|
Q: "If the DM makes a campaign where all races except gnomes are banned, and only core classes from the CRB, and no spellcasting classes allowed, and no swords because they haven't been invented yet, is player 1 wrong to ask to play a dwarf, and player 2 a magus, and player 3 a gnome with a short sword?"
A1: "Of course they're wrong! Those entitled players are just trying to be disruptive!"
A2: "Is the DM wrong to make the campaign setting so restrictive, especially since the players don't seem to want to play in a game with those restrictions?"
"A" player, not "the" players.
If "The" players didn't like the idea the GM had, no one would let the GM run that idea.
If "a" player doesn't like it, they can not play. It "the" players don't like it, it doesn't happen because no one shows up.
"A" player, not "the" players.
Honestly, I think a lot of the time the number is underrepresented because players are afraid to rock the boat, or are too polite to voice their opinions. All these threads about "GM = God" and "Player entitlement makes you a VERY BAD PERSON!" surely don't help that.
So, realistically, if there are five players, maybe two are a little disappointed but don't think should say anything about it (for whatever reason); one "troublemaker" presents a counterproposal; one doesn't care; and the last one maybe agrees with the DM. The proportions can shift, but I'd guess it's fairly rare that it's ever "all" or "only one," in reality. (Note that in the example given, 3/5 of the players aren't really thrilled about things, but only one steps up and says anything about it.)
But here's the thing -- all that can easily be avoided. If the GM actually, you know, talks to the players beforehand, then there's no reason 100% unanimity can't be achieved. "Hey, guys, what kind of campaign are you interested in? I was thinking like a pirate-themed one, because I have all these Paizo APs that lean in that direction, but I'm not sure if we should have like a zillion races (which is kind of a pain in the neck and I'd rather not deal with it unless you guys really want them), or just standard ones, or maybe just humans might be cool. Also, I personally don't like guns in D&D, but they DO sort of match the setting -- so what are your thoughts on them?"
Notice that it's elicited rather than dictated.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run. 4 people are interested in the idea, one isn't.
The story doesn't happen because one person isn't interested?
If only 3 people are interested, maybe it happens and maybe it doesn't, you can run with three, but it is harder.
A GM has to want to run the world they are playing as much as a player has to want to play the character they want.
If 4 people are into a game, and a million people aren't, it is still cool because those 4 people are.
What isn't cool is one person who tries to manipulate a game into what they want it to be, without ever being given the authority to do so by the group.
I think far more often the "nice guy" syndrome applies to a somewhat annoying player people put up with rather than to the person everyone must like enough to let be the GM.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is how I think of it.
A group of friends are hanging out and they decide they want to have a party. They talk and one of them, let's call him Bill, says " You can have the party at my house, I'll buy the food, decorations, take care of the clean up, etc...but one thing. No booze. I don't want booze in my house, sorry."
At this point you can decide if you want to go to the party or not, or if you want to do all of the work involved with having a party at your house and invite people so that you can have a party with booze. Or maybe you'll convince someone else in the group to host the party at their house, because they allow booze.
All of those are options.
But if you show up at Bill's house on the day of the party with a case of beer, you are a jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run. 4 people are interested in the idea, one isn't.
The story doesn't happen because one person isn't interested?
If only 3 people are interested, maybe it happens and maybe it doesn't, you can run with three, but it is harder.
Or what I see happen in my group...
GM proposes a campaign idea. 4 people are interested...one is not.
The GM and the four other ask the one "What would make it more interest?"
The one player shares his ideas, concern etc. The GM adapts his campaign idea to it...and everybody is now interested in...and more importantly invested in...and then writes a 'story'.
I think alot of the problems a GM face is that they come to the table with the whole idea set in stone...why do they do that?
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run.
Without asking the players what they're interested in, or soliciting their input? You just say, "this is the game I'm going to run, take it or leave it"?
I've run several "core only" or "core + limited additional material" campaigns for the following reasons:
Please note...my lack of understanding is with hardline "core only" games. I can defintly understand limiting options for any number of reasons.
1. I was an inexperienced GM still learning the rules, and I didn't want more rules to have to learn on top of the basic ones. I wouldn't say I was unskilled, but I was inexperienced. And the only way you become an experienced--and skilled, for that matter--GM is starting somewhere. In fact, most of my experiences where a new GM starts out using ALL the books, those campaigns get ridiculously messed up quickly, as the GM starts getting confused about what is where. It's also hard if you are an inexperienced GM working with experienced players--while this can also be a boon, if the players know the splats better than you do simply because they've been playing longer, it can lead to difficulties.
And let me reiterate: GMs have to start somewhere. They don't burst fully formed from Zeus's skull with a d20 in their hand. And a BETTER GM is going to absolutely learn the core rules inside and out before they move on to the supplements.
This I can understand. Though I have seen new GMs allow outside of core content and a fairly good job at it. Though either they had a good players who knew the rules and/or have been a player before hand. Also eventualy a new GM is not so new anymore. So why hold on to "Core Only"?
2. I was running a game for inexperienced players who did not own or have access to the supplementary books. I did not want to use material they would either find overwhelming or hard to access or make them feel like they had to spend money to "compete." There's a also the "option paralysis" issue thejeff mentions. In fact I'm setting up a new campaign IRL and am allowing more than core, and some new players told me they felt overwhelmed.
In general when dealing with a new player I limit them to core for creating their characters. Though as the characters level up they are free to pick options from other books. Now here the odd thing I noticed most the core only characters end up alot more powerful than those characters who have other options.
