However many players mistake what they personally want as automatically being what is best for the table and the game.
I just lost a player due to this phenomenon, so I can corroborate that it exists.
|
However many players mistake what they personally want as automatically being what is best for the table and the game.I just lost a player due to this phenomenon, so I can corroborate that it exists.
That's never a fun situation.
I had a player leave one of my PbP games once because he built his character to be nothing but a combat and absolutely deadly bowman. When the PbP got all into character development he effectively refused to engage, having his bowman sit up on towers and telling NPC's to bugger off. This way he thought he'd never have to use his dump stats or lack of skills in social situations.
When other players started getting benefits from their interactions within the game, and his didn't, he started getting miffed.
Then came a fight where he couldn't effectively use his bow.
He just dropped out after that. No word, just left.
I was running an AP, and the encounters at least were run as written. The social stuff and character development happened as a natural progression of in game events and the players and I developing PC/NPC relationships.
Seems some folks only want the stuff that is in the book. When the GM starts running the world though, you start getting into "not covered in the book" pretty fast. This is really why the rule for GM's word is final is in there. It allows GM's to create a world, and have things respond according to his/her ideas of how people in that world would realistically respond. Some folks have different ideas about that though (thus the arguments in many of these threads). When this happens, the GM can point to page 402 and say "It's in the rules that I get final say. In my games things respond this way, these are my reasons".
As long as those moments are consistent in the game world, then that should be enough. That way players can learn to react to the world according to the way the GM interprets it.
Up until Ultimate Campaign clarified a few things, these types of calls were made on spells such as Charm Person, or any spell that meant you had to bargain with outsiders for assistance. GM's had to make a ruling. Some players didn't like those rulings. Many players seem to come to these boards and ask other players to back them up for some reason. Despite the Rule 0.
Cheers
PS. That became a much longer rant than I intended. Sorry about that.
How a DM applies Rule 0 usually shows if he's a good DM or a bad one.
It also usually shows if the players are compatible with said DM's style or not.
However many players mistake what they personally want as automatically being what is best for the table and the game.I just lost a player due to this phenomenon, so I can corroborate that it exists.
And I've seen more than one DM lose an entire table to said phenomenon. It goes both ways.
True enough, yeah.