| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Snorter here but on both sides neither the DM or player should be done with their creative works until talking to the other.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a workable compromise, reskinning the character to be something else. But it all depends on what the original reason was for removing them. If it was that they annoyed you mechanically, then you'd not want someone bringing those mechanics in under any name. If it was their flavor text that bothers you, then you'd not want the race in your game, even if they offered to play a PC that was mechanically human, 'but with the ears, and the eyes, and I get to be really wise, and live forever, and...'.
This is where you have to be open about the reasons for a ban, so the player doesn't accidentally come back with another PC that winds you up.
|
Well, why did you create the setting, before speaking to the players?If you know that there's a guy in the group who loves playing elves, why write them out?
Because not every campaign a GM wants to run needs to conform to every player that may possibly be interested.
If the GM can get 4 players who want to play in an elf free world setting, the 5th guy who doesn't isn't in this particular campaign.
In the same way if the GM wants to run something you don't want to play, you don't have to play in that particular campaign.
What is asinine is the belief that the GM "has" to run anything.
It is just as asinine as telling the player he must play a specific thing, then being surprised they don't like being told what to play.
If the GM is upfront as to what is going on, the players get to choose.
IF a player not wanting to play in a setting isn't wrong (it isn't) a GM not wanting a concept isn't wrong.
"Look! I made this monstrosity and I'm going to go bludgeon my GM into letting me play it! Won't he be shocked at what it does tee hee" that offends me.I've never had a player like that. If I did, I would have not invited him to begin with, sparing me the effort of constantly whining about him. Then again, I'm not looking for an excuse to advocate for dictatorial authority as DM ("someone has to keep these players in line, or it will be total anarchy!").
I'd rather have no game than play with people I don't like. Even on a ship in the middle of the ocean.
Isn't this somewhat disingenuous, though? You don't like "dictatorial authority" for a DM but you only play with people that have gone through an intensive screening process. You've dictated that only people with similiar tastes are at the table. (Not that I disagree with system, you just seem to be saying, "why ban ridiculous concepts, just ban ridiculous players." Which is all well and good for you but not everybody is blessed with a plethora of players from which to choose.)
That sounds like a workable compromise, reskinning the character to be something else. But it all depends on what the original reason was for removing them. If it was that they annoyed you mechanically, then you'd not want someone bringing those mechanics in under any name. If it was their flavor text that bothers you, then you'd not want the race in your game, even if they offered to play a PC that was mechanically human, 'but with the ears, and the eyes, and I get to be really wise, and live forever, and...'.
Reskinning is the quick and dirty way to do it. There's always the option to work with the player to redo something. If you want to be a guy with pointy ears and a 1000 year life span he might not fit into the setting without elves and where no race lives over 120. However you could find a way to give a human low light vision and make them a better strider and even give them a stat array of their choice, and your game probably won't explode and the guy might be able to fit in.
What I do personally, is that I don't think of the racial traits as being solely owned by the races and think of them as character traits. This helps recreate something mechanically(and gives the world variety) and if you have a variety of cultures and are always willing to add or create more, then you end up with something very flexible. Doesn't work for everyone, but it does for me personally.
This is where you have to be open about the reasons for a ban, so the player doesn't accidentally come back with another PC that winds you up.
Ahh, I don't disagree. Communication is the key to anything social(Not really a shocker there is it?). Choosing not to divulge the reasons for why you don't like something leaves people in the dark, and possibly bitter and without understanding.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that 'Don't be a dick' counts as an intensive screening process.
But I agree that not everyone is blessed to be able to pick and choose players. Sometimes you have to game with whoever you can get.
If someone won't try to make a concept that fits in with the rest of the group and the setting, that is kind of a dick move IMHO.
The issue for me is the requirement that the GM justify "no" when the player has no such requirement to justify "yes" in this logic train.
Compromise is awesome. The GM being the one who always has to change to accomodate isn't compromise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, why did you create the setting, before speaking to the players?
Because it is the setting I have been using for decades and is well established?
Because I have other settings, but everyone aside from "Steve" wants to play in this one?
Because...
If you know that there's a guy in the group who loves playing elves, why write them out?
Because the rest of the group wants to try something different?
Because I know "Steve" likes to play other races besides elves?
Because...
Perhaps it’s just because I don't like elves... Why is "Steve's" likes and dislikes more important than mine? Aren't I there to have fun too? Or is it a part of the GM's job description to let a player's interest always trump his own no matter what?
Even if he isn't an elf fanatic, if you went to the group, and said, "I'm thinking of a campaign with no elves...", and get eye-rolls, or people say, "But I was really looking forward to playing an elf.", why would you go ahead?
