| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM always has the final word, but not even pausing to listen what the players have to say is bad GMing, IMHO. And this goes for everything, including, but not limited to race selection. You don't have to allow everything, but you shouldn't ban stuff without a second thought just out of personal preference either. You can, but you shouldn't. That's my whole point.
Isn't a player insisting that they HAVE to play that race or they can't play ALSO 'my way or the highway"?
Notice how you're not addressing what he's saying?
No one says it's OK for a player to demand anything. What a lot of people are saying is that the DM owes it to the players to at least hear them out, and/or that the will of the group as a whole should be considered, rather than only the will of the DM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes sense. I haven't followed the transformation of Gnomes into the Golarion Fey type myself. Playing the Elf / Half Elf against stereotype could work but I can see your point.
The rebranding of gnomes, into "fey, trapped in a world they find so mundane it is killing them" was their selling point for me.
Not fond of all the art (hence, why I use a halfling avatar and miniature), as I never liked the Dragonlance 'tinker' angle.
A technophiliac look clashes (for me) with the idea of a race from "The Realm of Nature, Cranked up to 9000!".
I'd rather see art that reminds me of Arthur Ransome, Brian Froud, Tony diTerlizzi, Russ Nicholson, et al.
Wild, feral, dangerous nature-spirits, prisoned in flesh, with blood and mud under their fingernails, as likely to help a poor deserving farmer, as to gut disrespectful 'invaders'. Dangerous and unpredictable, like the Dark Sun halflings.
I think if you want to run 'clockwork' gnomes, they should be in a setting that's made for it, like Zobeck.
But the tinkers are still a vast improvement on the 'lawn-jockey' cliches we had to deal with for decades.
"Gnomes. Not quite a dwarf. But not quite a halfling, either."
The GM always has the final word, but not even pausing to listen what the players have to say is bad GMing, IMHO. And this goes for everything, including, but not limited to race selection. You don't have to allow everything, but you shouldn't ban stuff without a second thought just out of personal preference either. You can, but you shouldn't. That's my whole point.Isn't a player insisting that they HAVE to play that race or they can't play ALSO 'my way or the highway"?Notice how you're not addressing what he's saying?
No one says it's OK for a player to demand anything. What a lot of people are saying is that the DM owes it to the players to at least hear them out, and/or that the will of the group as a whole should be considered, rather than only the will of the DM.
If you say " this world is so and so, and in this world there are no elves". And the next words out of the players mouth is "ok here is my elvish sorcerer" ... Then yes, he's being a jerk. Simple politeness would require that you at least attempt to abide by the ground rules of the setting. And role-players being the creative people they are, I have a really hard time believing that they can't do without any one specific race or class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you say " this world is so and so, and in this world there are no elves". And the next words out of the players mouth is "ok here is my elvish sorcerer" ... Then yes, he's being a jerk. Simple politeness would require that you at least attempt to abide by the ground rules of the setting. And role-players being the creative people they are, I have a really hard time believing that they can't do without any one specific race or class.
Who are you playing with? Total strangers?
At my table, it would go something like this:
Me: "I'm tired of elves, and thinking about a campaign with no elves. Opinions?"
Player: "I was kind of jonesing to plat an elf sorcerer."
Me: "What do the rest of you guys think? Elves? None?"
What would NOT happen:
Me: "I don't care what you guys think! I say No Elves! Don't like it? Go home!"
Now, say the player in question was absent and I neglected to inform him of a group decision to omit elves, because I'm bad at the whole "communication" part of being a DM. That would be my fault, so the conversation would go something like this:
Player: "Here's my elf sorcerer!"
Me: "Crap! Sorry, man, I totally forgot to tell you, everyone else voted for no elves this campaign. Can you redo the character as something else?"
Or, if it's a new player:
Me: "Hi, we're all running an ongoing game with no elves."
Prospective player: "Whatever, man. I don't know you, but I'm playing an elf!"
Me: "We actually don't have any openings for new players anyway."
At my table, it would go something like this:
Me: "I'm tired of elves, and thinking about a campaign with no elves. Opinions?"
Player: "I was kind of jonesing to plat an elf sorcerer."
Me: "What do the rest of you guys think? Elves? None?"What would NOT happen:
Me: "I don't care what you guys think! I say No Elves! Don't like it? Go home!"
