They do owe me an explanation if they're any sort of reasonable human being.
They are not in any sort of important position where I should follow their orders without question. I am not employed by them, and they are not my superior in any way. We have come together to PLAY A GAME.
And if you're on so much of a power trip from being in charge of running A GAME that you can't formulate a coherent reason for why you dislike something and think everyone should "Respect yo authoritay" because you sit at a different spot on the table, yes, I probably am better off finding someone I wouldn't want to punch after being in the same room for 5 minutes with them.
Thankfully, I only play with people I know, who are actual human beings who can communicate with each other, not the ego tripping aliens that everyone else plays with apparently.
If the explanation is "I don't want 'X' in this campaign" that is a good enough answerNo.
This is the issue. That effectively defeats the purpose of asking why.
That's pretty much the equivalent of "Why?" "Because."
I don't let my little brother get away with that s~~@ and I certainly won't allow someone who's an adult to do so either.
"Half-Orcs are hated in-setting because I hate them and don't want you to play one" is not. It's a bit childish.
The thing is what if the reason is purely aesthetic? I personally don't like furries - I just don't care for anthropomorphic races - so they don't exist in my gameworld. I can't give any more reason than that. So are you saying aesthetic reasons aren't valid?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strap in folks. This thread isn't over until someone wins the internet.
Strap in folks. This thread isn't over until someone wins the internet.
Which will be never. :(
Beginning to regret coming to the forums with this, since it worked itself out.
Funny thing is that i could turn those exact arguments against you by simply asking why you must play that specific race/class/whatever.
Remember that 'i want to' i not a good enough answer.
I covered this a few posts back.
The gist of it was, yes, a player needs to have a solid, specific concept, not just 'I want to play a Kitsune because they sound cool".
The thing is what if the reason is purely aesthetic? I personally don't like furries - I just don't care for anthropomorphic races - so they don't exist in my gameworld. I can't give any more reason than that. So are you saying aesthetic reasons aren't valid?
Yes.
|
Funny thing is that i could turn those exact arguments against you by simply asking why you must play that specific race/class/whatever.
Remember that 'i want to' i not a good enough answer.
I covered this a few posts back.
The gist of it was, yes, a player needs to have a solid, specific concept, not just 'I want to play a Kitsune because they sound cool".
The thing is what if the reason is purely aesthetic? I personally don't like furries - I just don't care for anthropomorphic races - so they don't exist in my gameworld. I can't give any more reason than that. So are you saying aesthetic reasons aren't valid?Yes.
Curious, if I may...
Are you more often then not a player or a DM?-Vaz
Strap in folks. This thread isn't over until someone wins the internet.Which will be never. :(
Beginning to regret coming to the forums with this, since it worked itself out.
On and on it goes,
Where it stops nobody knows,Yeah, by and large you can get some good clarifications and advice out of people on these forums but there is a good number who just want to use the threads to grandstand about the currently fashionable topic to get exceedingly obstinant about.
Player/DM entitlement is currently in vogue but it might switch back to 'Why Martials Suck' soon enough.
The explanation is 'I don't want to'. You don't have to like it.
That's OK as far as it goes, but personally, as GM, I find that it's worth comparing how strong my dislike is, vs. how much the player really wants to go with the concept.
Remember Jerry's half-orc? My initial thought was not to have them as PCs -- they'd be "monsters." But it occurred to me that his desire to play one was stronger than my desire for him not to. So I gave him the "veiled vileness" trait to keep the townsfolk from attacking his PC on sight, and then added a sentence in the "races" section about tribes of orcs in the far north exchanging captives and/or slaves with the humans, and about stories of powerful half-breed champions... and presto, Jerry had his half-orc, with no damage to the setting. (Indeed, it added to the setting, in my estimation -- because having half-orc vikings is cool, and fits in with berserks in the Icelandic sagas who had nicknames like "Half-Troll" and the like.)
Beyond that, it was one player's desire to play a half-orc that led to the whole "hybrid races" system in the house rules, which in retrospect I feel adds a lot to the game and the setting. So in more than one way, my compromising with him on that race ended up as a big win for the game and the setting in at least two different aspects -- neither of which I foresaw at the time.
TL:DR Sometimes it pays to trust the players a little bit. Sometimes their creative choices can actually add to the setting in a lot of ways you didn't think of -- rather than only being able to damage it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with these kinds of player entitlement threads (and basically every internet debate thread ever) is that elements of both sides seem to think there is a universal right or wrong, and that stating their opinion multiple times will somehow change the other person's mind. This almost never happens.
