Yes, they should.
Does the player have to provide a reason beyond "I want to play this" to the GM?And what reason beyond "I want to play this" are they providing?
I want to play this because I think it is cool? Not really any more information there.
I want to play this because I like big swords, and I cannot lie (you other brothers can't deny)
Seriously, this is getting absurd. I have to provide a detailed explanation of why I want to be a wizard in a made up game.
Really?
That's the thing man if you can explain why it's banned then maybe if we talk those fears are gone maybe not. If you don't like 7ft swords because they are outlandish to you then I'm probably not doing bigger than a great sword. But if your worried my gnome monk with a luchadore mask is too silly then maybe finding out how I plan on playing him might show you that he is very serious about what he does. Maybe the mask and the code of lucha are things he stakes his honor on.
By the way, you guys that stole my catgirl Space Marine concept, you seem to be forgetting that she also has superpowers. Specifically, she has Spider-Man's powers, but her strength and durability levels are upped to Thor levels, and she also throw telekinetic powers into the mix.
Slippers of Spider Climb + Wand of Web, one level of Barbarian and a Str/Con Belt of Physical Might, and either an item with some ranks in UMD or some Psionics for Telekinesis.
You'd have to work for it but it would be possible within the rules.
You'd have to work for it but it would be possible within the rules.
Good thing; I was afraid for a second we were going to have a "if you give any reason at all for banning stuff, then your game has no rules at all" argument.
We've broken the barrier!
Or at the very least possibly broken the moderator's 'delete post' button.
We've broken the barrier!
Now to break the 4th wall.
We've broken the barrier!Now to break the 4th wall.
There was a 4th wall to begin with? I thought forums existed to break it into a billion pieces and lampoon/parody to no end.
| 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?
In my game...I don't know about Kirth...I would allow that. I would work with you to make it work in Pathfinder and the world I am running...even in Golarion. My worlds and my games are such fragile creation that can be broken that easy.
Now if you are going to be jerk about it and insist on things(like a Astares Bolt pistol) that are completely out of wonk...I don't bother saying 'No'...I just show you the door.
Removed some more posts. Stop calling each other idiots, liars, etc.
|
MrSin, if they are really your friend, shouldn't you just accept their likes and dislikes, instead of forcing them to justify those preferences to you? If their justification doesn't meet your standards of acceptability, do you inform them that they are wrong, that they actually DO like _____?
This right here wins the bloody thread!
It's like you think I'm supposed to explain to you so you can attempt to tell me I'm either wrong or try and talk me into changing my mind.
I have just as much right to ban something as someone does to play it.
Also this next bit is in response to Ciretose.
I'm not trying to plead a case for my DM style nor is is in any way shape or form being a tyrantDM. If that is your definition then you might want to go back an rethink your own interpretation. I am merely stating the facts of how I run my games. I'm not here to plead a case or get validation for my methods. If I tell you that I am banning A end of discussion on that topic then why should I sit there for 5, 10, 15 minutes while you explain a way to make the class fit into my game when I am just going to repeat exactly what I said? Allowing someone to explain when you made it perfectly clear that you aren't budging on the issue gives that person false hope. Ever heard the saying "well why didn't you just tell me to start with"? Sometimes you have to use closed discussions because if you let one get by with something then you have to let the others do the same thing. If I tell you no but I am opem to suggestions then blast away but if I say no, end of discussion then don't bother explaining.
The level of explanation a player can expect is directly related to either the amount of time available OR the attitude of that player.
If even after two weeks of prep time and one session of group character building a player STILL demands answers about why guns are banned then they are either willfully ignoring the thirtieth attempt to explain them OR they waited till the actual game was just about to start to ask as an attempt to derail the game start. EITHER WAY they are an entitlement player hoping to get their way by either using the limited remaining time to try to force their way or by using the 'endlessly argue a point till people want to hurt you' approach.
