Stop reading what other people are saying we are saying and actually read what we are saying.
Ciretose, what you and thejeff are saying is pretty far from what Blake Duffey and Shallowsoul are saying. I'd view your viewpoint as somewhere in between. So if I disagree with them, and with specific parts of your quotes that philosophically or logically support what their stance is, that doesn't mean I disagree with everything everyone says.
Just as I'm not saying the DM is required to include everything willy-nilly, although some players you've met might have.
Just as I'm not saying the DM is required to include everything willy-nilly, although some players you've met might have.
I'm just going to jump in and say that I would not be one of them.
Sometimes the setting really doesn't need to have everything, and that's fine.
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.
Let's look more seriously at this for a moment. Think for a moment about what you're really asking for.
"Okay, everyone, welcome to the game. As you know, when I sent out the campaign guidelines on Monday, I said 'No magi, because I looked at the rules and they look overpowered." Chris didn't like that and was kind enough to send me some material, including a few lengthy internet discussions, a couple of character optimization guides, and a very helpful guide to game mastering for magi, including some suggestions about how to adjust encounters to challenge the magus but keep everyone involved. It's a pity that GM guide was in Russian, but I must say Google Translate is getting very good, so well done Sergei.
"As I said, I thought they were overpowered, but Chris has convinced me otherwise. So I will allow magi in this game. If anyone else wants to redesign their character to be a magus, we can delay the start of the campaign until next week. <pause> No one?
"Okay. Now, the down side is that, as you know, Tuesday night is when I do most of my campaign prep, and I was busy reading the material Chris sent, so I didn't get a chance to scan the encounter maps. We'll be using blank battle maps tonight. I also didn't get a chance to pick up appropriate miniatures, but I did grab a roll each of pennies, nickels, and quarters so we'll go old school with abstract circular monsters today. I also didn't get a chance to hit the store for the usual snacks, but I think there's a six pack of the orange soda that no one likes left from two weeks ago, and I did make a pitcher of Kool-ade. There are still some somewhat stale pretzels from last week, and you know where the phone is if you want to order pizza.
"The other problem is that I didn't get a real chance to review the module. So I'm sorry, Sergei, but I didn't get the chance to add the aquatic encounter you said would be cool. Similarly, Lex, I didn't get a chance to read through the NPC list for your romantic encounter, so we'll just hope that one of the characters is a female gnome. I also don't have an answer to you, Pat, about which god your cleric should follow, so we'll just go with Desna as you suggested first.
"That said <removes shrink wrap from module>, let's get started. Let's see, <flipping pages> background, background, background, "The campaign starts in the capital city of I'm not sure how to pronounce this...."
The GM did everything people on this thread are asking for, to the point of accepting Chris' argument. Who's gaming experience was enhanced by this?
I've said it before, "Core only" is often a lazy response, but not a wrong one or a game-breaking one.
Still, if I don't have the time to do a proper job, I generally don't take on the job.
On the other hand, if the DM in this example actually had plenty of time, but was simply choosing to punsih the group for "Sergei"'s temerity in disobeying his edicts, and make an example of him... I'd say that's pretty warped.
"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.
Why are you being so difficult? NO, asking is fine. NOT accepting the answer IS entitlement.
This is the GMs game she sets the rules. She IS doing this to create a fun, immersive, and challenging form of entertainment. She IS doing this for her own AND the players enjoyment. Part of the enjoyment of sitting in the GMs seat and doing all the extra prep work IS to see how a scenario will play out, how a house rule will affect enjoyment, how a thematic setting will inspire fun role play. Right or wrong it IS the GMs moment to try out the big decisions. Often learning as much about a good game from her failures as her successes. Entitlement players want to rob a game master of her fun by challenging every little detail they don't like. Woe to the GM who doesn't want to let your half fiend/half celestial/half fey minotaur jedi gunslinger from ancient china into their game. They will argue endlessly every little point till you shut them down or kick them out(as some suggest). The have NO interest in playing in your world regardless of the other players interest in the setting. The entitlement player just wants you to be a platform for their latest concept, you have NO say in it. The irony is these players won't be happy even if they find a doormat GM... because a doormat GM isn't going to care or challenge their whatever character at all.
|
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.
Which is why the first thing I do before I even get half invested in an idea I think might be off is e-mail the GM. And if you are playing any race that is listed in the book as requiring GM approval...hello...
