| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must have missed those posts. Which is possible, I've mostly been skimming since TL knocked this thread out of the park.
Only if they were in the batch that was removed for attacks. From what I've seen, no one is saying that you cannot limit or restrict things. Instead, people are saying that the players ought to get a vote/say in things, or at least some semblance of a conversation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Statement: "I don't really consider the mice you bought to be strictly pets, since you're just going to feed them to your python."
Reply: "So, all pets are always reptiles. Mammals can't be pets. Got it."
Me: ???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asking for a vote on it IS saying "as long as nobody wanted to play it anyway"
Asking for a vote on it IS saying "as long as nobody wanted to play it anyway"
No, it's not. It's saying "as long as the majority didn't want to allow it anyway." Unless the players share some sort of hive mind, which is rare in my experience.
Except if you get outvoted you can't play what you want.
Until you start whining enough to get it anyway.
This thread is still going? Holy crap....
I'm here mostly for the lulz.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until you start whining enough to get it anyway.
I think all of the actual people in the thread have consistently said that if 5 players say "no," then the 6th person whining is Not OK. Only the very popular Mr. Strawman says otherwise, but he doesn't seem to have an owner.
Asking for a vote on it IS saying "as long as nobody wanted to play it anyway"No, it's not. It's saying "as long as the majority didn't want to allow it anyway." Unless the players share some sort of hive mind, which is rare in my experience.
Except "the majority" doesn't have "the majority" of the information, why things are the way they are, where the campaign may be going ...
If its just a campaign "by majority" on every detail, I'm really not interested in gming it ... Or playing in it either, honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine, Arss. You can keep that standpoint, and as long as you can still attract players, you're good to go and need not budge. No harm, no foul.
Many people, however -- myself included -- are most emphatically not interested in playing with a DM who puts the setting ahead of the players, and doesn't care about a majority preference. I'm also not willing to act like that when I'm the DM, even if the players would otherwise be OK with it.
I suppose if all you ever want is minimally developed settings, that would work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose if all you ever want is minimally developed settings, that would work.
I suppose I've refuted that line of reasoning with at least two specific examples in which the exact opposite were true, but of course ignoring everything other people post also works.
Would you explain to your players why then X race doesn't exist?
I mean I can understand some campaigns...If you are pitching a campaign that is all about "Figuring out where the elves dissapeared to" than yeah, you would want to keep some of that information as a mystery.
But presumably most campaign settings/campaigns don't hinge on a single race being absent or missing.
Taking Arssanguinus' last post to the extreme, If only a minority of the players are happy with the campaign, you probably won't want to GM it either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose if all you ever want is minimally developed settings, that would work.
Nonsense. A GM can set up a complicated and detailed setting and present it to the players. Despite all the work and thought one might put in, there are ideas that we'd have never thought about, as was presented in earlier remarks about creating new pantheons and reasons why things exist in the world.
I've been working on various worlds for 30 years or more. I'm always amazed when players ask me about this or that area, idea, or creation and want more details. Despite all the work I've put in, I've not managed to account for everything that could be asked about.
New inclusions I don't mind a bit. But if there has been a specific exclusion, its excluded for a reason, not just for the giggles.
New inclusions I don't mind a bit. But if there has been a specific exclusion, its excluded for a reason, not just for the giggles.
This may sound insulting -- and I sure as hell don't mean it that way, so please hear me out -- but it sounds like you're describing a scenario in which the whole setup hinges on that one specific "gimmick." Which can be really, really fun when it's the focus for a single campaign, but not so much for continued gaming, if you see what I mean.
Have you ever read Raymond Feist? He starts off with very good reasons why there's only like 2 kinds of elves in the world. But after the first set of books (Magician, Silverthorn, DaS), those reasons are no longer very weighty, because the main plot point requiring them has been resolved. And indeed, in the later series he starts bringing in all kinds of elven races from all over the multiverse.
New inclusions I don't mind a bit. But if there has been a specific exclusion, its excluded for a reason, not just for the giggles.This may sound insulting -- and I sure as hell don't mean it that way, so please hear me out -- but it sounds like you're describing a scenario in which the whole setup hinges on that one specific "gimmick." Which can be really, really fun when it's the focus for a single campaign, but not so much for continued gaming, if you see what I mean.