My answer to smooth running games is shut down the problem players and help the cooperative players. On the other hand if a concept should fit my world yet I ban it anyway then I probably should just explain myself ahead of time to get everyone on the same page and not leave any lingering resentment from otherwise good players. Some earlier example of a cavalier being banned despite the existence of Rohan being a valid place where they could come from... BUT perhaps the GM simply dislikes the cavalier mechanics. In such a case explanation is a good thing. Otherwise (Kirth?) might think you are being a tyrant.
The level of explanation a player can expect is directly related to either the amount of time available OR the attitude of that player.
Completely agree...I don't think anybody has said otherwise.
If even after two weeks of prep time and one session of group character building a player STILL demands answers about why guns are banned then they are either willfully ignoring the thirtieth attempt to explain them OR they waited till the actual game was just about to start to ask as an attempt to derail the game start. EITHER WAY they are an entitlement player hoping to get their way by either using the limited remaining time to try to force their way or by using the 'endlessly argue a point till people want to hurt you' approach.
Again I don't think anybody is disputing this.
My answer to smooth running games is shut down the problem players and help the cooperative players. On the other hand if a concept should fit my world yet I ban it anyway then I probably should just explain myself ahead of time to get everyone on the same page and not leave any lingering resentment from otherwise good players. Some earlier example of a cavalier being banned despite the existence of Rohan being a valid place where they could come from... BUT perhaps the GM simply dislikes the cavalier mechanics. In such a case explanation is a good thing. Otherwise (Kirth?) might think you are being a tyrant.
The only thing I disagree on dealing with problems players. I found it is better to talk to the player about what they are doing to disrupt the game...and give them a warning. If the persist boot them. Why low myself to them by 'shuting them down' when I can just kick them out?
|
Sorry, let me be more specific. If it is something that is not firmly established in the campaign world, than yes you should provide me with an explanation as to why you want to add this.
I agree with this, but only because if you are going to ask for something that is not firmly established in the campaign world you already are going in to the approval process knowing you are pushing the boundaries.
And if you are doing that, you absolutely need to have a back up idea you propose at the same time, because you already know that you are asking for something that might cause problems.
It's really no different than the GM saying why she won't allow xxx. And yes, I have given the excuse "I can't tell you, it's a secret" as to why I wouldn't allow a certain thing. But the next campaign, that thing was open to play.
But what we have gotten to in this discussion is not only does the GM have to say why, but that "I don't like it", "I think it will cause problems", and "I don't think it fits the setting: aren't a good enough reasons.
Which I disagree with. I don't want to run "X" is a perfectly valid reason for a GM to say no. If you are told the GM doesn't want to run "X" that should be enough for a player to come up with something else, especially if they've already proposed a concept out of the expectations.
If I am arguing with a player at character creation, what problems is this concept going to cause when it is in the actual game.
Kirth said this earlier.
"If one of them did ask, "It's OK if you say no, but could we maybe...""
Notice the player started with "It's OK if you say no"
That is my entire point. It is ok for the GM to say no if they don't want to run the concept. It is not spiteful, the player is not a victim, it is just someone saying "I don't want to run that concept" or even "I don't want you to run that concept".
These things rarely happen at my table (there really are only two people who we have to put restrictions on, and I am one of them) and when the GM says no, it never causes any problems because we both have tons of other ideas we can play.
If a player can't come up with more than one concept, that is a problem to me.
If a player doesn't have, as a goal, coming up with the concept that will make the game the most fun for the table, that is a problem for me.
|
|
The GM doesn't have to do a thing. I'm not demanding anything. I have my expectations though.
Here is my point in a nutshell. You are saying "I'm not demanding anything" and then the very next sentence is "I have my expectations though."
So you are saying that the GM has to meet your expectations, but you aren't "demanding"
What happens if the GM doesn't meet your expectations?