If the group as a whole was not on board, that's one thing. But if "Steve" was the only one pining to play an elf, again I ask, why is "Steve's" fun more important than mine or anyone else’s fun?
If your response is "Well, how was I to know what they wanted to play? I did all the work before I showed it to them.", then that's why you have issues.
Again, I could be using a well established setting that I have been using for decades, one where the players all know before-hand that elves do not exist.
If "Steve" is not okay with that, then why is it me and the rest of the group that has to choose to disregard aspects of a well established setting just so he can have fun?
Kirth doesn't have these issues, because he finds out what his players are into, then writes a campaign around that.
To do otherwise just seems like masochism, to me.
Yes, it's all about knowing your group and their likes and dislikes. But most of these hypothetical’s come from a position of "What if"... "What if Steve is new?" "What if Steve (this or that)?"
My position is that a single player's interests should not be allowed to dictate the rules of the campaign setting just because this or that race, class, feat, or whatever happens to be in the Core Rulebook!
Honestly the thing that has bothered me most about this thread is how much Mr. Gersen takes his group for granted. I would love to have seven people I could game with regularly. Seven people that were able and willing to GM or play? That's some sort of fantasy world.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a large reason for the disconnect in the thread (and others like it), comes from the perceived ease of finding another player or GM.
Where gaming is plentiful, there's less need to consider what others like. Both sides can puff out their chests and perform a territorial display. The loser flees to another group.
Where gaming is rare, as it has always been for me, compromise is essential.
The issue for me is the requirement that the GM justify "no" when the player has no such requirement to justify "yes" in this logic train.
I think it has something to do with it being easier for the GM to justify something than the player. If a GM made and runs the setting, then as a player I have a hard time justifying anything really, but the GM is very much in a place to say what goes and what can't. I would like to think that talking things out is always a plus though, because that's how I come to understand why no elves, and if it would be reasonable to use elf stats on a human.*
I am curious as to who's been saying the GM has to accommodate and change his setting for anything? Admittedly I came in a bit late, so I may have missed something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that 'Don't be a dick' counts as an intensive screening process.
But I agree that not everyone is blessed to be able to pick and choose players. Sometimes you have to game with whoever you can get.
Sadly, that can pretty intensive these days. I've had a few towns I've lived in where the choices were to play with people I'd likely not put out if they were on fire, or not get to play. It was a long drought, let me tell you.
|
|
compromise is essential.
Not having an adequate source of players aside, it's exactly like ciretose said above (emphasis mine):
Compromise is awesome. The GM being the one who always has to change to accomodate isn't compromise.
Letting one single player have his way is simply not a compromise, it is an exception to the group's rules, and is no more fair than asking the GM to always accommodate a single player’s wishes.
|
|
Honestly the thing that has bothered me most about this thread is how much Mr. Gersen takes his group for granted. I would love to have seven people I could game with regularly. Seven people that were able and willing to GM or play? That's some sort of fantasy world.
I've had to narrow it down to 7.
And I would bet Kirth could get a lot more than 7, but he narrows it down as well.
|
|
The issue for me is the requirement that the GM justify "no" when the player has no such requirement to justify "yes" in this logic train.I think it has something to do with it being easier for the GM to justify something than the player. If a GM made and runs the setting, then as a player I have a hard time justifying anything really, but the GM is very much in a place to say what goes and what can't.
Except the argument is being made that the GM can't do this without being the problem.
Except the argument is being made that the GM can't do this without being the problem.The issue for me is the requirement that the GM justify "no" when the player has no such requirement to justify "yes" in this logic train.I think it has something to do with it being easier for the GM to justify something than the player. If a GM made and runs the setting, then as a player I have a hard time justifying anything really, but the GM is very much in a place to say what goes and what can't.
I'd say that there are times where the GM is being a problem and times where the player is being a problem. I've met plenty of insane GMs in my life, and plenty of insane players. I try not to play with the ones with the crazy demands personally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets try a slightly different tact here. Thing is, I'm seeing lots of common ground here but people are arguing mostly over terminology and circumstantial requirements.
This is where I feel pretty much everyone agrees:
The GM isn't king. Without player support, they are nothing. We should all be able to agree on that.
The GM can be president, if that's how their group wishes to see them, bearing in mind they only hold that power while the group is willing to let them. In other groups they may be closer to the chairman in a meeting of equals.
If the GM creates their own setting, or wishes to set a particular mood with a published setting, and wishes to impose certain restrictions with that setting in order to set a specific tone - it's fine as long as they have player support in that. If their idea is good enough, their players will back them, and bringing in a new player whose ideas don't mesh with the rest of the group tends to be a bad idea. Also, this tends to be more of an option when the game is put together by the GM and they then go in search of players to join it.