Also with new players because I encourage the idea of character concept is I ask them what they want to do...than guide them in making their characters.
As for spending money...Pazio does have all the Rulebooks online for free.
As for the "competeing...this is where my experience just differs I guess...I have created characters using Core Only in campaigns that allow all the other books and felt I was just as powerful...if not more so than those PCs. While I understand this perception I just find it untrue and really try to show my players that.
3. I didn't have time to "screen" supplementary books. I often ran 3.5 "core only" because there was such a HUGE amount of material out there, and often in a given book there would be a mix of things, some of which were fine and others were way broken. If I spent all my time reading through books learning what worked and what didn't work I wouldn't have any time to prepare or write the adventure. (And where the "brokenness" comes in isn't, "all of it is broken," it's "I know some of this is broken and I don't have time to fix it, so let's stick to what we know works"). Other times I would simply have players run by me whatever supplementary material they wanted to use, and I would okay it on a case by case basis.
I understand the time thing....but you do realize I also have a busy life with work(hopefuly more busy sooner), family, other interest, friends that don't game. It is not like I am one of those gaming trolls that breath...eat...sleep RPGs. When a new books comes out...I set aside the current novel I am reading or while watching a TV show that does not require my full attention read through it. Now I do enjoy reading books of new options and rules because of the ideas both as a GM and player that can grow from it.
Though also I am not required to read anything till a player wants it for his PC...than it is a couple of pages?
And lastly the issue the "brokeness"...my policy is simple nothing is broken till I see it happen during a actual game. I really don't care what happened in GM Bob's game...or the reams of paper somebody does to figure out the odds.
A interst side note...the best way I cam up with 'fixing' 3.5 was to ban most of the stuff from core.
4. Let me reiterate: time factor.
I addressed this above. Though I will say that I can understand this the best.
5. Some of the splat material doesn't work with my world. I've got a world I've spent 10 years working on, some splats fit in fine, others have parts or wholes that don't at all. For example, a core part of the concept of the world is there is no such thing as firearms, so obviously, all the gunny bits of Ultimate Combat are out.
Agreed but this is not about a core only game.
I've also had one (1) (I.) person out of a pool of dozens of players who complained I was running a core only game, and he simply opted out of joining the game with no hard feelings. That was nearly ten years ago. I've had some players present me splat stuff they want to use I hadn't explicitly okayed. Sometimes I said yes. Sometimes I said no. Either way, there was no drama, just moving on to play the damn game.
Agreed I believe in zero "drama"...well except in character if it fits.
I will also say people have had fun playing the games where I used limited or no splats, and people having fun is all that matters. You should be able to have fun with a pick up game with notepaper and pencil as much as you can have fun with a game with nine dozen supplements -- the fun shouldn't be in how much money you spent on the game or how many rules there are, but in the playing and the imagination of it. And if limiting the number of books makes it more fun for the GM because it frees up time and money and prep work for him or her, all the better, because generally if the GM isn't having fun, the players definitely will not be.
I am sure they do..I would probably also. But you can always have more fun. Also I can say the inverse is true...more rule can lead to having more fun.
Also yet again just want to point out as people repeatly point this out all the Hard Covered books are free on the PFSRD...so what is this more money thing people keep talking about?
Also...what is exactly 'power creep' people talk about? I know the theory...but in all my years of playing D&D have never actualy seen it.
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
The player and GM should work together. The player should tell them GM what he or she wants in a character and the GM can decide how such a character can fit into the campaign.
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Why or why not?
The best option is for the GM to pre-clear books or other material as allowable in the campaign. Players may ask for other materials to be included, but the GM has the final say.
The reason why is that GMs do much more work than players in preparing for the adventure. They have an entire campaign world to balance. If something they did not expect can cause problems, players cannot reasonably expect for them to be allowed.
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run.Without asking the players what they're interested in, or soliciting their input? You just say, "this is the game I'm going to run, take it or leave it"?
Our group does this a lot. Granted we've been playing for twentyish years or so, all get along and know each other well. My absolute favorite DM generally turns up with characters for us at the start of a campaign - "I thought you might like to try this - it's a thief whose recently discovered he's become a werewolf. Full moon is in four days and you're desperately trying to flee the army before you get found out."
.It's clearly not the norm, but it works really well for our group (and our campaigns generally only last half a dozen levels or so. Thus, even if you end up playing a character you dont enjoy very much, it doesnt last very long).
|
|
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run. 4 people are interested in the idea, one isn't.
The story doesn't happen because one person isn't interested?
If only 3 people are interested, maybe it happens and maybe it doesn't, you can run with three, but it is harder.
Or what I see happen in my group...
GM proposes a campaign idea. 4 people are interested...one is not.
The GM and the four other ask the one "What would make it more interest?"
The one player shares his ideas, concern etc. The GM adapts his campaign idea to it...and everybody is now interested in...and more importantly invested in...and then writes a 'story'.
I think alot of the problems a GM face is that they come to the table with the whole idea set in stone...why do they do that?
Same reason a player comes in with a character concept set in stone.
Only no one picked the player to run the campaign setting.
I see a lot of "The GM should accommodate a player" and far less "An individual player should accommodate the group."
This is what bothers me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This I can understand. Though I have seen new GMs allow outside of core content and a fairly good job at it. Though either they had a good players who knew the rules and/or have been a player before hand. Also eventualy a new GM is not so new anymore. So why hold on to "Core Only"?