Not a bit. But usually if I exclude something normal its heavily tied into the history and background' not jus tossed aside, and removing that, and all of its numerous side effects, is not some simple matter.
Never really seen the point of specific exclusions. Might change if I were to get around to building a setting.
You really can't see the point of any world that doesn't have every single common golarion element in it?
You really can't see the point of any world that doesn't have every single common golarion element in it?
I don't want to speak for him, but to me, it looks more like a case of where I've set up orcs as this world-conquering menace, and some of the players want to play half-orcs, so I either allow them (and explain that they're outcasts from the horde) or else swap out hobgoblins in place of orcs as the Big Menace.
Even if I retain orcs as the Big Menace and ban half-orcs, that only applies for one or two campaigns unless the setting is stagnant -- what if my Big Menace gets wiped out by a bunch of high-level PCs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Group Centric) 'No one person should have the power to unilaterally limit the setting such that one or more players could have less fun.'
(DM/Story Centric) 'In this campaign I restricted XYZ for a good reason, so players should just trust me and choose accordingly'
Seems to me those two positions aren't mutually exclusive 100% of the time, and also they're not arguing the same point.
This seems like a pretty good summary, and although they're not mutually exclusive 100% of the time, there are cases in which they are. Assuming 4 players for the sake of convenience:
So, they do become mutually-exclusive the instant one player accidently runs contrary to some DM idea and finds that most or all of the other players support his stance. The question then is, do we adjust things to suit the majority, or do we single-mindedly focus on maintaining setting purity instead?
|
You really can't see the point of any world that doesn't have every single common golarion element in it?
Well, I don't run Golarion, so I can't answer that specifically. I can kind of see historical reasons like extinction, and genre reasons like modern day campaigns. But I just don't see specific exclusions being all that important and wouldn't run games like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Communication is the key in all of this. If the GM has denied something, there should be some explanation: I heard it was overpowered on the Paizo boards, they are the Big Bad and I dont want to change it, I hate frog people, whatever.
And the GM should expect that some folks will argue the point for any of a number of reasons. But a blanket no with no supporting information makes people unhappy.
You really can't see the point of any world that doesn't have every single common golarion element in it?
I don't want to speak for him, but to me, it looks more like a case of where I've set up orcs as this world-conquering menace, and some of the players want to play half-orcs, so I either allow them (and explain that they're outcasts from the horde) or else swap out hobgoblins in place of orcs as the Big Menace.
Even if I retain orcs as the Big Menace and ban half-orcs, that only applies for one or two campaigns unless the setting is stagnant -- what if my Big Menace gets wiped out by a bunch of high-level PCs?
I did mention at players actions change the world, didn't I?
(Group Centric) 'No one person should have the power to unilaterally limit the setting such that one or more players could have less fun.'
(DM/Story Centric) 'In this campaign I restricted XYZ for a good reason, so players should just trust me and choose accordingly'
Seems to me those two positions aren't mutually exclusive 100% of the time, and also they're not arguing the same point.
This seems like a pretty good summary, and although they're not mutually exclusive 100% of the time, there are cases in which they are. Assuming 4 players for the sake of convenience:
Players all agree with DM ideas: No conflict.
3/4 of players agree with DM ideas, one unhappy: No real conflict; that's just tough luck for the one guy, and he should really grow up.
1/2 players unhappy, 1/2 agree with DM: You have a potential schism here, but in all likelihood the DM and 2 players can talk the other two into going along with things.
3/4 of players unhappy, 1/4 agree with DM: You have a potentially nasty conflict of interest here, in which most people are, for whatever reason, playing in a game they'd prefer not to play in.
All players unhappy and DM refuses to budge: Major conflict. So, they do become mutually-exclusive the instant one player accidently runs contrary to some DM idea and finds that most or all of the other players support his stance. The question then is, do we adjust things to suit the majority, or do we single-mindedly focus on maintaining setting purity instead?
And I really can't see how a player can be that stuck upon one race that they can't just move on, accept the premise and chose one of the other many, many options available
I did mention at players actions change the world, didn't I?