If I were a bit more cynical, I'd accuse you of being a bit disingenuous for not finishing the exchange.
But I'm not - so... what happens? Let's continue with the premise. You're really tired of 'elves' and don't want to deal with them... and the players decide they want 'elves'.
Now what?
If you say " this world is so and so, and in this world there are no elves". And the next words out of the players mouth is "ok here is my elvish sorcerer" ... Then yes, he's being a jerk. Simple politeness would require that you at least attempt to abide by the ground rules of the setting. And role-players being the creative people they are, I have a really hard time believing that they can't do without any one specific race or class.Who are you playing with? Total strangers?
At my table, it would go something like this:
Me: "I'm tired of elves, and thinking about a campaign with no elves. Opinions?"
Player: "I was kind of jonesing to plat an elf sorcerer."
Me: "What do the rest of you guys think? Elves? None?"What would NOT happen:
Me: "I don't care what you guys think! I say No Elves! Don't like it? Go home!"Now, say the player in question was absent and I neglected to inform him of a group decision to omit elves, because I'm bad at the whole "communication" part of being a DM. That would be my fault, so the conversation would go something like this:
Player: "Here's my elf sorcerer!"
Me: "Crap! Sorry, man, I totally forgot to tell you, everyone else voted for no elves this campaign. Can you redo the character as something else?"Or, if it's a new player:
Me: "Hi, we're all running an ongoing game with no elves."
Prospective player: "Whatever, man. I don't know you, but I'm playing an elf!"
Me: "We actually don't have any openings for new players anyway."
Yeah, I think a lot of opinions in this thread tend to run around whether or not you play with relative strangers or with closer friends. As someone who pretty much only plays D&D with longtime friends (and a few new ones, who I have become better friends with through playing D&D), a lot of this thread doesn't make much sense to me. I don't tend to see these absurd "half-otyugh shadow nymph" esque racial requests. Hell, in the game where I'm a vamp and one of my buddies is a Minotaur, we had a great deal of chuckles about him wanting me to make him into one, and we all sit around and chortle at the idea of a big vampire minotaur.
At my table, as a player and a GM, I very rarely even see uncommon races pop up, simply because a lot of my friends aren't really reaching to branch out all that much. They enjoy a lot of their racial stereotypes (my best friend pretty much plays a dwarf in every other game, and he always uses a thick russian accent, and it's hilarious. Especially after we played Birthright and found out they actually ARE russian in that setting.) and they're usually pretty comfortable. Occasionally we have an interest in playing something a little more out of the norm, and it usually falls to me (the effective rulebook of the group) to help them come up with something. I usually give them a few suggestions, and more often than not they pick one of the healthier alternatives.
And speaking to the issue of "NO ELVES, SCREW THE PLAYERS" type of situation... I've never really come across this. I mean, I've come across multiple games where the GMs blanket stated "No psionics, no tome of battle, everything else that isn't core, check with me" that sort of thing, and even then they might be able to be swayed with proper reasoning. Usually when I as a GM am thinking of starting up a new game, I usually run it by my players first to see what their thoughts would be on it, and then I either decide to a) not run it, b) run it with modifications, or c) full steam ahead.
I say "these things are what I am willing to put in the work to gm. If you don't want to play one of those things, I'll just play this time instead. That is my buy-in for running. I have certain things I like gming.
I say "these things are what I am willing to put in the work to gm. If you don't want to play one of those things, I'll just play this time instead. That is my buy-in for running. I have certain things I like gming.
Hearkening back to a previous "Dick DM" thread, a lot of this is dependent on the local DM:player ratio. If DMs are rare, you can usually be dictatorial and get away with it, and you can pretend like you're such hot s#++ that everyone is begging for you to run games. If DMs are more common than players, you really need to dial back on the 'tude and pay attention to what the players want, if you have any hope of ever running a game. That does even doubly if you're at all discriminating about the people you're willing to play with.
He either runs a game with elves or asks one of the players to run the game instead.
Those are definitely two options, though I'd like to hear it from him.
With that said, the first option isn't really feasible, since (again, following from the premise that led to the post - so, before anyone says anything different, let's stay on target) he's tired of elves and won't have much fun having to deal with them - so he won't be having much fun. Thus, not really an option. (Unless, of course, the bleating of "it's all about having fun!" we're seeing in this thread applies only to the players and not the DM...).
