|
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.
If the opening sentence of your description of a setting is "There are no elves" and the player then says "I'm playing an elf", you don't think that player is being a twit?
I mean, it was literally the only thing you said wasn't included.
I get what you are saying Kirth, you should try to run the game that people want to play.
I don't think that is a real problem. I really don't.
But what I do think is a problem is that if as a GM I have an idea I want to play, and if I am able to find 4 people who want to play that idea, as I have described it, that I am in any way obligated to allow a 5th person to be something that doesn't fit.
I am completely within reason to say "Sorry dude, that concept doesn't fit and I have a group that actually wants to run things that do fit, so if you want to play, you can't play that."
If I can't find 4 people, I fail at getting people to let me GM.
But sometimes you want to run something in a specific place, and so do other people. And that place may not include furries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to think some people think the DM is entitled and there is a conspiracy that the player deserves to be treated like a human being and with respect. The worst part is, they think there is something wrong with that.
This WOULD fly...if you weren't the one who controlled the setting. Saying "X exists, but everyone hates it" is your decision. You cannot then point at the document and say "See? Look, everyone attacks Half-Orcs on sight, it's in the document!" and shrug and give a little fake smile like your hands are tied. It's mutable.I find this to be a bit of a gray area, because it's harder to change after a game has already been played in it, but before the first game starts in that setting nothing is set in stone.
Now, "Half-Orcs are reviled because there's a story reason behind it" is perfectly fine. But "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.
BUT I DON'T CONTROL THE SETTING! It was made by group consensus (I've said that before). There are ongoing campaigns in it, and not just mine. There are NO Lizardfolk sorcerers, and yet, when someone new joins the group, what do you suppose is the first thing they want to play? Half-Orcs are reviled, and it has been that way since the inception of the world, why should you get to override the 7 other players?
|
|
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.
I explain why it doesn't fit and offer suggestions on how to make it fit. So do all the GMs I've ever played with. We told the guy he sucked at Paladins, so he couldn't play them anymore, and I was told I couldn't play several different concepts over they years in a given campaign without specific explanation beyond "It doesn't really fit, have you thought about X"
But I have never, ever, considered telling a GM "You have to let me run this in your game."
I think that is incredibly rude.
That is not "player entitlement", that's DM abuse.
The DM is there to have fun too.
People seem to forget that part.
Who are you replying to?
BUT I DON'T CONTROL THE SETTING! It was made by group consensus (I've said that before). There are ongoing campaigns in it, and not just mine. There are NO Lizardfolk sorcerers, and yet, when someone new joins the group, what do you suppose is the first thing they want to play? Half-Orcs are reviled, and it has been that way since the inception of the world, why should you get to override the 7 other players?
Sorry, I don't follow your posts, so I've never seen that comment before. That's a bit of a different story.
BUT I DON'T CONTROL THE SETTING! It was made by group consensus (I've said that before). There are ongoing campaigns in it, and not just mine. There are NO Lizardfolk sorcerers, and yet, when someone new joins the group, what do you suppose is the first thing they want to play? Half-Orcs are reviled, and it has been that way since the inception of the world, why should you get to override the 7 other players?
I'm not overriding you. You each just have to write a 20 page essay on why my unique concept (which is the only one I'm willing to play) is incompatible with your setting. Be sure to cite your sources.
I'll need all seven essays by Friday.
BUT I DON'T CONTROL THE SETTING! It was made by group consensus (I've said that before). There are ongoing campaigns in it, and not just mine. There are NO Lizardfolk sorcerers, and yet, when someone new joins the group, what do you suppose is the first thing they want to play? Half-Orcs are reviled, and it has been that way since the inception of the world, why should you get to override the 7 other players?I'm not overriding you. You each just have to write a 20 page essay on why my concept is incompatible with your setting. Be sure to cite your sources.
I'll need all seven by Friday.
Who's demanding that?
|
|
BUT I DON'T CONTROL THE SETTING! It was made by group consensus (I've said that before). There are ongoing campaigns in it, and not just mine. There are NO Lizardfolk sorcerers, and yet, when someone new joins the group, what do you suppose is the first thing they want to play? Half-Orcs are reviled, and it has been that way since the inception of the world, why should you get to override the 7 other players?Sorry, I don't follow your posts, so I've never seen that comment before. That's a bit of a different story.