The only thing that matter is that everyone has fun, including the GM. The GM is no more obligated to cripple his fun than the players are obligated to play in the GM's game. A tabletop game is a social contract between players and GM. Concessions may be made by both sides until a result is mutually agreeable for everyone to have fun.
Examples:
GM: Ok folks, part of the guidelines of the game is that there are no elves in this world.
Player: But I want to play an elf!
GM: Well, here are some races that fill that same niche. Let's get together and figure out something that fulfills your concept and your backstory.
Player: Ok, I'll give it a shot.
OR
GM: Ok folks, part of the guidelines of the game is that there are no elves in this world.
Player: But I want to play an elf!
GM: Well, here are some races that fill that same niche. Let's get together and figure out something that fulfills your concept and your backstory.
Player: No, I want to play an elf! That's the only race I want to play right now.
GM: Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I heard Bob is running a game you might be interested, or you can try the FLGS downtown. Otherwise, I guess we'll see you Friday at the pub.
Being a GM is a lot like being the host of dinner. You can try to have a variety of food for everyone, but it would be rude for one of your friends to try to force you to cook a certain dish.
In the end, however, there is no universal answer. No one from the internet is going to bust down your door and force you to GM or to play in a different way.
In the end, however, there is no universal answer. No one from the internet is going to bust down your door and force you to GM or to play in a different way.
You mean the internet police are a lie?
I'd like to think there is a nice way and a mean way to do it, and sometimes someone misses that.
Curious, if I may...
Are you more often then not a player or a DM?-Vaz
Nope. About the same on either, in theory (due to how we've divided up the agmes), but in practice I end up DMing more than I play.
Address it in character creation.
As a GM you should set ground rules for your campaign that you require of your players - including what races, alignments and classes are allowed in the game you want to run.
e.g. a recent campaign i started, players aren't allowed good or chaotic characters, paladins, gunslingers samurai, ninjas and cavaliers were banned and i asked them to stick to core races.
The OP did address at character creation. Said no, tried to compromise, and the player later came back and said he'd screwed up before but he'd really like to play a kitsune.
Telling people background information and play style up front is always a plus as far as I'm concerned.
What game has no good or chaotics? Samurai and ninjas are easy to reskin. Why ex them out?
|
Until recently, I have been a player in a circle consisting of 4 couples, and almost all of the games, mostly PFS mods, have been run by the same 2 guys. I am trying my hand at GMing an adventure path, partly to give these veteran GMs a break, to have a longer term campaign, and to allow things that aren't allowed in PFS. I see my role as GM as deliverer of content for the enjoyment of these specific people. I don't have some high concept for a gameworld that I am looking for like-minded people to play in, nor will I replace anybody with somebody else should there be a disagreement. I have a group of fun people I want to run a game for, and if they are having fun, I am having fun. In the Rise of the Runelords game I just started running, the group consists of:
Nagaji fighter that thinks she is a dragon
Catfolk barbarian (Titan Mauler), a Scottish Puss-in-Boots
Changeling cleric (Evangelist) who worships a deity named Snuggles whose favored weapon is a repeating heavy crossbow
Human (Mwangi) druid (Saurian Shaman), a tribal dude that wants to be a dinosaur with a dinosaur Mini-me.
Half-giant ranger trained in Disable Device that wants to show the world that they are not all clumsy oafs.
Android Psion, who for some reason is trying to pass for human in this group
Dwarf eldritch knight, the only one with any wizard spells
I think it would be hard to guess which ones are the regular PFS GMs.
This group would freak the living crap out of anybody if you wanted to simulate NPC reactions realistically, but we are treating it sort of like a comic book superhero story. The Avengers aren't worried what the local cops think. They are trying to save the world.
Some people take their gameworlds really seriously. Others don't. If your GM does, and your GM wields all the power, then I suggest trying to fit into that world if you really want to play in it.
I don't let my little brother get away with that s*$@ and I certainly won't allow someone who's an adult to do so either.
So exactly how are you going to prevent someone from "getting away with it" ??
Why are we comparing a six foot phallus with spikes to racism?
Player: I want to play a Tiefling with a 6 foot tall phallus, with spikes.
DM: No.
Player: Explain yourself! You need a darn good reason to deny my concept!
DM: It's silly, and inappropriate for this campaign.
Player: RACIST!!!!!!!
I'd allow it as long as it worked as an improvised Earthbreaker.