The second option is more likely - which is essentially 'no elves or I'm not running the game'. Fine and dandy... but makes me wonder: how much is that really different from what he says "would NOT happen"?
Is it the inserted attitude, maybe? Because I haven't seen that attitude actually being espoused anywhere in this thread (other than in hyperbolic responses - though I'd be happy to be corrected with the actual posts where that attitude is given).
What I'm getting at is that, in the end, the so-called "discussion among the group" will almost always end in some very limited options and results, and people in this thread would do well to quickly recognize them, instead of talking about vague "we'll all have a kumbaya discussion".
DM: I don't like race X. Options:
1) People want race X, I won't DM. Somebody else can do so if there's going to be a game at all.
2) People are fine without race X - okay, I'll DM.
3) Rarest: Maybe I will spend some of my limited time working with the player transmogrifying race X into something more palatable that maybe we'll all accept - depending on the time required, effort required, and how obstinate the player and/or DM is/are. Maybe resulting in no point of race X at all, or maybe it'll work.
[Yes, there's hyperbole in the above post, too.]
Those are definitely two options, though I'd like to hear it from him.
TOZ has it dead-on. He ought to: he was one of my players.
With that said, the first option isn't really feasible, since (again, following from the premise that led to the post - so, before anyone says anything different, let's stay on target) he's tired of elves and won't have much fun having to deal with them - so he won't be having much fun.
I'm not such a drama queen that allowing an elf sorcerer in a game would somehow "prevent me from having any fun" running it. I mean, seriously, sometimes people need to get over themselves.
The second option is more likely - which is essentially 'no elves or I'm not running the game'. Fine and dandy... but makes me wonder: how much is that really different from what he says "would NOT happen"? Is it the inserted attitude, maybe?
Again, presumably I'm gaming with people I choose to game with -- i.e., people I like. You can dismiss attitude and pretend eveyone is a friendless sociopath, but in my case, the way we interact with one another actually does matter! Preserving friendships is way more important to me than whether there are imaginary elfs in a game. YMMV.
I say "these things are what I am willing to put in the work to gm. If you don't want to play one of those things, I'll just play this time instead. That is my buy-in for running. I have certain things I like gming.Hearkening back to a previous "Dick DM" thread, a lot of this is dependent on the local DM:player ratio. If DMs are rare, you can usually be dictatorial and get away with it, and you can pretend like you're such hot s#+$ that everyone is begging for you to run games. If DMs are more common than players, you really need to dial back on the 'tude and pay attention to what the players want, if you have any hope of ever running a game. That does even doubly if you're at all discriminating about the people you're willing to play with.
It has nothing to do with "being hot stuff". It has to do with what I want to run. You seem to think that a player just walking away from a game because they don't get to play what they want is a-ok, but a gm deciding not to gm ... That is just because he's being arrogant and thinks he's hot stuff? Hipocrite much?
Edit:
To expand- if a player decides he doesn't like a character in a game, he can just change characters and try something new and the only person he's stepping on is himself. If I get to mid-game and I'm not enjoying it, I can't opt out without screwing over four plus other people.
It has nothing to do with "being hot stuff". It has to do with what I want to run.
What you want to run means jack-all if you have no players.
You seem to think that a player just walking away from a game because they don't get to play what they want is a-ok, but a gm deciding not to gm ... That is just because he's being arrogant and thinks he's hot stuff? Hipocrite much?
If you have 5 prospective DMs and only 1 uncommitted player, then that player has a lot of leverage. He can strut around and say "I'll play in whatever game lets me be an elf sorcerer." By the same token, if there are 300 players and 1 DM, the DM can say, "Only people who don't play elves are welcome." It cuts both ways; nothing at all hippocritical in recognizing that.
I say "these things are what I am willing to put in the work to gm. If you don't want to play one of those things, I'll just play this time instead. That is my buy-in for running. I have certain things I like gming.Hearkening back to a previous "Dick DM" thread, a lot of this is dependent on the local DM:player ratio. If DMs are rare, you can usually be dictatorial and get away with it, and you can pretend like you're such hot s+%@ that everyone is begging for you to run games. If DMs are more common than players, you really need to dial back on the 'tude and pay attention to what the players want, if you have any hope of ever running a game. That does even doubly if you're at all discriminating about the people you're willing to play with.