No it isn't a different story. It is how many people run their game. Many of us have consistent game worlds and settings that the players have participated in building over years.
If you aren't playing in that kind of game, run it how you like. But for those of us who are, when the GM says "No, that doesn't fit the setting." you say "Ok, let's discuss ways I can fit into the concept you are working on, so that the game works well for all of us" not "BUT I WANNA!"
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.
What about the GM's concept?
If you aren't playing in that kind of game, run it how you like. But for those of us who are, when the GM says "No, that doesn't fit the setting." you say "Ok, let's discuss ways I can fit into the concept you are working on, so that the game works well for all of us" not "BUT I WANNA!"
Who's advocating the latter? I've seen people say you need to talk about compromise, but not the latter. The OP tried to compromise, didn't get it, and later the player talked with him and they reached one.
Ciretose, that was towards me. Not you. Do I need to start responding to everything directed towards you like I know what your thinking and saying? Please don't do it to me.
Who's demanding that?BUT I DON'T CONTROL THE SETTING! It was made by group consensus (I've said that before). There are ongoing campaigns in it, and not just mine. There are NO Lizardfolk sorcerers, and yet, when someone new joins the group, what do you suppose is the first thing they want to play? Half-Orcs are reviled, and it has been that way since the inception of the world, why should you get to override the 7 other players?I'm not overriding you. You each just have to write a 20 page essay on why my concept is incompatible with your setting. Be sure to cite your sources.
I'll need all seven by Friday.
Absurd extremes. Why not? You're demanding that the burden of justification be placed on the DM. I'm just going another step.
No it isn't a different story. It is how many people run their game. Many of us have consistent game worlds and settings that the players have participated in building over years.
That's not the story I've been hearing throughout this thread and others in the slightest.
Best case it's been "The GM has his concept for the setting and if you mess with that it ruins his fun, which is bad" and in worst case (though from a definite minority) it's been "The GM bleeds and sweats to create this setting and game for you. And you DARE TO QUESTION HIM? ENTITLED PLAYER!!!!!!!11one!!eleven!!"
What about the GM's concept?
The GM only exists to provide the player the ability to play the exact concept they want.
Think of the GM as "Burger King"
Barely palatable and full of filler?
Absurd extremes. Why not? You're demanding that the burden of justification be placed on the DM. I'm just going another step.
You'll note that going to extremes makes you look like a moron. On either side.
The "GM has absolute power that you may not question" stance is as moronic as the "GM is the player's whipping boy".
Of course, I usually see both examples of hyperbole only coming from a single side that can't seem to stay within the bounds of realistic interactions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who are you replying to?That is not "player entitlement", that's DM abuse.
The DM is there to have fun too.
People seem to forget that part.
Anyone putting the DM in a light as some sort of villain for even thinking about disallowing anything, is just maddeningly unjust and borders the realm of severe douchbaggery.
Then, shoehorning mass amounts of accusations of horrible discrimination on top of that is just asshat behavior for the sake of being an asshat.
Absurd extremes. Why not? You're demanding that the burden of justification be placed on the DM. I'm just going another step.Who's demanding that?BUT I DON'T CONTROL THE SETTING! It was made by group consensus (I've said that before). There are ongoing campaigns in it, and not just mine. There are NO Lizardfolk sorcerers, and yet, when someone new joins the group, what do you suppose is the first thing they want to play? Half-Orcs are reviled, and it has been that way since the inception of the world, why should you get to override the 7 other players?I'm not overriding you. You each just have to write a 20 page essay on why my concept is incompatible with your setting. Be sure to cite your sources.
I'll need all seven by Friday.
Taking things to extremes is an invalid argument. It invokes godwin's law doesn't it? Until someone starts doing that why don't we just say its not going to happen. In that rare case this exact thing does happen, maybe we should talk about it then.
Saying "Oh hey this doesn't work because..." is nothing like writing a 20 page paper. Its just giving a simple explanation. if the player is pesturing you about it endlessly your probably not playing with him right? The player is not a threat.
