This whole thread reminds me of an exchange among the British, early on in Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans:
Major Heyward: "The crown, negotiating the terms of service??!"
General Webb: "Yes, one must reason with these colonials to get them to do anything. Tiresome, but that's the lay of the land."
I would say that this thread should just end with us all agreeing to disagree, but I'm relatively sure that half the participants would demand an explanation of WHY we disagree. :P
No more so than the other half would be told that we have to agree, or else. "Respect my authoritay!"
|
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.)
If the setting is agreed to it isn't arbitrary. And presumably the setting is agreed to or no game is happening.
The GM didn't show up at your house with a gun and say "WE ARE PLAYING PIRATES!!!"
The GM asked his friends if they would like to play a game. The GM described the game, or more likely even asked the group to choose from a menu of options.
So now the GM actually, crazy as it sounds, wants to play the game that the group agreed to let them run. Maybe they are excited about exploring what is a given setting in a given campaign.
And you know what, maybe so are the other players who picked that GM and that setting.
So when Joe the outlier comes in with a concept that doesn't fit, maybe Joe is the one who needs to make adjustments to fit in. Maybe the GM already spent time explaining the setting to the group and Joe is kind of being an ass by not wanting to play what everyone else agreed to play because Joe wants to be a Catperson or a Fox person.
Or maybe Joe doesn't want to be a Catperson in an all Catperson campaign, because that happens to.
Maybe the player should be trying to fit in. Because the GM has to adapt a game to fit 4 players already, by default, and having one of those players cause a disruption is kind of a pain in the butt for everyone.
Now fortunately Kirth and I screen out players who aren't going to try to make the game fun for everyone and who aren't going to say things like "It is ok if you say no" before they ask for weird things, and actually mean "It is ok to say no"
But not everyone apparently realizes that it is ok for the GM to say no.
Because in most groups the GM ran the setting and concept by the group before they were permitted to run the game. So maybe they actually think the players should propose ideas that would fit based on the explanation they already got approved, by the group.
Because, hello, the GM has to get approval of concept first.
|
|
I would say that this thread should just end with us all agreeing to disagree, but I'm relatively sure that half the participants would demand an explanation of WHY we disagree. :PNo more so than the other half would be told that we have to agree, or else. "Respect my authoritay!"
So a GM who has an idea they want to run that is squashed by the party is entitled to get a detailed explanation of why each player doesn't want to let them run?
And "I don't like the idea" isn't good enough?
Every GM has to convince a group to let them run at all, and then even further to let them run a given concept for a campaign. They already got that approval from at least 4 people.
Why at that point can't the GM be allowed to approve the builds? They had to get approval to run, didn't they?
You are acting like the GM held a Coup d'eat of the group and now are ruling like a military dictator.
They got selected by the group to run what they discussed running. If one person doesn't like it, then they should get out of the way of the rest of the groups fun.
|
|
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.How much of that happens during the initial discussion? And how much waits until character creation?
If we've agreed on a particular game concept, is there really a need to renegotiate that during character creation?
Or are you treating both of those as the same thing?
100% my point.
As a GM I had to get approval of concept from at least 4 people to even have a game happen.
Now that everyone presumably agrees to run the concept, if someone shows up with something that doesn't meet the concept all of the other players selected to play, that person is the problem, not the GM.
When my buddy asked the group to run a Kitsune campaign, and the group said "Yeah, that sounds cool, lets do that" my buddy wasn't the problem if I show up with a non-kitsune.
I am.
|
|
A GM with a fledgling campaign concept in my opinion should accept input on its flavor, in some measure via the characters who will inhabit it, far more readily than one whose milieu is long-established, whose tone is carefully modulated, and whose history is already a tapestry rather than a patch or even a thread. It's not exclusively about consideration; it has to be about compatibility, as well.
And many of us feel like a GM with a fledgling campaign concept is a GM we aren't really interested in putting in charge of a game we are playing in.
If you don't know your world, how well are you going to be able to convey it to us?
EDIT: Or adapt when we do the unexpected.
I would think that if the players all have things they want to play, then they'd want a setting that would include them. Ideally, everyone would then agree on a game that includes as many of those things as possible, but is still tight enough to satisfy everyone on that account. And, yes, again, there would need to be discussion and give-and-take, there's not a hard and fast rule.
"The DM runs the setting everyone agrees on," is certainly how I like to do things -- but it's specifically NOT the way I've been told by people on this thread that they do things. A couple of people explained how they send out invitations saying, basically, "I'm running a pirates game. Period. In or out?"
