Removed a bunch of sarcastic personal back-and-forth. This isn't the place for it.
|
You still haven't explained why you can't run a concept by your GM before you fall in love with it and stat it up.The GM ran his game by me right?
Yes, they did? They actually had to get approval from you to run the game, as without you (or at least without 4 other people) the GM can't run the game.
Why is it to much for you to do the same? Why is it to much for you to run a concept, or better yet a few concepts, by them before you set it in stone and then demand they explain why they won't let your concept in, or you are going to walk.
And stop playing the "harsh" line when you are basically saying the GM is a jerk if they don't meet your "expectations" (aka demands).
You can claim the high ground all you like, but you don't actually occupy it.
Yes, they did? They actually had to get approval from you to run the game, as without you (or at least without 4 other people) the GM can't run the game.
Why is it to much for you to do the same? Why is it to much for you to run a concept, or better yet a few concepts, by them before you set it in stone and then demand they explain why they won't let your concept in, or you are going to walk
You didn't quote get the rest of that paragraph. It was about how we all run things by each other, and how much power the GM has varies between groups.
I didn't say you don't run a concept by them. Nor that you get set in stone and that should be the only one. I also didn't say you can't run a few by, I actually said that's okay and that works better for some people. I never said this was an ultimatum where you take my concept or I walk.
And stop playing the "harsh" line when you are basically saying the GM is a jerk if they don't meet your "expectations" (aka demands).
You can claim the high ground all you like, but you don't actually occupy it.
Don't know where you get any of that. So its hard to respond to it. I'm not demanding anything. I don't claim any high ground. Accusations are also unnecessary.
|
|
I didn't quote the rest because the relevant point was you make the GM get approval from you, but you aren't willing to give the same in return.
You have said the GM must explain why they reject a concept, and "I don't want to run it" is not a good enough answer for you, and if they don't give you a "good enough answer" you are going to walk.
You said that was what you would do if they don't give you a good enough explanation.
At the same time, you are saying that asking for more than one concept from a player who has agreed to let the GM run a setting that the player approved is too much to ask.
Edit: didnt mean to quote anybody
How much info on the proposed game a player has can help. In a perfect world it should look something like this.
1. GM and players decide on a game concept and setting. At this time certain should be understood by the players as unacceptable. Ex. Paladins in a pirate game, space aliens in middle earth, or even the basic no playing a lender in Ebberon. Lets just use an Ebberon game of sky pirates as an example.
2. Players start working either collectively or independently on characters. Some need no approval playing a human fighter who uses a rapier and weapon finesse for instance. Others however might let's say a player likes gunslingers but guns aren't in Ebberon, however it's a very good place either for a new discovery of them or for them to be lost artifacts. The player should contact the GM (preferably giving a short bit of reasonong to help the gm with his choice) before making the character and plan for a backup.
3. GM gives answer either allowing it as is or with modifications, or saying no and at least firing off a short reason. Ebberon doesn't have guns works here. At this point being as the guns aren't supported the player could ask if could apply class features to crossbows instead and drop touch attacks for something else, or go with his backup.
4. Enjoy the game.
This is how things go when I get a group going to play. I've had a few issues but usually I can make a few changes to make you work as long as your not trying to break setting or theme just to be a dick.
I didn't quote the rest because the relevant point was you make the GM get approval from you, but you aren't willing to give the same in return.
The rest was still important. If everyone gets approval from everyone then you are willing to give the same back. Where are you getting this?
You have said the GM must explain why they reject a concept, and "I don't want to run it" is not a good enough answer for you, and if they don't give you a "good enough answer" you are going to walk.
You said that was what you would do if they don't give you a good enough explanation.
I've said that its helpful and he should. Not that he absolutely has to. I have also stated that "I don't want to" and "I don't like it" don't tell me at all as to why. I've said its incredibly disrespectful and unhelpful to have a lack of communication, and that as friends we should be able to have that. I've said that if he doesn't I'm going to personally leave because that means we'll run into trouble down the line because we've already had a communication issue.
At the same time, you are saying that asking for more than one concept from a player who has agreed to let the GM run a setting that the player approved is too much to ask.
If a GM says "Give me a few of the ideas you've had" I'm going to tell him what's on my mind. If the GM demands a few when I give him one I'm going to ask "Well whats wrong with the first?" and if he doesn't give me any input I then have an issue. If I really don't have any other ideas on me at the moment because its been a rough night or whatever then he's probably out of luck.
I also didn't say it was asking for too much, and I just said that in my last post.