EDIT: If their players don't back them, the GM needs to decide what is more important for them - running their dream setting with another group, or adapting to the needs of this one.
If the group exists before the game, the tendency is more for the creation of a shared setting, with everyone getting to contribute towards the tone or mood.
Some people need to be more flexible than others (both as GMs and players) because of a lack of accessible gaming. When you don't have to worry about that, being pickier about who you play with is a more valid option.
Some groups are more open than others with what they allow, either because they have to be (see previous point), or simply because they prefer it that way. Likewise, some prefer to stick to a rigidly-defined setting for their own reasons.
At the end of the day, it's all about social contracts, and the kind we want to form with other players. We're all different, and tend towards different forms of contract for our own reasons.
EDIT: And if you're not communicating the above to each other within the group, you're just asking for trouble.
Now. Can we all agree on the above? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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.
My players don't like falling into traps, but they are in the games and not going to be removed. This may be a fundamental failing but they keep coming back.
It isn't really about making the game fun total fun all the time. There are unenjoyable parts, shopping can be pretty boring, adding up all those small sums of gold can be far from fun, but the game goes on. No need to stress and accuse someone of fundamentally failing because of a few bad parts or less that fun times (talking to npcs and general information gathering isn't always fun, as much as can be done here, it can be routine or a bit bland). Make the games great, memorable, and have their really fun and enjoyable side, but a few moments or scenes without fun is not really failing.
If anyone wants to get themselves worked up over small things, or make accusations of failure, they are being needlessly dramaatic.
Pathfinder is a grocery store that caters to Medieval Fantasy Setting.And this is why you're going to keep banging heads with Anzyr.
Because Anzyr, however much his attitude may grate, is basing his evaluation of what fits in Pathfinder, by what genre of gaming the Pathfinder rules support, which is based on what the rules actually say.
Not on what genre he'd like them to support, if they said something completely different.'Medieval Fantasy' is Ars Magica, Chivalry and Sorcery, Pendragon.
Games which seek to replicate the stories of Mallory, Tennyson, Sir Walter Scott.
Cadfael.
The Name of the Rose.
The Lion In Winter.
The Song of Roland.The protagonists are mortal men, albeit of mighty thew, and the rare magical practitioners (usually of an evil hearted nature) are easily bested by honest steel.
Magic is a fickle tool, which cannot be trusted not to backfire on the user.
It is costly and time-consuming to use, and exerts a toll on the spiritual and physical health of the user.
Occasionally one of these cowardly mystics may accompany the real heroes, to provide advice and aid, if he should need it.How is that served by Pathfinder?
"So, it's decided. I'm the Wizard, you're being the Cleric. We can lay down some sweet buffs and sick artillery between us. Should be able to steamroller every CR appropriate encounter we meet..."
"Yo guys, sorry I'm late."
"Yeah, we've made our characters. You're going to have to be the Fighter."
"Tchoh. What? Again? I never get to do the good stuff."
"Just be glad we didn't make you play the Rogue. That'll teach Bill not to miss the setup session."
"Poor Bill. Poor, poor Bill."<all hang heads, in silent prayer for poor, poor Bill>
Players don't get to choose what other players play. Or at least, any player with some confidence and pride shouldn't allow themselves to be bossed around like that.
Sigh. Players thinking they are the dm, it is a sad thing when it comes up. Only seen it a few times, but "I'll play what I want to play thanks" generally serves well.
|
|
"I'll play what I want to play thanks" generally serves well.
Generally, that is the case...
But as you know (as you've been posting to this thread), this thread has been discussing players that want to play characters that are outside of the normal scope of the GM's campaign setting (despite the concept being a totally valid character according to the rulebook). The thread has also been discussing the right a GM should have to deny such a potentially disruptive character accordingly (and that seems to be one of the bigger points of contention within this thread).
YMMV and all of that...
I was so glad to read through how this thread devolved into the same conversation I left behand last time I had it... Covering all this old ground really brought back the nostalgia of the conversation I was so passionate about oh those many months ago... The nostalgia that is literally the crack of gaming that I crave so much....
Now it just washes over me like a cool river..... At the end it feels empty yet... something is missing....
I suppose now is about the time I'm supposed to say that I don't kick bad gms out of being my gm... I like to play in their games and subvert their policies to prove to them how bad their policies are... as a teaching tool to make them better gms...
Yesssss. There's my comfy chair... Let me just get situated.
And if I'm not particularly interested in teaching him a lesson I'd just remind him at every turn those things that were vetoed...
