I want to give gnolls more of the limelight in my next games. Course, a lot of other demihumans trying to push in this line in my head.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's just say not everyone is that authoritarian, and needs to have someone "in charge" dictate their opinions for them. If I were John, I'd ask the rest of you what you really thought, not blindly expect you to be a bunch of yes-men to me. YMMV.
Some people like to have someone else be in charge, taking responsibility for the creative decisions, and to enforce any hiring and firing.
They may not be comfortable with expressing their own creative ideas, or with confrontation.If I find myself GM of such a group, I'd shrug, and accept the fact that they aren't going to be submitting any world-building suggestions, and that I'm going to have to be the bad guy if someone needs telling they're upsetting the others.
But I'd make sure I was speaking for everyone, or a sizable majority, before enacting any such ban.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What cracks me up more than the SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! trope and supermarket madness being pushed here is the fact that there is already an awakened talking horse in the ap I'm running that's probably going to be a point of humor for my players.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the problem boils down to "Some players aren't mature enough to play despite there being a a lot they would enjoy if there is something they don't agree with." Seriously, there's a lot of things in well... everything that most people are not fanw of, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying the parts of well... everything that they enjoy.
Hama: An Awakened Pony Wizard makes just as much sense as your avatar... just saying.
I agree with the some players aren't mature enough part.
Some players aren't mature enough to realize "Playing well with others" is what you are at the table to do.
Group. Activity.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What other people like or dislike is not the issue.
It is the entire issue. Arguably it is the only real issue.
The other people at the table don't exist to serve you.
If you do something that other people dislike, you have fundamentally failed at the primary goal of the game. To make a group of people have fun playing the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What other people like or dislike is not the issue.
It is the entire issue. Arguably it is the only real issue.
The other people at the table don't exist to serve you.
If you do something that other people dislike, you have fundamentally failed at the primary goal of the game. To make a group of people have fun playing the game.
except the way you describe it makes it sound like "shut up and do as we say" which is just as bad as one player saying "shut up and do what I say".
|
|
except the way you describe it makes it sound like "shut up and do as we say" which is just as bad as one player saying "shut up and do what I say".
What other people like or dislike is not the issue.
It is the entire issue. Arguably it is the only real issue.
The other people at the table don't exist to serve you.
If you do something that other people dislike, you have fundamentally failed at the primary goal of the game. To make a group of people have fun playing the game.
Really, because nothing in what I wrote says anything like that.
How about "In the way you read it..."
If you come to the table with an idea and everyone hates your idea, use your amazing creativity to come up with an idea everyone does not hate.
Do you need the chart?
except the way you describe it makes it sound like "shut up and do as we say" which is just as bad as one player saying "shut up and do what I say".
What other people like or dislike is not the issue.
It is the entire issue. Arguably it is the only real issue.
The other people at the table don't exist to serve you.
If you do something that other people dislike, you have fundamentally failed at the primary goal of the game. To make a group of people have fun playing the game.
Really, because nothing in what I wrote says anything like that.
How about "In the way you read it..."
two way street.
Its also worth noting that what you describe sounds like gaming by committee, which is cool, but doesn't work for me. I think that may be the disconnect here, as I have had awful experiences with that style of gaming.
|
|
except the way you describe it makes it sound like "shut up and do as we say" which is just as bad as one player saying "shut up and do what I say".
What other people like or dislike is not the issue.
It is the entire issue. Arguably it is the only real issue.
The other people at the table don't exist to serve you.
If you do something that other people dislike, you have fundamentally failed at the primary goal of the game. To make a group of people have fun playing the game.
Really, because nothing in what I wrote says anything like that.
How about "In the way you read it..."
two way street.
Its also worth noting that what you describe sounds like gaming by committee, which is cool, but doesn't work for me. I think that may be the disconnect here, as I have had awful experiences with that style of gaming.
And the alternative is "I'm playing this, screw you guys if it doesn't make the game more fun for everyone, it's all about my needs"
Every game is a game by committee. You all decide who is GM and therefore what you will and won't be playing and who will or won't be in charge.
Group activities involve group decisions. People refusing to fit into a group when doing a group activity isn't something to be praised.
If you want to be a loner, be alone.
except the way you describe it makes it sound like "shut up and do as we say" which is just as bad as one player saying "shut up and do what I say".
What other people like or dislike is not the issue.
It is the entire issue. Arguably it is the only real issue.
The other people at the table don't exist to serve you.
If you do something that other people dislike, you have fundamentally failed at the primary goal of the game. To make a group of people have fun playing the game.
Really, because nothing in what I wrote says anything like that.