On the other hand, your telling me its asking for too much to ask for a reason why something was rejected beyond "I am the DM and I don't like it". That doesn't give me input really.
|
|
If a GM says "Give me a few of the ideas you've had" I'm going to tell him what's on my mind. If the GM demands a few when I give him one I'm going to ask "Well whats wrong with the first?" and if he doesn't give me any input I then have an issue. If I really don't have any other ideas on me at the moment because its been a rough night or whatever then he's probably out of luck.
I also didn't say it was asking for too much, and I just said that in my last post.
On the other hand, your telling me its asking for too much to ask for a reason why something was rejected beyond "I am the DM and I don't like it". That doesn't give me input really.
So again, the GM has to accept your idea or you are going to "have an issue", as you've already said "I don't like it" and "It doesn't fit the setting" aren't good enough reasons for you.
And now you say you can't come up with more ideas, but the GM has to figure out a way to fit your idea in.
I guess they aren't entitled to "a rough night or whatever" but you are...
If the DM doesn't want to run your idea, why do you get to make them run it because you are having "a rough night"
Isn't that they don't want to run your idea enough of a reason for you to have a bit of courtesy and think of at least a few options?
I know we are going in circles here, but it is because you keep putting expectations on the GM that you yourself are unwilling to meet.
but the GM has to figure out a way to fit your idea in.
I guess they aren't entitled to "a rough night or whatever" but you are...
If the DM doesn't want to run your idea, why do you get to make them run it because you are having "a rough night"
Without responding to anything else, where are you getting any of this? I said none of this.
I know we are going in circles here, but it is because you keep putting expectations on the GM that you yourself are unwilling to meet.
Of course you get this result if you add in all that. I didn't say any of it though! Its not my opinion. Its not what I do. Why do I need to tell you "I didn't say that" every time you respond to me!?
First I tried ciretose's campaign, but it was too hard.
Then I tried kirth's campaign, but it was too soft.
But then I tried Sophie's Campaign, and it was just right.
Seriously, some of what is being said is so out on a semantic limb, I feel like I got left three counties back.
And none of the people who are confusing me now were confusing me earlier.
|
|
I literally quoted you. You said "If I really don't have any other ideas on me at the moment because its been a rough night or whatever then he's probably out of luck."
So you show up with one concept, that you haven't run by the GM, and if they don't like it, they are out of luck.
But the GM has to weave magic to make that concept work somehow, or explain to you why they can't, but they can't say anything "mean".
How about this. How about if you are going to agree to play in a game, aka give the GM approval of the GMs concept, you run a few ideas by the GM before you show up and say "Take it or leave it, I'm having a rough night or whatever".
How about if you are "Having a rough night or whatever." you bow out of the game rather than make the GM run the concept, or waste everyone's time trying to change the GM's mind, or just tell him his reasons aren't good enough.
Why is it so damn hard to run things by your GM? The GM ran the concept by you for approval, why can't you give the same courtesy?
How about this. Be creative and have more than one idea. And while you are at it, try to come up with ideas that your friend, the GM, the person you gave permission to run a game, will actually like playing.
How about be considerate.
Why is this hard to do? I gave you what my group does, we never, I repeat, never have a problem with this. 4 GM's, 8 to 12 players, this is never, ever a problem.
Why?
Because everyone comes up with more than one thing they want to play rather than being selfish and demanding explanation and justification for why my one and only idea is one the GM doesn't want to run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this hard to do? I gave you what my group does, we never, I repeat, never have a problem with this. 4 GM's, 8 to 12 players, this is never, ever a problem.
Why?
At a guess, probably because most people will go along with something they don't really agree with, if it means avoiding conflict. If they know you don't want to hear requests and won't listen to any dissent, they'll do what you want because it's not worth it to them to argue.
I literally quoted you. You said "If I really don't have any other ideas on me at the moment because its been a rough night or whatever then he's probably out of luck."
The parts in quotes were the ones I had trouble with. Its the additional information your adding, the things I didn't say at all but your adding in and claiming to be mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.
I agree with Talonhawke. And how great can a game be if the limits ARE arbitrary and/or misinformed?
What are you projecting, because it clearly has nothing to do with anything that I have said.
I am not projecting...yet you always assume the player is in the wrong...what are you projecting?
If you don't want to play the setting a GM (Note I didn't say your GM, which implies ownership) don't play.
But if you do play, and the GM says your concept doesn't fit, change it or don't play.
Because we disagree on how a concept works? Maybe the failure is the GM fail to properly communicate his campaign world? My stance is that the GM can(and would so more likely) be at fault here at time in supposed 'player entitlement' cases.
Not because they "hate with the passion of a thousand firery suns" but because coming up with another concept shouldn't be hard to do if you are creative, and you agreed to play in the setting when you picked that GM to run that setting when they asked if you wanted to play that setting.
