Trying to spin this to demonstrate that the DM had no legitimate reasoning or rationale means, once again, Entitlement and Self-Centeredness.
I treated the player's statements differently from the OP's statements because they are second-hand information, and there have been many cases of second-hand information on this forum that have been shown to be highly distorted when other people from that game have appeared. There have been cases where I personally could have done so with games I have been in, but I have chosen not to do so because there is very little to gain from it.
So that is the reason why I don't assume that the issue is anything other than a GM who doesn't want kitsune, given the reasons he has stated and a player who wants to play a kitsune, with all other statements about said player being conjecture at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appropriating the struggles of gay people for acceptance in society by comparing it to not allowing fox people in your campaign is so insensitive I don't even know where to start. If you honestly think that a GM not allowing a specific race is comparative to the harassment and violence that happens to gay people all over the world, then you should probably not play this game. When you get physically attacked, or someone you know gets killed for wanting to play a fox person, then you can comment on this. Until then I honestly hope you don't have to suffer through what gay people suffer through daily.
|
The GM isn't entitled.Man, I'm glad we agree on that. I was sad no one responded to my comment in that other thread that got locked.
The way some people describe the game group they are in reminds me of stockholm syndrome.
"I can't leave my GM, he loves me...I ran into a door knob..."
If you don't like how your GM runs, don't let them run games for you.
How hard is that?
The best GM I know runs these micro-lite games I can't stand. When he runs those, I say "Nah, I'm out for these, let me know when the next game starts up"
It is that simple.
You apparently have access to a large number of other players and GMs. Not everyone does.
For you the choices are "play in this game, play in this other game, or wait for another game".
For a lot of people the choices are "play in this game, or don't play at all for an indeterminate amount of time". For some people playing in a game you don't care for is leagues ahead of not getting to play at all.
The best GM I know runs these micro-lite games I can't stand. When he runs those, I say "Nah, I'm out for these, let me know when the next game starts up"
It is that simple.
EDIT: Also "That's what she said" :)
What is meant by "micro-lite game"?
|
|
The best GM I know runs these micro-lite games I can't stand. When he runs those, I say "Nah, I'm out for these, let me know when the next game starts up"
It is that simple.
You apparently have access to a large number of other players and GMs. Not everyone does.
For you the choices are "play in this game, play in this other game, or wait for another game".
For a lot of people the choices are "play in this game, or don't play at all for an indeterminate amount of time". For some people playing in a game you don't care for is leagues ahead of not getting to play at all.
1. The fact that you are posting this on the internet says otherwise regarding "access"
2. If a person with access to the internet can't find a GM, that may be more a function of the person being unreasonable in what they require from the GM rather than GMs not existing.
3. Which is kind of my point.
@RadiantSophia - It is a minimalist D20 system that my friend likes to run because it is really simple, but that I hate playing because...well...it's really simple.
He does it mostly for quick one offs, I prefer campaigns.
@RadiantSophia - It is a minimalist D20 system that my friend likes to run because it is really simple, but that I hate playing because...well...it's really simple.He does it mostly for quick one offs, I prefer campaigns.
O.k. Thanks! I don't think I'd really be into that either.
1. The fact that you are posting this on the internet says otherwise regarding "access"
2. If a person with access to the internet can't find a GM, that may be more a function of the person being unreasonable in what they require from the GM rather than GMs not existing.
3. Which is kind of my point.
Did I say me? I said some people. You're making broad assumptions about everyone.
Maybe they don't like playing online or cannot, due to bad poor or unreliable connections or having limited access.
There are lots of people in this world. Most of them are not in the precise situation you are, so you shouldn't assume they are. The Nebraskan with only library access to the internet and a single buddy who runs games is not "unreasonable" because they choose to stay with the one game they don't like rather than not play at all.
|
|
1. The fact that you are posting this on the internet says otherwise regarding "access"
2. If a person with access to the internet can't find a GM, that may be more a function of the person being unreasonable in what they require from the GM rather than GMs not existing.
3. Which is kind of my point.
Did I say me? I said some people. You're making broad assumptions about everyone.
Maybe they don't like playing online or cannot, due to bad poor or unreliable connections or having limited access.