Given Arssanguinus's statement - does the DM:player ratio matter?
1) If we are to believe what certain people in this thread are telling us, and that it's "all about having fun", then people may have minimum criteria that will need to be met before they will spend time and effort running a game, because that's what is needed to make the game fun for them. And there's nothing wrong with that. Preferences are preferences. End of story.
2) "Any hope of ever running a game" isn't much of a threat these days, what with the massive competition for one's leisure time and dollar: "I have to have less/little/no fun DMing this, or I can spend much less effort and simply be a player, or spend my time doing X, Y, Z which will be way more fun than DMing something I'm not interested in." Yeah... not seeing a problem there.
(I do agree that, if a person absolutely must DM period and there's nothing else more fun - then, yeah. Those people need to broaden their horizons and be able to tolerate a whole lot. I also contend that in 2013-going-on-2014, that number is near-zero.)
I'm not such a drama queen that allowing an elf sorcerer in a game would somehow "prevent me from having any fun" running it. I mean, seriously, sometimes people need to get over themselves.
You missed this:
following from the premise that led to the post - so, before anyone says anything different, let's stay on target
Obviously change 'elves' to race X. Whatever. I don't think 'elves' was Arssanguinus's actual point. If you want to move the goalposts, then *shrug*.
Let's say I'm not surprised, though. You might be the one-single-person that is willing to DM anything all the time. But, that doesn't help the discussion in any way.
Again, presumably I'm gaming with people I choose to game with -- i.e., people I like. You can dismiss attitude and pretend eveyone is a friendless sociopath, but in my case, the way we interact with one another actually does matter! Preserving friendships is way more important to me than whether there are imaginary elfs in a game. YMMV.
Maybe... at the absolute most basic level. But, we're all aware there are degrees. "Preserving friendships" or not, I'm not running a My Little Pony game, even if the rest of the group wants it. Where that line will be will be different for everyone BUT THAT LINE EXISTS.
I'm not such a drama queen that allowing an elf sorcerer in a game would somehow "prevent me from having any fun" running it. I mean, seriously, sometimes people need to get over themselves.
.
If in the fictional example the premise to be run had to do with the disappearance of elves and sorcery? Then yes, putting in an elf sorcerer would "prevent me from having fun with that concept". Because the concept would cease to exist, as such. Just in a fictional example.
Maybe... at the absolute most basic level. But, we're all aware there are degrees. "Preserving friendships" or not, I'm not running a My Little Pony game, even if the rest of the group wants it. Where that line will be will be different for everyone BUT THAT LINE EXISTS.
So what? We're still left with some DMs who are willing to put it pretty far out, so that it's easy to be included, vs. others who draw it so close that almost no player can possibly be on the right side of it. I don't see that having it as close to you as possible is a laudable goal. Again, YMMV.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To make a synthesis, then...
The GM has the right to ban certain elements from the game, but should listen to requests regarding such elements. This does not make them tyrants.
The player has the right to ask to play anything they like, but should try to fit their character to the campaign. This does not make them entitled.
Everyone has the right not to play.
Any objections?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is moving too fast for me, but I skimmed and want to throw in a few comments.
I think the major disagreement turned out to be people stating opinions over the internet that sound more extreme than real life.
In my homebrew setting (which doesn't use Pathfinder rules at all), orcs (playable) are catfolk (albeit with more in common with smilodons than housecats).
If someone says they want to play a catfolk and I hand them the document on orc rules, history and culture, and they say 'No, a Pathfinder catfolk', what happens then?
Sissy orc who never fit in?
Sounds like a fun take on orcs. I might have to make some smilodon-like orc/catfolk hybrids (they make all kinds of sense in my upcoming campaign).
Clerics can be concept with the GM's ok, which it specifically says in the cleric class (that's what 'work with your GM' means). Inquisitor's do not have that text at all, as you can't be a holy inquisitor of a concept, you can only be the holy (or unholy) inquisitor of an actual god.
The inquisitor does have similar text allowing the deity to be dispensed with, it's just further down under the Domain class feature:
Conceptually, inquisitors shouldn't need a deity. The class makes an excellent monster hunter or member of the secret police (or heretic-hunting servants of a church without a deity).
