|
Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your argument any more valid than it might have been.So even asking for compromise (such as not wanting your cheeseburger with pickles in it) is deplorable then?
It is funny because you accuse me of doing something that you actually do in the next sentance.
Awesome!
I'll refer you back to what I actually said for the answer. Asking is fine. Not accepting the answer, not fine.
This guy (both sides) did it right.
Player wants to something.
GM is resistant.
Player takes steps to reassure GM and agrees to change concept to better fit setting.
This guy was clearly historically a problem player (by the players own admission) and there is a probationary offer on the table.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your belief that the GM has an obligation to sacrifice her/his fun to accomodate a single player.
"Oh, woe is me, someone wants to play their own idea for their own character, instead of mine! Now all of my fun is RUINED RUINED RUINED! Because I can only have fun if everyone does exactly what I tell them, like the good little slave robots they're supposed to be!"
If even considering permitting a non-standard race results in the inevitable destruction of all of your fun, I'd say your idea of "fun" is restrictive enough that you're maybe better off not playing with others at all, much less DMing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FTFY
Cute, but the setting is still the DM's. Any number of suggestions have been given on how to easily fit the character into it.
I've said it before, though -- if someone's vision is too narrow to allow other players to play in it, then they should be alone writing a book, instead of pretending to run a game.
If even considering permitting a non-standard race results in the inevitable destruction of all of your fun, I'd say your idea of "fun" is restrictive enough that you're maybe better off not playing with others at all, much less DMing them.
And considering what "you say" is agreed with by pretty much no one I've ever played with, I feel pretty safe in saying that you're wrong.
After reading the OP's follow-up and the exchange with his player, I really hope the player is sincere. I would love to hear how this works out for the OP a few weeks from now.
|
|
FTFYCute, but the setting is still the DM's. Any number of suggestions have been given on how to easily fit the character into it.
I've said it before, though -- if someone's vision is too narrow to allow other players to play in it, then they should be alone writing a book, instead of pretending to run a game.
The GM decides what is allowed in the setting.
The Players decide what they do once they are in the setting.
If someone's vision is too narrow that they can't find a concept the can fit in a setting, then they should be running for themselves, alone in their room, instead of playing in a group game, with other people, who picked someone to be in charge who isn't them.
The GM should never tell a player what their character will or won't do once they are allowed into the game.
But the GM absolutely can say if a concept is allowed in the game they are running.
The GM isn't just an Umpire who calls balls and strikes.
|
|
If even considering permitting a non-standard race results in the inevitable destruction of all of your fun, I'd say your idea of "fun" is restrictive enough that you're maybe better off not playing with others at all, much less DMing them.
Then don't play with that GM. The group gets to pick who you let GM, you know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM decides what is allowed in the setting.The Players decide what they do once they are in the setting.
If someone's vision is too narrow that they can't find a concept the can fit in a setting, then they should be running for themselves, alone in their room, instead of playing in a group game, with other people, who picked someone to be in charge who isn't them.
The GM should never tell a player what their character will or won't do once they are allowed into the game.
But the GM absolutely can say if a concept is allowed in the game they are running.
The GM isn't just an Umpire who calls balls and strikes.
This. Don't like it, find another group.
(Except the setting we play in was actually created by the playgroup, and not just me)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be better if the discussions in threads helped the person with the question or problem they have
then again it would also be better if I could wake up with the rum already in me
Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your argument any more valid than it might have been.So even asking for compromise (such as not wanting your cheeseburger with pickles in it) is deplorable then?
I'll refer you back to what I actually said for the answer. Asking is fine. Not accepting the answer, not fine.
This guy (both sides) did it right.
Player wants to something.
GM is resistant.
Player takes steps to reassure GM and agrees to change concept to better fit setting.
This guy was clearly historically a problem player (by the players own admission) and there is a probationary offer on the table.
I will not dispute the bolded part, because it is true and we can both agree on that.
So, what did we disagree on then, if this is indeed the case?