I expect to be treated as an adult and some maturity. I expect to be with friends who'll talk with me and tell me if something is wrong. I don't want to refer to other peoples ideas as turds or stupid and I expect the same respect.
So I can't just say I don't like your idea, because that is immature.
What if that is what is wrong with your idea? Why isn't it enough to say "I don't want to run your concept" because maybe your concept doesn't meet the GMs expectations?
Would you like it if I called your ideas that sort of thing? Would you like it if my response to things was always limited and not telling at all. If you ask me for further information such as just now could I say "Well I just don't like it" and move on? There's little personality in that. There isn't a demand, but what your suggesting certainly isn't the best thing to do and it definitely doesn't work with everyone.
I have told GMs I'm not interested in the setting/system they are running, so I am going to sit out. They didn't require me to provide a detailed explanation of why, because why didn't matter.
If I didn't want to do it, they were not going to try and make me do it.
You are demanding the GM explain themselves, and you are saying that they can't be critical of the concept in the explanation because that is mean.
I am saying "Dude, if your GM doesn't want to run your idea, either get over it and come up with something else or bow out of that campaign."
When my GM say "Don't run that concept, this one is better" I don't worry about why he didn't like the first concept, I just start working on the one he liked.
Because I don't want to have conflict or cause problems. I want to play a game.
|
|
That's the thing man if you can explain why it's banned then maybe if we talk those fears are gone maybe not. If you don't like 7ft swords because they are outlandish to you then I'm probably not doing bigger than a great sword. But if your worried my gnome monk with a luchadore mask is too silly then maybe finding out how I plan on playing him might show you that he is very serious about what he does. Maybe the mask and the code of lucha are things he stakes his honor on.Yes, they should.
Does the player have to provide a reason beyond "I want to play this" to the GM?And what reason beyond "I want to play this" are they providing?
I want to play this because I think it is cool? Not really any more information there.
I want to play this because I like big swords, and I cannot lie (you other brothers can't deny)
Seriously, this is getting absurd. I have to provide a detailed explanation of why I want to be a wizard in a made up game.
Really?
Or maybe I am not afraid, maybe I just don't like your idea and/or I don't think it will work in the campaign, group or setting.
And maybe I don't care how serious your lucha is, I think you are capable of coming up with something that works better.
|
|
Why?
Your entire argument thus far has been predicated on the premise that if a player wants to play something, it doesn't matter why they want to play it, and it doesn't matter that they have many other options that they could play, the GM should find a way to accommodate it.
No it hasn't. Put your reading glasses on.
I have said that the GM should TRY to accommodate FEASIBLE character concepts, or at the very least give a good reason for banning something. Especially since if the reason they don't like it is because of one facet of the character that can be easily changed (the aforementioned "I don't like people playing cross gender" thing, for example) or refluffed to fit better (No Eastern themed classes, their fluff doesn't fit).
And you have said feasible extends to anything that could be argued to exist, and defined "good reason" in basically those terms.
I am saying why is the player trying to force the GM to run something they clearly don't want to run rather than just coming up with another concept? Unless your GM swings the ban hammer wildly around, it seems reasonable that a GM not wanting to run something should be more than enough reason for a player to come up with something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ciretose: So I want to play say a female catfolk bard. Say GM hates anime and furries so he has banned catfolk for those reason alone(let suppose it is set in Golarion where Catfolk do exist in canon already). So lets look at a possible conversation...
Player: I want to play a female catfolk bard.
GM: Sorry I just don't like catfolk because I dislike Anime.
Player: Oh gods I agree anime is the worst...but whatdoes that have to do with catfolk? Oh the catgirl Anime thing...yeah don't worry this character will be nothing to do with anime.
GM: Well I also don't like the idea of furries.
Player: Um...yeah I don't make characters to have sex with...I can get my own girlfriends and such I don't need to have system to generate one.
GM: Well why do you want to play one then?
Player: Because I like cats...it would be interesting for me to get into the mind of a humaniod cat like creature.