Well, you appear to have a very specific GM in your mind that maybe is more experienced than I am assuming?
A) I was talking about different reasons I have done core only in past, and B) otherwise, all I know about the otherwise hypothetical GM we are discussing is that he only allows core. I don't know how experienced the hypothetical GM is or all the things hypothetical GM could be thinking. So I assume that one possibility is the hypothetical core-only GM could be inexperienced.
If an experienced GM chooses core-only, then there can be a bevy of other reasons, including the inexperienced players bit, the "fits my setting best bit," the "I don't have time to read or test more materials" bit, and so on.
And frankly, I think "because I damn well feel like it" is also a valid answer to "why." You may disagree or dislike that response, but it's a valid response regardless. Most human beings are generally anything but rational.
In general when dealing with a new player I limit them to core for creating their characters. Though as the characters level up they are free to pick options from other books. Now here the odd thing I noticed most the core only characters end up a lot more powerful than those characters who have other options.
A player talented at character building will actually often do well with limited options, because he or she is challenged to take few options and work with them in the best possible combinations.
While talented players can also manipulate supplemental rules to find unexpected power combos (depending on what's available in the source material), it is also easy for many players to get distracted by additional rules, and cherry pick from the broader array without much benefit--creating jacks of all trades, master of none. Which in fact is another argument toward sticking with core only. :)
NOW, that said, if the only RPG you've ever played is Pathfinder, I can also see why you may think that. Core Pathfinder is pretty powerful, and many splat archetypes are actually weaker than the classes they alter. That's a phenomenon I've very specifically seen in this game, but few others.
Also with new players because I encourage the idea of character concept is I ask them what they want to do...than guide them in making their characters.
That's a good idea regardless of how many sourcebooks you're using.
As for spending money...Pazio does have all the Rulebooks online for free.
That's great for Pathfinder, but I was talking in general about RPGs; for example I mentioned 3.5 which definitely did not have many books available in the SRD (in fact, my 3.5 games were often "SRD only" in part so everyone had access for free--but it was a lot less than the book line available).
And the statement about time to read the rules still stands, and is I think the more salient issue.
Also, for Pathfinder, only the RPG line books are in the Pathfinder Reference Document. I know the third party d20pfsrd.org has a lot of the setting books, but I had a vague memory they have decided not to add additional materials from those lines at Paizo's request. I could have dreamt that though.
As for the "competeing...this is where my experience just differs I guess...I have created characters using Core Only in campaigns that allow all the other books and felt I was just as powerful...if not more so than those PCs. While I understand this perception I just find it untrue and really try to show my players that.
I think this depends a lot on personal experience. I've definitely have had the experience I've discussed, it's not just something I've heard on the message boards. I think more often in my earlier years than now, but my experiences tell me it's something to be wary of, even if ultimately my wariness can be set aside once I know what kind of players I am working with and what their concerns and desires are.
I understand the time thing....but you do realize I also have a busy life with work(hopefuly more busy sooner), family, other interest, friends that don't game. It is not like I am one of those gaming trolls that breath...eat...sleep RPGs. When a new books comes out...I set aside the current novel I am reading or while watching a TV show that does not require my full attention read through it. Now I do enjoy reading books of new options and rules because of the ideas both as a GM and player that can grow from it.
Wasn't saying you were, so don't take it personally. Some people still have varying time that they are not willing to spend reading new game books. They don't want to or feel they can't set aside that novel or TV show or playing with their kids or going shopping or visiting their sick father in the hospital or whatever. There is absolutely nothing that should obligate a person to read every game book ever that comes out just because it exists. If you like to and make the time to in your busy life, great. Not everyone can or wants to, however.
That's personal preference. It is what it is, and you can't change somebody's gaming preferences any more than you could change their favorite color or flavor of ice cream (or whether they even like ice cream at all).
Though also I am not required to read anything till a player wants it for his PC...than it is a couple of pages?
Depends on what it is--and it depends on how much research you need to do to see how the abilities you combine with other stuff. Just depends.
And lastly the issue the "brokeness"...my policy is simple nothing is broken till I see it happen during a actual game. I really don't care what happened in GM Bob's game...or the reams of paper somebody does to figure out the odds.
First, in ANY RPG I run, I always run core only first to be sure I know what the essence of the game feels like as the developers intended. THEN I decide whether I want to add on or not. That way anything that is thrown my way, I have the core baseline to compare it to.
Secondly, while agree it's always worth testing something before deciding what to do with it--if YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO TEST IT, then it's safer--maybe not better or preferable, but safer--to just not use it.
Again, time. Time time time.
Also, there is a problem I have experienced where a rule is allowed in game, and then midway through the game, its brokenness is discovered. Depending on the game, it may be very difficult to change that rule mid-game. Especially if a player has built his entire character around that mechanic--you change the rule, you bork the PC and how it works. Ideally, you talk to the players and agree on a way to fix it, but depending on the rule you're changing it can cause a lot of problems which moreover waste gameplay time figuring it out. If the problem is anticipated, and the rule changed or not used from the get go, you avoid wasting that time later.
I also consider that if I have actively played in a game where I have seen something broken, I have personally experienced it and consider that valid enough to ban it in my game.
A interst side note...the best way I cam up with 'fixing' 3.5 was to ban most of the stuff from core.