How about "In the way you read it..."
two way street.
Its also worth noting that what you describe sounds like gaming by committee, which is cool, but doesn't work for me. I think that may be the disconnect here, as I have had awful experiences with that style of gaming.
And the alternative is "I'm playing this, screw you guys if it doesn't make the game more fun for everyone, it's all about my needs"
Every game is a game by committee. You all decide who is GM and therefore what you will and won't be playing and who will or won't be in charge.
Group activities involve group decisions. People refusing to fit into a group when doing a group activity isn't something to be praised.
If you want to be a loner, be alone.
deciding who is gm is one thing, needing everyone at the table to approve of character decisions is something else. Some of the greatest gaming experiences I have had have been with people with whom I disagree with on gaming matters, it really opened my eyes to doing things in different ways. Lots of ways to make chicken, and all that.
Which is why I advocate for making the GM the one who decides what does and doesn't fit.
Since you picked them for that job.
except that you said earlier that everyone at the table needs to be satisfied with the character choice- doing something other *people* dislike, not necessarily the dm. Would you leave the table/go home if a player made a character you didn't care for and the dm allowed it? I know some who might.
|
|
except that you said earlier that everyone at the table needs to be satisfied with the character choice- doing something other *people* dislike, not necessarily the dm. Would you leave the table/go home if a player made a character you didn't care for and the dm allowed it? I know some who might.Which is why I advocate for making the GM the one who decides what does and doesn't fit.
Since you picked them for that job.
Can you cite me saying that?
Because I don't think you can.
"If you do something that other people dislike, you have fundamentally failed at the primary goal of the game. To make a group of people have fun playing the game."
And
"If you come to the table with an idea and everyone hates your idea, use your amazing creativity to come up with an idea everyone does not hate."
The person who dislikes something doesn't have to be the dm, per se.
You may be taking what I'm saying a little too seriously. I'm genuinely curious re: leaving the table. Playstyles differ, and a bad experience in ones formative gaming years can be scarring.
Depends on the usage actually- it can be one person if that one person fits the category created in the situation described via "people".
More seriously though, what about a split ticket? Do you feel the dm should break the tie, have the final say, or something in between?
|
|
Depends on the usage actually- it can be one person if that one person fits the category created in the situation described.
More seriously though, what about a split ticket? Do you feel the dm should break the tie, have the final say, or something in between?
Yes the GM should break the tie. But personally I aim to make things everyone thinks is cool and wants to play with.
Depends on the usage actually- it can be one person if that one person fits the category created in the situation described via "people".
More seriously though, what about a split ticket? Do you feel the dm should break the tie, have the final say, or something in between?
If it's split, I've reached the point where the idea is obviously going to be distasteful to half the group, so yeah that idea is outta there.
My preferred solution though is to put together groups of like-minded people where the situation is unlikely to occur in the first place. I usually do that by defining the setting, telling people what kind of things we're looking for (playstyle, setting, and general tone of the story), and asking who wants to join and play.
I used to use the phrase "Don't bring it if it'd be out of place in a Tolkien novel." Then someone reminded me about Tom Bombadil ;)
|
I think something people need to remember is that others may not share your vision so if they dont want it in the campaign then you need to accept that. In all my years of gaming, I have never seen a group say they didnt want to play because one person didnt get to play their snowflake. I have DM'd home games as well as Cons and in shops. If the group decided they didnt want to play it was for various other reasons.
|
|
Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.Depends on the usage actually- it can be one person if that one person fits the category created in the situation described via "people".
More seriously though, what about a split ticket? Do you feel the dm should break the tie, have the final say, or something in between?
Out of control campaigns are not fun.
The boards breeds too many hypothetical situations and not enough what actually goes on.
hm.
What you describe is a perfect creature for an encounter steeped in roleplaying and mystery.... which becomes utterly cheapened by making it a player character. There is a reason that there things suited for PCs and things best suited for NPCs. A major reason that I would not allow such creatures as PCs... because as a GM I want to reserve something like this for my own use.. an NPC encounter, an occasionally heard form advisor perhaps.Awakened Animal Spellcasters?
let me point you to the Nekomata
a 2 tailed cat from japanese mythology with the following known powers
sorcerous affinity
power over luck and chance
shapeshifting to a human form (with cat ears and 2 tails)
a variety of illusion, enchantment and transmutation spells
a decent skill at persuading others
a youthful appearance in human form, regardless of age
temporal displacement
ability to take other feline forms
fully prehensile pair of tailsand those are the most common nekomata powers
essentially, an awakened housecat sorcerer
a housecat who lived 100 years on it's current lifetime could become one
such a creature is no different than a displacer beast spellcaster
horses are only seen as ridiculous, because of a line of girl's toys from over 30 years ago
those horses had plenty of anthropomorphized features and do little to compare to horse fighters Ala Disney's Tangled
double hm.
|
|
We all seem to have forgotten about the poor free-willed golem at the beginning of this thread, but if we can all take a moment to reflect, I can see how having a golem around could be great fun.