Do people really have that much difficulty coming up with multiple concepts?
If you don't like something enough that it would literaly destroy your fun...and you can't explain than yes it is irrational hate. Rationale hate is something you can explain.
As for number of concept vs level of creativity...sorry that is a pretty much wrong. I know a guy who creates and builds one concept with alot of depth and orginality he just can only focus at one on at a time...the other guy I know runs around with a binder filled with concepts that are just rip offs of characters in movies and builds stolen from online. Who is the more creative?
I personaly don't...but because somebody does does not mean they should be called dumb, uncreative, a 'problem' player.
I agree with Talonhawke. And how great can a game be if the limits ARE arbitrary and/or misinformed?
Well that can't happen because the GM can't mess up because its his game and his work or because the players wouldn't play with him otherwise... or something like that. That seems to be where that argument leads if I remember my history correctly.
Some limits are pretty arbitrary or misinformed. I think a few pages back there was the example of all ninjas wearing PJs because that's important to the class's flavor or your just not a ninja. Google was used as a defense. I thought that was pretty far on the side of misinformed. The shinobi shozoku outfit is more of a theatre prop than anything. Its part of the fantasy, but not even close to real life and I wouldn't limit the ninja class to that. Its sort of like saying if you do let the ninja play he has to wear PJs or he falls and loses all his class features.
I personaly don't...but because somebody does does not mean they should be called dumb, uncreative, a 'problem' player.
This I totally agree with. Not big into hateful speech. Said it much more nicely than I would've.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fantastic thing about how we do it at our table is that there is not even a concept of gm or player entitlement/authority because until all of the people at the table agree on both
then up to that point there officially 'isnt a game yet', so there's also officially no 'game master'. Only once the whole table is on board with what kind of setting/theme it is and who's going to play what does the game actually exist and a gm be chosen. At no point does 'arbitration of the rules' fall exclusively on his shoulders, but at that point he does take firm control of the setting and npcs. He never has authority to veto a character concept because until he and everyone else at the table have already approved all character concepts, the game didnt exist for him to master... By the time he's in charge, those conversations have already been had. Assigning a gm is never the first step in the process. It's always the last. Every players veto power has equal weight and nobody has more power to say 'I dont like that idea' than anyone else.
If one guy shows up to the table and says "I'd like to run a pirate campaign"
and the next guy says that sounds like fun. i'd like to run a tengu gunslinger in that one...
Any player could say 'yeah. i'm not sure i'd enjoy that' including potential gms.
And poof. The whole table has to hash it out as equals and come to a compromise or put it on the shelf.
If 4 players say 'no actually his tengu gunslinger pirate idea actually sounds kinda fun'
The prospective gm still has the ability to say 'yeah, i just couldn't enjoy running that'
Then maybe you ask if he'd want to be a player in it and if someone else would want to run it... whatever... You hash it out like equals or you put it on the shelf.
Its not about authority and entitlement. Its about freedom and choice.
Every person at the table has the right, freedom, and choice to run/play what they want how they want alongside who they want until there's not enough other people at the table who agree with it for the campaign to actually run. Nobody forces anybody to do anything they don't like.
Everyone is on board, or its not a gaming table. Its just a table full of gamers.
thats not to say our policy is a field of roses...
Sometimes what that means is you're the one dissenting player with 5 other guys who want to do what you don't want to do... You still have the right, freedom and choice to either go with it or not go with it.... You may be the one dissenting gm with 5 other players who want things to be ran a different way and you still have the right, choice and freedom to say nah... Someone else can run that one...
.
If you have trouble with 'authoritative or entitled' players or gms, then you simply need to match their level of personal conviciton... They have the conviction of saying
- 'I only play the games I want to play, how I like to play them, with whom I like to play them, but more than anything else...
- I'm happy not to play if I can't have that, because I'd rather be a happy gamer than be subjected to a campaign that I don't find fun.'
Thats not a wrongbad conviction to have. And for some people the thing that 'takes away their fun' can seem inconsequential, arbitrary, 'stalinist', deutchy, or even silly to you. And maybe you're totally right about that. But that isnt about you. Its about every person at the table being a happy gamer in their own way. Everyone has to decide if they like gaming enough to comprimise or not. Some have the charisma to make a table work with them and some don't. Some have the imagination and flexibility to work with any table and some don't. Some find that their tastes are in line with the others at their table, and others find that they'll never be happy with the group they're in.