In other words why a GM might dislike something might have nothing to do with why a player might want to play something. If that is the case I don't see why you could not atleast let the player try it. It not like that the cat can't be put back in the bag if it gets that annoying.
In other words why are you and others like you so resistant to new ideas?
there really are only two people who we have to put restrictions on, and I am one of them
You too, huh? My playgroup mostly just puts me in the GM chair. A lot of the same qualities that make me an "unintentional problem player" are assets as the GM.
|
|
Or the player could realize the GM doesn't like those kinds of things and so try and come up with something else.
Wow, what a crazy idea.
Some people (myself included) aren't really interested in having animal races run outside of the setting they are generally included. We find the whole fish out of water bit trite and boring.
Our group ran an asian themed campaign where playing a human was discouraged as it was an opportunity for us to mess with the asian themed stuff it's natural habitat. It was a lot of fun, most people went Kitsune and created elaborate backstories for how they all knew each other, there was a Samsaran who got it's own backstory to work in with the kitsune, it was fun.
I personally don't like gaming with players who want to make things that don't make sense in the setting we are playing. I don't personally think it is very creative, I think it is kind of lazy and cheap.
So it isn't just that I don't like the catgirl anime thing (I don't) it is that I don't like the whole "I am playing something that doesn't usually exist to make my character unique and special because I can't think of an actual interesting concept".
Plus, now it forces me to deal with this weird thing in every NPC interaction, since you aren't something that actually generally is seen in whatever we are doing. Which gets really old, really quick.
And if that explaination was rude...well, you wanted an explanation. I just wanted to say "It doesn't really fit the setting, what else you got?" and move on.
|
|
You too, huh? My playgroup mostly just puts me in the GM chair. A lot of the same qualities that make me an "unintentional problem player" are assets as the GM.there really are only two people who we have to put restrictions on, and I am one of them
I tend to like to experiment with stuff. I try to stay in the concept setting, but I tend to want to play outliers. Which is why I give my GM lots of options to choose from.
In the land of the Linnorm Kings thing we are doing he said "Vikings" and I gave him a Dwarven Inquistor with a long explanation of how I would make it work and not cause problems, and three other ideas that were more classic themes. If he had said no to the Dwarf, I wouldn't have taken offense at all.
Or the player could realize the GM doesn't like those kinds of things and so try and come up with something else.
Wow, what a crazy idea.
Some people (myself included) aren't really interested in having animal races run outside of the setting they are generally included. We find the whole fish out of water bit trite and boring.
Our group ran an asian themed campaign where playing a human was discouraged as it was an opportunity for us to mess with the asian themed stuff it's natural habitat. It was a lot of fun, most people went Kitsune and created elaborate backstories for how they all knew each other, there was a Samsaran who got it's own backstory to work in with the kitsune, it was fun.
I personally don't like gaming with players who want to make things that don't make sense in the setting we are playing. I don't personally think it is very creative, I think it is kind of lazy and cheap.
So it isn't just that I don't like the catgirl anime thing (I don't) it is that I don't like the whole "I am playing something that doesn't usually exist to make my character unique and special because I can't think of an actual interesting concept".
Plus, now it forces me to deal with this weird thing in every NPC interaction, since you aren't something that actually generally is seen in whatever we are doing. Which gets really old, really quick.
And if that explaination was rude...well, you wanted an explanation. I just wanted to say "It doesn't really fit the setting, what else you got?" and move on.
Two things...
1) the example above is set in Golarion where there is already a established place for them.
2) Actualy not that is not rude..you don't want anything to weird...got it. How would that be even rude? Personaly in a world with...just the Bestiary 1...100s of different races...I think the common folk would be pretty nonplussed by a catfolk...or any other 'strange creature'. But I do get you don't want RP the shocked reaction everytime they meet new people.