Like if I can't play an MLP I'll instead make a sorcerer and make sure every round that I get initiative I'll make some mane and tail swishing before charging and trampling with my hooves comment before saying oh yeah... sorry about that... I mean I cast a spell...
I do it because I want him to be a better gm.... I do it because I care.
There we go... Now I feel like we're back on track... Carry on.
Riiiiight.
Now we are back to the "if I am ever denied anything EVAH!!!"
... BAD GM!
|
|
Lets try a slightly different tact here. Thing is, I'm seeing lots of common ground here but people are arguing mostly over terminology and circumstantial requirements.
This is where I feel pretty much everyone agrees:
I think that is very comprehensive, and covers most of the positions here.
In future threads, people on both sides of the debate would be well served to consider how easy the others can hire and fire players and GMs, before condemning their choices to compromise or stand firm.
So, if someone asks "I've got a player wanting to play X, but I don't like X, what should I do?", maybe the first response should be to ask "How easy is it to replace the guy?", or "How important is it that he fills one of the spots at this table?".
The answer to that will inform whether the valid response is compromise or ban.
|
|
"So, it's decided. I'm the Wizard, you're being the Cleric. We can lay down some sweet buffs and sick artillery between us. Should be able to steamroller every CR appropriate encounter we meet..."
"Yo guys, sorry I'm late."
"Yeah, we've made our characters. You're going to have to be the Fighter."
"Tchoh. What? Again? I never get to do the good stuff."
"Just be glad we didn't make you play the Rogue. That'll teach Bill not to miss the setup session."
"Poor Bill. Poor, poor Bill."<all hang heads, in silent prayer for poor, poor Bill>
Players don't get to choose what other players play. Or at least, any player with some confidence and pride shouldn't allow themselves to be bossed around like that.
I agree it is presumptuous.
But not that far from how many groups actually operate.From the very first days of D&D, there was an 'unwritten'* rule that every adventuring party had to include at least one of Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric, Thief. It seems the earliest games catered to large groups of players, where duplication was common, plus several henchmen and hirelings to take up the slack, and act as disposable redshirts.
Since many groups couldn't muster more than a few players, there was inevitably some pressure for someone had to cover every role. How this got decided wasn't always democratic.
The ones with the most system mastery would tend to call dibs on casters, and the others would let them, since they didn't think they knew the magic rules well enough to do a good job.
That inevitably led to a vicious cycle, where the people who played casters regularly were given first dibs, and would soon come to see it as their 'right'. The ones who played fighters and thieves were most often casual players, who deferred to the regulars, and would need to be nudged awake when it was time to roll a die.
When being introduced to a new group, it was common to be told "This is Brian, our wizard player; this is Dave, our Fighter,...", even when the character creation hadn't yet begun.
A situation that's very close to 'Knights of the Dinner Table', and about as disfunctional. Imagine how Brian van Hoose, or Bob Herzog would react to finding another player doing 'their' job.
Of course, me being me, I'm the one to shake up that kind of stagnant heirarchy, by getting my PC proposal in first, or by coaching one of the 'second-tier' players that playing a caster wasn't hard, just so I could see the look on 'Brian's face when 'Dave' is in the wizard role, and he has to be the Mundane ordered about like a peon for a change.
*Except it certainly did get written about in editorials, where the importance of such a setup was hammered home at every opportunity.
1. I had 7 players who were also DMs in Houston -- not all at the same time, but all with some overlap. That didn't mean there was no competition. Rather, I had to make damn sure my games were interesting enough to keep people coming back, rather than going elsewhere. That meant MORE player accommodation, not less.
2. Currently I have no players, because I'm now living in Booniesville, Nowhere County, Pennsyltucky. But that's preferable to playing with people I don't know/like. (JAM412 and I have met a couple times now, though, and he's cool as hell and hopefully we'll get a game going soon!).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Letting one single player have his way is simply not a compromise...
It's also a massively-propagated strawman argument that's been beaten into the ground repeatedly in 3 threads now, rebutted constantly and consistently, hundreds of times, and keeps getting brought up anyway because no one has an argument against the real "pro player" position.
There is one (1) person I know of on the boards who holds the position you're arguing against, and that person is not me.
STOP ATTRIBUTING IT TO ME.
It's dishonest, insulting, childish, and shows that you are interested only in tilting at windmills.
My position is, and always has been, and has been repeated by me dozens of times, in every thread where it comes up, as follows --
One player doesn't get to get his way, if the other players don't agree. That means, if the other players don't want something, the DM should disallow it (and the one player really shouldn't push for it).