Given I had a thoroughly pleasurable and easy time running core only 3.5 games, I never felt a need to "fix" it.
5. Some of the splat material doesn't work with my world. I've got a world I've spent 10 years working on, some splats fit in fine, others have parts or wholes that don't at all. For example, a core part of the concept of the world is there is no such thing as firearms, so obviously, all the gunny bits of Ultimate Combat are out.Agreed but this is not about a core only game.
But if a GM said, "I am running core only because only core works with my world," then that's a reason to run core only.
Again, maybe not a reason you like or agree with, but a reason.
I am sure they do..I would probably also. But you can always have more fun. Also I can say the inverse is true...more rule can lead to having more fun.
Sure (although I personally have fun with a slightly lighter rules approach, that's just my druthers). But it depends on the players and GMs and what they want to do and what works for them. You asked why some people prefer core only. I did my best to explain why I myself have restricted splats, with branching out to further hypotheticals as to why others may do the same, and that's all I can do. All I can hope is that I answered your questions. My answers may not be what you wanted to hear, but this isn't a multiple choice quiz with one right answer. It's all about preference and POV.
And really either way, whether it's core only or with a billion splats, if you're enjoying yourself, who cares how other people do it? I mean, I guess that just means I wasted my time trying to answer your inquiry, but in the end, if people find a group that they play well with whatever rules are or aren't allowed, then that's all you can hope for, and the whys of it really don't matter as long they do what works for them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run.Without asking the players what they're interested in, or soliciting their input? You just say, "this is the game I'm going to run, take it or leave it"?
Here is how the last few campaigns I have been a part of have run.
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Viking Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Pirate Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run "X" Adventure Path (vary to flavor). If you are interested, email me."
So basically, yes. That is exactly what happens in my group. If a GM in the group (there are 4 of us who GM and about 8 to 10 rotating in the primary group, with lots of sub groups other people game in and out of) wants to run something, they ask if people want to play. First come, first serve generally speaking. Give me your concept, within the framework we'll discuss by e-mail.
The GM is doing most of the heavy lifting, they should at least be able to decide what exactly they are carrying.
None of those were games I was running, by the way.
Why should an individual player wanting to play a specific concept be "fair" but a GM wanting to run a setting be excessive?
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And frankly, I think "because I damn well feel like it" is also a valid answer to "why." You may disagree or dislike that response, but it's a valid response regardless. Most human beings are generally anything but rational.
Thank you.
The player entitlement position seems to be the GM must defer to an individual players wishes to play what they want to play, but the player is under no such expectations to similarly accommodate what the GM wants to run.
It is just silly to defer the to an individual in a group who has been given the less responsibility and authority by the group.
The group picked the GM, presumably because the GM proposed a fun game. If you aren't going to let the GM run the proposed game you agree to play in, what you are actually doing is making someone run a game for you, regardless of what they want to do.
The person doing the most work has the least say.
That is ridiculous.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you think someone has to have the least say is the problem.
And I would say the fact that someone saying "I am going to have to do a lot of work, and so I would like to do it this way" is unacceptable but someone saying "But I want you to do all the work, but not have to do it that way" is acceptable is the problem.
Why am I going to put my time and energy into something I'm not interested in doing? Why should I have to?
If a player can say "I want to play this character" why can't a GM say "I want to play this setting"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who said he can't?
Put it this way.
Let's say I want to play a pirate campaign. I post for interest and wait. Several people write back saying they are interested and give lots of cool ideas for pirate themed things.
One player writes back he wants to play, but doesn't want to be a pirate.
I now have a group that wants to be pirates, have pirate themed ideas, and one person who is not interested in playing the game I announced I was willing to run.
Am I supposed to say "Well, since Joe doesn't want to be a pirate, even though I have enough people to run without Joe we aren't going to run a pirate campaign, we are going to run something for Joe."
Because apparently, I exist to GM for Joe. I don't actually want to run a pirate campaign, the others in the group don't want to run a pirate campaign, they want to run...whatever it is Joe wants to run.
Or, I say to Joe "Cool, but this is a pirate campaign, so catch you next time I run something that you do what to run."
Because Joe doesn't want to play what I am running, and what the group is interested in playing. And I like Joe, but I want to run a pirate
campaign. Other people want to run a pirate campaign. We will run a pirate campaign.
I like Joe, I'll game with Joe another time. If Joe runs the vikings I will try to get in on that game, but if he runs something I'm not interested in, I'll take a pass.
But I don't exist as a GM to facilitate Joe. I exist as a GM to find a group that wants to play what I want to run. If that doesn't include Joe, but does include 4 other people, great.
If Joe still tries to play a non-pirate character, when it is made clear it is a pirate campaign, the GM is not the problem, Joe is.
If a GM says they want to run a core only Orc Rogue party, and you want to be part of it, you roll up a Half-Orc Rogue or you take a pass on the game.
If players don't want to play what the GM is running, the game doesn't happen. If you don't want to play what the GM is running, don't sabotage it for those who do.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an example, the best GM in our group likes running quick microlite games.
I hate microlite, so I don't play in those. My wife loves them, so they actually play a game at my house I don't participate in.
And that is fine.
When he ran a game that had variant no hit point rules, neither my wife or I liked it. So he ran it with another group at his apartment.
And it was fine.
A group doesn't own a GM. A GM is a freelancer with ideas they want to run. If the idea are good enough to get four people to buy in, you have a game.