Actually, you should probably PM that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."
A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
Plus Shattered Star is about Pathfinder Society. One of the campaign traits is specifically for a Society member who isn't from Magnimar. You really don't have a justification here except for "I don't like it." You can say "I don't like it" as a GM but don't pretend you have any other justification, because you don't.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
Are a lot of the people you play with literally fox people?
No.
So saying there are no fox people in a game isn't the same thing.
So... I didn't get my chance to talk, decided not to because it looked like it died, then it starts up again on player entitlement? I even saw someone compare DND to saving private Ryan somewhere in here. I guess now is a good a time as any.
So, the player came forth and talked about it. It happens from time to time and its a good thing, its what is suggested on the forums isn't it? Talk things out(sometimes over dessert), and sometimes life is easier. Other times the GM has to put his foot down. I really hope the player has fun playing his kitsune and takes it a little more seriously. Who knows, he might have a load of fun.
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
I really hope the player didn't actually want to get into furry things while at the table. I know a lot of people who just use the imagery and never do anything stupid or nasty. That said, I'd say its very different to say no gay people and no furries.
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
Are a lot of the people you play with literally fox people?
No.
So saying there are no fox people in a game isn't the same thing.
No, the people I play with are descended from angels and demons, pointy eared elves, giant bearded short peoples who live underground, and halflings. Why what do you play with?
A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
That is highly appropriative and insulting.
>.>
I assume no more responsibility for how this conversation continues.
Also, there is another active thread that purposely discusses player entitlement. Go there, if it's all the same to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
This is pointless and deliberately inflammatory.
I consistently see recruitment threads on these boards for games that have only dwarves, only humans, only elves, core races plus aasimar/tiefling (I see this a lot), low magic, E6, pre-made characters, very-restricted-partially-built-but-not-fully-crunched characters, etc., etc., etc...
You know what happens? The people who find that interesting submit characters. The people who don't, do other things with their time. Why is this even an issue? If the DM says, "I hate fox-people. There will be no fox-people in my game...." just move on with your life.
Apparently, there are some of you who can only think of one character concept at a time, and unless you are allowed to build that, flesh it out, and play it through an entire campaign, someone is oppressing you and destroying all possibility for fun.
[/nonsense]
>.>
I assume no more responsibility for how this conversation continues.
Also, there is another active thread that purposely discusses player entitlement. Go there, if it's all the same to you.
I'm surprised why this thread hasn't been locked yet, considering the issue was already resolved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I go away for a few hours and I come back to this. >.>
A few points, just to end this, and it will look rather silly of me and I apologize.
He approached me since I've made this thread. Following is a rough version of the conversation.
He: So, I sense you really don't want me to play a kitsune, and I think I figured out why. I noticed I tend to be a problem player. This campaign I'm going to actually try to play the game and not cause problems. I still really want to play a kitsune, though. If I promise to play it in a non-overbearing way, can I?
((This is totally out of character for him, and I was a bit taken aback))
Me: Uh, sure. Um, yeah that would be awesome. I'll even point you to a few kitsune-related things. (I had been researching them to see what the "real-world" lore was, just to check them out)
So, all in all, this thread is now pointless. I thank you all for your advice and honest criticisms. Moral of the story: let it all work out, and it will most likely be fine.
I'd be willing to bet that your player goes on these boards and saw this topic before speaking to you.
then again it would also be better if I could wake up with the rum already in me
This is actually no where near as much fun as it sounds. Whiskey is a much more appropriate wake-up drink.
-TimD
So TL;DR version is...
"I got nothin' 'gainst kitsune but my player will act like a buttmuppet when given the chance to play one, especially when it's against the tone I want in my game."
That's a fairly straightforward case of 'No. You don't behave. This is why we can't have nice things."