One DM doesn't get to get his way, if the players as a group don't agree. No one has the right to say "my ideas are more important than the players' ideas, and my perfect setting is more important than they are."
Seriously, either be willing to address this as it is, or stop addressing me altogether.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun is the goal.
Traps are like fruits and vegetables. Not always enjoyable at the time, but in the long run they make the game more interesting, and therefore more fun.
As long as they aren't rotten.
this cracks me up for some reason.
Rogue: I don't wanna disarm any more traps
Cleric: Aw, come on Rogue. Dont you want to be big and strong like Fighter?
Rogue: I guess... [ooc] halfheartedly disarms trap [ooc]
Fighter: Keep it up and you'll soon be stronger than me!
Wizard: I wish I could disarm traps....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Letting one single player have his way is simply not a compromise...It's also a massively-propagated strawman argument that's been beaten into the ground repeatedly in 3 threads now, rebutted constantly and consistently, hundreds of times, and keeps getting brought up anyway because no one has an argument against the real "pro player" position.
There is one (1) person I know of on the boards who holds the position you're arguing against, and that person is not me.
Backing Kirth on this one, he's stated a number of times earlier that no player should be able to do whatever they want when the rest of the group is against it.
The only thing he and I really disagree on, I feel, is terminology and circumstance. The common ground we all seem to have in this thread (apart from this aforementioned person) is that no one player gets to turn up and decide to play X when the rest of the group are against X being in the game.
|
|
Seriously, either be willing to address this as it is, or stop addressing me altogether.
Yes, knowing your group should be the number one priority, but...
What you quoted from me was NOT addressed to you at all!
In fact, what you quoted was me agreeing with something ciretos said to Snorter.
The last post I made directly to you was on the previous page:
I've repeatedly shown that to be false (both the generalization and the particulars, the latter with specific examples), but don't let that bother you.And then you go on to say that if I create a setting that does not have elves or tieflings, and I do not allow you to bring one of those in, I am saying "my interests trumps yours!"
If I should allow you and everyone else that wishes to play an elf or a tiefling in a setting in which I purposefully left them out to create a specific mood or feel, then why should I have even bothered to create such a setting in the first place?
You may have just posted that:
One player doesn't get to get his way, if the other players don't agree. That means, if the other players don't want something, the DM should disallow it (and the one player really shouldn't push for it).
But you also said a couple of pages back:
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!"
Regardless...
It may not always be possible for everyone to be accommodating all of the time, no matter what the group likes or wants (e.g. if my dislike of elves is strong enough, I simply will not have fun in any game either as a player or GM that includes them no matter what the group's opinion of them happens to be).
I know players that refuse to participate in games where the GM allows players to play any race other than the "standard" elf, half-elf, gnome, dwarf, Halfling, human, and half-orc. And would never allow any player to play anything but those races in any game that they ran no matter what. You and I might find that a bit extreme, but who are we to judge what they do and do not find to be fun? Who are we to expect them to include elements that they hate?
Again, one should know their group, yes, but the assumption cannot be one of "I play only with people I know and like and trust". In such a group, it is easier to be more accommodating because everyone is friends with one another, and they know what to expect from one another... And that is indeed the ideal, but that is not always the case; nor is everyone willing to just do without gaming at all if they cannot have their ideal scenario.
You choose to accommodate most requests of your players, I (and many others on these boards) choose to retain our setting's verisimilitude first before trying to accommodate our player's requests.
Neither is the right or wrong way to play.
To each their own...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You choose to accommodate most requests of your players, I (and many others on these boards) choose to retain our setting's verisimilitude first before trying to accommodate our player's requests.
Neither is the right or wrong way to play.
To each their own...
I haven't really been keeping up but I very much agree with this.
I for what it's worth tend to come down on the side of setting verisimilitude.
- Torger
I don't see it as denial, it never existed (or does not exist then, there and now, for the game's setting).
One restriction that could really make sense, would be in a faction vs faction setting. The restriction may concern wizards.
In this hypothetical setting, the sorcerers are not the outcasts, they wedded themselves to power and over the years engineered the fall and destruction of many wizards. The isolationist individualist wizards concerned with study and adventuring, have not fared well against the sorcerer menace. This struggle could be essential to the plot, and either the wizards or sorcs could be the bad guys (maybe the sorcs have damn good reasons to get rid of all those nercromancers and shady transumation guilds?).
Restrictions that could come up, 1 wizard per party max, and background must accord with the setting (as in, the wizard was privately taught in secrecy, and masquerades as a bard so as to travel the land and not get murdered). If there aren't many wizards left, the whole party should probably not be pumping out the wizards left right and centre. As many sorcerers as you like though, and it will be high magic, and there is a struggle between these two classes.