So I am guessing you would not allow somebody to play with any type of physical deformities either? As that would also require similair RPing.
|
|
Physical deformities are easier to explain (and hide) than a race that people may or may not know exist.
Kitsune fall in the "Some races are so uncommon that their very existence may be the subject of debate. Living on the fringes of the wilderness, in hidden grottos deep beneath the surface, under the ocean waves, or among the clouds of the night sky, few members of these races hear the call of adventure."
Catfolk I understand aren't listed in the same way, but if you have a giant cat person walking around with you...I have played a few players who can pull it off but most of them tend toward either "I'm a cat! Tee Hee" or bad Thundercats impersonations.
Which is fine if you are running a campaign for that, but not fine if you are trying to run a campaign where your party would generally blend in.
Which is how I prefer to have most games run. Then I don't have to explain all the time that the BBEG figured out where they went by asking "Have you seen a giant cat person."
I prefer players who can find interesting things in people who exist in the setting we are playing, because we aren't likely to play that setting very often.
|
|
You too, huh? My playgroup mostly just puts me in the GM chair. A lot of the same qualities that make me an "unintentional problem player" are assets as the GM.there really are only two people who we have to put restrictions on, and I am one of them
The primary GM for our group can be a really annoying player because he gets bored with every thing he is running. He wants to run lots and lots of concepts, which is why it is better when he is in the GM chair.
If even after two weeks of prep time and one session of group character building a player STILL demands answers about why guns are banned then they are either willfully ignoring the thirtieth attempt to explain them OR they waited till the actual game was just about to start to ask as an attempt to derail the game start. EITHER WAY they are an entitlement player hoping to get their way by either using the limited remaining time to try to force their way or by using the 'endlessly argue a point till people want to hurt you' approach.
In which case you already explained it to them... That's more than nothing or the "I don't like it and that should be enough" that some people think is okay.
What happens if the GM doesn't meet your expectations?
Then I leave because he's being a jerk or I put up with it because its not worth my time. Most of my expectations are based on us being friends or at least playing the game together. I don't play with people who say my idea is "stupid". I walk out on those. You have expectations too right? That's how this whole entitlement thing comes along right?
Or the player could realize the GM doesn't like those kinds of things and so try and come up with something else.
You don't just not like something. Can't say that enough. That also puts a lot of blame on the player, and an expectation to just roll over.
What if that is what is wrong with your idea? Why isn't it enough to say "I don't want to run your concept" because maybe your concept doesn't meet the GMs expectations?
Then you say that and you add to it. Is that so hard? If the problem is that its too immature it could very likely be a problem player. You could also say it nicely such as "This is going to be a more serious campaign. Your gunslinger Vanara named Banjo won't fit in. Why would he even be adventuring with the grizzled war veteran over there? Why would the he accept him?" I'm not asking you to console them or to give them a multipage paper.
I have told GMs I'm not interested in the setting/system they are running, so I am going to sit out. They didn't require me to provide a detailed explanation of why, because why didn't matter.
If I didn't want to do it, they were not going to try and make me do it.
You are demanding the GM explain themselves, and you are saying that they can't be critical of the concept in the explanation because that is mean.
I am saying "Dude, if your GM doesn't want to run your idea, either get over it and come up with something else or bow out of that campaign."
When my GM say "Don't run that concept, this one is better" I don't worry about why he didn't like the first concept, I just start working on the one he liked.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't demand anything. Those are your words. Those are your values, and your words, but they are not what I said. When you keep saying you know what people say and mean how does anyone talk with you properly? You don't get meaning out of things when you just say you know what people think and are. You ask questions to find out.
In the same way, you can ask questions to find out about your friends and the like. Whether your on the DM's side or the player's side, this is communication about understanding. Are your values really "Well he should already know" and "Well I already know" because that doesn't always exist, its actually pretty rare and it can be wrong and simply asking a question can find out the truth.