It's why I'm not allowed to play Golarion-type drow anymore as bards in the key of Prince (as in the Artist Formerly Known as) who take the whole seduction things to perfectly in-character levels of 'you aren't allowed to refuse consent, and if you do I have things I can slip you to make you change your mind because of course you want me because I'm that damned desirable and now you are going to obsess over me and take interest in my unusual religion and otherwise I keep low-profile save for my fans and...'
Well yeah. GM says no, GM means no.
I've tried just a flat "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim."A lot of the people I've played Pathfinder with are furries, so honestly I don't like the idea of saying "NO FURRIES IN MY GAME" It's like saying "NO GAY PEOPLE IN MY GAME"
Are a lot of the people you play with literally fox people?
No.
So saying there are no fox people in a game isn't the same thing.
I mean it's a part of who they are, and being a furry is about more than sex just like being gay is about more than sex. It was the OP who specifically said he didn't want "a silly furry game" you don't have to guess at his motivations it's right there.
Plus it's not like you can even say "there aren't kitsune in his setting" because it isn't even his setting, it's an AP, and the AP materials actually specifically allow for player characters to come from somewhere other than where you start the AP.
|
|
Because you like to dress up like a fox in a sexual setting doesn't mean I have to let you pretend to be a fox in a nox sexual setting in a game I am running.
If you don't understand the distinction between what you can do with a consenting adult in your private life and what you can make people participate in within a group game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the seven core races are the primary focus of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, they're not the only ones suitable to be played as characters. Other, even stranger races help populate the world, and—with the GM's permission—also work well as player character races, creating fun and exciting new roleplaying opportunities.
That is from the "Featured Races" section. Kitsune are not "Featured", they are "Uncommon".
Some races are so uncommon that their very existence may be the subject of debate. With your GM's permission, you can select any of the following uncommon races for your player character.
"...so uncommon that their very existence may be the subject of debate..."
Deciding that you have the right to play this, just because you want to, is the very definition of Player Entitlement. This is almost by definition out of place in most settings. Simply refusing to acknowledge that shows a remarkable amount of self-centeredness.
Deciding that you have the right to play this, just because you want to, is the very definition of Player Entitlement. This is almost by definition out of place in most settings. Simply refusing to acknowledge that shows a remarkable amount of self-centeredness.
I said he has the right to ban a race, but I don't think we should ignore that 1.) there is no special dramatic plot reason to do so, because he's running an AP that specifically allows for it and 2.) he specifically stated that he doesn't want to allow it *because he doesn't like furries*.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next time someone says I am being hyperbolic about how entitled some players are, I'm going to link to this thread.
Thank you for explaining that as a GM, I have to allow furries into my game or I am having wrongbadfun.
Do I also have to allow men into my bedroom or risk being labelled a homophobe? My wife may be ok with it, but it isn't what I'm personally interested in...but I don't want to be oppressing anyone...
Do I also have to allow men into my bedroom or risk being labelled a homophobe? My wife may be ok with it, but it isn't what I'm personally interested in...but I don't want to be oppressing anyone...
No need to take extremes here. Anyone can choose what to allow in their game, but it really helps to have a good reason beyond not liking something and refusing to work with the player. That said, the player and GM this thread was about did talk it over and come to a resolution. This is a good thing.
Its normal for people to be bothered when they feel like someone was wronged. Someone is just expressing that.
|
|
No need to take extremes here. Anyone can choose what to allow in their game
Actually what is being said is that you can't.
As a GM I may have lots of reasons I don't want one thing or another in the game I am running.
The fact that saying no has excalated to this level demonstrates that the P.E.C. thinks you can't say no to anything.
Including apparently a furry player character.
I said he has the right to ban a race, but I don't think we should ignore that 1.) there is no special dramatic plot reason to do so, because he's running an AP that specifically allows for it...
Nit pick ahead: Most APs are pretty agnostic on the topic. They don't typically "specifically allow for it" with any races outside the main PC races. Rather, they don't specifically discourage any.
Nit pick ahead: Most APs are pretty agnostic on the topic. They don't typically "specifically allow for it" with any races outside the main PC races. Rather, they don't specifically discourage any.