Is it a bad dm that says only one wizard (or none) in the party? I don't think that is the right question to ask, and it is searching for someone to have a go at (not helpful).
You choose to accommodate most requests of your players, I (and many others on these boards) choose to retain our setting's verisimilitude first before trying to accommodate our player's requests.
Neither is the right or wrong way to play.
To each their own...
I haven't really been keeping up but I very much agree with this.
I for what it's worth tend to come down on the side of setting verisimilitude.
- Torger
Same, and I laugh at some of the expanded material. "Okay, haven't heard of this before, where is it meant to fit exactly?" comes to mind.
One restriction that could really make sense, would be in a faction vs faction setting. The restriction may concern wizards.
In this hypothetical setting, the sorcerers are not the outcasts, they wedded themselves to power and over the years engineered the fall and destruction of many wizards. The isolationist individualist wizards concerned with study and adventuring, have not fared well against the sorcerer menace. This struggle could be essential to the plot, and either the wizards or sorcs could be the bad guys (maybe the sorcs have damn good reasons to get rid of all those nercromancers and shady transumation guilds?).
Restrictions that could come up, 1 wizard per party max, and background must accord with the setting (as in, the wizard was privately taught in secrecy, and masquerades as a bard so as to travel the land and not get murdered). If there aren't many wizards left, the whole party should probably not be pumping out the wizards left right and centre. As many sorcerers as you like though, and it will be high magic, and there is a struggle between these two classes.
Is it a bad dm that says only one wizard (or none) in the party? I don't think that is the right question to ask, and it is searching for someone to have a go at (not helpful).
The theme of one side of this thread seems to be, basically, that it's ok until such point as a player asks, at which point the restriction has to immediately melt away.
The theme of one side of this thread seems to be, basically, that it's ok until such point as a player asks, at which point the restriction has to immediately melt away.
Actually, that's the theme of one person in this thread, but by all means keep misrepresenting everyone else.
I notice that no matter how many times this is explained to you, you are either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge what other people are actually saying.
The theme of one side of this thread seems to be, basically, that it's ok until such point as a player asks, at which point the restriction has to immediately melt away.Actually, that's the theme of one person in this thread, but by all means keep misrepresenting everyone else.
I notice that no matter how many times this is explained to you, you are either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge what other people are actually saying.
Right back atcha. Pot, meet kettle, you both are a certain color.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want the game to be fun for the people who agree to play with me and let me be the Dungeon Master, is that too much to hope for?
Never been a problem at a table I've played on either side of, but going by this thread, yes, far too much.
Edit: That was snarkier than it needed to be, but ye gods! Going back to RD's example in his first post, if sheild-guardian-with-its-own-amulet-of-golem-control-resulting-in-a-free-wi lled-construct-PC means you want to try out a 3PP construct race, or adapt warforged using the ARG, that's imaginative creativity; if it mean you want to play a shield gaurdian as is from the bestiary, with an amulet of golem control, that sounds like gaming the system.
Beyond that, we've gotten to the point where some people's setting are so full of verisimilitude that it sounds like they'd be happier running a party of DMPCs than dealing with players.
Right back atcha. Pot, meet kettle, you both are a certain color.
Without referencing an example, this is equivalent to chanting "I'm rubber, you're glue...!"
Also, when faced with his atrocities, Jeffrey Dahmer would not have been helping his case by saying, "Well, other people have probably done similar things in the past, so it must be OK!"Finally, in English the first person plural pronoun is "we," not "you."
Specific exclusions from a setting are not the same as denying other players the abili to have creativity. And comparing people who have campaign restrictions to Dahmer? Not constructive, eh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want the game to be fun for the people who agree to play with me and let me be the Dungeon Master, is that too much to hope for?
"I just want things to still be fun for the person who agreed to gm for me and let me play in their creation. Is that too much to hope for?"
Return to sender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want the game to be fun for the people who agree to play with me and let me be the Dungeon Master, is that too much to hope for?Never been a problem at a table I've played on either side of, but going by this thread, yes, far too much.
Edit: That was snarkier than it needed to be, but ye gods! Going back to RD's example in his first post, if sheild-guardian-with-its-own-amulet-of-golem-control-resulting-in-a-free-wi lled-construct-PC means you want to try out a 3PP construct race, or adapt warforged using the ARG, that's imaginative creativity; if it mean you want to play a shield gaurdian as is from the bestiary, with a amulet of golem control, that sounds like gaming the system.