Try an experiment:
Remove all racial abilities in the game. Every race, no matter what, just gets a bonus feat and skill point, or whatever you decide. The point is to make every race mechanically identical. Then, allow any race whatsoever. Watch what happens.
I wager you're going to get three major groups of PCs:
1) People indulging fetishes and personal fantasies with their characters (furries or Mary Sue Tieflings, for example)
2) People totally into playing a particular racial stereotype (the boastful, drunk, Scottish/Viking combo Dwarf, for example)
3) HumansThe point is, the vast, vast majority of people are choosing weird races for their mechanics. I have literally never seen a Human in AD&D, for example, because they got absolutely nothing racially except a higher max level cap which everyone ignored anyway.
Yeah, I agree.
If they are doing it for the mechanics, make sure the mechanics are balanced.
If they then protest at the balancing you did, it was all about the stats, and not about the idea of being a monster/demihuman/ochre jelly.
Races being mechanically balanced does not always mean mechanics should all be identical, and it's not wrong for a player to want to play a certain race because of its unique mechanics any more than its wrong for them to want to play a certain class because of its unique mechanics. It's only a problem when one character is so much more competent than the rest of the party that not everyone is able to contribute.
Now, if your player wants a half-dragon minotaur barbarian that would wipe the floor with the other player's dwarf fighter, you offer to homebrew a balanced custom race to fit the concept, and the player refuses, you've got a problem. But that's not the same thing as the player complaining about having to use human stats for any character when they want to try out the Suli's elemental assault, gnome SLA.
Different racial mechanical abilities can be fun and some players do pick a race because it has neat mechanics. But that doesn't mean that they want to unbalance the game or ignore RP.
Maybe... at the absolute most basic level. But, we're all aware there are degrees. "Preserving friendships" or not, I'm not running a My Little Pony game, even if the rest of the group wants it. Where that line will be will be different for everyone BUT THAT LINE EXISTS.So what? We're still left with some DMs who are willing to put it pretty far out, so that it's easy to be included, vs. others who draw it so close that almost no player can possibly be on the right side of it. I don't see that having it as close to you as possible is a laudable goal. Again, YMMV.
And doesn't that extend the other direction as well? For example, the player who ONLY wants his elf sorcerer is drawing his line extremely close to him so its hard for the DM to reasonably compromise?
For example, the player who ONLY wants his elf sorcerer is drawing his line extremely close to him so its hard for the DM to reasonably compromise?
Me: "Hi, we're all running an ongoing game with no elves."
Prospective player: "Whatever, man. I don't know you, but I'm playing an elf!"Me: "We actually don't have any openings for new players anyway."
That's about the only way I can see what you're saying going down. If the group agrees on "no elves," then no one I've ever played with would immediately turn around and demand to play one. Then again, I don't play with 6-year-olds.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of putting words in Arssanguinus' mouth...or Arnwyn.
If the GM is feels strongly enough, as to suggest running a game where one or more typical elements are absent, presumably it is because those elements really rub him up the wrong way.
If the GM asks "How does everyone feel about a game without X? Because I'm getting really sick of them."
and a player says "Well, I'd like to play X anyway. How badly do you want rid of X?"
and the GM replies with "Fair enough, the prescence of X doesn't bother me."...
Then why did he bring the subject up?
If the presence of X is such an irrelevance to him, why would he suggest a campaign where they were absent?
|
|
...
The GM has the right to ban certain elements from the game, but should listen to requests regarding such elements. This does not make them tyrants.The player has the right to ask to play anything they like, but should try to fit their character to the campaign. This does not make them entitled.
Everyone has the right not to play.
...
For the first time in this thread, I can unilaterally agree with one of your posts.
The above is not meant to be an attack.
As I said earlier. My general response is; what are you trying to get out of an elvish sorcerer, when you strip it down to basics, and maybe the is another way I can supply it to you.
If the GM asks "How does everyone feel about a game without X? Because I'm getting really sick of them."
and a player says "Well, I'd like to play X anyway. How badly do you want rid of X?"
It's pretty uncommon to have only one DM and one player. What do the rest of the players want? That should matter to both of the people you're discussing.
At the risk of putting words in Arssanguinus' mouth...or Arnwyn.