It is not a GMs responsibility to make a custom game for a player who is unwilling to adapt, if the GM has a group that already likes the game concept he likes to run. And isn't a players responsibility to play in every game a GM runs, even if they aren't interested.
Co-Dependency is not a goal of my gaming circle. That is why we have 4 GMs at this point.
Sure (although I personally have fun with a slightly lighter rules approach, that's just my druthers). But it depends on the players and GMs and what they want to do and what works for them. You asked why some people prefer core only. I did my best to explain why I myself have restricted splats, with branching out to further hypotheticals as to why others may do the same, and that's all I can do. All I can hope is that I answered your questions. My answers may not be what you wanted to hear, but this isn't a multiple choice quiz with one right answer. It's all about preference and POV.
And really either way, whether it's core only or with a billion splats, if you're enjoying yourself, who cares how other people do it? I mean, I guess that just means I wasted my time trying to answer your inquiry, but in the end, if people find a group that they play well with whatever rules are or aren't allowed, then that's all you can hope for, and the whys of it really don't matter as long they do what works for them.
I do want to say thank you for taking the time to go through it with me. It has open my mind to things I did not think about before. I might still disagree a little due POV and preference, but for me be able to understand a difference in opinion and such is important to me.
I think a stumbling block for me at times in understanding this is my own humble opinion of myself. I read and comprehand at quicker rate than normal average...I also have a great memory. So at times I don't get everybody has the abilities I do.
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run. 4 people are interested in the idea, one isn't.
The story doesn't happen because one person isn't interested?
If only 3 people are interested, maybe it happens and maybe it doesn't, you can run with three, but it is harder.
Or what I see happen in my group...
GM proposes a campaign idea. 4 people are interested...one is not.
The GM and the four other ask the one "What would make it more interest?"
The one player shares his ideas, concern etc. The GM adapts his campaign idea to it...and everybody is now interested in...and more importantly invested in...and then writes a 'story'.
I think alot of the problems a GM face is that they come to the table with the whole idea set in stone...why do they do that?
Same reason a player comes in with a character concept set in stone.
Only no one picked the player to run the campaign setting.
I see a lot of "The GM should accommodate a player" and far less "An individual player should accommodate the group."
This is what bothers me.
I forgot to explain a step more. The player discussing his/her problems is with everybody getting involved in the discussion...which is why they are all invested. So it is more of the players and GM discussing it together. Which I find tends to bring out other concerns players might but did not want to voice. Also to me atleast I take the people who complain not as a insult to me...but as a sign that they actualy care about the game overall
Personaly I generaly play with people I like. So if I can change my ideas as a GM or even as a player to accomandate someone I am friends with...why should I not?
Now of course if a compromise can't reach...the GM might want to rethink his game or that player steps out. At this stage they can still do so gracefuly and without any hurt feeling on either side. Though as a GM I gurantee that next game I run will be one that the player is interested in.
Now yes if a person is proving to be a jerk...kick them out my all means. Heck I have probably kicked out more people from my games than you. A Jerk player is alot more harmful to my style of gaming. But I just think before you kick a player to the curb for being a jerk you should actualy make sure they are being a jerk.
Also...what is exactly 'power creep' people talk about? I know the theory...but in all my years of playing D&D have never actualy seen it.You never played 3.5 near the end where the core classes, feats and spells were more often than not drastically sub-optimal choices?
Really?
Really?
Name a class more powerful than wizard, cleric or druid?
Name a spell more powerful than Gate, Wish/miracle, or Shapechange, Time stop with Delay spell?
Also it bears repeating I guess...what you might consider broken or under powered...other might find to be useless or weak. The game I am afraid is not designed for you and yours alone.
Example...Many people consider the PF Vow of poverty monks to a weak choice/trap ability. But in a setting I am designing where a person might have one magic item anyway...I am thinking of banning it because it is too powerful. Also in games that only reach 6th level...it is a great choice.
The player entitlement position seems to be the GM must defer to an individual players wishes to play what they want to play, but the player is under no such expectations to similarly accommodate what the GM wants to run.
Um..no that is not the position I atleast represent. My thing is the GM and the players should accomandate each other. I think you are confusing Scott Bhett's position from the other thread.
It is just silly to defer the to an individual in a group who has been given the less responsibility and authority by the group.
The group picked the GM, presumably because the GM proposed a fun game. If you aren't going to let the GM run the proposed game you agree to play in, what you are actually doing is making someone run a game for you, regardless of what they want to do.
The person doing the most work has the least say.
That is ridiculous.
I think you are missing each other points because we are talking about two different stages of the game. We are not saying the GM should accomandate anything mid game...or during the first session even. But during character creation and a discussion of what to play a GM should very well do so.
While I agree that a player should be more considerate of the people he is playing with...I know I am. But again as a player I try to avoid the tyranny of the majority syndrome. Which can be a problem also.
Yeah, as a dm I have not been thrilled when someone comes to me with something unbalanced or not allowed, and they demand to play it.
Not in my world buddy.
|
|
Also...what is exactly 'power creep' people talk about? I know the theory...but in all my years of playing D&D have never actualy seen it.You never played 3.5 near the end where the core classes, feats and spells were more often than not drastically sub-optimal choices?
Really?
Really?
Name a class more powerful than wizard, cleric or druid?
Name a spell more powerful than Gate, Wish/miracle, or Shapechange, Time stop with Delay spell?
Also it bears repeating I guess...what you might consider broken or under powered...other might find to be useless or weak. The game I am afraid is not designed for you and yours alone.