Beyond that, we've gotten to the point where some people's setting are so full of verisimilitude that it sounds like they'd be happier running a party of DMPCs than dealing with players.
So restricting anything whatsoever is the same as "might as well just have a bunch of gmpcs". Got it.
Right back atcha. Pot, meet kettle, you both are a certain color.Without referencing an example, this is equivalent to chanting "I'm rubber, you're glue...!"
Also, when faced with his atrocities, Jeffrey Dahmer would not have been helping his case by saying, "Well, other people have probably done similar things in the past, so it must be OK!"Finally, in English the first person plural pronoun is "we," not "you."
As someone who was confused as to the position you were arguing from and reacted strongly to it, I apologize for misunderstanding your position and the vitriol that misunderstanding generated. I understand now that you are not advocating for the position that allowing any player concept makes a person a better GM. This was the point of contention for me and realizing that this is not what you are arguing for changes my point of view regarding your posts. I apologize for reacting strongly to something that was not your position.
I agree that your players deserve every opportunity to express and explore the character concepts that they come up with and the GM should give due concern in evaluating their place within the game. The players are the lifeblood of the game and the entire point of getting together is to entertain each other with our imagination and some dice. While I think the players deserve consideration I also believe that the GM deserves consideration as well. In many ways the setting itself is the GM's character and some GM's put a lot of work into developing an interesting and fun setting.
Dismissing this work and not giving it consideration is what irks some GM's when a player creates a character outside the bounds of the setting. In the example you gave Kirth your player put in work and helped develop a new area of your game world. This is a great example of how it should work in that you are both collaborating on the setting and developed something you both like. The key being that you were both satisfied with the result, which may not always happen. When the two sides disagree whose like wins out, the player or the GMs?
In my opinion the dislike should generally win out, not because the GM is an authoritarian, but because the player could come up with something else they like where as the GM would have to swallow something he dislikes. While not being able to play a character you developed sucks, you can come up with another character and get to play that one where the GM would have to put up with something they do not like for the entire campaign. That is an extra burden on the GM, who already have all the pressure of leading the show so to speak (not that it isn't fun or exciting to GM, but you are the ringmaster) and having to deal with something you dislike week after week can cause negative thoughts and actions to creep into the game as GMs are only human after all.
I agree that the GM needs to realize that their setting isn't a special snowflake either and that it as an imaginary construct ultimately not as important as the person across the table from them, but because the setting is sort of the GMs character the player should extend the same consideration back. The setting purity argument is bunk in the sense that believing a player could never contribute positively to your setting is ridiculous because the whole point of making a setting is so players can play in it. However this doesn't mean that every idea a player comes up with is good and the GM isn't obligated to include every idea into their setting. In this sense the purity argument is a good one, the GM should endeavor to imagine the best setting for his players to play in that they can within the context that the setting is sort of the GMs character and they need to find enjoyment in the process to. This means saying no when the GM believes they should say no to preserve the purity of their idea for the setting which is kind of like a character for them.
The GM should do this understanding that once the game starts they need to now step back and let the players run wild so to speak and kick over their beautifully built sand castle because that is the point of the game. In my experience the more I enjoy creating a setting the more my players enjoy the process of playing in that setting. They know that if I exclude elves from being a player race for a campaign that the reason for doing it is not that I am reveling in my authoritarian power fantasy but because it will be entertaining for everyone. It will be a chance to have elves be enemies or to explore a fantasy scenario where there are no elves and to see what comes out of that. If a player and I disagree that exploring this imaginary space is going to be interesting then maybe we play another game or maybe that player doesn't play in that campaign if enough other people are interested in it. I am lucky in that my players trust me, one of the best campaigns we ever had I made the characters for them and they chose one and customized it a bit and off we went. That campaign went for two years and everyone loved it. In the end the details of how everyone ended up having fun is irrelevant as long as everyone had fun.
Having fun isn't the most important thing, it is the only thing.
Right back atcha. Pot, meet kettle, you both are a certain color.Without referencing an example, this is equivalent to chanting "I'm rubber, you're glue...!"
Also, when faced with his atrocities, Jeffrey Dahmer would not have been helping his case by saying, "Well, other people have probably done similar things in the past, so it must be OK!"Finally, in English the first person plural pronoun is "we," not "you."
As someone who was confused as to the position you were arguing from and reacted strongly to it, I apologize for misunderstanding your position and the vitriol that misunderstanding generated. I understand now that you are not advocating for the position that allowing any player concept makes a person a better GM. This was the point of contention for me and realizing that this is not what you are arguing for changes my point of view regarding your posts. I apologize for reacting strongly to something that was not your position.