If the GM is feels strongly enough, as to suggest running a game where one or more typical elements are absent, presumably it is because those elements really rub him up the wrong way.
If the GM asks "How does everyone feel about a game without X? Because I'm getting really sick of them."
and a player says "Well, I'd like to play X anyway. How badly do you want rid of X?"and the GM replies with "Fair enough, the prescence of X doesn't bother me."...
Then why did he bring the subject up?
If the presence of X is such an irrelevance to him, why would he suggest a campaign where they were absent?
Well, its not always because something annoys me. Or not even usually because it annoys me. Its to set up the elements of a campaign or concept. Some elements are necessary. Some are irrelevant. Some are counterproductive. Some invalidate the concept. Many of them are things I am fine in running in most campaigns. It just so happens that specific campaign is not one of them.
|
|
That's fine.
There are a lot of the GMs in this thread who are ruling out things because they do get on their nerves. Or would be a dealbreaker for the theme they are aiming for.
I just don't see the point in drawing that line in the sand, if it's something that makes such little difference to their enjoyment.
As a rule, if a GM says he doesn't want PCs of type X, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he had something specific in mind, and avoid creating a PC of type X.
I might ask what the reason is, so I can understand the theme he's aiming for. Some GMs aren't as clear as they think they are, when explaining their high concept.
"When you say 'no wizards', do you mean 'no Wizards'? Or do you mean no arcane casters? Or 'no arcane full-casters'?
Is it that you don't want PCs having access to arcane source of magic, because you want to play up the divine angle?
Is it that you have a problem with the more game-changing spells above spell level 6? Are we actually planning to play to a level where that would be an issue?
Is spontaneous casting from a limited list acceptable, ie it's the ability of a Wizard to customise their PC every morning, which you believe is trivialising encounters?"
Depending on the answers to the above, you may find that a sorceror or magus are not a problem, due to their delayed spell access and more fixed thematic spell lists.
Or you may find out he really meant 'no arcanists', in which case, put those PC concepts on the shelf.
But don't say 'no wizards', then kick off at the person who brings a sorceror.
And don't give the impression that you want no arcanists, have the players self-censor themselves, then berate them for getting TPKed for lack of arcane options, with "It's your fault, why did no-one bring a bard/magus/sorceror? What were you thinking?".
At the risk of putting words in Arssanguinus' mouth...or Arnwyn.
If the GM is feels strongly enough, as to suggest running a game where one or more typical elements are absent, presumably it is because those elements really rub him up the wrong way.
Not necessarily. I often make "alternate" campaigns with strange backgrounds and limited access to classes and/or races.
For example: Frixia, a frozen wasteland campaign which was put into an ice age due to a magic meteor that struck the planet years ago. Any race that didn't have some inherent magic as part of its blood (outsiders, fey, etc.) was killed in the disaster: humans, dwarves, and many other "mundane" races are long extinct.
Has nothing to do with having a beef against any race. It has to do with storytelling and world building.
Then why did he bring the subject up?
If the presence of X is such an irrelevance to him, why would he suggest a campaign where they were absent?
Because he has a story to tell and he is just itching to share it with others. In my experience this is what drives most people that end up being a DM on a long-term basis.
Because he has a story to tell and he is just itching to share it with others. In my experience this is what drives most people that end up being a DM on a long-term basis.
I can totally get on board with this. The only thing I do differently is to add a step where I admit that, if that's not the type of story that the players as a group are interested in, that's also not the story I'll be sharing at that particular time.
|
|
I guess I wasn't being clear.
I accept that 'I have a theme' is a valid reason for ruling out element X. As is 'every time anyone plays element X, it sets my teeth on edge'.
Whatever the underlying reason, the potential GM has strong feelings about element X.
If their feelings are strong enough, for them to suggest a 'non-X' campaign, I can't see there being much chance of them budging.
That doesn't mean they force anyone to play a campaign they don't want to play.
But it means they say "Fair enough", and put that concept on the shelf for later, or for a different group of players.
I can't see the GM having much fun playing a bastardised, compromised shadow of his original concept.
No-one has to fall out, over a campaign being put on hold.
The most likely way a campaign would cause friends to fall out, is if the GM is running a game that bores him, annoys him, or makes him miserable.
I can't see the GM having much fun playing a bastardised, compromised shadow of his original concept.