Then I don't see where this conflict is coming in: Player #1 says he wants to play a half-orc, you reply, "That would really foul up this particular story arc -- but as soon as we wrap this one up, I don't see any reason why not, so keep that PC handy!"
What you hopefully don't say is "I said no orcs! MY setting doesn't allow them, and if you can't respect that, you need to leave!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a world where I decided dinosaurs were extinct (unlike every other D&D setting).
A player wanted to play a kobold cavalier riding a raptor.
So I introduced an order of paleontologist-druids dedicated to reviving extinct species.
Now there is an order of kobold cavaliers that ride raptors.
And it's awesome.
And I really can't see how a player can be that stuck upon one race that they can't just move on, accept the premise and chose one of the other many, many options available
You can't see how four players might really want to play a certain type of game, and how you might be totally unwilling to provide it? Hopefully one of them just agrees to DM it and they all go over to his place, then, and eliminate the conflict, leaving you to try and recruit new players.
As DM, I don't feel that my personal preferences outweigh those of all the other players combined. YMMV. As long as your players are willing to submit, I suppose that can work for you, but seems like a slightly unhealthy group dynamic to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm definitely glad that when I pitched the Razor Coast to my new group and said it has weresharks and undead cannibal pygmies no one immediately asked if they could play a wereshark. It was also awkward to realize the players guide contained a full 20 level base class for worshipers of the evil shark god.
Well, I DID say "campaign restrictions" didn't I?
I've even, in the one where there was the dwarf restriction, made the follow up be a dwarf campaign. So ...
I provided an example of that upthread. For the player in question, it was 'I want to play the character represented by this miniature, which I have just purchased and will lovingly paint this weekend, or I won't play.'
I cannot imagine that this sort of thing is all that isolated.
OK, I stand corrected -- someone DID actually say that!
I'd call this one guy who's that attached to his doll to be just as bad as the DM who's obsessively attached to the "purity" of his imaginary setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a bit. But usually if I exclude something normal its heavily tied into the history and background' not jus tossed aside, and removing that, and all of its numerous side effects, is not some simple matter.
Exactly. And this comes back around to the issue of trust. I don't capriciously limit things in my campaign. There's a always a solid reason for it.
My players trust that I'm not building a campaign designed to ruin their fun. They know me better than that. We have to take care to avoid straw DMs and straw players here.
I started one campaign world that had a ban on gunpowder (i.e. no gunslingers allowed). In this world the gods of technology were pulling one over on the races of the world. Rather than being inspiration for innovation they were purposefully stifling and guiding the advance of technology in order to keep the mortal races from becoming too powerful. The gods feared that once the humans had the secret of gunpowder they would eventually overthrow them.
The finale of the first campaign in that world had the players revealing the plot of the gods and causing the world to stop worshiping them. The next campaign in the same world took place years later and was a high seas adventure which included guns, cannon, airships, and all manner of fantastic powder-punk things. The new party included two gunslingers.
Never had any complaints throughout the process or had any players complain that they were somehow stifled. It's all a matter of your history and level of trust with the folks at the table.
Well, I DID say "campaign restrictions" didn't I?
You've been hazy about distinguishing "campaign" from "setting," so it's not always clear which one you mean.
And I really can't see how a player can be that stuck upon one race that they can't just move on, accept the premise and chose one of the other many, many options availableYou can't see how four players might really want to play a certain type of game, and how you might be totally unwilling to provide it? Hopefully one of them just agrees to DM it and they all go over to his place, then, and eliminate the conflict, leaving you to try and recruit new players.
As DM, I don't feel that my personal preferences outweigh those of all the other players combined. YMMV. As long as your players are willing to submit, I suppose that can work for you, but seems like a slightly unhealthy group dynamic to me.
Before I've started a campaign, I say "these are the campaign options I have ready and am willing to run. You want to play one, good. Otherwise' who is up next?" That's the vote. If you voted to go for that campaign, you voted to go for the restrictions that were listed along with it as well.
The finale of the first campaign in that world had the players revealing the plot of the gods and causing the world to stop worshiping them. The next campaign in the same world took place years later and was a high seas adventure which included guns, cannon, airships, and all manner of fantastic powder-punk things. The new party included two gunslingers.