There are lots of people in this world. Most of them are not in the precise situation you are, so you shouldn't assume they are. The Nebraskan with only library access to the internet and a single buddy who runs games is not "unreasonable" because they choose to stay with the one game they don't like rather than not play at all.
Everyone with access to the internet, yes.
If you have access to the internet, and you aren't making unreasonable demands, you can find a GM.
If not, you can be a GM.
Also, when did access to a GM become an inalienable right?
Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.
I got really lucky finding the people I game with nowadays, since we not only game well together, but we all take turns being GM for games. If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the reason could be "I don't want to run a campaign with a Kitsune, sorry."
Which is more than enough reason.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Players deserve something more than "just because." It didn't work on kids when adults used it, so why should adults expect it to work on other adults (and without the demeaning connotations what's more)?
And that's not player entitlement either, just common courtesy.
Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.
Tell you what -- find me a permanent job in Finland and I'll emigrate immediately. In exchange, I'll DM anything you care to play in.
If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.
4th ed? or 3rd/revised?
because they choose to stay
I wish I could copy and paste this a thousand times. But, I suspect there would be some backlash if I did.
Suffice to say, this. This, this, this.
Make your own choices, then accept the consequences. Make reasonable concessions. Petition for changes you would like. Make a new choice if and when that becomes available or necessary. But, once you've exhausted all avenues, you just make your choice and accept it.
If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.4th ed? or 3rd/revised?
4th edition, according to our main GURPS DM.
Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.Tell you what -- find me a permanent job in Finland and I'll emigrate immediately. In exchange, I'll DM anything you care to play in.
My own job contract is temporary. I'd have a better chance winning the lottery, considering the economic situation here in Europe.
Then again, from what I've heard, it's not looking much brighter anywhere else either. One can only wonder how much worse can it really get...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the reason could be "I don't want to run a campaign with a Kitsune, sorry."
Which is more than enough reason.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Players deserve something more than "just because." It didn't work on kids when adults used it, so why should adults expect it to work on other adults (and without the demeaning connotations what's more)?
And that's not player entitlement either, just common courtesy.
Why?
A GM is running something because they want to run it. Does your GM have to run what you, personally want to run?
They aren't "your" GM. They are "a" GM.
And if I am GM they aren't "my" players. They are players who may or may not want to play in the game "I" am running.
If "a" GM enters into a social contract where I agree to run a game, the least the GM should get in exchange is to be able to choose what game the GM is running.
|
|
Also, when did access to a GM become an inalienable right?Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.
I got really lucky finding the people I game with nowadays, since we not only game well together, but we all take turns being GM for games. If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.
And yet you are just barely into your 20's and have walked away from multiple GMs.
How hard could it be to find a game if you can walk away from so many?
Why go to extremes when the situation in this very thread proved that to not be the right answer?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why go to extremes when the situation in this very thread proved that to not be the right answer?
I am not on the side arguing that not being able to play a Kitsune is a sign of a cruel GM you must walk away from.
I'm on the side telling the player to find something else to play.
If you can't live with not being able to play a kitsune, you walking away is a better solution than the GM putting up with your inability to adapt.
Also, when did access to a GM become an inalienable right?Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.
I got really lucky finding the people I game with nowadays, since we not only game well together, but we all take turns being GM for games. If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.
And yet you are just barely into your 20's and have walked away from multiple GMs.
How hard could it be to find a game if you can walk away from so many?
I've walked away from one.
ONE. SINGLE. NOT PLURAL. ONE!!
Are you delusional, or do you not read my posts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the reason could be "I don't want to run a campaign with a Kitsune, sorry."
Which is more than enough reason.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Players deserve something more than "just because." It didn't work on kids when adults used it, so why should adults expect it to work on other adults (and without the demeaning connotations what's more)?
And that's not player entitlement either, just common courtesy.
Why?
A GM is running something because they want to run it. Does your GM have to run what you, personally want to run?
They aren't "your" GM. They are "a" GM.
And if I am GM they aren't "my" players. They are players who may or may not want to play in the game "I" am running.
If "a" GM enters into a social contract where I agree to run a game, the least the GM should get in exchange is to be able to choose what game the GM is running.