This isn't at you specifically, but more in general. It seems like you have an approach that wouldn't cause any issues. You are asking and "no" is a perfectly fine answer, in and of itself. I'm not going to get sucked into some "Well technically they could have come over the ice bridge..." kind of argument when what it really comes down to is I think other ideas would be much better than the one you just gave me, because I don't think that idea is very good and I wouldn't have invited you if I didn't believe you couldn't surpass "not very good"
|
|
Stop reading what other people are saying we are saying and actually read what we are saying.Ciretose, what you and thejeff are saying is pretty far from what Blake Duffey and Shallowsoul are saying. I'd view your viewpoint as somewhere in between. So if I disagree with them, and with specific parts of your quotes that philosophically or logically support what their stance is, that doesn't mean I disagree with everything everyone says.
Just as I'm not saying the DM is required to include everything willy-nilly, although some players you've met might have.
Fair enough. Like I said earlier I think we largely agree, we just view opposite ends of the spectrum as the greater source of problems.
Bad GM and Bad Players are both problematic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you being so difficult? NO, asking is fine. NOT accepting the answer IS entitlement.
I've been told repeatedly on this thread that "because I said so" is the answer. But, as has been explained, that's really not an answer; it's a statement that the question was inappropriate. Hence, if that's the only answer you'll ever receive, then asking is specifically NOT fine.
Ideally, I'd ask why my elf barbarian was no good for the core-only pirate game, and the DM would say, "I'm setting up the elves as a big naval nation that hunts pirates, like we discussed," and I'd say, "Oh, yeah! How about a human barbarian?" And we're both good to go. If you, personally, would do that, I'd have no issue with you as a DM.
But if I ask why my elf barbarian is no good for your core-only pirate game, and you say, "Because I said so," and I ask if the elf part or the barbarian part is the problem, or what -- well, some people have told me point-blank that the DM's correct response is, "You are not entitled to any explanation!" (Usually phrased as, "what do you want, a thesis?" or something along those lines). But, really, sometimes, "I said so" doesn't provide the player with enough information to avoid stepping over all those lines the DM is drawing in his head.
When I gave this exact example, I was told, "Well, you should have picked something appropriate!" The thing is, I can't read the DM's mind, I have NO IDEA what he considers "appropriate" unless he deigns to inform me.
I've said it before, "Core only" is often a lazy response, but not a wrong one or a game-breaking one.
Who said "core only"? The GM specifically banned magi, on the basis of an opinion with which Chris disagreed. Chris took the necessary time (Talonhawke was actually very generous with MY time.... "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." Will I? That's very thoughtful of you to adjust my schedule for me.) to present a reasoned and cogent argument in favor of the magus, which the GM ultimately accepted.
Still, if I don't have the time to do a proper job, I generally don't take on the job.
But then you're harshing my freedom to play what character I want! More specifically, I don't recall Talonhawke giving me that option; he was perfectly willing to hitch-lunch with me in order to brow-beat me into accepting his magus.
And as a result:
* The GM didn't get a chance even to open the module prior to the game session. This by itself will basically make the game a train wreck.
* The party loses their usual immersive roleplaying aids like battlemats and appropriate miniatures.
* The snacks at the game are substandard
* Sergei doesn't get the cool encounter he asked for
* Lex doesn't get the requested opportunity for role-playing
* Pat doesn't get the appropriate feedback about what kind of character would fit the setting.
* Everyone has a much worse overall experience.
But, on the other hand,
* Chris gets to play the special snowflake. At the expense of everyone's overall experience, including Chris, but it's rude and poor style not to spend as much time as the player wants until the GM either rules in the player's favor or comes up with a justification that the player finds acceptable.
That's a totally "dog in the manger" attitude. And by following the advice most of the player-advocates on this thread have given -- Always listen to your players, never say "no" without a good reason that makes sense to the player involved, bend your universe as far as the players want because it's more important for them to play tengu than it is for a well-defined universe to stick to the source material, et cetera -- by following that advice the GM has managed to wreck the experience for everyone at the table including the player who asked for the special dispensation.
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.
Unless you have a history of being a problem player I can't imagine a GM not giving you an explanation. WILL you accept that explanation even if you don't like the explanation? THAT is what separates an entitlement player out. WHAT do you do with the explanation? Do you argue about how the GM is wrong? Do you dismiss the GMs opinion as not relevant? Sometimes the GM has a strong opinion "I hate elves" for example. They dislike so many things about elves that trying to figure them all out may takes weeks of therapy. Do you hold the game up while you argue every bit of fluff and mechanic elven? Or do you accept the GMs quirk and play a gnome or a human? If your go to response is to argue then you are ruining everyone's fun.
