though still strangely connected) to the actual topic.
That is my entire point, in contrast to Rynjin and Icyshadow who are explaining how I need to reskin X, Y, and Z to accommodate whatever they come up with, because the world is too rigid.
You don't NEED to do anything. But my entire point is: How does it harm you to do so? What inconvenience does it cause to say "You can have X under Y conditions but not Z" instead of "You can't have X because I don't like it"?
Again, not every concept need be allowed, but many concepts supposedly called out as "ruining the feel of the game" only do so if the GM disallows reskinning as well...which is an arbitrary and pointless restriction if the reason they were disallowing it is because of the original skinning of it.
|
TOZ and Jess are also probably people who knowing you aren't into anime wouldn't try to force you to run that kind of stuff.You and I don't like Anime. It is a perfectly valid artform, many people I know like it a great deal, you and I are on record as not likely/getting it. If I am GM, and someone brings me an anime style character, I'm not going to want to run it. It isn't something I am interested in having in a campaign I am running. It isn't "bad" it isn't "wrong" it just isn't my style and if I'm going to be running a game in my homebrew, I don't want it.That's a pretty good example, because I knew Jess and TOZ were big Anime fans, and anticipated one of them eventually wanting a Super Giant Buster Bleach Cloud sword or whatever it is at some point (neither one ever did, but that's mostly because they were exploring what the monk rewrite could do in game). I personally hate those silly swords that are like five feet across and ten feet long. But lots of people like them.
Maybe they will ask him now, since they know he will warp his entire campaign around to fit in whatever kind of character they want to play.
Can I play my super powered WH40K Space Marine (Space Wolves chapter) catgirl in you guys' next game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I play my super powered WH40K Space Marine (Space Wolves chapter) catgirl in you guys' next game?
And we're back to "I screen my players." You're not invited. Not because of the catgirl space marine, but because you come across as nasty, argumentative, and interested solely in proving how obnoxious you can be, rather than in enjoying a cooperative game. (Also, it appears pretty clear you didn't read the post describing the way in which I could "kind of" allow it without "warping the campaign" at all.)
|
|
Actually you do let little kids "get away" with that. My daughter says she doesn't like broccoli, I know that she doesn't like it.
That is her reason, she doesn't like it. Period, full stop.
But she still has to eat it, because it's good for her and I'm her dad.
Not passing judgement on your parenting first off, but I've had horribly painful experiences in my childhood with the "eat it all because it's good for you" thing with foods I especially dislike (mostly just anything in the squash family and sweet potatoes). Not saying she shouldn't have to eat her vegetables, but does it have to be broccoli?
Squash in particular was something it proved impossible to beat a tolerance into me for.
But this is quite off-topic and kinda tangential (though still strangely connected) to the actual topic.
The point was the reason is "I don't like it." is a fully formed complete reason in and of itself.
My daughter actually likes broccoli.
If the honest answer is "I don't like your character" you say that is mean, so the GM is not allowed to say thatDidn't say that. Its not dishonest to tell someone what problems you have with something. You don't just not like something. You have reasons. I don't let little kids get away with that, why should I let myself?Actually you do let little kids "get away" with that. My daughter says she doesn't like broccoli, I know that she doesn't like it.
That is her reason, she doesn't like it. Period, full stop.
But she still has to eat it, because it's good for her and I'm her dad.
You aren't the GMs dad. The concept you have isn't "good for" the GM.
You say you want an answer from the GM, but you then say "But the GM has to be nice"
What you seem to really want is for the GM to give in and let you have what you want, even if they don't want it. Because it is "mean" to say no.
You aren't entitled to have the GM run any concept you come up with. A GM not liking your idea is a perfectly complete and valid reason for them to not want to run it, in the same way you not liking a GM's idea for a campaign is a perfectly valid and complete reason not to play in that campaign.
If she's like me she doesn't like it because its green, ugly, and taste funny. That's because she's young and won't say that very well, and its far simpler to say "I don't like it daddy!" You however are old enough to have a child, and can probably vocalize a better reason. I trust most of your players aren't 8?
It invalidates your entire argument when you start claiming to know what I think. You can use what I say, but do not make claims to know exactly who I am or what I say. Its insulting to me. I don't play with mean GMs no. I respect if we don't know each other that well yet, but if the GM can't even tell me why he says no what else are we going to have a communication issue with? Answers are usually simple.
A gm not liking my idea is okay, but he has a reason. I'll argue that endlessly. People don't just not like something, they have their reasons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I play my super powered WH40K Space Marine (Space Wolves chapter) catgirl in you guys' next game?And we're back to "I screen my players." You're not invited. Not because of the catgirl space marine, but because you come across as nasty, argumentative, and are interested solely in proving how obnoxious you can be, rather than in enjoying a cooperative game.
Which is how I feel about anyone who would come to the GM with a single concept and demand the GM find a way to make it work.