Please don't misunderstand me: a GM doesn't have to run anything he doesn't want to run any more than a player doesn't have to play something he doesn't want to play.
I just think that when a GM says "no" to something, it should come with an explanation of "why" they are saying no--if only as a matter of respect and to keep everyone on the same page.
In my mind, a GM saying "no" without explanation is as bad and insulting as a player playing an unusual race without first consulting the GM.
If you can't live with not being able to play a kitsune, you walking away is a better solution than the GM putting up with your inability to adapt.
Or maybe its the GM's inability to adept or compromise. Its both the player's and his game.
That's really insulting and infers that the player is always at fault and being the jerk in the situation. That's not always the case.
|
|
Also, when did access to a GM become an inalienable right?Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.
I got really lucky finding the people I game with nowadays, since we not only game well together, but we all take turns being GM for games. If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.
And yet you are just barely into your 20's and have walked away from multiple GMs.
How hard could it be to find a game if you can walk away from so many?
I've walked away from one.
ONE. SINGLE. NOT PLURAL. ONE!!
Are you delusional, or do you not read my posts?
You have said in the past only one incident would count as "RAGEQUIT" so I either must have assumed you left other games without rage quitting, or the facts have changed, which would require me going back to check your old posts to count the various stories of events that have occured in your gaming career that now spans into your...what...how many years of gaming, considering you are in your very early 20's.
Or...and this will be challenging...you can concede it ain't hard to find a game, even in Finland.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't live with not being able to play a kitsune, you walking away is a better solution than the GM putting up with your inability to adapt.Or maybe its the GM's inability to adept or compromise. Its both the player's and his game.
That's really insulting and infers that the player is always at fault and being the jerk in the situation. That's not always the case.
If 4 other people want to play the game the GM is running, why should they compromise for the person who is causing the problem?
The GM running a game is like the GM throwing a party. It takes time, it takes prep, sure everyone brings something, but they are the ones doing most of the work.
If the GM says no booze, no booze. If they say no kids, no kids. If the GM says everyone has to wear a costume, you wear a costume. And if they say no Kitsune, no kitsune.
If you don't want to come to the party, because you don't like the party, then don't come. That is a perfectly cool choice. But you don't get to decide the theme of the party if you ain't throwing it. You can offer suggestions, you can ask if you can take a pass on the whole costume things...but if you want to come, you are agreeing to the groudrules the host sets.
If you can't do that, then yes, you are being a jerk.
Because you are telling people what they have to do (run a game with your character) when you weren't picked to be in charge or even offering to host.
Please don't misunderstand me: a GM doesn't have to run anything he doesn't want to run any more than a player doesn't have to play something he doesn't want to play.
I just think that when a GM says "no" to something, it should come with an explanation of "why" they are saying no--if only as a matter of respect and to keep everyone on the same page.
In my mind, a GM saying "no" without explanation is as bad and insulting as a player playing an unusual race without first consulting the GM.
Depends on what the "no" is exactly toward. When it comes to the details of my homebrew gameworld, Mythralia, I don't feel I owe any justifications as to why something does or does not exist - and in Mythralia, furries don't exist. Does a writer owe people justifications on why things are or aren't the way they are in her/his creation?
On the other hand, if I was thinking about changing a rule or a mechanic about the game I'd definitely discuss it with the players before the campaign started.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a thought or two that I hope may be helpful to some of the respondents in this thread.
Like the player in question in the OP, other members of my gaming group have been guilty on occasion of wanting to play a character that doesn't quite fit into the campaign location or tone. I've even been guilty of that myself from time to time.
But I don't think any of us did this out of a desire to cause problems for the GM or anyone else. We just wanted to have fun. After you've played D&D and other games for decades, the "classic" race/class combinations get a little too familiar. Or perhaps we just watched a tv show or read a book with a character that seems like it would be fun to play, and we wanted to try it out. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the motivation for the player in the OP. He found a character concept that sounds fun, and he wants to play it.