Still, if I don't have the time to do a proper job, I generally don't take on the job.
ETA: How kind of you to decide whether someone else doing a "proper" job as a GM. Especially since under normal circumstances this particular GM is spending a substantial amount of time in game-preparation -- reviewing modules, preparing maps, buying snacks, and so forth -- that I think definitely qualifies as "proper." Chris, the player, suddenly hit the GM with a lot of extra work, and it's rude just to say "no, stick to the guidelines I already gave you." Apparently.
Unless you have a history of being a problem player I can't imagine a GM not giving you an explanation. WILL you accept that explanation even if you don't like the explanation? THAT is what separates an entitlement player out.
I'm addressing the people with the strong opinion that they need give no explanation, or else can simply say "I don't like it; think of something else." Again, those are specifically non-explanations. If someone doesn't accept them, that's not refusing to accept the DM's explanation; rather, it's trying to make the DM see that those are not explanations at all.
WHAT do you do with the explanation? Do you argue about how the GM is wrong? Do you dismiss the GMs opinion as not relevant? Sometimes the GM has a strong opinion "I hate elves" for example. They dislike so many things about elves that trying to figure them all out may takes weeks of therapy. Do you hold the game up while you argue every bit of fluff and mechanic elven? Or do you accept the GMs quirk and play a gnome or a human? If your go to response is to argue then you are ruining everyone's fun.
If an actual explanation is given, I already said I'd, personally, be fine with that -- so none of these would apply, except maybe for the "I hate elves and I can't be bothered to think about why so suck it up," which is more or less a non-answer. So, if I was really hoping for an elf campaign, that would be a good signal for me to get out of there.
|
|
And what we are saying Kirth, is that the GM doesn't always get an answer to why the player doesn't want to play in a setting either.
If you provide more than one idea, that solves the problem.
What I've been saying is quite often I just think the idea is dumb or trite. I don't want to say that to my friend, I don't want to start the fight about my opinion being wrong...I just want to play a game and I don't want it to include that idea.
Fortunately, if a player includes more than one idea, I can have a selection to choose from and we don't need to have that awkward conversation about why I think your tengu ninja is a silly idea in this setting.
Just like I don't have to have an awkward conversation with my GM about why I hate Microlite or the Superhero game without hit points.
ETA: How kind of you to decide whether someone else doing a "proper" job as a GM.
I never said "I don't let YOU take it on," I said "I don't take it on." Therefore, I hold myself to my standards of being a DM. Those standards are that (1) I run the game, with the effort of providing an enjoyable and fulfilling campaign or set of campaigns; (2) I write original adventures to that end, or occasionally modify prewritten ones suffiently that they blend as seamlessly as possible into the ongoing campaign; (3) I work with the players on developing concepts, and on making sure the campaign as a whole and the individual character concepts work well together; (4) I evaluate requests for new material, and either accept it, modify it, or provide a deatiled reason why it won't work (e.g., it duplicates feat X and supersedes Skills Y and Z); (5) I propose house rules and hear requests for same, call for votes on their applicability, and abstain from voting except in the case of a tie; (6) I screen potential players to make sure they'll get along well with the existing ones; etc.
I don't expect every DM to hold themselves to those standards, but for me to take on one or two of them and declaring the rest as "too much effort" would tell me that I lack the time or resources to be DM at that point. Which is exactly what happened recently when I moved and started a new job. For someone else to take on one or two of them, ignore the rest, and then cop an attitude with me, would tell me that they're a lot less serious about being a DM than I would be.
I think he's completely justified in reading them in.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.
No, its not justified to add details to what I say and claim that its still mine. You can easily just ask me a question. If you add to it, its not what I said anymore.
A DM is who unwilling to even consider allowing any other options in is being pretty lazy, by my standards. The player shouldn't expect to be able to bring other stuff in as-is, but my players all know that if they request stuff, they can count on the following:"Core-only" IS doing a proper job; every book beyond the core book is 100% optional, and players who expect to be able to bring in every supplement they've run across are being silly. That's been true since first edition and Dragon articles.