I imagine the resulting sessions would go something like THIS.
Out of control campaigns are not fun.Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.Depends on the usage actually- it can be one person if that one person fits the category created in the situation described via "people".
More seriously though, what about a split ticket? Do you feel the dm should break the tie, have the final say, or something in between?
And by contrast I've never run a campaign that was under my control. I get few complaints.
|
|
And by contrast I've never run a campaign that was under my control. I get few complaints.Out of control campaigns are not fun.Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.Depends on the usage actually- it can be one person if that one person fits the category created in the situation described via "people".
More seriously though, what about a split ticket? Do you feel the dm should break the tie, have the final say, or something in between?
I think you are confused by when I say out of control campaigns.
We all seem to have forgotten about the poor free-willed golem at the beginning of this thread, but if we can all take a moment to reflect, I can see how having a golem around could be great fun.
I imagine the resulting sessions would go something like THIS.
WHY DO I CLICK ON LINKS?!?!?!
WHY DO I CLICK ON LINKS?!?!?!We all seem to have forgotten about the poor free-willed golem at the beginning of this thread, but if we can all take a moment to reflect, I can see how having a golem around could be great fun.
I imagine the resulting sessions would go something like THIS.
I share your pain.
On the subject of the golem from the beginning of the thread - not forgotten, I've said my part on it (that I could see the concept fitting into my game but would likely change some of the stats/rules) and haven't heard anyone else say anything about it that I felt the need to respond to.
And by contrast I've never run a campaign that was under my control. I get few complaints.
Out of control campaigns are not fun.
Without knowing more about your group and the style of game they like, it's impossible to put much meaning to that statement, though.
It could be that your players all like the same style of game, so they don't come up with concepts that don't fit the group's preferences in the first place. It could also be they're more open in how they play and don't really mind what goes on, and enjoy spending time together more than what is happening in the game itself.
If so, not everyone is lucky enough to get such a well-fitting group, and sometimes there has to be some kind of structure in order to ensure everyone has fun (with the "control" being guidelines to ensure nobody does anything that will cause anyone else to stop enjoying the game), and sometimes people have a very specific need for a certain style of game, and need to seek out other like-minded individuals to enjoy it properly (with "control" in that case not really being necessary if they get the right mix of people.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth ... Just because it is able to support that - are you saying the rules somehow don't work as well if there are no elves or Tieflings? That somehow the same mechanics that worked before stop working as well? Please tell me HOW?
Not at all what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the "setting purity" argument is the exact same argument as "I don't like it and my interests trump yours." Because if the DM is insisting on a personal homebrew setting that somehow doesn't allow elves or tieflings, and then pretends that it can't possibly be altered in any way to allow them, that's the exact same thing as the DM saying "No elves or tieflings because I say so. Nanny nanny boo boo!"The only exception would be if using a prepackaged setting (Black Company or Middle Earth or whatever), and those, as described earlier, are typically much better run using rules sets meant for those settings, vs. using the Pathfinder rules.
On the other hand, the argument that "we all really wish you wouldn't play that," if it's true, seems perfectly fine to me.
I've never been in a group like Ciretose's, where the DM says "I would prefer you not play that" and the rest of the players, Stepford-like, immediately fall into lock-step and chant "Do not play it... do not play it... must obey DM," in unison, but I guess it could happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.
Lolwut? Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like this?
"Everyone must eat chocolate ice cream or vanilla will destroy the world. There really isn't any middle ground."
|
|
I've never been in a group like Ciretose's, where the DM says "I would prefer you not play that" and the rest of the players, Stepford-like, immediately fall into lock-step and chant "Do not play it... do not play it... must obey DM," in unison, but I guess it could happen.
And I've never been in a group where the GM saying "I would prefer you not play that" was any kind of problem.
So it hasn't come up. If it had, I'm pretty sure the rest of us would mock the person for being a big baby for pouting or throwing a fit because he had to come up with a new idea when the rest of us go to the GM with 5 or six ideas and say "Pick which one you think will work best with the group/setting"
Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.Lolwut? Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like this?
"Everyone must eat chocolate ice cream or vanilla will destroy the world. There really isn't any middle ground."