Examples:GM: Ok folks, part of the guidelines of the game is that there are no elves in this world.
Player: But I want to play an elf!
GM: Well, here are some races that fill that same niche. Let's get together and figure out something that fulfills your concept and your backstory.
Player: Ok, I'll give it a shot.OR
GM: Ok folks, part of the guidelines of the game is that there are no elves in this world.
Player: But I want to play an elf!
GM: Well, here are some races that fill that same niche. Let's get together and figure out something that fulfills your concept and your backstory.
Player: No, I want to play an elf! That's the only race I want to play right now.
GM: Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I heard Bob is running a game you might be interested, or you can try the FLGS downtown. Otherwise, I guess we'll see you Friday at the pub.
OR
GM: Ok folks, part of the guidelines of the game is that there are no elves in this world.Player: But I want to play an elf!
GM: Find another game then! You're just trying to ruin everyone's fun!
This seems to be what many people are advocating: the DM never compromises or reasons; he lays down the law. Players accept his edicts without question or they walk. Some of us are wondering why it can't be more like the two examples you give.
Nope.
You disallow anything, you are a horrible person, and likely beat babies to death.
Also, you make Native Americans cry, by littering.
Babies, Native Americans, and Litterbugs are all banned.
They don't fit my campaign.
On a more serious note... Do you really believe that no matter what concept a player presents, the DM has to be able to provide an objectively valid reason for why it is not allowed in his campaign?
Does that include 3.5 material? How about 3pp? Custom Races? Homebrew Classes? Is there any line where you can just say "No"?
Do I have to learn the class or race or item or ruleset just so I can offer you a comprehensive and clear contrary opinion? What if, after I have done so, you still find my reasoning to be insufficient?
At what point has the player crossed the line?
On a more serious note... Do you really believe that no matter what concept a player presents, the DM has to be able to provide an objectively valid reason for why it is not allowed in his campaign?
I'd like a more valid reason than "Because". I also take "Because I don't like you" as a bad reason.
On a more serious note... Do you really believe that no matter what concept a player presents, the DM has to be able to provide an objectively valid reason for why it is not allowed in his campaign?I'd like a more valid reason than "Because". I also take "Because I don't like you" as a bad reason.
That doesn't answer the question.
Totally did. Yes, he should be able too. He should be able to be nice and give valid reasons. He should not treat the players concepts like toilet paper. He should nicely give a reason. Sometimes these reasons are blanket statements and shut down most of what the player ask anyway such as "No 3.5 this game. That stuff isn't very compatible". Other times its "I don't know 3rd party, but I guess I'm going to need you to get me a physical copy of the book before we do anything." Sometimes its a trust thing "Hey, can I trust you to keep track of your spells? Give me a copy of the spell card every time you learn one. That should really get rid of any issues before they come up."
Sometimes this can be done over a dessert or through some email exchanges with attached documents so we all see what is going on. You do not tell the player "No. Just no. I don't care why, just no." You can, but that doesn't make it good, smart, or right. The player deserves a level of respect, and the GM does too.
|
Nope.
You disallow anything, you are a horrible person, and likely beat babies to death.
Also, you make Native Americans cry, by littering.
Babies, Native Americans, and Litterbugs are all banned.
They don't fit my campaign.
On a more serious note... Do you really believe that no matter what concept a player presents, the DM has to be able to provide an objectively valid reason for why it is not allowed in his campaign?
Does that include 3.5 material? How about 3pp? Custom Races? Homebrew Classes? Is there any line where you can just say "No"?
Do I have to learn the class or race or item or ruleset just so I can offer you a comprehensive and clear contrary opinion? What if, after I have done so, you still find my reasoning to be insufficient?
At what point has the player crossed the line?
You are really not catching the drift.
There are people making it an issue about something unrelated.
It is accusatory, rude, unfounded, and even if they deny it, trolling.
They want it all to be about discrimination.
It does not matter if it is illogical to place such a thing on unrelated things.
That's what they want to debate about.
So, we are all guilty of discrimination, no matter what.
"No 3.5 this game. That stuff isn't very compatible".
No Kitsune. They aren't compatible.
Glad that got solved.
Nope.
You disallow anything, you are a horrible person, and likely beat babies to death.
Also, you make Native Americans cry, by littering.
Babies, Native Americans, and Litterbugs are all banned.
They don't fit my campaign.