Example...Many people consider the PF Vow of poverty monks to a weak choice/trap ability. But in a setting I am designing where a person might have one magic item anyway...I am thinking of banning it because it is too powerful. Also in games that only reach 6th level...it is a great choice.
Abjurant Champion. Nearly every Wizard Prestige Class. Druids and Wizards with the spells from the Spell Compendium...
|
|
While I agree that a player should be more considerate of the people he is playing with...I know I am. But again as a player I try to avoid the tyranny of the majority syndrome. Which can be a problem also.
I avoid it to.
I don't play in games I am not interested in playing. Then I don't have to worry about it.
But if I do decide to play in a game, and to show up for a given session, I try to make things work for everyone at the table an not just me.
Regardless of what side of the table I am on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run.Without asking the players what they're interested in, or soliciting their input? You just say, "this is the game I'm going to run, take it or leave it"?Here is how the last few campaigns I have been a part of have run.
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Viking Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Pirate Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run "X" Adventure Path (vary to flavor). If you are interested, email me." ((Snip))
This is how the gamers I know do it too. For example, I usually email anywhere from 6-20 people describing
1. What system I am running
2. What books I am using
3. The setting it takes place in
4. How many players I'm looking for
5. How often and when the game will take place
I then ask them to respond to me to let me know whether they are interested and available.
The people uninterested and unavailable simply say so. And given there's a huge group of us who are all gamers, they aren't short on finding other games or running their own, if they don't want to play in mine or their schedule doesn't suit mine.
I almost always get enough people interested and willing to work with the parameters I've set to get going. The only time I haven't gotten enough people is when the time I've set for the game doesn't work with people's work/family/other gaming schedules. Hell, negotiating time to play in our groups is the real difficulty, not negotiating setting and campaign restrictions.
Works very well for us, no drama.
Now, sometimes a group of players will do the other way around, approach a GM and ask him to run a campaign they'd like to play in--but normally the GM they'd ask is someone they've run with before and are asking him specifically because they like the way he runs, thinks he would be best suited to run the campaign, and trust him to make fair decisions about what is and isn't allowed, so there wouldn't be restriction drama there either.
How otherwise would it even work? Do people tie would-be players to chairs and say YOU MUST BE IN MY CAMPAIGN OR ELSE BWA HA HA?
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run.Without asking the players what they're interested in, or soliciting their input? You just say, "this is the game I'm going to run, take it or leave it"?Here is how the last few campaigns I have been a part of have run.
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Viking Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Pirate Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."
GM Emails all of us: "I want to run "X" Adventure Path (vary to flavor). If you are interested, email me." ((Snip))
This is how the gamers I know do it too. For example, I usually email anywhere from 6-20 people describing
1. What system I am running
2. What books I am using
3. The setting it takes place in
4. How many players I'm looking for
5. How often and when the game will take placeI then ask them to respond to me to let me know whether they are interested and available.
The people uninterested and unavailable simply say so. And given there's a huge group of us who are all gamers, they aren't short on finding other games or running their own, if they don't want to play in mine or their schedule doesn't suit mine.
I almost always get enough people interested and willing to work with the parameters I've set to get going. The only time I haven't gotten enough people is when the time I've set for the game doesn't work with people's work/family/other gaming schedules. Hell, negotiating time to play in our groups is the real difficulty, not negotiating setting and campaign restrictions.
Works very well for us, no drama.
Now, sometimes a group of players will do the other way around, approach a GM and ask him to run a campaign they'd like to play in--but normally the GM they'd ask is someone they've run with before and are asking him specifically because they like the way he runs, thinks he would be best suited to run the campaign, and trust him...
What she said.
Although it's worth noting that I have never played with a moustachioed DM(although one has a full beard).
|
|
Do people tie would-be players to chairs and say YOU MUST BE IN MY CAMPAIGN OR ELSE BWA HA HA?Well, actually... *curls mustache*
Joking aside, this is an example of GM entitlement. Which is why I think it is more myth than reality.
If a GM is a jerk, the GM has to convince 4 people otherwise, weekly, or the game stops because people find other things to do that don't involve having someone be a jerk to them
If a player is a jerk, he just has to avoid being booted by a group of people who aren't jerks. And what we see over and over are stories of groups trying to "work" with selfish problem players.
What we don't see is groups trying to work with selfish problem GMs.
Note I said selfish, not bad. You can work with bad players or bad GMs so they can learn to be be better at the game. How else can they learn.
That isn't the player entitlement problem.
The player entitlement problem is someone who knows the rules, knows how to play, but chooses to put themselves before the group by making demands about what the GM should and should not allow, run, etc...
And this is exasorbated by people on here telling players that they should tell their GMs what the GM is doing is wrongbadfun...despite the fact that it must be enough fun for the people in the group wanting to keep coming back and playing with this 'cruel' GM.
Let's say I want to play a pirate campaign. I post for interest and wait. Several people write back saying they are interested and give lots of cool ideas for pirate themed things.
This seems to be the main difference: people in areas that are somewhat over-saturated with players seem to tend towards what I would consider the "my way or the highway" and "gotta keep those worthless players under total control" attitude.