There is a campaign trait tailored around not being from Varisia. That's what I was referring to. It isn't specific to any one race but it does seem to exist primarily to allow "unusual" backgrounds into the campaign.
Thank you for explaining that as a GM, I have to allow furries into my game or I am having wrongbadfun.
Yes, if your fun means acting in a close-minded, prejudicial way towards other people, that is wrong and bad.
Yes, if your fun means acting in a close-minded, prejudicial way towards other people, that is wrong and bad.Thank you for explaining that as a GM, I have to allow furries into my game or I am having wrongbadfun.
Now, I'm not against either of your views, so I should add that its okay not to allow something, but if the reason is "I don't like it..." its very likely there will be complaints. Finding a compromise might be preferred to just saying "No, I don't like it" and I think that's where any of this problem comes up. Its not close minded to say no sometimes, but sometimes it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deciding that you have the right to play this, just because you want to, is the very definition of Player Entitlement. This is almost by definition out of place in most settings. Simply refusing to acknowledge that shows a remarkable amount of self-centeredness.I said he has the right to ban a race, but I don't think we should ignore that 1.) there is no special dramatic plot reason to do so, because he's running an AP that specifically allows for it and 2.) he specifically stated that he doesn't want to allow it *because he doesn't like furries*.
Actually, according to the OP, his first response was:
"Ok, but you better have a pretty good reason to be in Magnimar." His response? "But I'm a player character, I don't have to worry about why I'm there because it's just where we start, and we'll be heroes before something like that would come up."
So, after Entitlement Excuse #1, the OP said:
"Um, you do realize no one in Magnimar here has probably ever seen a kitsune right? They would see a fox person and say 'zomg animal person must be lamashtu kill it with fire!!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!!' and round up a mob to kill you."
Followed, no doubt, by Entitlement Excuse #2.
Then, and only then, according to the OP (which is the only source for any of this), did he say, "No, I don't want this to become some silly furry game. Shattered Star is grim." And that was based on the player's past behavior:
Attempting to seduce every female NPC.
Trying to spin this to demonstrate that the DM had no legitimate reasoning or rationale means, once again, Entitlement and Self-Centeredness.
|
|
Now, I'm not against either of your views, so I should add that its okay not to allow something, but if the reason is "I don't like it..." its very likely there will be complaints. Finding a compromise might be preferred to just saying "No, I don't like it" and I think that's where any of this problem comes up. Its not close minded to say no sometimes, but sometimes it is.Yes, if your fun means acting in a close-minded, prejudicial way towards other people, that is wrong and bad.Thank you for explaining that as a GM, I have to allow furries into my game or I am having wrongbadfun.
The two views are mutually exclusive. You can't always find a compromise. Sometimes the answer is no, because you are the one who is going to be spending hours and hours in prep and you don't want to do that for a character you think will be distruptive.
Or, maybe just that you think is a stupid concept.
Much like I'm not going to go waste two hours of my life watching "Saving Private Ryan" starring an anthropormorphic fox, I'm not going to waste an even greater amount of time and effort facilitating a game involving a character I am not interested in being a part of the story.
And players who insist I must are being selfish jerks, who will be lucky to find any GM at all willing to put in so much work for so little appreciation.
I would be constantly shocked members of the P.E.C. can find a game, if not for the fact that they all seem to find each other.
Which is great for the rest of us, so we don't have to have them at our tables, but probably sucks for anyone interested in public gaming or growing the community
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I go away for a few hours and I come back to this. >.>
A few points, just to end this, and it will look rather silly of me and I apologize.
He approached me since I've made this thread. Following is a rough version of the conversation.
He: So, I sense you really don't want me to play a kitsune, and I think I figured out why. I noticed I tend to be a problem player. This campaign I'm going to actually try to play the game and not cause problems. I still really want to play a kitsune, though. If I promise to play it in a non-overbearing way, can I?