What about the GM's concept?
The GM can share it. That's a valid reason to say no. They are free to compromise or free one party to leave the other. I never said it wasn't, nor that it was invalidated, nor that the player has the right to overrule it. No one is saying that. They might say someone is being a jerk for saying no "because" or that if the reasons behind it are bad they are bad people. They haven't said you HAVE to let a player in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, suppose the GM doesn't justify it. Just chooses not to. Disallowed because I don't like it. Nothing more.
Are you going to just... what? Play it anyway? How do you think that's going to work out for you?
So, if the DM's decision isn't final enough for you...
Ok, suppose the GM doesn't justify it. Just chooses not to. Disallowed because I don't like it. Nothing more.
Are you going to just... what? Play it anyway? How do you think that's going to work out for you?
So, if the DM's decision isn't final enough for you...
Then he's being a jerk and I leave. I don't have to put up with someone who doesn't even give enough respect to say something more than no. The final decision is enough. Its a statement of his character. What am I supposed to expect down the line? Respect for my characters? Respect for my self? Is this the kind of going who's willing to chip in to the food bill or the kind who bums it off me?
As a human being I expect a certain amount of respect from my peers. Just like anyone else. This is not entitlement, this is being a human being. Is the GM entitled to say "No" and treat me like I don't even deserve a few shared thoughts? Is this man supposed to be my friend? What questions eh?
I think part of the problem here is that some players don't realize that what, to them, is the GM being arbitrary, is adhering to premade campaign rules. It really doesn't matter if the rules are "official" or player-created at the start of a campaign.
Case in point: I started a new campaign. I said we are playing something very different. Player asks if they can play a gunslinger. I say no, and before I can explain, they say I am unfair. I then explain that it is Darksun. They then say that is fine, and they understand why there are no gunslingers. But, Why should it matter? Just because it's a pre-existing campaign, that was, at one time, official? This treatment is (obviously) not official, it is in PF. But if I say no Gunslingers in Darksun, I am playing it correctly, but if I say no gunslingers in my campaign world, I am being mean and unaccommodating.
Who are you replying to?That is not "player entitlement", that's DM abuse.
The DM is there to have fun too.
People seem to forget that part.
Anyone putting the DM in a light as some sort of villain for even thinking about disallowing anything, is just maddeningly unjust and borders the realm of severe douchbaggery.
Then, shoehorning mass amounts of accusations of horrible discrimination on top of that is just asshat behavior for the sake of being an asshat.
Ah okay then. It was confusing as it followed one of my posts. I agree with you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My god, I have never been with any group that would give their DM such a Prison Pounding.
I love playing "unique" PCs, but I still respect my DM enough to not slam anything down his throat.
This is my friend, and I want him/her to have as much fun as me.
Love and tolerate.
I think part of the problem here is that some players don't realize that what, to them, is the GM being arbitrary, is adhering to premade campaign rules. It really doesn't matter if the rules are "official" or player-created at the start of a campaign.
Case in point: I started a new campaign. I said we are playing something very different. Player asks if they can play a gunslinger. I say no, and before I can explain, they say I am unfair. I then explain that it is Darksun. They then say that is fine, and they understand why there are no gunslingers. But, Why should it matter? Just because it's a pre-existing campaign, that was, at one time, official? This treatment is (obviously) not official, it is in PF. But if I say no Gunslingers in Darksun, I am playing it correctly, but if I say no gunslingers in my campaign world, I am being mean and unaccommodating.
Exactly. When I say Core races only, my players don't have a fit. When one has a concept outside of the standard, he asks about it, with no expectation or entitlement. Recently, for instance, a full orc cavalier concept was okayed. Not too long after, a dhampir replacement for a dead PC got denied. The game is still going, and everyone is still happy.
Well the thing is with Human, Dwarf, and Elf only you can still create a lot of Unique Builds. Such as a Human who is skilled in Fencing in a world where Longsword and Lance are common or a Dwarf Wizard in a World were Dwarves are Martial.
the player would be just as immature with any other race as they would be with a Kitsune.
in fact, even if you restrict him to the core races, he will still be doing his shenanigans.
if you are worried about Kitsune Being too silly for your world. i recommend banning Gnomes first. Gnomes are the silliest Race Ever.