So is this another player entitlement type thread we are told how Ciretose does things and there isn't any other way?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this thread still going? Reading the last few pages, it's clear this is a waste of time.
File this under "what goes on at another person's table on the other side of the country from you does not ruin your own game" and move on.
|
|
So is this another player entitlement type thread we are told how Ciretose does things and there isn't any other way?Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.Lolwut? Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like this?
"Everyone must eat chocolate ice cream or vanilla will destroy the world. There really isn't any middle ground."
You're out of your element.
and... it looks like he's already throwing insults at me.
|
|
You're out of your element.and... it looks like he's already throwing insults at me.
Says the person who took a shot at me...
I know, I know, no one is supposed to punch back...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, everyone's differences aside for a moment...
Isn't the important thing that people will have a tendency to stick with the games they enjoy?
If a player insists on their way no matter what anyone else wants - and by "player" I'm including the GM here as everyone is all players of the game at the end of the day - the group will decide they're better off without them.
An over-prohibitive GM will soon be a GM with no group.
A player that refuses to accept their group have a right to not like their character concept to the point they're asked to play something else will likewise find themselves without a group.
99% of the time there's no issues. Otherwise we'd all be here telling each other about "that GM" or "that player" in our group right now.
Nobody is "doing it wrong", with the possible exception of anyone (and I include GMs here) that's here asking why they were just booted from their group. Whether they picked the wrong way to play or the wrong group to play with is another matter altogether.
The only really wrong way is to approach a group and assume they have to make you welcome and allow you to do whatever you want, no matter whether you're the GM or a Player. Accepting that some people just will not get along together is a part of life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth ... Just because it is able to support that - are you saying the rules somehow don't work as well if there are no elves or Tieflings? That somehow the same mechanics that worked before stop working as well? Please tell me HOW?Not at all what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the "setting purity" argument is the exact same argument as "I don't like it and my interests trump yours." Because if the DM is insisting on a personal homebrew setting that somehow doesn't allow elves or tieflings, and then pretends that it can't possibly be altered in any way to allow them, that's the exact same thing as the DM saying "No elves or tieflings because I say so. Nanny nanny boo boo!"The only exception would be if using a prepackaged setting (Black Company or Middle Earth or whatever), and those, as described earlier, are typically much better run using rules sets meant for those settings, vs. using the Pathfinder rules.
On the other hand, the argument that "we all really wish you wouldn't play that," if it's true, seems perfectly fine to me.
I've never been in a group like Ciretose's, where the DM says "I would prefer you not play that" and the rest of the players, Stepford-like, immediately fall into lock-step and chant "Do not play it... do not play it... must obey DM," in unison, but I guess it could happen.
Wait, I was with you for a moment and then the part about using a prepackaged setting got me. Why do those gain an exception but a homebrewed version of the same doesn't grant the same?
Anyway. These special snowflake people on either side of the argument do not exist, or only in small numbers and are driven into the sea each year. I'm not really sure that the poster that has been the focus of all this isn't just pulling our chains for the sake of stirring the pot.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that is it a self regulating system.
If you are a closed minded GM, no one will want to let you run except people who share your opinions.
If you come up with bad ideas and throw fits when people don't want to let you play the ideas, you will end up either with no games or games with like minded people.
However it is absolutely wrong to say that because you want it, someone should give it to you if they don't want to.
That is the point. If you can find a group that likes your awakened pony wizard, awesome for you.
Saying people who don't allow your awakened pony wizard are closed minded and uncreative...which was what was literally argued here in this thread...no...no then you are wrong.
Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.Depends on the usage actually- it can be one person if that one person fits the category created in the situation described via "people".
More seriously though, what about a split ticket? Do you feel the dm should break the tie, have the final say, or something in between?
The DM needs to be the one that smacks people and gets their attention back from all the shiny choices and away from being disruptive, I agree.
Otherwise, we have the inevitable "My players broke my game" threads and/or the "Hey! I allowed 2000 times WBL and things got wonky!" threads. Or the advent of silly crap like PunPun, which would not exist if the word NO was used once or twice in its creation. So, there's that. The DM (and hopefully the other players) provide a degree of sanity and common sense to the game, or should in my opinion.
Wait, I was with you for a moment and then the part about using a prepackaged setting got me. Why do those gain an exception but a homebrewed version of the same doesn't grant the same?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems hypocritical to say, "We're playing in a Black Company setting, but I'm intentionally using rules that don't fit it at all [e.g., Pathfinder] and aren't meant for it. However, your characters better fit it perfectly, or you can't play." That kind of an in-your-face double standard grates on me.