In Houston, I was in an area in which pretty much every single player was also a DM competing for other players. Accommodating oddball requests was sort of obligatory, because if you lost 1/4 of the group, that might mean a 3-person game from then on. Add that to people dropping out to have kids, to go serve oversees, to go serve prison sentences, to go run games using other systems, and there were plenty of times there was no game at all for lack of players. A DM can't afford to feel so high-and-mighty in that scenario.
|
|
Well, a lot of groups I've seen/been in over the years tend to be smaller groups of friends who regularly play together. Someone will suggest a new campaign to the group, generally as the current campaign is wrapping up and it's usually expected that the whole group will play whatever is decided on.
We don't advertise to a larger group then pick players from those who respond.Obviously there's movement in and out of the group as people's schedules, lives and interests change, but that's as likely to happen in the middle of a campaign as at the start.
And there is nothing wrong with this. But if you only have one GM (not saying you do or don't, but if you do) it puts the GM in a spot where they have to work harder than everyone else to make something they may or may not be interested in playing.
Now if you have a like-minded group with similar gaming philosophies that don't change over time, that is great.
If you have a GM who wants to try something specific...it sucks for them even more than a player who has to adapt, as they have so much more prep work for something they aren't as excited about.
Having the group pick "what's next" has an expectation the players will also agree to make characters for "what's next" rather than "what I want", which is basically all it takes to not be entitled. Everyone is compromising to make the group work, rather than get what "a" person wants.
But unless I am wrong, you probably aren't going to have the player force a GM to run a setting they don't want to run. If the group wants a pirate campagin and the only GM in the group says "I don't want to run a pirate campaign" you aren't going to force the GM to do it anyway, are you?
|
|
Let's say I want to play a pirate campaign. I post for interest and wait. Several people write back saying they are interested and give lots of cool ideas for pirate themed things.This seems to be the main difference: people in areas that are somewhat over-saturated with players seem to tend towards what I would consider the "my way or the highway" and "gotta keep those worthless players under total control" attitude.
In Houston, I was in an area in which pretty much every single player was also a DM competing for other players. Accommodating oddball requests was sort of obligatory, because if you lost 1/4 of the group, that might mean a 3-person game from then on.
We generally have the same people play every campaign, but in our group a GM always starts the ball rolling. I've had a few ideas for things I wanted to run not happen because other GMs ideas were more popular.
But I have no interest investing hours and hours of prep time every week into something I don't want to run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I have no interest investing hours and hours of prep time every week into something I don't want to run.
False dichotomy again -- nobody said it has to be something you don't want to run at all, unless what you want to run is so restrictive it can't possibly bend even the slightest bit to accommodate reasonable requests. You've been clear that's not the case for you, though, so the following should be true:
Working with the players =/= acceding to every demand.
Loosening up restrictions =/= having none at all.
Widening a setting's assumptions somewhat =/= scrapping the setting entirely.
Letting the players try things =/= having no fun yourself.
Compromise is possible; it's not all-or-nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know the more I think on this... this is less to do with entitlement--on the players' or the GMs' parts--and more to do with trust.
If you're in a group where the GM trusts the players to design characters well and within the parameters of the campaign (and push at the boundaries only with good reason), and the players trust the GM to make fair decisions about what is and isn't allowed--that even if they wouldn't run their own game in the same way, but they trust the GM is doing what they're doing for good reason---that group will have fun. It won't matter if they're playing the all gnome cleric campaign or are using every rulebook ever (possibly from multiple systems). If the players and GM trust each other and their main goal is not only to ensure their own fun but everyone else's, things will work out. Some situations might require compromise, negotiation, and all in all generally good communication, but it'll all work out.
If you don't trust your GM to be fair, it doesn't matter what he is or isn't allowing. If you don't trust a player to build well, appreciate the campaign setting, or play well with others, it doesn't matter what character he's building with what rules. It's not going to end well.
And if you can't find a GM or players you trust, then it's time to find a better group. Or play online more. Or maybe even just take some time to make some more friends.
Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run.Without asking the players what they're interested in, or soliciting their input? You just say, "this is the game I'm going to run, take it or leave it"?
I know other people have responded to this but game pitches usually have something specific about them - otherwise, why are they being pitched? But that doesn't mean there's no give and take.
I've pitched that I wanted to run a Classic Modules Campaign - updated to 3e rules, set in the World of Greyhawk. Most options from any of the Forgotten Realms sources were off the table and I was fairly strict on what published prestige classes I was going to allow. One player asked to play a cleric who didn't know he was a cleric - something I wouldn't normally approve of - he wanted his powers to be something he knew he could do but tap into without any formal instruction or knowledge of whence they came. But his domains and themes fit in really well with a particular Greyhawk religion and he was following the cleric mechanics so I said OK and, over the course of a few adventures, dropped in some imagery and omens that eventually revealed who his divine patron was.
Another player, later in the campaign, asked about the availability of artifacts. I told her flat out that the campaign wasn't going to go there - adding them in would have been a substantial change from what the campaign was designed for and where I was willing to take it. So, there was some give and take after all, but the core assumption - of playing classic modules set in the World of Greyhawk - maintained its character.
|
|
But I have no interest investing hours and hours of prep time every week into something I don't want to run.False dichotomy again -- nobody said it has to be something you don't want to run at all, unless what you want to run is so restrictive it can't possibly bend even the slightest bit to accommodate reasonable requests. You've been clear that's not the case for you, though, so the following should be true:
Working with the players =/= acceding to every demand.
Loosening up restrictions =/= having none at all.
Widening a setting's assumptions somewhat =/= scrapping the setting entirely.
Letting the players try things =/= having no fun yourself.Compromise is possible; it's not all-or-nothing.