(Personally, if I got something like that, I'd say "out!" before the electrons in my in-box stopped moving, but some people might not realize that an invite like that usually means "I will be absorbed in my own ideas and you can come and watch.")
So. if you're all discussing the setting, I'd think character concepts would be a part of that, not a totally separate exercise. If you're not even getting to discuss the setting, then I'm really not sure why anyone would even get to the character ideas part, but apparently a lot of people are very willing to stop thinking and just obey.
But if a GM wants to run a pirate setting, and people agree to play in a pirate setting, it isn't unreasonable to expect players to bring pirates as concepts.
Sure, and when I was in the Army, it was expected that I shut up and follow orders. That's part of what you're signing up for. But if you're invited to a game, and then told to shut up and follow orders... that's not such a good thing.
But if a GM wants to run a pirate setting, and people agree to play in a pirate setting, it isn't unreasonable to expect players to bring pirates as concepts.
If we are playing pirates can I be the ship's chaplain trying to redeem all of you sinners?
|
|
Part of the difference may also be if you have "a" group or you are part of a gaming community.
Right now we have 4 GM's each running multiple games with between 8 and 10 players. And that is just the core group, not counting each persons side groups and games.
Making a game for everyone in the group isn't a goal. It's actually a problem at times, because you can't run effectively past 6 people.
I don't want you to join unless you actually want to play what is being run. And if you don't, please don't take the slot that could be filled by someone who does want to play it.
|
|
But if a GM wants to run a pirate setting, and people agree to play in a pirate setting, it isn't unreasonable to expect players to bring pirates as concepts.If we are playing pirates can I be the ship's chaplain trying to redeem all of you sinners?
Is it one of the 6 best concepts that applies for a slot?
That concept wouldn't bother me, but I'd have to see what else was proposed and if it would cause conflict in the party.
|
|
But if a GM wants to run a pirate setting, and people agree to play in a pirate setting, it isn't unreasonable to expect players to bring pirates as concepts.Sure, and when I was in the Army, it was expected that I shut up and follow orders. That's part of what you're signing up for. But if you're invited to a game, and then told to shut up and follow orders... that's not such a good thing.
Yes but you aren't invited to a game in my mind. You had to agree to participate in a game in order for the game to happen.
The GM's I play with have had more ideas for campaigns not accepted by the group than accepted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you know, it means he wants to run a game about pirates and you'll have a ton of freedom with that theme.
I'm sure this isn't always true, but more often than not in my experience, with a DM who refuses to even hear you out, that "ton of freedom" translates to "play what he already has in mind for you."
How that has usually gone, in the past:DM: "Pirates campaign. Core rules only."
Me: "Pirates? Cool!" (Yeah, core rules only is a lazy way to go, but no big deal; I can live with that. So I stick to Core rules, thinking I'll be OK.)
DM: "Let me review your ideas."
Me: "I have an elf barbarian..."
DM: "I told you pirates! We all agreed on pirates!"
Me: "He's an elf barbarian pirate. Hear me out..."
DM: "There's nothing to listen to! You're just trying to ruin the game!"
Me: "An elf fighter?"
DM: "What part of 'pirates' do you not understand?"
Me: "I don't understand what your stereotype of what a 'pirate' is that I'm being held to. Can elves not be pirates? Can a barbarian not be a pirate? What are the limitations?"
DM: "You have to be a pirate!!!!!!!!"
Me: "Uh, thanks for your time."
Do your games always start as a complete blank slate?
Usually someone will propose an idea, and maybe it gets kicked around, and we narrow it with discussion, or find a new idea that people like better, or combine the two... and eventually we have a campaign idea that people are happy about. For anything we didn't discuss up front, they know we'll actually listen to their ideas, and if the group is OK with something a bit unusual, we'll try and accommodate it.
|
|
@Kirth -
This is my experience
DM - "Want to run a new campaign, basic theme of either "X", "Y" or "Z"
Group "(Majority) prefer "X"
DM - Ok, "X" is in this setting. Here is either a detailed description of the setting or a copy of a setting book. Send me some concepts for approval
Group - (Each person sends 3 or 4 rough ideas to DM and amoung each other seeking synergies, combined concepts, etc...)
DM - (Collects all the ideas, e-mails people for clarifications, then says which ones they think work best given what everyone else wants to play and the setting, as well as which ones don't work, generally all by email)
Group - "Awesome" (email each other what they are playing, talk about how everyone will know each other/fit in)
DM - Writes the story to have hooks for everyone.
Happy group, fun campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you come out with a viking dwarf ninja with severe aquaphobia you deserve to get spartan kicked in the chest.