I evaluate requests for new material, and either accept it, modify it, or provide a deatiled reason why it won't work (e.g., it duplicates feat X and supersedes Skills Y and Z)
As I've already explained.
That's one of my personal strandards of DMing. Yours may be lower. Again, in areas where there are a lot more players than potential DMs, you can get away with having much lower standards and still maintain a good player base. Alternatively, if your creative and thespian skills are far above average, you can offer a better product even with low customer service standards and still come out ahead. There's no need to make it as much work as I do, in those situations.
However, in areas where a large number of DMs are in competition for a small player base, the higher your quality of service, the more competitive you'll be. You can compete by offering a better product, or by offering better service, or ideally both (offering lower prices isn't an option here, because the service is free). This is all basic marketplace economics, and when I remind people of them, I'm not trying to be argumentative: I'm trying to help advance the hobby by preparing DMs for how to adjust to future circumstances that might not perfectly match their own.
Unless you have a history of being a problem player I can't imagine a GM not giving you an explanation. WILL you accept that explanation even if you don't like the explanation? THAT is what separates an entitlement player out.I'm addressing the people with the strong opinion that they need give no explanation, or else can simply say "I don't like it; think of something else." Again, those are specifically non-explanations. If someone doesn't accept them, that's not refusing to accept the DM's explanation; rather, it's trying to make the DM see that those are not explanations at all.
WHAT do you do with the explanation? Do you argue about how the GM is wrong? Do you dismiss the GMs opinion as not relevant? Sometimes the GM has a strong opinion "I hate elves" for example. They dislike so many things about elves that trying to figure them all out may takes weeks of therapy. Do you hold the game up while you argue every bit of fluff and mechanic elven? Or do you accept the GMs quirk and play a gnome or a human? If your go to response is to argue then you are ruining everyone's fun.If an actual explanation is given, I already said I'd, personally, be fine with that -- so none of these would apply, except maybe for the "I hate elves and I can't be bothered to think about why so suck it up," which is more or less a non-answer. So, if I was really hoping for an elf campaign, that would be a good signal for me to get out of there.
"because I said so" isn't an explanation... it is the GM shutting down an argumentative player. I will give you that. BUT "I hate elves" is perfectly valid. DO you really need to know exactly what about elves they hate? This sort of opinion can't be changed by making a nuisance of yourself. If the person behind the GM screen "hates elves" then you know all you really need to know. Play another race and have fun or walk out with an attitude and likely not get invited back.
BUT "I hate elves" is perfectly valid. DO you really need to know exactly what about elves they hate? This sort of opinion can't be changed by making a nuisance of yourself. If the person behind the GM screen "hates elves" then you know all you really need to know.
Not true at all. Do they also hate half-elves? Do they hate elves because they hate stereotypical tree-huggers, so I should be sure to avoid wanting to play a druid as well, or a ranger? Do they hate androgyny, so I need to make sure my PC is hyper-masculine? A DM that will ban stuff "because I hate it" will also ban a lot of other stuff that touches on whatever the sore emotional area is. Because they're banning stuff for emotional reasons, rather than rational ones, the specific example you've stumbled on is very likely represents only the tip of the iceberg. I've experienced this many times in the past.
You're not going to change the DM's opinion by asking why, but you're not going to be able to avoid annoying him/her if you can't find out what it is that rubs him/her so wrong.
ETA: How kind of you to decide whether someone else doing a "proper" job as a GM.I never said "I don't let YOU take it on," I said "I don't take it on." Therefore, I hold myself to my standards of being a DM.
How kind of you.
Those standards are that (1) I run the game, with the effort of providing an enjoyable and fulfilling campaign or set of campaigns; (2) I write original adventures to that end, or occasionally modify prewritten ones suffiently that they blend as seamlessly as possible into the ongoing campaign; (3) I work with the players on developing concepts, and on making sure the campaign as a whole and the individual character concepts work well together; (4) I evaluate requests for new material, and either accept it, modify it, or provide a deatiled reason why it won't work (e.g., it duplicates feat X and supersedes Skills Y and Z); (5) I propose house rules and hear requests for same, call for votes on their applicability, and abstain from voting except in the case of a tie; (6) I screen potential players to make sure they'll get along well with the existing ones; etc.