And that can suck. But its better than burning 10 hours per weekend in a campaign you dont like, or 40 hours a week designing a fantastic world that not enough players care about, or 4000 hours designing your swan song magnum opus campaign just to have a bunch of construction worker catgirls craftily capture it and cram it in a combine, and thats not just the alliteration talking. Nothing speaks stronger to your dedication to your idea of how a game should be ran or played than a willingness not to game any other way, especially if you hold tight to those beliefs at a table with 5 other people that don't agree with you. Even if doing so makes you a nitpicky arbitrary silly stalinist deutchebaeg. ^_^
thats not to say our policy is a field of roses...
Sometimes what that means is you're the one dissenting player with 5 other guys who want to do what you don't want to do... You still have the right, freedom and choice to either go with it or not go with it.... You may be the one dissenting gm with 5 other players who want things to be ran a different way and you still have the right, choice and freedom to say nah... Someone else can run that one...
.If you have trouble with 'authoritative or entitled' players or gms, then you simply need to match their level of personal conviciton... They have the conviction of saying
- 'I only play the games I want to play, how I like to play them, with whom I like to play them, but more than anything else...
- I'm happy not to play if I can't have that, because I'd rather be a happy gamer than be subjected to a campaign that I don't find fun.'
Thats not a wrongbad conviction to have. And for some people the thing that 'takes away their fun' can seem inconsequential, arbitrary, 'stalinist', deutchy, or even silly to you. And maybe you're totally right about that. But that isnt about you. Its about every person at the table being a happy gamer in their own way. Everyone has to decide if they like gaming enough to comprimise or not. Some have the charisma to make a table work with them and some don't. Some have the imagination and flexibility to work with any table and some don't. Some find that their tastes are in line with the others at their table, and others find that they'll never be happy with the group they're in.
And that can suck. But its better than burning 10 hours per weekend in a campaign you dont like, or 40 hours a week designing a fantastic world that not enough players care about, or 4000 hours designing your swan song magnum opus campaign just to have a bunch of construction worker catgirls craftily capture it and cram it in a combine, and thats not just...
So much tiny text
|
If it was possible this thread would never end. We are clearly dealing with the reality of different playstyles and DMing methods, which none are wrong nor are they the right way to play, and some people just need to accept that other people do have different tastes than they do.
All you can do is accept it and agree that it wouldn't be the game for you.
|
|
At a guess, probably because most people will go along with something they don't really agree with, if it means avoiding conflict. If they know you don't want to hear requests and won't listen to any dissent, they'll do what you want because it's not worth it to them to argue.Why is this hard to do? I gave you what my group does, we never, I repeat, never have a problem with this. 4 GM's, 8 to 12 players, this is never, ever a problem.
Why?
Or because we all like the game as it is being run, which also seems to be a hard concept to grasp.
There are 4 GM's.
4.
We all have to compete for limited game time from all the players. And that is just in our group, as several players have secondary groups they also play in, usually for brief periods of time because they get tired of other players in other games and GMs who won't control the table.
None of us want to deal with problem concepts or problem players, and all of us want the GM to screen them out.
Which is what you said you do.
|
|
If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.
And where is this happening? In all the given descriptions the limits are clearly defined, and people are objecting to having limits, or passive aggressively trying to find ways around the limits.
How about if you don't want to run the game the GM is running you don't play and get out of the way of the players who do? How about that?
|
|
What are you projecting, because it clearly has nothing to do with anything that I have said.I am not projecting...yet you always assume the player is in the wrong...what are you projecting?
I don't always assume the player is in the wrong. The solution to a bad GM is very simple.
Don't play in GM's game. Or at least in the campaign you aren't interested in.
But a player, singular, doesn't get to dictate the setting. They weren't given that job. They didn't get approval from the group.
The GM did. If the GM sucked (and many do) then no one shows up and the game dies. Or if the GM can't get 4 people interested in the setting, it just never happens.
Which happens all the time.
You keep saying "Destroy" my fun. How about lessen. How about be mildly annoying, and therefore something I don't want to deal with when I could have "Not mildly annoying" as an option.
And again I ask, why can't a player have more than one concept they want to play. Being able to come up with a number of concepts is actually demonstrating creativity. Coming up with one concept you think is creative, but others dislike enough to not even want in the game...not such a demonstration of creativity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to come up with a number of concepts is actually demonstrating creativity. Coming up with one concept you think is creative, but others dislike enough to not even want in the game...not such a demonstration of creativity.
1. Going with the assumption that there's only one concept, again.
2. Going with the assumption that the players also don't like it, instead of just the GM doing so.
I believe we were already in this situation a few pages ago. I'm also quite sure someone pointed out the flaws in your statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.And where is this happening?
It seems fairly simple to me. In the minds of many of the participants on this discussion, the GM and player need to hash matters out to the satisfaction of the player.
I.e. the GM has put a class limit in place. If the player agrees with that limit, it "makes sense," and only then will the player rehash the conept.