It's also possible that if the GM decides to try to "teach the player a lesson" about his behavior by making him suffer the consequences of his choices, this will accomplish nothing. There are people who can't make the association between their in-game choices and the consequences of those choices. I play with a player like that myself. In one game he chose to play a non-magic using slave, when all the other PCs were magic-using mercenaries. He knew that's what we were planning to play. The GM agreed to allow him to play a slave anyway, because that's what he wanted, and the GM wanted him to have fun. But on one occasion when the slave's owner told the slave to wait outside while the rest of the group went into a city, and the slave didn't obey, the GM had the slave character suffer the consequences of that choice. This made no difference at all to the player. He didn't actually seem to care that his character was mutilated as a result of his disobedience.
In another game, after being told, "Move and I'll shoot!" by someone holding one of the other PCs at gunpoint, his character took a step forward "to reduce the range penalty". This resulted in the other PC being shot in the head. To this player, game mechanics are just that, mechanics, not real-world actions. In other words, taking a step to reduce range didn't really mean his PC actually *moved*.
I give these illustrations because if the player in the OP is like the player in my group, "punishing" him by having his character suffer adverse consequences for choosing to play an unusual character, or for doing things that are detrimental to the party, won't have any impact at all on how he plays in the future. Punishment is only useful if the punished person can recognize and correct the undesirable behavior. Since he's playing a character, the punishment doesn't affect the player, and he probably doesn't see his in-game behavior as a problem. He's just having fun.
Also, when did access to a GM become an inalienable right?Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.
I got really lucky finding the people I game with nowadays, since we not only game well together, but we all take turns being GM for games. If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.
And yet you are just barely into your 20's and have walked away from multiple GMs.
How hard could it be to find a game if you can walk away from so many?
I've walked away from one.
ONE. SINGLE. NOT PLURAL. ONE!!
Are you delusional, or do you not read my posts?
You have said in the past only one incident would count as "RAGEQUIT" so I either must have assumed you left other games without rage quitting, or the facts have changed, which would require me going back to check your old posts to count the various stories of events that have occured in your gaming career that now spans into your...what...how many years of gaming, considering you are in your very early 20's.
Or...and this will be challenging...you can concede it ain't hard to find a game, even in Finland.
What makes you think it is easier than I claim it to be?
And by now, I have a total of 6 years of D&D experience, which has nothing to do with this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I watch a video where the GM asked a potential player if he would like to join the cast. He treated him like an actor playing in his story. The GM created a world and the player played with that world. He generated ideas and contributed to the fun that the GM was having.
The GM roleplays the world and the players roleplay the main characters of that story. The GM is every right to say what is ans isn't in that world, but he should have good reason for it or else he is limiting what the player can bring to his story.
In this case "ewwww furries" was not a good reason. "The mechanics that justify that race and its abilities conflict with my setting" is much more compelling. A character by just playing that race would change the world you envisioned and how it worked.
For example I'm in a game right now with no magic in it. The GM decided that long lived races were sustained by there being magic in the world. So every race has a human lifespan. We can't play elves because they have childlike minds while being extremely old. If he allowed us to play a normal elf he would have to change how his world works at a fundamental level.
Anything sort of that is the GM cheating himself out of his players creativity.
|
|
Also, when did access to a GM become an inalienable right?Finland is a small, culturally isolated country that's lagging behind others when it comes to certain stuff. I'd feel safe to say that finding a GM is much harder here than in the US, regardless of the quality of said GM.
I got really lucky finding the people I game with nowadays, since we not only game well together, but we all take turns being GM for games. If we're not playing Pathfinder, we're trying out everything from 2e to Gurps and Dark Heresy.
And yet you are just barely into your 20's and have walked away from multiple GMs.
How hard could it be to find a game if you can walk away from so many?
I've walked away from one.
ONE. SINGLE. NOT PLURAL. ONE!!
Are you delusional, or do you not read my posts?
You have said in the past only one incident would count as "RAGEQUIT" so I either must have assumed you left other games without rage quitting, or the facts have changed, which would require me going back to check your old posts to count the various stories of events that have occured in your gaming career that now spans into your...what...how many years of gaming, considering you are in your very early 20's.
Or...and this will be challenging...you can concede it ain't hard to find a game, even in Finland.
What makes you think it is easier than I claim it to be?