Emphasis mine. Here are 200+ pages of material on my "special snowflake" homebrew class that I want to be able to run. Our standing game is in three days, and I estimate that there are about 10 hours of work involved in reading it, more to prepare a detailed response. Of course, you also have your own life, and I've basically just handed you homework that completely kills any possibility of your doing anything else during your free time during the next two days. Notice also that this is atop your normal tasks of running the game, such as writing/modifying this week's adventure
By your own standards, "tl;dr" is not an acceptable response, as is "I don't have time to do this."
I don't expect every DM to hold themselves to those standards, but for me to take on one or two of them and declaring the rest as "too much effort" would tell me that I lack the time or resources to be DM at that point.
Again, how kind of you. I'm glad that you consider it to be your fault that a player has made an inconvenient request.
As phrased, (4) is a time sink. I don't have to stop at 10 hours per week; the amount of third-party material I could bring you and ask for a ruling about is unlimited. I suspect your actual standards would be something like "(4) I evaluate reasonable requests for new material..."
Or perhaps you simply say that a player who makes an unreasonable request is someone you don't want to game with, which is fine, but ironically makes you harsher than either ciretose or I. We're willing to say "sit down and shut up" and keep the game moving without throwing the offending player out, which gives a player a chance to learn how not to be unreasonable and to have fun playing a character that wasn't their first choice.
How kind of you.
Nothing to do with kindness; it has to do with basic marketplace economics, as I tried to explain. You can pooh-pooh it all you want, if you have the good fortune to be in a situation in which the player (i.e., customer) base is large enough to support you. For people who aren't so lucky, I've outlined what they can do to increase their competitiveness.
Here are 200+ pages of material on my "special snowflake" homebrew class that I want to be able to run. Our standing game is in three days, and I estimate that there are about 10 hours of work involved in reading it, more to prepare a detailed response. Of course, you also have your own life, and I've basically just handed you homework that completely kills any possibility of your doing anything else during your free time during the next two days. Notice also that this is atop your normal tasks of running the game, such as writing/modifying this week's adventure
That's exactly what I did when a player said, "Can I play a runecaster?" and handed me the printout. Note: no class is 200+ pages of material; your exaggeration doesn't help clarify things, only muddle them.
If I had no time, would I have done so? No, but in that case, I'd be offering a lower qualirty of customer service, in an area in which customers were at a premium. And I wouldn't have lasted as a DM. If mine were the only game for a hundred miles, I wouldn't need to.
|
|
There is also "I know from experience you suck at playing 'X'" or "You are really annoying when you play 'X'"
We have a player who sucks at Paladin, but is great at lots of other classes. We have some players who just aren't organized enough to play non-spontaneous casters (and some who can't resist the temptation to cheat...). We have players who just make the game not fun if they play some things, but are an absolute blast if they play other things.
Part of the GM's job is to also take all this into consideration to try and help the group be cohesive and fun for everyone involved, even if it means one player has to play the 2nd choice concept.
And you don't want to have to have the awkward conversation about how you know they can't resist cheating when they play wizards, druids and clerics...
Not true at all. Do they also hate half-elves? Do they hate elves because they hate stereotypical tree-huggers, so I should be sure to avoid wanting to play a druid as well, or a ranger? Do they hate androgyny, so I need to make sure my PC is hyper-masculine? A DM that will ban stuff "because I hate it" will also ban a lot of other stuff that touches on whatever the sore emotional area is. Because they're banning stuff for emotional reasons, rather than rational ones, the specific example you've stumbled on is very likely represents only the tip of the iceberg. I've experienced this many times in the past.
You're not going to change the DM's opinion by asking why, but you're not going to be able to avoid annoying him/her if you can't find out what it is that rubs him/her so wrong.
Actually, it's much easier than you suggest. If you're so worried about stepping on the GM's toes, why are you deliberately pushing the line that hard?
* Can I play a werewolf? No, I hate werewolves
* Can I play a kitsune, then? No, I hate those, too.
* Can I play a catfolk, then?
* Can I play a shapeshifting druid? No, I hate those, too.
* Can I play a transmuter wizard specializing in polymorph? No, I hate those, too.
* How about an illusionist who disguises himself as an animal?
Granted that the GM is not being as communicative as either of us would like,.... what the hell's wrong with playing a dwarven fighter? Or a halfling rogue?
Why are you deliberately pushing every example of a furry you can find in the game master's face?
If the game master says "not this," you don't have to try something that's just a smidgen removed from what he said "no" to.