If the player does not agree with the limit, it must be "arbitrary or misinformed."
Notice that at no point in the discussion above did Talonhawke admit that his character selection was arbitrary -- even though it was, in point of fact, much more arbitrary than the GM's world selection. (To every world there are thousands if not millions of potential characters). There are basically two reasons (and only two) why a player would prefer to play one character over another. Either he knows the rules better (e.g. I've never played a Magus and don't want to have to figure out how it works), or he simply prefers the first character.
Similarly, the only ultimate reason a GM has for disapproving a character concept is because she doesn't like it. (Even a literally rule-breaking character can be permitted if the GM likes it enough.)
But "I don't like it" becomes an unacceptable and arbitrary reason for rejecting a character, while nevertheless being the basis for an ironclad demand to play a character.
If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.And where is this happening? In all the given descriptions the limits are clearly defined, and people are objecting to having limits, or passive aggressively trying to find ways around the limits.
How about if you don't want to run the game the GM is running you don't play and get out of the way of the players who do? How about that?
Check my first post I've had a GM ban hammer from not understanding the rules. And I've played in games where I was told "I'm running a pirate game " only to have a CN Druid focused around aquatic creatures banned for not fitting the setting (turns out it was supposed to be low magic and we didn't get told.) sure it's not the norm. But it happens I'm lucky I'm quick on character ideas but I've been in situations where some people might not have something ready because all 4 builds they thought of weren't low magic.
I literally quoted you. You said "If I really don't have any other ideas on me at the moment because its been a rough night or whatever then he's probably out of luck."The parts in quotes were the ones I had trouble with. Its the additional information your adding, the things I didn't say at all but your adding in and claiming to be mine.
I think he's completely justified in reading them in.
What does it mean for the DM to be "out of luck"?
Are you saying "I insist on playing this character irrespective of the GM's objections"?
Are you saying that "if I'm too tired to come up with more than one character concept, the GM should cut me slack?" If so, why don't you extend the same courtesy to the GM? Coming up with a playable character concept takes seconds or minutes... coming up with a playable world concept takes hours, weeks, or months.
It can take that long just to read a premade adventure, and the GM is supposed to do that before he sits down at the table for character creation so that he knows what fits in this universe. If the GM is writing the universe, it can take much longer.
If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.And where is this happening?It seems fairly simple to me. In the minds of many of the participants on this discussion, the GM and player need to hash matters out to the satisfaction of the player.
I.e. the GM has put a class limit in place. If the player agrees with that limit, it "makes sense," and only then will the player rehash the conept.
If the player does not agree with the limit, it must be "arbitrary or misinformed."
Notice that at no point in the discussion above did Talonhawke admit that his character selection was arbitrary -- even though it was, in point of fact, much more arbitrary than the GM's world selection. (To every world there are thousands if not millions of potential characters). There are basically two reasons (and only two) why a player would prefer to play one character over another. Either he knows the rules better (e.g. I've never played a Magus and don't want to have to figure out how it works), or he simply prefers the first character.
Similarly, the only ultimate reason a GM has for disapproving a character concept is because she doesn't like it. (Even a literally rule-breaking character can be permitted if the GM likes it enough.)
But "I don't like it" becomes an unacceptable and arbitrary reason for rejecting a character, while nevertheless being the basis for an ironclad demand to play a character.
You should take that mind reading show to Vegas.
When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it. And as to misinformed you say you don't know much about the magus, so if you spent time reading certain forum threads you might form an opinion that they are all broken and overpowered. It doesn't make that opinion right.
I spend more time on the GM side of the table than playing so I speak from a DM standpoint I'm like Kirth I'm willing to bet if you sit down with me I can fit your character into a game unless your just trying to be disruptive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it.
There is always a reason for everything. The point is it ISN'T that player's right to sit in judgement over the reasoning whether you agree with it or not. THAT is entitlement thinking.
You should take that mind reading show to Vegas.When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it.
How ironic that you're complaining about my mind reading skills, and at the same time deciding what reason the game master has based on.... your own reading of his mind?
Here's a hint: "liking" something doesn't require a reason. Do you like cilantro? I love it; obviously "you have no reason for not liking it" and I will insist that you flavor everything with it.
And as to misinformed you say you don't know much about the magus, so if you spent time reading certain forum threads you might form an opinion that they are all broken and overpowered. It doesn't make that opinion right.
Nor does it make that opinion wrong. You might be wrong in thinking they're NOT broken and overpowered, and in either case ten minutes before curtain time is not the time you want me to start a two-hour study of the magus rules and tactics. That will inconvenience every other person in the group (including myself) because you insist on being a very special snowflake.