I'm not seeing this; as DM, I can (and have) run any number of different campaigns and still have fun. I doubt I'm alone in that.
... And as a player I have run any number of different kinds of pcs and still had fun with them. I doubt im alone in that. See how that works?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... And as a player I have run any number of different kinds of pcs and still had fun with them. I doubt im alone in that. See how that works?
Obviously I do -- I've acknowledged that any number of times in the past -- go ahead and look, if you forgot/didn't read. But I've always done so in conjunction with this part:
It's pretty uncommon to have only one DM and one player. What do the rest of the players want? That should matter to both of the people you're discussing.
In fact, I recall summarizing it thusly, the last time you mischaracterized someone else's position in the same way you just did:
No one says it's OK for a player to demand anything. What a lot of people are saying is that the DM owes it to the players to at least hear them out, and/or that the will of the group as a whole should be considered, rather than only the will of the DM.
Now, if you are actually attempting to advance a discussion, rather than simply troll in circles, please respond to the actual position as stated, rather than the imaginary one you keep harping on.
Why do you, and others, keep bringing up the 'whole group'? I would say the times when the "whole group" want to play an excluded race or class is vanishingly rare. Its usually going to be one player.
Why do you, and others, keep bringing up the 'whole group'? I would say the times when the "whole group" want to play an excluded race or class is vanishingly rare. Its usually going to be one player.
Either way, the whole group gets to decide how restrictive a campaign they want to play in. Pretend Bob plans on having a human character. However, Bob might want to be able to find himself fighting next to a seven-foot hairy sasquatch-looking thing; or Bob might find that to be a really stupid idea and want to make sure that doesn't happen. In either case, even though Bob is not the DM and isn't looking to play something unusual, as a member of the group his input still has value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, do you mean that there should be a vote about this with equal weights, or does your point of the group deciding mean something else? It would be a good thing to know what exactly you are advancing here:
Democratic vote with equal weights?
Unequal weights?
Guiding but not deciding vote?
Something else?
It is all well and good to say communication is good. But let's assume we've done that. GM doesn't want to allow elves in the campaign. Bob will not budge on elf character. It is decision time. How to go about it? Let's say the other players want to fight for Bob's right to have an elf. Does the GM have to choose between playing with Bob the elf or not play that campaign? Does "the DM owes it to the players to at least hear them out, and/or that the will of the group as a whole should be considered, rather than only the will of the DM." mean something else? What if the players do want to play that campaign, do they have any other option than putting the GM to choose elf character or no campaign?
It would be great if you could give me some details.
|
Hearkening back to a previous "Dick DM" thread, a lot of this is dependent on the local DM:player ratio. If DMs are rare, you can usually be dictatorial and get away with it, and you can pretend like you're such hot s*$% that everyone is begging for you to run games. If DMs are more common than players, you really need to dial back on the 'tude and pay attention to what the players want, if you have any hope of ever running a game. That does even doubly if you're at all discriminating about the people you're willing to play with.
Why is it always "dick" DM and never seems to be "dick" players when it comes to things that folks want to run or not?
I get what Arssanguinus is saying- I'd only ever run games in say, Greyhawk filled in material from paizo and other places changed to taste to fit. If you wanted a game in Forgetten realms or Ebberon, I wouldnt want to run the game, and why arent you being a dick player for asking for something I'm unwilling to do?
Kirth, do you mean that there should be a vote about this with equal weights, or does your point of the group deciding mean something else? It would be a good thing to know what exactly you are advancing here:
Democratic vote with equal weights?
Unequal weights?
Guiding but not deciding vote?
Something else?It would be great if you could give me some details.
Say you and your friends want to go out to dinner together. Does one person decide the place, and imperiously un-unvite anyone who proposes a different place? Do you cast secret ballots? Or maybe someone proposes a place, and other people offer input, and you dicuss it as a group and see if there's a solution that everyone can live with? (I personally just go with whatever Mrs Gersen says, in that case, so it's maybe a bad example, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.)
Let's say the other players want to fight for Bob's right to have an elf. Does the GM have to choose between playing with Bob the elf or not play that campaign?