Here are 200+ pages of material on my "special snowflake" homebrew class that I want to be able to run. Our standing game is in three days, and I estimate that there are about 10 hours of work involved in reading it, more to prepare a detailed response. Of course, you also have your own life, and I've basically just handed you homework that completely kills any possibility of your doing anything else during your free time during the next two days. Notice also that this is atop your normal tasks of running the game, such as writing/modifying this week's adventureThat's exactly what I did when a player said, "Can I play a runecaster?" and handed me the printout. Note: no class is 200+ pages of material; your exaggeration doesn't help clarify things, only muddle them. ** spoiler omitted
How many pages of discussion are there on this forum about the interpretation of the rules regarding magus? The summoner? Being handed a sheaf of the rules is not the same as being handed enough information about how they work.
I said 200+ pages because I meant 200+ pages.
BUT "I hate elves" is perfectly valid. DO you really need to know exactly what about elves they hate? This sort of opinion can't be changed by making a nuisance of yourself. If the person behind the GM screen "hates elves" then you know all you really need to know.Not true at all. Do they also hate half-elves? Do they hate elves because they hate stereotypical tree-huggers, so I should be sure to avoid wanting to play a druid as well, or a ranger? Do they hate androgyny, so I need to make sure my PC is hyper-masculine? A DM that will ban stuff "because I hate it" will also ban a lot of other stuff that touches on whatever the sore emotional area is. Because they're banning stuff for emotional reasons, rather than rational ones, the specific example you've stumbled on is very likely represents only the tip of the iceberg. I've experienced this many times in the past.
You're not going to change the DM's opinion by asking why, but you're not going to be able to avoid annoying him/her if you can't find out what it is that rubs him/her so wrong.
Now you're being disingenuous since you have a list of what is banned and can see whether druids or half elves are on that list or not, you REALLY are just fishing for an excuse to badger the GM.
How kind of you.Nothing to do with kindness; it has to do with basic marketplace economics, as I tried to explain. You can pooh-pooh it all you want, if you have the good fortune to be in a situation in which the player (i.e., customer) base is large enough to support you. For people who aren't so lucky, I've outlined what they can do to increase their competitiveness.
Why do I need to be "competitive"?
I play because I enjoy playing. I run games because I enjoy running games. If I found it necessary to make gaming not-fun in order to do it, why would I do it?
And, as I pointed out several pages ago, all you're really doing is creating negative incentives for the game master. Which is fine, but not what you want; you'll end up losing potential GMs who don't consider the hassle worth it. That's basically how market economies operate.... but gaming isn't about customer share, it's about fun. The result is not that you lose market share, but that the hobby as a whole loses.
I said 200+ pages because I meant 200+ pages.
I have to call B.S., then. If your players are literally handing you 200+ pages to review and insist on a <1 week timeline, there are all kinds of weird interpersonal problems going on between the two of you that don't need to get aired out over the messageboards. If I say, "I try to make sure the players enjoy the session," and you come back with "what if they're a serial killer and only enjoy it if they can actually murder someone, would you abet them in homicide?" -- at that point we're not having a conversation; that's just pulling crap out of the ether in an effort to be obnoxious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The result is not that you lose market share, but that the hobby as a whole loses.
(Shrug) Difference in perspective. Every time I see some enthusiastic would-be new player get shot down by a DM without any real explanation, and told to take a hike if they don't like it, I see another lost player. And then word gets out that "D&D players have no social skills," feeding into that stereoytpe, and we lose even more prospective players. That, to me, hurts the hobby a lot more.
Going out of your way to be inviting to players, to me, means encouraging people to join the hobby, realizing that we're not all basement-dwelling social rejects.
I have to call B.S., then. If your players are literally handing you 200+ pages to review and insist on a <1 week timeline, there are all kinds of weird interpersonal problems going on between the two of you that don't need to get aired out over the messageboards.I said 200+ pages because I meant 200+ pages.
No, they're not literally handing me 200+ pages. They are generally providing links to 200+ page discussion threads, or to several 50+ page discussion threads. Are you suggesting that a player who uses on-line resources has "all kinds of wierd interpersonal problems"?
The result is not that you lose market share, but that the hobby as a whole loses.(Shrug) Difference in perspective. Every time I see some enthusiastic would-be new player get shot down by a DM without any real explanation, and told to take a hike if they don't like it, I see another lost player. That, to me, hurts the hobby a lot more.