Why do you only consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it.There is always a reason for everything. The point is it ISN'T that player's right to sit in judgement over the reasoning whether you agree with it or not. THAT is entitlement thinking.
Exactly. "You have no reason for..." is entitlement thinking. You do not get to judge MY reasons; you can either accept them, or not play. I should't force you to play a character you don't like, you cannot and will not force me to run a game with a character I don't like. Even if my reasons for not liking it are totally unacceptable to you ("I think you suck at playing paladins, because your interpretation of lawful good is completely wrong'), you still don't have any entitlement to play a paladin. Not in any game I run, anyway. Play a something else or with someone else.
"You have no reason for..." is entitlement thinking. You do not get to judge MY reasons
So, if I understand you correctly,
Player -> no rights, only the privilege to be in the game, assuming he/she follows the rules set by DM. Asking for explanations is therefore "entitlement," because the player lacks the authority status to do so.
DM -> every right. Needs give no explanations. Can demand explanations, rebuilds, or anything else at will. Cannot, by definition, be "entitled" because of authority status derived from being the DM.
Is that more or less close?
|
|
Being able to come up with a number of concepts is actually demonstrating creativity. Coming up with one concept you think is creative, but others dislike enough to not even want in the game...not such a demonstration of creativity.1. Going with the assumption that there's only one concept, again.
2. Going with the assumption that the players also don't like it, instead of just the GM doing so.
I believe we were already in this situation a few pages ago. I'm also quite sure someone pointed out the flaws in your statement.
1. Because A) if there is not one concept, you go with the other concept, unless the GM vetos all of your concepts, at which point there must be a major disconnect somewhere, and B) Because mrsin specifically said he shouldn't have to come up with another concept if he's "having a bad night"
2. Not an assumption. The players decided who the GM is and what the GM is running, because if they didn't a game wouldn't be happening. Or does your GM come kidnap you all and demand you roll dice?
The best GM I know runs several campaigns I have no interest in playing. I decided not to be in those games. Why?
For his purposes (and mine as well), who cares. He's got 4 (or more) people who are interested in playing that game. They have concepts that fit that game, they are enjoying those games.
Who the hell am I to tell him he or four other people have to run a game a certain way? The GM is happy, the players are happy...I'm not unhappy, because I'll do something else, or run another game with the rest of the group if I really want to get my gaming fix in.
Do I wish he would run exactly what I want, exactly how I want. Sure.
Do I wish I was a little bit taller, wish I was a baller...If I want a game run a certain way, the only way that happens is if I run it myself AND I can find other people interested in that style of play.
Now I'm being told I can't even do that, because I have to accomodate people who have no interest in what I am running.
That is silly.
I'm not coming to your table telling you your custom races are silly and stupid. I may think it, but it isn't my buisness, I'm not interested in what your GM is selling so I'm not buying.
Stop telling GMs they have to buy what you are selling.
|
|
Check my first post I've had a GM ban hammer from not understanding the rules. And I've played in games where I was told "I'm running a pirate game " only to have a CN Druid focused around aquatic creatures banned for not fitting the setting (turns out it was supposed to be low magic and we didn't get told.) sure it's not the norm. But it happens I'm lucky I'm quick on character ideas but I've been in situations where some people might not have something ready because all 4 builds they thought of weren't low magic.If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.And where is this happening? In all the given descriptions the limits are clearly defined, and people are objecting to having limits, or passive aggressively trying to find ways around the limits.
How about if you don't want to run the game the GM is running you don't play and get out of the way of the players who do? How about that?
To which I would ask, why did you put that guy in the GM chair?
|
|
"You have no reason for..." is entitlement thinking. You do not get to judge MY reasonsSo, if I understand you correctly,
Player -> no rights, only the privilege to be in the game, assuming he/she follows the rules set by DM. Asking for explanations is therefore "entitlement," because the player lacks the authority status to do so.
DM -> every right. Needs give no explanations. Can demand explanations, rebuilds, or anything else at will. Cannot, by definition, be "entitled" because of authority status derived from being the DM.
Is that more or less close?
Because the player can't decide not to play with that GM, or in that particular campaign?
Because the GM is holding a player at gunpoint?
"You have no reason for..." is entitlement thinking. You do not get to judge MY reasonsSo, if I understand you correctly,
Player -> no rights, only the privilege to be in the game, assuming he/she follows the rules set by DM. Asking for explanations is therefore "entitlement," because the player lacks the authority status to do so.
DM -> every right. Needs give no explanations. Can demand explanations, rebuilds, or anything else at will. Cannot, by definition, be "entitled" because of authority status derived from being the DM.
Is that more or less close?