You don't need to ask questions if your leaving. If I were DM I would totally ask "Hey what's wrong? I hate to leave you out." that's what friends do. They worry and care. If your leaving of course its easier not to give a reason, your gone. Your not a part of it for the duration, I might still ask why but its entirely different than shooting down a concept with a guy you your probably going to spend a few multi hour sessions playing the game with.
|
|
What happens if the GM doesn't meet your expectations?Then I leave because he's being a jerk or I put up with it because its not worth my time. Most of my expectations are based on us being friends or at least playing the game together. I don't play with people who say my idea is "stupid". I walk out on those. You have expectations too right? That's how this whole entitlement thing comes along right?
And yet you say you aren't demanding anything.
You are basically saying that if the GM doesn't find a way to fit your concept in, and they don't provide you a detailed explaination that meets your criteria for being a "good" reason, they are a jerk and you are walking away.
I am saying if your GM doesn't want to run a concept, you are the jerk for trying to make them run it rather than just coming up with another idea.
The "entitlement thing" is the player acting as if they are entitled to have a GM run exactly what they want, when they want it.
Which is basically what you are saying the GM has to do.
What happens if the GM doesn't meet your expectations?Then I leave because he's being a jerk or I put up with it because its not worth my time. Most of my expectations are based on us being friends or at least playing the game together. I don't play with people who say my idea is "stupid". I walk out on those. You have expectations too right? That's how this whole entitlement thing comes along right?
And yet you say you aren't demanding anything.
You are basically saying that if the GM doesn't find a way to fit your concept in, and they don't provide you a detailed explaination that meets your criteria for being a "good" reason, they are a jerk and you are walking away.
I am saying if your GM doesn't want to run a concept, you are the jerk for trying to make them run it rather than just coming up with another idea.
The "entitlement thing" is the player acting as if they are entitled to have a GM run exactly what they want, when they want it.
Which is basically what you are saying the GM has to do.
Your taking things out of this that just aren't there. How do you get "The GM has to run everything as the player wants it and and when they want it" out of that?
And you missed the whole point about how you shouldn't be telling me what I say. You just don't know it. Especially when you get correct constantly.
|
|
"Then I leave because he's being a jerk or I put up with it because its not worth my time."
Is what you said.
Your expectations are that the GM justify why they don't want it in the game, presumably so you can talk them out of it
How about you just take no for an answer?
How about you just try to find something that the GM would actually enjoy running rather than being selfish and making a stink out of it because they don't like your idea?
Why is that such a difficult thing for you to do, given you are outright saying the GM should change the setting to fit your snowflake of an idea, even if they don't like it and don't want to run it.
How selfish is that?
Why is that such a difficult thing for you to do, given you are outright saying the GM should change the setting to fit your snowflake of an idea, even if they don't like it and don't want to run it.
No one said this. Its disrespectful and it doesn't help anyone.
No one said this, I can't say that enough.
|
|
Why is that such a difficult thing for you to do, given you are outright saying the GM should change the setting to fit your snowflake of an idea, even if they don't like it and don't want to run it.No one said this. Its disrespectful and it doesn't help anyone.
No one said this, I can't say that enough.
You keep saying over and over "I don't like it is not enough of an answer"
Yes it is. It is all you need to know if you aren't being completely selfish.
You know that the GM, your friend, doesn't want your idea in the game.
So stop trying to force it in the game.
EDIT: Also several people have said the GM should change the setting to accommodate the concept. Several times. Most notably Rynjin.
Why is that such a difficult thing for you to do, given you are outright saying the GM should change the setting to fit your snowflake of an idea, even if they don't like it and don't want to run it.No one said this. Its disrespectful and it doesn't help anyone.
No one said this, I can't say that enough.
You keep saying over and over "I don't like it is not enough of an answer"
Yes it is. It is all you need to know if you aren't being completely selfish.
You know that the GM, your friend, doesn't want your idea in the game.
So stop trying to force it in the game.