In other words, you intentionally set up the campaign to ultimately give the players exactly what they wanted. I'd consider that to be both good DMing and cooperating with the majority opinion.
If you voted to go for that campaign, you voted to go for the restrictions that were listed along with it as well.
I agree -- although not if all you're allowing is a straight "YES OR NO!" vote with no discussion permitted. Assuming there's reasonable discussion and you're at least willing to meet people halfway, then not even I would fault your approach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I provided an example of that upthread. For the player in question, it was 'I want to play the character represented by this miniature, which I have just purchased and will lovingly paint this weekend, or I won't play.'
I cannot imagine that this sort of thing is all that isolated.
OK, I stand corrected -- someone DID actually say that!
I'd call this one guy who's that attached to his doll to be just as bad as the DM who's obsessively attached to the "purity" of his imaginary setting.
This is why investing in LEGOs to make customizable minis is a good idea.
If you voted to go for that campaign, you voted to go for the restrictions that were listed along with it as well.I agree -- although not if all you're allowing is a straight "YES OR NO!" vote with no discussion permitted.
Well, yes. For a given campaign, on the specific elements listed, it IS yes or no. On other things? Go right ahead. These are the things I need to be the way they are for this campaign. I you can't live with them, don't pick them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are the things I need to be the way they are for this campaign.
Are you at least willing to explain WHY you "need" them to be that way? After all, we can hopefully agree that there's a big difference between "this story arc depends on them for now, but that won't always be the case" vs. "I hate humans and I hate anyone who wants to play one." Sadly, I've seen a lot of the latter in my time.
In other words, you intentionally set up the campaign to ultimately give the players exactly what they wanted. I'd consider that to be both good DMing and cooperating with the majority opinion.
Not at all. Nobody had expressed any interest in playing a gunslinger. In fact, nobody had even considered it until the second campaign after gunpowder was a major change in the world.
My decision on what to limit or release in the campaign wasn't based on player blocking, just on a story I wanted to be in the world. I thought we'd covered this ground already. Why are you trying to make me into a straw DM?
These are the things I need to be the way they are for this campaign.Are you at least willing to explain WHY you "need" them to be that way? After all, we can hopefully agree that there's a big difference between "this story arc depends on them for now, but that won't always be the case" vs. "I hate humans and I hate anyone who wants to play one." Sadly, I've seen a lot of the latter in my time.
If the reason can be known without effecting the plot, it goes in the blurb, because its a very significant part of the worlds history - unless its something that never existed to begin with and that role is filled by something else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: "I NEED elves to be banned from the setting. The entire setting and campaign depends on elves being banned."
Players: "Couldn't you just go to everywhere you have the word elf and change it to gnome. Maybe tweak a thing here and there and have it work out reasonably well."
GM: "Did you hear me? I said I NEED it to be elves that are banned. This is not a matter of personal opinion. This is a fundamental truth of the universe."
Players: "Didn't you just choose to make the elves the race that was gone. I mean you could have chosen another race, right?"
GM: "Chose? Chose! This was divine inspiration! How dare thee suggest this was merely the choice of mortal. The clouds parted on that day and ..."
*Players quietly sneak out of the room, hoping not to be noticed*
GM: "I NEED elves to be banned from the setting. The entire setting and campaign depends on elves being banned."
Players: "Couldn't you just go to everywhere you have the word elf and change it to gnome. Maybe tweak a thing here and there and have it work out reasonably well."
GM: "Did you hear me? I said I NEED it to be elves that are banned. This is not a matter of personal opinion. This is a fundamental truth of the universe."
Players: "Didn't you just choose to make the elves the race that was gone. I mean you could have chosen another race, right?"
GM: "Chose? Chose! This was divine inspiration! How dare thee suggest this was merely the choice of mortal. The clouds parted on that day and ..."
*Players quietly sneak out of the room, hoping not to be noticed*
Are you saying elves are just like gnomes, and have similar relations across the boards with other races?
Or, to put it in modern terms, there would be no difference if china was wiped off the map or the uk?
Careful now...all this straw is going to create a fire hazard!
*grabs water bucket*