Just to point out the obvious, Vikings were pirates. "To go viking" meant to get on a ship and go pillage other ships and/or coastal towns.
And, historically, most pirates couldn't swim.
So, really by "pirates," you meant, "1650's-era pirates like in the movies, the way I picture them,but with no guns and stuff." The thing is, unless you bother to communicate that, no one knows what you meant except you. Therefore, "the player is not entitled to an explanation" means "the player is required to read my mind."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compromise has come to be used as a euphemism for 'shut up and accept my position'.
When we all know it's really supposed to mean "shut up and accept my position instead!"
The idea that the two people could actually talk about whether east or west is a better way to go, or why, is obviously impossible. One person has to "be in charge," right? And the other person needs to learn to obey who's in authority. Because, in real life, we all know there is only dominance or submission, right?
This is an issue with modern culture.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
@Kirth -
This is my experience
DM - "Want to run a new campaign, basic theme of either "X", "Y" or "Z"
Group "(Majority) prefer "X"
DM - Ok, "X" is in this setting. Here is either a detailed description of the setting or a copy of a setting book. Send me some concepts for approval
Group - ( Each person sends 3 or 4 rough ideas to DM and amoung each other seeking synergies, combined concepts, etc...)
DM - (Collects all the ideas, e-mails people for clarifications, then says which ones they think work best given what everyone else wants to play and the setting, as well as which ones don't work, generally all by email)
Group - "Awesome" (email each other what they are playing, talk about how everyone will know each other/fit in)
DM - Writes the story to have hooks for everyone.Happy group, fun campaign.
That's different. We don't send 3 to 4 concepts, we send first choice. If needs be we move to second round picks. In my experience telling more than the first choice will cause the GM to pick the one the player least wants to play. Creating the most fun for the GM, but lesser amounts for the players. Also whoever is in the GM chair we can play "x" new idea, or "y" ongoing campaign world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Kirth, why is your group putting the Tyrant in charge?
This is the part I don't get. Becoming the GM is the hardest job at the table.
Some people here talk as if being GM is a herculean task only heroes of legend are capable of performing, when my current group regularly takes turns running as GM with little to no problems. I see it usually used as an argument against "entitled players", where it's basically "you guys don't appreciate the fact that I did all this hard work" when I as a GM already know it's not that insane a task, and neither has any other GM at my table made such claims.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh we tell the GM what is first choice also, but that doesn't mean our first choice is the best for the group.
I never send a concept I don't want to play, and I've yet to have a setting where I only had one concept I wanted to play.
Generally speaking the campaign is going to be in Golarion if it is Pathfinder or Forgotten Realms if it is 3.5, within the same canon but in different parts of the world (at least as starting points). But we have had GMs run Dark Heresy, Mutants and Masterminds, Warcraft RPG, D20 Modern, a touch of Call of Cthultu, Microlite and now one GM is trying to get us to try the Dragons Age RPG.
It is the GM's job to convince players to come to a game they are running, so we don't have any tyrants. But it is understood if you agree to play in a game, you will actually come with the intention of playing that game.
|
|
Some people here talk as if being GM is a herculean task only heroes of legend are capable of performing...Also, Kirth, why is your group putting the Tyrant in charge?
This is the part I don't get. Becoming the GM is the hardest job at the table.
Who?
You are projecting. No one is saying that.
Is it harder to GM than to be a player? Yes. Is there more work for the GM, yes?
So should that be part of the consideration? Yes.
But on target, again who is putting the Tyrant in charge? If you have multiple GMs, why would the GM be able to get the GM stick if people think they are being a tyrant?
But on target, again who is putting the Tyrant in charge? If you have multiple GMs, why would the GM be able to get the GM stick if people think they are being a tyrant?
...if we think he/she would be a tyrant, said person doesn't get the GM stick altogether.
Yeah, this seriously just feels like a trick question to me. I wonder what others have to say about this, though.
|
|
But on target, again who is putting the Tyrant in charge? If you have multiple GMs, why would the GM be able to get the GM stick if people think they are being a tyrant?It sounds like a trick question to me, so I don't see a point in providing an answer. I am curious to see what others have to say, though.
How is it a trick question? Because it refutes your argument it is a "trick"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people here talk as if being GM is a herculean task only heroes of legend are capable of performing, when my current group regularly takes turns running as GM with little to no problems. I see it usually used as an argument against "entitled players", where it's basically "you guys don't appreciate the fact that I did all this hard work" when I as a GM already know it's not that insane a task, and neither has any other GM at my table made such claims.Also, Kirth, why is your group putting the Tyrant in charge?