EDIT: Also several people have said the GM should change the setting to accommodate the concept. Several times. Most notably Rynjin.
This is what Rynjin said. It is not cramming it down the GM's mouth or the gm has to do it or he's a terrible GM. Its that its not unreasonable to do accommodate certain things, but sometimes its entirely out. It is not "The GM should change the setting" at all.
"I don't like it" is short and doesn't tell me anything. Its not a very good reason. Sometimes its enough, but usually its not. If I'm about to go on a crazy adventure I want to know what I'm in for. If he tells me what's wrong I can accommodate. The GM is my friend, and I want to know what's wrong so I can accommodate. I don't bring 5 character sheets to the table prepared for anything. I put a lot of work and effort into my characters and I want to know what I need to do to fit best. The GM doesn't have to accommodate anything himself in this, but its nice when he's willing to talk or work with me on my own character. If he's not talking then we aren't communicating and that just leads to issues.
I'm not forcing anything. That's your word. You can't force anything.
So what happens when the GM explains and you don't think the explanation is a good one?Why is that such a difficult thing for you to do, given you are outright saying the GM should change the setting to fit your snowflake of an idea, even if they don't like it and don't want to run it.No one said this. Its disrespectful and it doesn't help anyone.
No one said this, I can't say that enough.
Then I don't like it and I move on. I might ask a few questions about his logic so I can understand, but its not like I can change him or anything. Did you think I would sit and argue with him just to be annoying or push my idea?
So what happens when the GM explains and you don't think the explanation is a good one?
Same thing that happens any time two people disagree about anything.
Look, this has nothing to do with this game or any other game; it's basic interpersonal interaction. There aren't hard-and-fast rules for how to talk to people. You just try not to be a jerk. That means, on the player's part, understanding when the DM is so tripped out over something that they've blown a gasket and somehow cannot or will not talk rationally to you; you have to let them cool off. Understand that occasionally you just won't be able to come to an agreement, and if so, it's considered good sportsmanship to let him win. Play something else for now, or, if they're totally caught up in their power-tripping, then play in a different game.
On the DM's part, that means understanding that the players are your peers. The players are not your subordinates. They are not your inferiors. In real life, before the game even starts, you are not entitled to exert absolute authority over them. As tiresome as it is, you might actually have to actually reason with them, and/or treat them as equals. When game play is actually going on, and you are adjudicating the rules during play, then your word will be law; until then, you're no more "special" than they are.
|
|
Saying no isn't blowing a gasket.
Saying no is saying "In the imaginary world we are planning on playing in, I would rather not include that particular idea, so can you think of another idea?"
My table has zero conflict over this issue specifically because it is understood that the goal is to get a concept everyone likes, and to check your ego at the door about having to play a specific concept or idea.
We put the GM in charge specifically so there is someone who can made that call, so that we have a fun game that we will all enjoy. It is the job of the GM to encourage players toward ideas that work for the entire group and for whatever campaign you are running, so that things go smoothly once the game starts, because no one has to adjust anything about the approved concept in order to play with each other, in the setting.
Stop inserting conflict into the conversation. It isn't there unless the player is inflexible about running one and only one concept.
@mrsin - When you say "I don't like it" isn't a good enough explanation, yes I am assuming you are going to keep pushing the issue.
I don't like it is more than enough, because part of your goal in making a character should include "Something the GM will enjoy running and the other people at the table will enjoy playing with"
So when you find out you didn't reach that goal with that concept, pick another one.
Stop inserting conflict into the conversation. It isn't there unless the player is inflexible about running one and only one concept.
Yes, obviously if the players just all accept their subordinate status and stop questioning authority, there will be no conflict! The thing is, until game play actually starts, the DM has no more authority than any other person. I could as easily tell you, "Stop inserting conflict into the conversation! It isn't there unless the DM is inflexible about accommodating the players' wishes."