Losing a player is worse than losing a game master?
That's an innovative perspective on the economics of the hobby. Given that no single player is needed for a game, but if the game master walks out, the game is over at that point, I can only disagree with you.
No, they're not literally handing me 200+ pages. They are generally providing links to 200+ page discussion threads, or to several 50+ page discussion threads. Are you suggesting that a player who uses on-line resources has "all kinds of wierd interpersonal problems"?I have to call B.S., then. If your players are literally handing you 200+ pages to review and insist on a <1 week timeline, there are all kinds of weird interpersonal problems going on between the two of you that don't need to get aired out over the messageboards.I said 200+ pages because I meant 200+ pages.
Not at all. But unless your grasp of the basic game engine is pretty poor, you don't need to review all 200 pages to realize that the magus is "overpowered" only in relation to the fighter, monk, and rogue, who are weak sisters anyway (EDIT: correction: he fights better than the fighter at mid-level, but at least the monk and rogue can do other stuff, which the magus can't).
|
|
If the GM is required to give detailed justifications for why he won't allow concept X into the game, then I think it's only fair that the player be required to give detailed justifications for why his concept, Y, should be allowed into the game.
I would just prefer the player come up with something that isn't going to require a book report from either side...
If the GM is required to give detailed justifications for why he won't allow concept X into the game, then I think it's only fair that the player be required to give detailed justifications for why his concept, Y, should be allowed into the game.
Generally, they do. My players tend to give me all kinds of back stories and stuff like that. Maybe yours don't?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Losing a player is worse than losing a game master?
Losing that player, plus nearly every other prospective player he/she talks to? Yeah, that is worse.
|
|
If the GM is required to give detailed justifications for why he won't allow concept X into the game, then I think it's only fair that the player be required to give detailed justifications for why his concept, Y, should be allowed into the game.Generally, they do. My players tend to give me all kinds of back stories and stuff like that. Maybe yours don't?
Mine do. After approval of concept. Generally in collaboration with the rest of the group and the GM so we can all work together to work it into the story.
Extensive back story without any consultation is a red flag for me.
Mine do... Generally in collaboration with the rest of the group and the GM so we can all work together to work it into the story. Extensive back story without any consultation is a red flag for me.
Yeah, like I keep saying, it's nice when we can all work together on stuff.
|
|
Mine do... Generally in collaboration with the rest of the group and the GM so we can all work together to work it into the story. Extensive back story without any consultation is a red flag for me.Yeah, like I keep saying, it's nice when we can all work together on stuff.
I think it is what we both keep saying. You think the GM is to controlling, I think the player is being selfish.
We could both be right, you know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We could both be right, you know.
Quite so -- but we'd never find out except by communicating. Why is why stuff like "I don't owe anyone an explanation! If you don't like it, leave!" gives you and I nowehere to go but out the door. I notice that even Aranna agrees with that.
Now you're being disingenuous since you have a list of what is banned and can see whether druids or half elves are on that list or not, you REALLY are just fishing for an excuse to badger the GM.
Minor correction: If you were the DM, I'd have a list of what is banned. And I'd abide by it. Some of the other thread participants, however, have told me that they don't need to issue a list, it's "obvious" what's "appropriate." I've provided examples that are very, very close to actual conversations I've had with DMs.
With those people, you can't look on the list, because it's supposed to be "obvious" -- but it generally isn't, so you have no choice but to ask ("badger" the DM, in other words).
The guy who told us that "all wizards have to wear robes, or else they're not wizards" comes to mind.
|
|
We could both be right, you know.Quite so -- but we'd never find out except by communicating. Why is why stuff like "I don't owe anyone an explanation! If you don't like it, leave!" gives you and I nowehere to go but out the door. I notice that even Aranna agrees with that.
There is also the fact that communication doesn't always lead to agreement...(what post number are we on now...) and at the end of the day if the information you have is "The GM doesn't want to run this concept" or "The player doesn't want to play in this setting" you have pretty much all the information you need.
The GM shouldn't make a player play anything they don't want to play, and the Player shouldn't make the GM run anything they don't want to run.
|
|
Now you're being disingenuous since you have a list of what is banned and can see whether druids or half elves are on that list or not, you REALLY are just fishing for an excuse to badger the GM.Minor correction: If you were the DM, I'd have a list of what is banned. And I'd abide by it. Some of the other thread participants, however, have told me that they don't need to issue a list, it's "obvious" what's "appropriate." I've provided examples that are very, very close to actual conversations I've had with DMs.