Crazy Stuff that Gnomes have access to by virtue of being gnomes
- Freaking Rainbow Colored Hair or even other obnoxious Hair Colors
- Access to Names no Human would ever respectfully go by, Such as Bubbagumpypants Buttocks Mcgee or Chicken Master Molly Whopping Yhu
- frequent tendencies to develop frivolous inventions for comic relief
- a constant need to play childish pranks "for the Lulz"
- a tendency to wear outlandishly vibrant colors for the shock factor
Gnomes are the silliest Race Ever.
Well, obviously!
What about the GM's concept?The GM can share it. That's a valid reason to say no. They are free to compromise or free one party to leave the other. I never said it wasn't, nor that it was invalidated, nor that the player has the right to overrule it. No one is saying that. They might say someone is being a jerk for saying no "because" or that if the reasons behind it are bad they are bad people. They haven't said you HAVE to let a player in.
I agree. 2 people don't HAVE TO game together, and that's ok. But if the GM is a jerk for refusing to budge on his concept when a player wants to play something that runs counter to it, is the player a jerk to refusing to budge on his character concept?
I don't think either one of them is a jerk. If they can come to an agreement, that's great. When they can't, it jut wasn't a good fit. It happens sometimes. It's nothing personal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that in the campaign I have been running since 1987, there have been some standardizations in the world. Sometimes, a player comes along who wants to create a character that at first glance doesn't seem to "fit" in with those standards. However, I prefer to listen to the character concept first and would never just outright say no to them, only because they may bring in a new twist or story idea that can be really creative. Get involved with the character concept with the player. Help him/her to fit the PC in your world.
My god, I have never been with any group that would give their DM such a Prison Pounding.
I love playing "unique" PCs, but I still respect my DM enough to not slam anything down his throat.
This is my friend, and I want him/her to have as much fun as me.
Love and tolerate.
See, I actually agree with this despite some people thinking I don't.
I love playing unique PCs myself, and in my current group that hasn't been a problem.
But in the past one, that was one of many problems, but the former DM just chose it as the "main" one.
And hopefully it's just the vocal minority that demands "extreme action" while those who suggest talking it out are a quiet majority.
I know that in the campaign I have been running since 1987, there have been some standardizations in the world. Sometimes, a player comes along who wants to create a character that at first glance doesn't seem to "fit" in with those standards. However, I prefer to listen to the character concept first and would never just outright say no to them, only because they may bring in a new twist or story idea that can be really creative. Get involved with the character concept with the player. Help him/her to fit the PC in your world.
I wish every DM out there would be like this. That's what I have strived for myself, and this has actually worked in my current group as well.
|
I would not have allowed the Kitsune. I tell players, upfront, what is and is not allowed in my games. I make exceptions when it can work. But if it doesn't fit the story/theme/background/game it's a no and stays that way. The goal is for everyone to have fun and one player who wants to play something that detracts from my fun when they know in advance that it is not allowed isn't going to fly. It sucks because this gm did a lot of bending over for the player to allow him to play the race and that wasn't good enough. Not sure how they worked it out, but just reading the first few pages of comments and hearing how many people were like 'so what? Let him play whatever he wants, even if it is a science using, gun armed, high tech dwarf biotech build...in a COMPLETELY non scientific or even steampunk setting.
The arguments about letting the guy play the kitsune irked me greatly.
It seemed rather simple to me: The player wants to play something the GM feels/knows is out of place for his particular game. The GM has made concessions and/or given warnings to allow for the race to be played. The player didn't feel the options were good enough and flat out wanted to 'flaming' about his choice.
This isn't fun for anyone but that player when everyone has to add an additional layer of suspension of disbelief for someone who is virtually trolling which is essentially (based on the first couple of pages) the GM was saying this player was (an unintentional troll).
And yet we had people supporting the player and not the GM...in my mind I translated it as the gm should just bend over and take whatever the player dishes out. *rolls eyes*.
The race doesn't fit the theme. The race shouldn't be allowed. Problem solved. There's like 20-ish races or so. The layer can find another. Sheesh.