But I'm not saying that. I'm saying the players (including the DM) need to work together on that stuff. No player gets to say "My way goes. Period!" And until the game is actually in session, no DM is advised to say "My way goes. Period!"
|
|
On the flip side, knowing what about it the GM doesn't like. If I've come up with a Kitsune gunslinger it's nice to know if the GM is opposed to the Kitsune part or the gunslinger part. That'll effect what other concepts I suggest. Maybe I'm not tied to the Kitsune, but really wanted the gunslinger. Or vice versa.
Which is fine, but you aren't entitled to a detailed debate about if Kitsune could be included and why you are a bad or uncreative GM for not trying to find a way to make it work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying no isn't blowing a gasket.
If he's unable or unwilling to actually talk to the other people at the table, as opposed to issuing edicts without any reasons behind them, then yes, I feel that he sort of has. He can issue vetoes, but only after actually hearing the person out and weighing whether any part of their proposal can be salvaged. If it can't, then you can always say no. Until then, it's far more respectful to hold off.
Which is fine, but you aren't entitled to a detailed debate about if Kitsune could be included and why you are a bad or uncreative GM for not trying to find a way to make it work.
Nor is the DM entitled to shut things down arbitrarily, in my view, without seeing if there's a way to make them work. (Well, he can, but then the players should leave, because in my experience that's a DM with serious authority issues.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying no is saying "In the imaginary world we are planning on playing in, I would rather not include that particular idea, so can you think of another idea?"
Actually its saying no. Its just saying no with no additional details if you just say no.
My table has zero conflict over this issue specifically because it is understood that the goal is to get a concept everyone likes, and to check your ego at the door about having to play a specific concept or idea.
Okay... That applies to your table, not everyone else. Usually everyone checks their ego and cares about everyone at the table. It would be hard to socialize if we didn't. This is also quite fantastic and I'm not sure if that's how it always works. Your telling me you all have never questioned each other because if one person says no its enough, without any further question?
We put the GM in charge specifically so there is someone who can made that call, so that we have a fun game that we will all enjoy. It is the job of the GM to encourage players toward ideas that work for the entire group and for whatever campaign you are running, so that things go smoothly once the game starts, because no one has to adjust anything about the approved concept in order to play with each other, in the setting.
This is your table. Not every table. You have chosen to give the GM control. You then go on to say its his job to do what you just said everyone does naturally. These are your values. They don't apply to everyone.
@mrsin - When you say "I don't like it" isn't a good enough explanation, yes I am assuming you are going to keep pushing the issue.
I don't like it is more than enough, because part of your goal in making a character should include "Something the GM will enjoy running and the other people at the table will enjoy playing with"
So when you find out you didn't reach that goal with that concept, pick another one.
Its very presumptuous to assume that, and again its that thing where you say you know what people think and are.
When they start asking questions its to help fit the setting and find out why you don't like it. Its a form of caring, not malevolence. Giving the ultimatum "I play this or nothing!" is malevolent, but that's not what is being suggested.
Your last statement goes back to the "but I didn't know what was wrong the first time..." moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is fine, but you aren't entitled to a detailed debate about if Kitsune could be included and why you are a bad or uncreative GM for not trying to find a way to make it work.
Maybe not bad or uncreative; maybe just too lazy. Or too caught up on "it's MY imaginary game and not your imaginary game!" Or too unable to relate to people as peers.
Or, maybe there's a very valid story reason, in which case the DM could just, you know, explain that instead of shutting down the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's the one who's going to run the game. Sure, the players have to agree to play in it and he should be trying to come up with something they'll want to play.
Exactly so. Shutting down character concepts is therefore ideally a group decision thing, not a unilateral one. The DM is the guy who is going to run the game, after everyone agrees on it. And that includes character concepts and everything else. Until then, he's obligated to listen, or else he's not trying to come up with something they want to play; he's only insisting they go along with what he wants to play.