Not at all. The DM/GM has no rights; he can't force anyone to play. If anyone doesn't want to give an explanation, rebuild, or anything else, they can simply choose not to invoke their "privilege to be in the game." Similarly, if they want something the DM does not want to give them, they can either play without receiving it, or opt not to play.
Never mind. I normally disagree with thejeff with a lot of stuff, but his answer just above actually made sense to me here. Many other people here, however, are as far from his views as he is from mine.
All this stuff about "DM provides no explanations, demands rebuilds at will ("Oh, I'm just asking, but if you refuse, you can't play..." is a demand), sets rules based on personal stereotypes that everyone else is expected to telepathically share, comply or get out" -- basically the whole mind-set that the DM isn't just offering a game, but is requiring obedience as condition of acceptance -- is just way too bizarre for me.
So, yeah, I would choose not to play with those people.
When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it.There is always a reason for everything. The point is it ISN'T that player's right to sit in judgement over the reasoning whether you agree with it or not. THAT is entitlement thinking.
If I ask to play a tengu ninja and you say no without reason then I have no clue what the issue is.
Is it that I'm a tengu?
Is it that I'm a ninja?
Is it both?
Reason one and two are way different than reason 3 insomuch that I can play a rogue if ninjas out, or a human or half-elf if tengus out. No one is trying to sit in judgement or at least I'm not but the more I know about the why the more likely character 2 won't get turned down. Over having to guess at what part/s of character 1 were the issues.
To which I would ask, why did you put that guy in the GM chair?Check my first post I've had a GM ban hammer from not understanding the rules. And I've played in games where I was told "I'm running a pirate game " only to have a CN Druid focused around aquatic creatures banned for not fitting the setting (turns out it was supposed to be low magic and we didn't get told.) sure it's not the norm. But it happens I'm lucky I'm quick on character ideas but I've been in situations where some people might not have something ready because all 4 builds they thought of weren't low magic.If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.And where is this happening? In all the given descriptions the limits are clearly defined, and people are objecting to having limits, or passive aggressively trying to find ways around the limits.
How about if you don't want to run the game the GM is running you don't play and get out of the way of the players who do? How about that?
I was the new guy not my choice on DM which was also why I sent a concise email explain how monks did work and started on my barbarian just in case.
If I ask to play a tengu ninja and you say no without reason then I have no clue what the issue is.
Is it that I'm a tengu?
Is it that I'm a ninja?
Is it both?
After 3-4 examples like this, the only answer I've gotten is "Well, it's obvious to me what I mean, therefore it should be obvious to everyone." Or, more briefly: "If you don't like it, don't play."
|
|
After 3-4 examples like this, the only answer I've gotten is "Well, it's obvious to me what I mean, therefore it should be obvious to everyone." Or, more briefly: "If you don't like it, don't play."If I ask to play a tengu ninja and you say no without reason then I have no clue what the issue is.
Is it that I'm a tengu?
Is it that I'm a ninja?
Is it both?
The answer I gave was "Doesn't really fit, what else you got?"
The question I would ask you (and presumably you would include in your approval request) is, what was the concept and setting that was described and how is your Tengu Ninja appropriate?
We all agreed to a setting, if it is a setting where a Tengu Ninja makes sense, awesome. If it isn't, why did you agree to play in this setting in this campaign if you didn't actually want to play in this setting and in this campaign?
You should take that mind reading show to Vegas.When I saw arbitrary I don't mean because you don't like it, I mean if you have no reason for not liking it.
How ironic that you're complaining about my mind reading skills, and at the same time deciding what reason the game master has based on.... your own reading of his mind?
Here's a hint: "liking" something doesn't require a reason. Do you like cilantro? I love it; obviously "you have no reason for not liking it" and I will insist that you flavor everything with it.
And as to misinformed you say you don't know much about the magus, so if you spent time reading certain forum threads you might form an opinion that they are all broken and overpowered. It doesn't make that opinion right.Nor does it make that opinion wrong. You might be wrong in thinking they're NOT broken and overpowered, and in either case ten minutes before curtain time is not the time you want me to start a two-hour study of the magus rules and tactics. That will inconvenience every other person in the group (including myself) because you insist on being a very special snowflake.
Why do you only consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong?
I know your late to the thread man but I've never come close to saying I'd show up at game time to spring something on a DM usually you will have a rough draft of class race and background within in an hour of letting me know what's being played. So unless we are making characters on game night you will have more than enough time to look it over and discuss it. Heck prolly over a free lunch or at least a beer.
And as a GM I some how find the time between work, family, church, and non- gaming friends to letting players why I said no when I have to.
Never mind. I normally disagree with thejeff with a lot of stuff, but his answer just above actually made sense to me here. Many other people here, however, are as far from his views as he is from mine.