On a more serious note... Do you really believe that no matter what concept a player presents, the DM has to be able to provide an objectively valid reason for why it is not allowed in his campaign?
Does that include 3.5 material? How about 3pp? Custom Races? Homebrew Classes? Is there any line where you can just say "No"?
Do I have to learn the class or race or item or ruleset just so I can offer you a comprehensive and clear contrary opinion? What if, after I have done so, you still find my reasoning to be insufficient?
At what point has the player crossed the line?
You are really not catching the drift.
There are people making it an issue about something unrelated.
It is accusatory, rude, unfounded, and even if they deny it, trolling.
They want it all to be about discrimination.
It does not matter if it is illogical to place such a thing on unrelated things.
That's what they want to debate about.
So, we are all guilty of discrimination, no matter what.
No, I get it. I commented on it waaaaayyy upthread.
On a more serious note... Do you really believe that no matter what concept a player presents, the DM has to be able to provide an objectively valid reason for why it is not allowed in his campaign?
Does that include 3.5 material? How about 3pp? Custom Races? Homebrew Classes? Is there any line where you can just say "No"?
Do I have to learn the class or race or item or ruleset just so I can offer you a comprehensive and clear contrary opinion? What if, after I have done so, you still find my reasoning to be insufficient?
At what point has the player crossed the line?
The line IMO should be drawn at Paizo released content as being the default, with 3.5 stuff, 3pp, homebrew, etc. being taken on a case by case basis if they're allowed at all.
The reason being that for the most part Paizo released races and such are balanced, or at least balanced with the rest of the game, while the other stuff may or may not be.
"No 3.5 this game. That stuff isn't very compatible".No Kitsune. They aren't compatible.
Glad that got solved.
Except they are compatible considering they were created for this game by the creators of this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! Well look what it says right at the beginning of the chapter about Uncommon Races (You know, the one with Kitsune in it!):
Permission denied. 'Nuff said.
Oh! Well look what it says right at the beginning of the chapter about Uncommon Races (You know, the one with Kitsune in it!):
Permission denied. 'Nuff said.
Oh gosh, he's got the books on us. What, your argument about comparing the kitsune to 3.5 not working out?
We already said it was with GMs permission. Your argument was that you didn't need a good reason to say no. You treat players like this?
|
|
Allow what I want or you are a guddamn arse with such horrible discriminatory tendencies that Hitler himself would be offended by your mere presence.
In fact, I will make it my life's goal to let the world know how horrible you are.
I will make sure that generations from now, people will spit your name in disgust.
Every one who shares your bloodline will die in shame.
You genetic code will be lost to all, but a few samples held by scientist to remind themselves of the evil that once walked the earth.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They do owe me an explanation if they're any sort of reasonable human being.
They are not in any sort of important position where I should follow their orders without question. I am not employed by them, and they are not my superior in any way. We have come together to PLAY A GAME.
And if you're on so much of a power trip from being in charge of running A GAME that you can't formulate a coherent reason for why you dislike something and think everyone should "Respect yo authoritay" because you sit at a different spot on the table, yes, I probably am better off finding someone I wouldn't want to punch after being in the same room for 5 minutes with them.
Thankfully, I only play with people I know, who are actual human beings who can communicate with each other, not the ego tripping aliens that everyone else plays with apparently.
No they don't.
You don't owe the GM an explanation for why you want to play your concept, either.
No one "owes" anyone, anything.
That is the point.
It isn't a power trip to say "I don't want to run the concept you are proposing" any more than it is a power trip to say "I want to run this concept in the game you are running"
It becomes a power trip when you insist the GM continue running the game with what you proposed, even if they don't want to run it.
That is what you don't seem to be getting.
The selection of the GM came first.Also childish is an insistance on playing a banned race rather than one of the almost infinite number of other options ...What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Actually in the case of the OP it was "I don't like this guy. He doesn't get what he wants" that came after as far as I can tell. I don't think about every grippli in my game before it happens myself.
|
|
That's OK as far as it goes, but personally, as GM, I find that it's worth comparing how strong my dislike is, vs. how much the player really wants to go with the concept.Quiet, I'm busy playing hopscotch with the battle lines. :P
And sometimes we are playing with Jerry, and sometimes we are playing with people who have to have custom races, luchadore masks, and furries...
You don't owe the GM an explanation for why you want to play your concept, either.