And by now, I have a total of 6 years of D&D experience, which has nothing to do with this.
Other than the fact that according to a post in another thread you are going to be 21 in July and have been playing for 6 years...meaning you've been playing since you were 14 years old...meaning 14 year olds can not only find games where you are, but enough games that even if they walk away from one, they can still find more game.
All of that, above and beyond all of the other games someone can find on the internet.
If you can't live with not being able to play a kitsune, you walking away is a better solution than the GM putting up with your inability to adapt.Or maybe its the GM's inability to adept or compromise. Its both the player's and his game.
That's really insulting and infers that the player is always at fault and being the jerk in the situation. That's not always the case.
If 4 other people want to play the game the GM is running, why should they compromise for the person who is causing the problem?
The GM running a game is like the GM throwing a party. It takes time, it takes prep, sure everyone brings something, but they are the ones doing most of the work.
If the GM says no booze, no booze. If they say no kids, no kids. If the GM says everyone has to wear a costume, you wear a costume. And if they say no Kitsune, no kitsune.
If you don't want to come to the party, because you don't like the party, then don't come. That is a perfectly cool choice. But you don't get to decide the theme of the party if you ain't throwing it. You can offer suggestions, you can ask if you can take a pass on the whole costume things...but if you want to come, you are agreeing to the groudrules the host sets.
If you can't do that, then yes, you are being a jerk.
Because you are telling people what they have to do (run a game with your character) when you weren't picked to be in charge or even offering to host.
Except this isn't a party that the GM planned weeks ahead of time and did most of the work. I've met players who do more work on backstories than the GM does on the game. I've met GMs who are the only ones who drink at the game. Its a gig they all worked on and hopefully they all have fun with. Social contract business blahblahblah. I think everyone has certain rights and expectations at the table.
Its off topic now though I think.
@Ciretose: I don't follow your train of logic because it's going on rails I fail to see. Out of those 6 years that I gamed, 3 went with the former DM, and I didn't find any other ones until high school where I met my current group. My former DM knows another DM, but I never associated with the guy cuz the first impression he gave was of an internet troll who somehow got out of the internet. As for online games, I was in one until time zones got in the way too much. They are a serious detriment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood Ciretose's elliptical logic (it's not QUITE circular) on this whole thing and I've pretty much given up trying.
Suffice it to say I disagree. I think anyone on either side of the table that refuses to compromise is being an a~$+@%+, unless there's a damn good reason for it.
If it was something like
"I want to play a Kitsune"
"Sorry, this campaign's kinda about a Kitsune army invading this country, it wouldn't really fit very well."
or "In my world none of the animal races (gnolls, serpentfolk/vishkanya, catfolk, all of 'em) were hunted and killed to almost extinction a few centuries back. If you came in with one hunters'd come from all over to kill you and make a coat of your luxurious fur."
or anything like that it'd be a good reason.
But "I don't think they fit, even though there's no real reason they shouldn't" or more often "I just don't like them" isn't fine. At that point both sides need to look over why they have the stance they do.
For the player, it's likely to be simple: I have a really cool idea I want to try, and Kitsune works best (or only Kitsune works for it). If it's just "I kinda just wanna play a fox guy, no real concept in mind that couldn't work with anything else", maybe he should be the first to bend.
For the GM, it could be anything he's already established. The aformentioned examples and more. But again, if it's simply "I don't like it" I really think he should be the one to cave on it.
Let's try and stay on topic and not derail the thread into a discussion about the ethics and consequences of atomic warfare.
@Ciretose: There are plenty of people that have a hard time getting into games that are not in person. They need that face-to-face interaction in order to really get into it. One of my players is. She's in all of my games during the school semester, but she never plays in my summer campaigns. Not because she doesn't have a good time (as a matter of fact, she probably the most intensive roleplaying at the table), but running the game over text chat, skype, or google+ just kills it for her. One cannot blame them for their inability to enjoy something.
@OP: You told him he would be facing torches and pitchforks if he plays a kitsune. He still wants to play one? Fine. Let him roleplay through being attacking by a mob of angry peasants and guards. He'll get captured or killed, and he'll have to make a new character anyway.