All this stuff about "DM provides no explanations, demands rebuilds at will ("Oh, I'm just asking, but if you refuse, you can't play..." is a demand), sets rules based on personal stereotypes that everyone else is expected to telepathically share, comply or get out" -- basically the whole mind-set that the DM isn't just offering a game, but is requiring obedience as condition of acceptance -- is just way too bizarre for me.
So, yeah, I would choose not to play with those people.
Same here. Actually, my current group works so well for the same reasons yours works.
We can actually talk things out before the game starts.@Ciretose
Okay, you know what? How about this time I'll just pick the parts of your quotes that I do agree with?
And even though it has seemed like you haven't read them when I have done so, I'll also give some clarifications.
The best GM I know runs several campaigns I have no interest in playing. I decided not to be in those games. Why?
For his purposes (and mine as well), who cares. He's got 4 (or more) people who are interested in playing that game. They have concepts that fit that game, they are enjoying those games.
Good for them! I have nothing to criticize there.
I'm not coming to your table telling you your custom races are silly and stupid.
I'd only ask what would draw you to such a conclusion, considering I have not even mentioned them here?
I may think it, but it isn't my business, I'm not interested in what your GM is selling so I'm not buying.
Stop telling GMs they have to buy what you are selling.
So far I have actually asked them if they want to buy the stuff that I'm selling. Some have bought it, some haven't. And that's fine by me. Just because I sometimes complain about them not buying doesn't mean I will try to force them to buy it. Out of the five or so people I have had as DM so far, only one got me riled up enough that I did try shoving stuff down his throat, and only because he did that (and a lot more) to me first. But I'd be here forever if I started listing the stuff he did again.
After 3-4 examples like this, the only answer I've gotten is "Well, it's obvious to me what I mean, therefore it should be obvious to everyone." Or, more briefly: "If you don't like it, don't play."If I ask to play a tengu ninja and you say no without reason then I have no clue what the issue is.
Is it that I'm a tengu?
Is it that I'm a ninja?
Is it both?The answer I gave was "Doesn't really fit, what else you got?"
The question I would ask you (and presumably you would include in your approval request) is, what was the concept and setting that was described and how is your Tengu Ninja appropriate?
We all agreed to a setting, if it is a setting where a Tengu Ninja makes sense, awesome. If it isn't, why did you agree to play in this setting in this campaign if you didn't actually want to play in this setting and in this campaign?
I've already said I avoid out of setting to begin with. And that reason works for me especially if I don't know it well and wasn't sure if it had tengus or ninjas. I've never played in greyhawk so I might not know if what I sent you fits that's why I'm gonna send it as soon as possible. I'm not gonna show up with a warforged since I know those are straight Ebberon but I have no clue if an oread would be okay.
|
|
Never mind. I normally disagree with thejeff with a lot of stuff, but his answer just above actually made sense to me here. Many other people here, however, are as far from his views as he is from mine.
All this stuff about "DM provides no explanations, demands rebuilds at will ("Oh, I'm just asking, but if you refuse, you can't play..." is a demand), sets rules based on personal stereotypes that everyone else is expected to telepathically share, comply or get out" -- basically the whole mind-set that the DM isn't just offering a game, but is requiring obedience as condition of acceptance -- is just way too bizarre for me.
So, yeah, I would choose not to play with those people.
Stop reading what other people are saying we are saying and actually read what we are saying. I've said it multiple times, and you keep glossing over it...
In our group we have 4 GMs and 8 to 10 players. There is a constant fight to get games going, and GMs always float multiple ideas for campaigns. When there is interest in one of your ideas from the players, you send out another e-mail to those interested describing the setting in detail, or providing a setting book. That is where we are playing, the concepts should reflect that place, everyone still interested.
If yes, the players send 3 or 4 rough ideas. No stats sheets, minimal backstory, just rough concepts. The GM looks at all of them and e-mails everyone back and forth, sometimes linking up players who have complimentary concept ideas to see if they want to combine the ideas to create more links within the party so it is easier to explain why we are all together. If a concept doesn't work, usually the GM doesn't even reject it as much as point to one of concepts that does work and say what they think is good or bad about that concept, while offering suggestions and asking for more info from the player about how he can intergrate the concept into the story and the setting.
Only when that is done, does a game actually happen. Many, many games die at various points in this process, because something better and shinier gets proposed by another GM.
In my mind, coming to the table with only one idea is quite rude, and not having a "safety" concept if you have a concept you know isn't really from the setting is setting yourself up.
Why do you think it is unreasonable for a player to try to actually make a character that goes along with what they agreed to play? Why is "I don't think it fits what I am going for, what else have you got" not a good enough answer for a player to want to try to find something that does fit.