With those people, you can't look on the list, because it's supposed to be "obvious" -- but it generally isn't, so you have no choice but to ask ("badger" the DM, in other words).
The guy who told us that "all wizards have to wear robes, or else they're not wizards" comes to mind.
And others have said that such lists show lack of creativity or laziness...
Let's not forget that part of the statement.
There is also the fact that communication doesn't always lead to agreement...
Right. It's a necessary condition, but not a suffcient one.
But it's still necessary.
And others have said that such lists show lack of creativity or laziness... Let's not forget that part of the statement.
Often they do, but so what? In a "buyer's market" (i.e., more players than DMs), a prospective player won't refuse to play with someone just because they don't put as much work into things as others. The DM then can afford to say, "Yup, I just can't be bothered, but it's still a fun game, OK?" It's only when GMs outnumber players when stuff like that potentially becomes important.
|
I've never really said that the GM shouldn't provide some sort of justification (unless that justification would contain plot spoilers). My disconnect is merely that I would be completely fine with that justification consisting of nothing but "I don't like X." I don't feel any entitlement to know WHY the GM doesn't like X. He's the man running the show...if X would cause him to get less enjoyment running the game, then I don't want him to have to deal with X.
|
|
And others have said that such lists show lack of creativity or laziness... Let's not forget that part of the statement.Often they do, but so what? In a "buyer's market" (i.e., more players than DMs), a prospective player won't refuse to play with someone just because they don't put as much work into things as others. The DM then can afford to say, "Yup, I just can't be bothered, but it's still a fun game, OK?" It's only when GMs outnumber players when stuff like that potentially becomes important.
Which is where I take issue with your stance.
Not all players want to play with all of the "creative" ideas of other players. Many of us like that the GM handles all of the screening for us so we aren't going to have to deal with disruptive concepts in the game. We, as players, find those players annoying and want them to not be a part of the game.
We want someone to be in charge.
One of the things I look for in a group is if they are willing to put the fun of the entire group ahead of any individual.
Many groups I've met are made up of very insecure people who think saying "no" is the same as rejecting the person, which is something that seems to brings on High School flashbacks, and so they never say "no" to anyone or anything and then are confused why fun people don't come back to a game that has gone off the rails with only annoying players they don't really want to run for any more, but feel obligated to.
And players take advantage of them until they either quit running at all or it becomes an obligation rather than a fun activity.
That is what I have seen. That is why I didn't play for years. I was interested in the hobby, but I wasn't interested in the baggage. I knew the people I game with now as friends long before they would even consider letting me game with them. It was a whole different threshold of friendship to be let into the group.
And then once I was in the group, it was years before anyone in the group would even consider letting me run a game for them.
The few bad gaming experiences I've had have always come from taking a chance to let a player in who was disruptive. I've seen bad GMs, lord knows the players who go to side groups come back with hilarious stories of GM's requirements to play in a game...but I never understood why anyone would play with that GM, let along 4 people.
But I don't have to, I'm not in that game. If the 4 people in that game are happy, god bless them.
But when you complain, you aren't happy. If you complain about your GM on the messageboard...why? Do you have nothing else to do with your time than to keep going back to a 4 hour session you aren't going to enjoy?
Why don't you run a game if you want it run a certain way. If it is a fun way to play, and people don't think you are a jerk, you'll pretty quickly get a group of like-minded people and you can be happy in your little group.
But making the players do something they don't want to do, or the GM run something they don't want to run...that is a jerk move.
Which is half of my issue with some people on here. They say over and over "My GM won't allow this, they are uncreative and mean" but when you ask them to bring alternative concepts the GM might enjoy running they thing that is too much to ask.
Really? The GM has to bend to you to make it fun for you, but you don't have to have a goal of making it fun for the GM and the other players?
Because unless the other players are desparately insecure, they must like playing for that GM if they are coming back every week...and if they are that desparately insecure...to toxic for me, sorry...
So my entire point here, and on most of the threads where I get into long protracted discussions, is people need to stop telling people in other groups what the GM is doing is wrong if only one person seems to be bothered by it.
Particularly people who live in glass house games where someone saying the same to them is an outrage.
Game and let game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is increasing at an exponential rate. Very soon it will become self-aware. Shortly afterwards it will launch it's assault upon the human race.