And I would reply it is a false dichotomy to say that a game 4 other players are interested in playing is "too restrictive" and doesn't "accommodate reasonable requests"
In some games, asking to play a Lich Drow Noble without any level adjustment is perfectly reasonable.
In some game, Core Only 10 point buy is perfectly reasonable.
Everyone needs to define what is reasonable for their game, and they do that by selecting a GM who gives a clear explaination of expecations from the start.
Another player, later in the campaign, asked about the availability of artifacts. I told her flat out that the campaign wasn't going to go there - adding them in would have been a substantial change from what the campaign was designed for and where I was willing to take it. So, there was some give and take after all, but the core assumption - of playing classic modules set in the World of Greyhawk - maintained its character.
Sort of off-topic, but classic modules set in the World of Greyhawk very often involved artifacts. Removing artifacts from the game world is a good idea if you don't want to deal with them -- but doing so doesn't really contribute to the purity or "classic character" of the setting.
Sure (although I personally have fun with a slightly lighter rules approach, that's just my druthers). But it depends on the players and GMs and what they want to do and what works for them. You asked why some people prefer core only. I did my best to explain why I myself have restricted splats, with branching out to further hypotheticals as to why others may do the same, and that's all I can do. All I can hope is that I answered your questions. My answers may not be what you wanted to hear, but this isn't a multiple choice quiz with one right answer. It's all about preference and POV.
And really either way, whether it's core only or with a billion splats, if you're enjoying yourself, who cares how other people do it? I mean, I guess that just means I wasted my time trying to answer your inquiry, but in the end, if people find a group that they play well with whatever rules are or aren't allowed, then that's all you can hope for, and the whys of it really don't matter as long they do what works for them.
I do want to say thank you for taking the time to go through it with me. It has open my mind to things I did not think about before. I might still disagree a little due POV and preference, but for me be able to understand a difference in opinion and such is important to me.
I think a stumbling block for me at times in understanding this is my own humble opinion of myself. I read and comprehand at quicker rate than normal average...I also have a great memory. So at times I don't get everybody has the abilities I do.
No problem man, and I'm sorry if any of that sounded tetchy. It can get oddly complicated talking about such things.
And I think at times we all assume other people--especially other people with similar interests--must think/process the same way we do, when it's almost always not the case. Gamers also tend to be a highly intelligent bunch, but intelligence manifests in different ways -- it's easy for some people to memorize or calculate something very well, while others can't calculate for crap but have a tremendous vocabulary and descriptive skills. And those differences are actually why gaming (should be) is fun, because different people bring different gifts to the table, to create a better whole. But we all--and I ABSOLUTELY include myself in this, as it's something I fail to be mindful of all the time--have to remember that that also means something that is utterly obvious or reasonable to us just isn't going to be grokked at all by someone else who is by all rights equally or even more intelligent, just processes or sees things differently.
Compromise is possible; it's not all-or-nothing.
That's true, but some ideas are more subject to compromise than others. A Caesar and his Legions in Gaul campaign will be less flexible on many assumptions than a Forgotten Realms, starting in WaterDeep campaign. And, as a result, I would fully expect fewer groups to swing at a pitch for a Romans campaign than a FR campaign. But, if they do sign on to the Roman campaign, as a GM, I'm going to be a little less compromising of certain aspects of the game and the players need to understand that.
Ultimately, the issue of player entitlement mostly comes at the points where compromise will not happen. In my Roman legions campaign, I'm not allowing Spartacus to have a Piper Cub even if someone did have those stats out of a d20 Modern supplement. It's not going to happen no matter how much the player wants it. If 3 out of 4 of the players who have expressed interest in the campaign are playing by the campaign's assumptions and #4 isn't, I'm going to run for the 3. #4 can either sit out or produce a PC compatible with the campaign.
And I would reply it is a false dichotomy to say that a game 4 other players are interested in playing is "too restrictive" and doesn't "accommodate reasonable requests"
Remember, we're talking about a time before anyone expresses interest or not. If you say: "Here is a campaign idea," but you mean "Here is the campaign, I'll feel free to add restrictions as needed to maintain the 'purity' of my setting, ban everything that doesn't suit my personal taste -- no compormises or you're being disruptive, no exceptions or you're being 'entitled'! - now, who's interested?" I doubt you'd get too many people signing up.
I'm not saying that's how you'd actually handle things -- I don't think you would -- but your posts come across as strongly advocating that sort of stance. Just as you've interpreted my posts about compromise as somehow meaning that I run a generic and flavorless Monte Haul game (which also isn't the case).
I'm hoping that we agree, though, that the idea of compromising isn't automatically an unmitigated negative on in all cases.
If 3 out of 4 of the players
This keeps coming up as a baseline assumption that is taken as always true. I don't really think it is in most cases -- you might look at my 3/5 example above -- and I'm certain it's not true in all cases.
Sort of off-topic, but classic modules set in the World of Greyhawk very often involved artifacts. Removing artifacts from the game world is a good idea if you don't want to deal with them -- but doing so doesn't really contribute to the purity or "classic character" of the setting.
Actually, very often, they didn't. I'm talking about the Artifacts section of the old 1e DMG. They don't appear in adventures even if specific, adventure-based or new ones sometimes cropped up - like Daoud's Wondrous Lanthorn in S4. Off hand, I can think of the Cup and Talisman of Al'Akbar appearing in an adventure and that's about it.