((This is totally out of character for him, and I was a bit taken aback))
Me: Uh, sure. Um, yeah that would be awesome. I'll even point you to a few kitsune-related things. (I had been researching them to see what the "real-world" lore was, just to check them out)
So, all in all, this thread is now pointless. I thank you all for your advice and honest criticisms. Moral of the story: let it all work out, and it will most likely be fine.
Bwahahaha you think an answer to your problem ends the thread?
The philosophical ramifications of your initial question must be discussed in detail until the topic resembles a deceased transportation animal.
Now, I'm not against either of your views, so I should add that its okay not to allow something, but if the reason is "I don't like it..." its very likely there will be complaints. Finding a compromise might be preferred to just saying "No, I don't like it" and I think that's where any of this problem comes up. Its not close minded to say no sometimes, but sometimes it is.Yes, if your fun means acting in a close-minded, prejudicial way towards other people, that is wrong and bad.Thank you for explaining that as a GM, I have to allow furries into my game or I am having wrongbadfun.
The two views are mutually exclusive. You can't always find a compromise. Sometimes the answer is no, because you are the one who is going to be spending hours and hours in prep and you don't want to do that for a character you think will be distruptive.
Or, maybe just that you think is a stupid concept.
Much like I'm not going to go waste two hours of my life watching "Saving Private Ryan" starring an anthropormorphic fox, I'm not going to waste an even greater amount of time and effort facilitating a game involving a character I am not interested in being a part of the story.
And players who insist I must are being selfish jerks, who will be lucky to find any GM at all willing to put in so much work for so little appreciation.
I would be constantly shocked members of the P.E.C. can find a game, if not for the fact that they all seem to find each other.
Which is great for the rest of us, so we don't have to have them at our tables, but probably sucks for anyone interested in public gaming or growing the community
What is this PEC thing? And what's with all the GM entitlement?
That last part was extra inflammatory.
Oh I didn't know it was a conspiracy.
The Players can only be entitles as the GM lets them be, as games end real quick when the GM doesn't show up.
|
|
Oh I didn't know it was a conspiracy.
The Players can only be entitles as the GM lets them be, as games end real quick when the GM doesn't show up.
Isn't not showing up the same as saying "You can't play" only to 4 people instead of to one person.
If a GM can find 4 players who they want to play with, and they don't want to play with a 5th player...that 5th player is entitled to nothing, literally.
The GM isn't entitled. They are appointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is this PEC thing? And what's with all the GM entitlement?
That last part was extra inflammatory.
I think it means Player Entitlement Crowd, or something close.
I agree, the verbiage on the last part was a bit extreme. But, I think the point is valid. It seems like there are people who believe if one person wants or likes something, then it must, must, must be allowed and in fact forced on everyone else at the table, or we are oppressing/repressing them. There is no allowance, apparently, for someone who would rather not feature non-standard races, or furries, or sexuality in any form, or geo-socio-political mindsets that don't belong in their setting, or anything else that doesn't jive with that one person.
So, we're all horrible, prejudiced, badwrong people.
If you'll excuse me, I have to get to the next rally- *ahem* -I mean game session. [/sarcasm]
Oh I didn't know it was a conspiracy.
The Players can only be entitles as the GM lets them be, as games end real quick when the GM doesn't show up.
Isn't not showing up the same as saying "You can't play" only to 4 people instead of to one person.
If a GM can find 4 players who they want to play with, and they don't want to play with a 5th player...that 5th player is entitled to nothing, literally.
The GM isn't entitled. They are appointed.
The GM volunteers and so does the player. They all put in time and effort and have personal attachments to what is going on and their own reasons for being there. They all have rights and one of those is to respect and be heard, if not then they aren't a good lot of friends and the comfort levels are bound to be a little rocky. The boundaries of control for the GM and players change between groups and what some people expect and get are wildly different.
I'm glad this was solved by someone talking things over and I hope the best for them and the GM. Hopefully everyone has a fun time.