This is the part I don't get. Becoming the GM is the hardest job at the table.
Being the GM IS a herculean task only heroes of legend are capable of performing. We are gods walking the earth, and we bow to no players, err..., I mean mortals. Offend me, and I will watch you suffer in agony, puny player, I mean mortal.
Oh. Hold on. This is Pathfinder. My bad.
you are forcing the GM to essentially run a single setting
What is wrong with running a single setting. I have two settings that I like to run, and I am very good at. I really don't like to GM outside of those, and it's not an "out of my comfort zone" thing, either. If somebody wants to play something else, somebody else can GM. And maybe I can play. That is totally not unreasonable.
|
|
Some people here talk as if being GM is a herculean task only heroes of legend are capable of performing, when my current group regularly takes turns running as GM with little to no problems. I see it usually used as an argument against "entitled players", where it's basically "you guys don't appreciate the fact that I did all this hard work" when I as a GM already know it's not that insane a task, and neither has any other GM at my table made such claims.Also, Kirth, why is your group putting the Tyrant in charge?
This is the part I don't get. Becoming the GM is the hardest job at the table.
Being the GM IS a herculean task only heroes of legend are capable of performing. We are gods walking the earth, and we bow to no players, err..., I mean mortals. Offend me, and I will watch you suffer in agony, puny player, I mean mortal.
Oh. Hold on. This is Pathfinder. My bad.
I know, those poor players being beaten into submission, tied to their chairs with absolutely no recourse but to accept the brutality...(wait, can't they stop playing that game and pick someone else to run)
NO RECOURSE! VICTIMS!
GMing is much harder/more time consuming than playing. I don't see how there is debate to that.
Not harder, but more time consuming. Way way way more time consuming.
|
|
you are forcing the GM to essentially run a single settingWhat is wrong with running a single setting. I have two settings that I like to run, and I am very good at. I really don't like to GM outside of those, and it's not an "out of my comfort zone" thing, either. If somebody wants to play something else, somebody else can GM. And maybe I can play. That is totally not unreasonable.
What he is saying is if a player demands to play only one concept (and also demands to be in the game...) then the GM must play what that one player is saying they want to play...in spite of the fact that the rest of the group signed on for something else.
Except apparently groups pick tyrants to run their games, and have no recourse.
Because, you know, if anyone says no to you ever...
I know, those poor players being beaten into submission, tied to their chairs with absolutely no recourse but to accept the brutality...(wait, can't they stop playing that game and pick someone else to run)NO RECOURSE! VICTIMS!
I have been told that is me running mutants and masterminds.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMing is much harder/more time consuming than playing. I don't see how there is debate to that.Not harder, but more time consuming. Way way way more time consuming.
You can work the fields with ox and plow if you want, but you're not going to get more respect from me for refusing to use a tractor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Group - (Each person sends 3 or 4 rough ideas to DM and amoung each other seeking synergies, combined concepts, etc...)
This is something your group does. Not everyone else's. It doesn't apply to everyone.
My group tend to sit in a circle on a "make your character" day or such and we all make our character then(whoever can make it anyway. If you can't its email). There have been a few times that I've been told to make one on the spot and those are usually my most awful. I like being able to be there for feedback and to get a better gist of the campaign myself.
Rynjin has been sorta consistent in what he thinks is OK or not ok, it's just I draw the line in a different place. He is ok with the GM banning astromech droids in middle earth, but he's not Ok banning ninjas in Camelot.
Except they aren't ninjas. They're bandits that jump down from the bushes using throwing knives. They might toss out some bombs I guess, but that's not really crazy. Its pretty easy to use something and keep the flavor of the setting. Ninja is merely a title.
How is it a trick question? Because it refutes your argument it is a "trick"?But on target, again who is putting the Tyrant in charge? If you have multiple GMs, why would the GM be able to get the GM stick if people think they are being a tyrant?It sounds like a trick question to me, so I don't see a point in providing an answer. I am curious to see what others have to say, though.
Its a loaded question. In all answers there is a tyrant that has been put in charge. If he answers he admits there is a tyrant. If he doesn't answer, there isn't a tyrant that is being put in charge.
GMing is much harder/more time consuming than playing. I don't see how there is debate to that.
Depends on your GMing style and who your with. Some GMs don't really think its any work at all. Some really don't do any work. Sometimes its something that consumes their very lives. People are different. Some players aren't invested at all, others are totally lost, others let it consume their daily lives and it takes hours to make a single character and his 20 page backstory. People can be very different.