And yet we had people supporting the player and not the GM...in my mind I translated it as the gm should just bend over and take whatever the player dishes out. *rolls eyes*.
Where do people get this idea that a GM has to do something anyway? No one can force you to do anything on the forum. I know I certainly don't advocate it. Did someone specifically say the GM has to bend over backwards for the player?
|
|
Ok, suppose the GM doesn't justify it. Just chooses not to. Disallowed because I don't like it. Nothing more.
Are you going to just... what? Play it anyway? How do you think that's going to work out for you?
So, if the DM's decision isn't final enough for you...
Then he's being a jerk and I leave. I don't have to put up with someone who doesn't even give enough respect to say something more than no. The final decision is enough. Its a statement of his character. What am I supposed to expect down the line? Respect for my characters? Respect for my self? Is this the kind of going who's willing to chip in to the food bill or the kind who bums it off me?
As a human being I expect a certain amount of respect from my peers. Just like anyone else. This is not entitlement, this is being a human being. Is the GM entitled to say "No" and treat me like I don't even deserve a few shared thoughts? Is this man supposed to be my friend? What questions eh?
How about 'They don't exist in this world' or 'they are limited to NPCs'?
Both are entirely legitimate answers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how he goes about it.Sorry, I see just about no way having your first action be going against the restriction inherent in the very campaign pitch instead of just picking something that doesn't go against the campaign restriction is respectful or nice.
And this is why Kirth talks about DMs that brook no argument. Because you can't even contemplate respectful discussion as a possibility.
|
|
I know that in the campaign I have been running since 1987, there have been some standardizations in the world. Sometimes, a player comes along who wants to create a character that at first glance doesn't seem to "fit" in with those standards. However, I prefer to listen to the character concept first and would never just outright say no to them, only because they may bring in a new twist or story idea that can be really creative. Get involved with the character concept with the player. Help him/her to fit the PC in your world.
That's excellent, and to a large degree, how I handle things...but if someone wants to run a very specific...or just a more specific game, he's well within his rights. If I want to play, I'll either come up with something that fits...or not, and not play. It's not the GM's fault that I can't work out something that fits (though I bet I can, in any case where I really want to play).
|
|
How you go about asking determines that. 'Gunning for it' obviously isn't the right way to go. But you've already made up your mind that any discussion of the restriction is rude, hence the image of 'my way or the highway'.
If a DM builds a campaign...a scenario...whatever...and all it works for is dwarf fighters, for whatever reason, I am well within my rights to ask to play a dwarf Bbn, and he is well within his rights to say no. If that's the limitation for that game, I can build a dwarf fighter I'd like to play, or decide that it isn't worth playing, no hard feelings.
I know that in the campaign I have been running since 1987, there have been some standardizations in the world. Sometimes, a player comes along who wants to create a character that at first glance doesn't seem to "fit" in with those standards. However, I prefer to listen to the character concept first and would never just outright say no to them, only because they may bring in a new twist or story idea that can be really creative. Get involved with the character concept with the player. Help him/her to fit the PC in your world.
I know we've taken this to a weird, extremely sarcastic place... But, who is saying that they're not willing to hear the concept first? The only people who don't seem to be willing to hear are the ones saying the GM should always allow everything unless they can meet some vague, unknowable level of justification.
No player at my table has ever had a conversation with me that goes:
"Hey, I have an idea for a Kitsune-"
"NO!"
"... Well, I think it could be-"
"NO!"
"... I mean he's a-"
"NO!"
That would be extremely disrespectful. However, I've also never had a player say, "Unless you can provide more substantial reasoning for disallowing this, you are a giant douchebagdickweaselhitler!"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you still aren't telling me why they really need to go that way at all, when surely more than one thing in the world exists which they could have fun with. Aren't you me least bit suspicious about someone immediately deciding they have to have whatever was restricted, or they just can't have fun?
You're adding extra baggage to the conversation. I never said they NEED to, nor that they can only have fun that way. I'm saying that you're giving the impression that the DM never bends, and trying to paint me as saying the player never bends. What I am saying is that compromise is a two-way street.