See answers above. If I were sick of elves, and you wanted one, and the rest of the players all want one, I have a couple of choices: I can put my "no elf" campaign idea on hold until later; I can ask someone else to DM an elf campaign and see if other people are also interested in a no-elf campaign. What I wouldn't do, personally, is tell off the one player for wanting an elf, and tell off all the other players for being "disruptive" for also wanting there to be able to be elves. I mean, come on, really?
Why is it always "dick" DM and never seems to be "dick" players when it comes to things that folks want to run or not?
See the answers to this that I keep repeating over and over and over, and that people like you keep ignoring. Seriously, if you want to argue with me, that's fine, but have the decency to argue against my actual position rather than someone else's oft-discredited misrepresentation of it.
No, because there is a ton of work for one person to GM the campaign in question, and everyone knows they are in it for maybe years. Going to a restaurant is a quite different story.
Please try to answer. You have claimed that what the group wants, not what the GM wants (except as the GM is part of the group) should be, but if the GM and group want different things? Is it "take it or leave it" time? What happens, so nobody needs to be called a "bad GM" for not following your idea?
Please try to answer. You have claimed that what the group wants, not what the GM wants (except as the GM is part of the group) should be, but if the GM and group want different things? Is it "take it or leave it" time? What happens, so nobody needs to be called a "bad GM" for not following your idea?
I've tried to answer; see also above. If the whole group wants one thing and the DM wants something else, the "something else" might need to go on hold -- or the DM can run the something else, and someone else can run the one thing, and you can alternate weeks. There are other solutions, too, that a group of people who actually care about each other's opinions can come up with. All of them start with the concept that no one person gets to be dictator over everyone and everything else.
If I were sick of elves, and you wanted one, and the rest of the players all want one, I have a couple of choices: I can put my "no elf" campaign idea on hold until later; I can ask someone else to DM an elf campaign and see if other people are also interested in a no-elf campaign. What I wouldn't do, personally, is tell off the one player for wanting an elf, and tell off all the other players for being "disruptive" for also wanting there to be able to be elves. I mean, come on, really?
A bad DM is one who refuses to acknowledge any of that, and who honestly believes that the players don't and can't know what they themselves want, who wants the players to just shut up and obey because it's no fun to have to convince them when you can just order them, and who immediately assumes that anyone who suggests something you didn't already think of can only be trying to disrespect your divine authority.
And apparently it seems that if I decide not to gm because I would no longer want to gm that game, I'm being immature, or I'm just not compromising ... Where is the player just walks away, he's being reasonable. The GM isn't a public utility.
Okay, so if the group decides on Bob getting to play an elf (supposedly by outvoting the GM), the GM has to decide to play with elves, give up on the campaign, or be a bad GM. As such, the GM in this situation has no right to set a hard limit, expect Bob to adapt his character to the campaign, because if the GM does, BAD GM. The players decide by strength of numbers what goes and doesn't go in every campaign.
That was what I thought. Thank you.
And apparently it seems that if I decide not to gm because I would no longer want to gm that game, I'm being immature, or I'm just not compromising ...
What part of "or you can ask someone else to run that campaign" did you not understand?
Except this time, he clearly did say that.
Okay, so if the group decides on Bob getting to play an elf (supposedly by outvoting the GM), the GM has to decide to play with elves, give up on the campaign, or be a bad GM.
Or gather interest for that campaign and accept that the original elf camiagn will get run, by someone else if not by you. Don't ignore stuff just to make it seem like I'm advocating only "A" when in fact I'm advocating "A," "B," "C," or "other."
As such, the GM in this situation has no right to set a hard limit, expect Bob to adapt his character to the campaign, because if the GM does, BAD GM.
... I'd wonder why the GM feels the need to set a hard limit, expect Bob and everyone else to accept a campaign they don't want, because if they don't, BAD PLAYERS.
Except this time, he clearly did say that.
See above. I said more than that, but you ignored parts to make it seem like I'm saying something other, on the whole, than what I am. If I say, "If you don't like vanilla ice cream, there's chocolate, strawberry, and whatever other flavors they have available," and you paraphrase it as "If you don't like vanilla, there's chocolate!" I consider that to be a pretty egregious misrepresentation.
I would have to ask, using your original formulation, what kind of friends would decided they wanted only an all elf campaign when their friend had his heart set on running the other campaign, and couldn't possibly figure out something else within the setting as given they would enjoy playing. Of course, that situation puts the onus on the players ... So never mind. You won't like it.