I agree that your players deserve every opportunity to express and explore the character concepts that they come up with and the GM should give due concern in evaluating their place within the game. The players are the lifeblood of the game and the entire point of getting together is to entertain each other with our imagination and some dice. While I think the players deserve consideration I also believe that the GM deserves consideration as well. In many ways the setting itself is the GM's character and some GM's put a lot of work into developing an interesting and fun setting.
Dismissing this work and not giving it consideration is what irks some GM's when a player creates a character outside the bounds of the setting. In the example you gave Kirth your player put in work and helped develop a new area of your game world. This is a great example of how it should work in that you are both collaborating on the setting and developed something you both like. The key being that you were both...
Eeeeeeeeeexactly.
Dawg,
Thanks for the detailed reply; it definitely helps in understanding your position. I appreciate that. Some specific thoughts:
While I think the players deserve consideration I also believe that the GM deserves consideration as well.
I totally agree.
In many ways the setting itself is the GM's character and some GM's put a lot of work into developing an interesting and fun setting.
Hopefully we can even say this about "Most GMs." Certainly it seems to be true of most people on the thread.
When the two sides disagree whose like wins out, the player or the GMs?
I've tried to be consistent and clear in pointing out my belief that (with the exception of a small number of 1-on-1 games), there are generally more than two people involved (ususally ~5 people, including some players and 1 or more DMs) -- and, therefore, decisions affecting the group should be made by ALL those concerned, not just two of them. If a clear majority emerges (and it usually does, after discussion), then that should probably carry the most weight, unless specific circumstances contra-indicate that.
The setting purity argument is bunk in the sense that believing a player could never contribute positively to your setting is ridiculous because the whole point of making a setting is so players can play in it. However this doesn't mean that every idea a player comes up with is good and the GM isn't obligated to include every idea into their setting.
This is a very good summary of my thoughts.
In this sense the purity argument is a good one, the GM should endeavor to imagine the best setting for his players to play in that they can within the context that the setting is sort of the GMs character and they need to find enjoyment in the process to. This means saying no when the GM believes they should say no to preserve the purity of their idea for the setting which is kind of like a character for them.
I think this might be where our views diverge somewhat, insofar as I'm not big on unilateral setting decisions coming from anyone unless there's overall agreement; see above.
I am lucky in that my players trust me, one of the best campaigns we ever had I made the characters for them and they chose one and customized it a bit and off we went.
Sounds like there was pretty unanimous agreement with how you handled it, and I'd therefore expect it to work out. Group agreement is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a great campaign, so I'd suggest this also demonstrates that you're a good DM as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the two sides disagree whose like wins out, the player or the GMs?I've tried to be consistent and clear in pointing out my belief that (with the exception of a small number of 1-on-1 games), there are generally more than two people involved (ususally ~5 people, including some players and 1 or more DMs) -- and, therefore, decisions affecting the group should be made by ALL those concerned, not just two of them. If a clear majority emerges (and it usually does, after discussion), then that should probably carry the most weight, unless specific circumstances contra-indicate that.
The setting purity argument is bunk in the sense that believing a player could never contribute positively to your setting is ridiculous because the whole point of making a setting is so players can play in it. However this doesn't mean that every idea a player comes up with is good and the GM isn't obligated to include every idea into their setting.This is a very good summary of my thoughts.
In this sense the purity argument is a good one, the GM should endeavor to imagine the best setting for his players to play in that they can within the context that the setting is sort of the GMs character and they need to find enjoyment in the process to. This means saying no when the GM believes they should say no to preserve the purity of their idea for the setting which is kind of like a character for...
I agree that everyone involved in the game should have input into the game. When I ask who should win out when it comes down to the player and the GM disagreeing I agree that what the other people involved think is probably what is going to decide it, but sometimes the other players don't have a strong feeling either way. In that circumstance I think the person with the like should give in to the other persons dislike because a like can be replaced with another like where you can't just change something you dislike.
If all the other players love the character and want to play with that character then the GM should include it, and either change their setting or use a different one. Or if the other players don't like the character concept and want to play in the GMs setting as envisioned maybe that player shouldn't play in that game.
My players are all my friends and we play 2 or 3 times a week in different games so a person opting out isn't that bad. I realize others don't have this option and in the circumstance that an excluded player wouldn't get to play at all then it should be given extra consideration (by the player as well).
The process is a give and take, sometimes the player should cave to the GM, they may find that they have a great time if they roll with it, and other times the GM should cave to the player, they may find a great new piece of their setting which makes it better. In the end everyone is on the same team with a unified goal of everyone having fun. As long as everyone involved is dedicated to that goal (Player and GM) then everything else will work itself out.