That GM is a jerk then. Taking a short while to explain yourself isn't hard or a problem is it? He doesn't have to accept arguments, but he does not get to just say "NO! You don't deserve an explanation!" That's just bad manners.
|
|
Actually in the case of the OP it was "I don't like this guy. He doesn't get what he wants" that came after as far as I can tell. I don't think about every grippli in my game before it happens myself.The selection of the GM came first.Also childish is an insistance on playing a banned race rather than one of the almost infinite number of other options ...What came first, the chicken or the egg?
He "doesn't like the guy" because he is a pain in the butt generally.
If you are irritating when you get things, people get tired of giving you access to things that are irritating.
Funny that...
|
|
You don't owe the GM an explanation for why you want to play your concept, either.That GM is a jerk then. Taking a short while to explain yourself isn't hard or a problem is it? He doesn't have to accept arguments, but he does not get to just say "NO! You don't deserve an explanation!" That's just bad manners.
Rude is demanding someone accommodate you, when you are unwilling to fit into the setting. Rude is saying "You have to spend time and effort making this fit into your plans because I am unwilling or unable to select something that fits."
That is rude.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh gosh, he's got the books on us. What, your argument about comparing the kitsune to 3.5 not working out?
We already said it was with GMs permission. Your argument was that you didn't need a good reason to say no. You treat players like this?
Yeah, horrible to use those books with rules in them. I'm pretty sure I never compared Kitsune to 3.5. I only said Kitsune were not compatible. With the setting, with my tastes, with orcs... It doesn't matter.
It is with GM's permission. But, not for you. You have to have a burden of proof to establish why the GM won't allow you to play this one non-standard, GM-permission-only concept.
Yes, I do "treat my players this way", if you mean when they ask me something, they don't already believe that they have a right to it. They are asking because they are not certain whether it is allowed.
It's the difference between Players, and Entitled Players.
|
|
On a more serious note... Do you really believe that no matter what concept a player presents, the DM has to be able to provide an objectively valid reason for why it is not allowed in his campaign?I'd like a more valid reason than "Because". I also take "Because I don't like you" as a bad reason.
But it might be the truth.
The truth might be "I think that is a stupid concept, and from experience I know if I let you play a stupid concept you will annoy the hell out of me, so I can either ban you from the table completely and select someone who won't annoy me, or I can get you to pick a concept that you can play without being an annoying twit."
But it would be rude to say that directly, so you just go with "That doesn't work, pick something else"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am running a campaign were their is no Halflings or any other small sized race available for PCs. One of our former players threw a fit because I said no to his Halfling Rogue Concept. He demanded to know why and I didn't give him anymore of an explaination besides saying he just can't play a Halflings or any other small sized Race in the world.
Somethings should be obvious. Ironically, the reason why the Small Races weren't available for PCs is simply because of how he plays them and I know the fact that he would inevitibly want to play them in my next campaign so I used that as fuel to create a reason why they aren't available as a PC Race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't owe the GM an explanation for why you want to play your concept, either.That GM is a jerk then. Taking a short while to explain yourself isn't hard or a problem is it? He doesn't have to accept arguments, but he does not get to just say "NO! You don't deserve an explanation!" That's just bad manners.Rude is demanding someone accommodate you, when you are unwilling to fit into the setting. Rude is saying "You have to spend time and effort making this fit into your plans because I am unwilling or unable to select something that fits."
That is rude.
And without an explanation such as "This doesn't fit in with my setting in any way because reasons" the player does not know it doesn't fit. He just hears you say no, asks why, and then is called a rude a+#&&&$ for daring to question the almighty ZoDM.
I can take an argument to its logical extreme as well, you see.
In reality, again, the scenario between any two human beings over the age of 8 should go something like this "I want this" "No" "Why?" "<Reasons why>" "Okay".
There's no malice on either side like some seem to want to spin. It's only in the case of people who, for some reason, are pissed off that anyone would question their judgement that it comes to scenarios like the one you propose, the player "forcing" the DM to "fit something into his plans" because the player "refuses to find something that fits".
But it might be the truth.
The truth might be "I think that is a stupid concept, and from experience I know if I let you play a stupid concept you will annoy the hell out of me, so I can either ban you from the table completely and select someone who won't annoy me, or I can get you to pick a concept that you can play without being an annoying twit."
But it would be rude to say that directly, so you just go with "That doesn't work, pick something else"
It's just as rude to say "No, because I'm teh DM and I say so" and also a whole lot more condescending and indirect.
If you don't like the guy and think he's an a!@&~## or a troublemaker, tell him so. It's a lot more honest than giving the guy the runaround on things.