People!
Are we really continuing to argue this? The creativity of a DM is not measured based upon how much he can shove into a campaign, it is measured by how much fun you and the group had during the game. Who ever thinks differently really needs to step back and take another look at that belief.
If you want your special snowflake and the DM says no then don't play if you are that adament about it. Nobody can force someone to play just like no one can force a DM to allow something he doesn't want in his game.
Not true. Creativity can absolutely be measured by well a GM can include something, while it cannot be measured by the fun one has. I had fun watching Michael Bay's Transformer movies. I would not deign to call them creative (or artistic...)
A GM can absolutely say no, not every is experienced/imaginative and its fine for GMs that aren't to do that. And they must be one of those, cause otherwise their kind of being petty don't you think?
Exactly correct! I'm not arguing you should have catfolk in James Bond. I'm arguing you should have catfolk in a system that has catfolk (like say... Pathfinder). Your examples would be trying to run a character in a system that isn't made for it. Like a catfolk in Mouseguard. A person who wants to play a catfolk in Mouseguard though is very different from a person who shows up to a Pathfinder game with an awakened pony wizard. One of those is viable option in the system, the other isn't. Can you tell me which?Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
What would be akin would be saying no Tribal Pygmies in Die Hard.
Or Amish in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or Koko, the sign language chimp in Saving Private Ryan.
Because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean it makes sense. And it certainly doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the game, which should be goal.
Everything I listed exists in the setting in which it occurred. There are Pygmies in the Die Hard Universe, Amish in the 2001 Universe, Chimps capable of learning sign language presumable could exist during WWII.
Because in one corner of a fantasy universe something exists doesn't mean it...
A pygmy plus New York city cop sounds like a fantastic buddy cop movie, I dare say you've misjudged or misunderstand the genre.
And no there are not pygmies in Die Hard or Amish in 2001. They are not included in the movies and no mention is made of them in the setting. Awakened pony wizards however are in Pathfinder Core.
The creativity of a DM is not measured based upon how much he can shove into a campaign, it is measured by how much fun you and the group had during the game.
I quibble with this, insofar as one cannot practically and realistically measure "fun."
For a few vocal people, what is meant by "everyone had fun" is "the DM got everything he wanted, so of course he had fun, and none of the players shot at him, so they must have had fun, too -- and, besides, we all know that the DM knows best what's fun for everyone."
For most others, including myself, "everyone had fun" pretty much means "All of the players, including the DM, were glad they spent the time doing that, instead of something else."
For a very few people, it might mean "eveyone got exactly what they wanted," which I personally don't see as a particularly useful or obtainable goal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People!
Are we really continuing to argue this? The creativity of a DM is not measured based upon how much he can shove into a campaign, it is measured by how much fun you and the group had during the game. Who ever thinks differently really needs to step back and take another look at that belief.
If you want your special snowflake and the DM says no then don't play if you are that adament about it. Nobody can force someone to play just like no one can force a DM to allow something he doesn't want in his game.
Not true. Creativity can absolutely be measured by well a GM can include something, while it cannot be measured by the fun one has. I had fun watching Michael Bay's Transformer movies. I would not deign to call them creative (or artistic...)
A GM can absolutely say no, not every is experienced/imaginative and its fine for GMs that aren't to do that. And they must be one of those, cause otherwise their kind of being petty don't you think?
Look, you obviously have a lot to learn about role playing games because 'sandbox' or 'kitchen sink' style games are just a fraction of the types of games out there. Also, you are mistaking won't for can't. I could fit practically anything I wanted into a campaign but I choose not to depending on the type of game I'm going for.
Basically what you are trying to do is strong arm a DM into letting you play whatever you want to play through insulting their creativity.
If only the transformer movies had awakened pony wizards...that would have been Oscar worthy.I hear the next one is going to include a wisecracking grizzled old mule ranger who's a Grand Canyon veteran. :)
See Kthulu, when we open ourselves to new ideas we can have amazing things like this.
Dude, why I disagree with Anzyr in general, changing practically anything about the Transformers movies would likely have improved them.
kthulhu, must we fight in every thread?
Dude, why I disagree with Anzyr in general, changing practically anything about the Transformers movies would likely have improved them.
In that particular case, even that awakened pony wizard might have been an improvement.
EDIT: Damn, Ciretose beat me to it :)
Having a player make everyone into aquaman because of a grey reading of the rules kind of sucks.I don't know why everyone rags on Aquaman.
anyone who lives along a coastline should respect him.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no there are not pygmies in Die Hard or Amish in 2001. They are not included in the movies and no mention is made of them in the setting. Awakened pony wizards however are in Pathfinder Core.
Both are set on "Earth" (or earth and the solar system) sy The things I mention are as prevalent, if not significantly more prevalent on earth than your awakened pony wizard is on Golarion.
But please keep posting. I look forward to linking to this thread in the future.
|
|
The creativity of a DM is not measured based upon how much he can shove into a campaign, it is measured by how much fun you and the group had during the game.I quibble with this, insofar as one cannot practically and realistically measure "fun."
For a few vocal people, what is meant by "everyone had fun" is "the DM got everything he wanted, so of course he had fun, and none of the players shot at him, so they must have had fun, too -- and, besides, we all know that the DM knows best what's fun for everyone."
For most others, including myself, "everyone had fun" pretty much means "All of the players, including the DM, were glad they spent the time doing that, instead of something else."
For a very few people, it might mean "eveyone got exactly what they wanted," which I personally don't see as a particularly useful or obtainable goal.
When you show up for the next installment of the campaign then it is assumed you had some measure of fun. Let's not break into an argument of semantics please, you know exactly what I meant in my post.
People!
Are we really continuing to argue this? The creativity of a DM is not measured based upon how much he can shove into a campaign, it is measured by how much fun you and the group had during the game. Who ever thinks differently really needs to step back and take another look at that belief.
If you want your special snowflake and the DM says no then don't play if you are that adament about it. Nobody can force someone to play just like no one can force a DM to allow something he doesn't want in his game.
Not true. Creativity can absolutely be measured by well a GM can include something, while it cannot be measured by the fun one has. I had fun watching Michael Bay's Transformer movies. I would not deign to call them creative (or artistic...)
A GM can absolutely say no, not every is experienced/imaginative and its fine for GMs that aren't to do that. And they must be one of those, cause otherwise their kind of being petty don't you think?
Look, you obviously have a lot to learn about role playing games because 'sandbox' or 'kitchen sink' style games are just a fraction of the types of games out there. Also, you are mistaking won't for can't. I could fit practically anything I wanted into a campaign but I choose not to depending on the type of game I'm going for.
Basically what you are trying to do is strong arm a DM into letting you play whatever you want to play through insulting their creativity.
I am mostly a GM. I consider this solid advice for GMs. I'm not saying inexperienced or unimaginative GMs should include these. I'm saying those with enough experience and imagination to make them work should and that the inexperienced and unimaginative GMs should become more experienced or broaden their horizons so that eventually they can make awakened pony wizards fit in a system where rules for playing one are a core assumption of the setting.
Nothing wrong with encouraging people to better themselves in a craft (GMing in this case) is there?
The goal is to make something better. Not worse.
Then we need to define "better" a lot better. "Better" in only the DM's opinion? In only one player's opinion? In the majority opinion?
Also, "better" in terms of a more consistent setting? Or in terms of more freedom of options?
And no there are not pygmies in Die Hard or Amish in 2001. They are not included in the movies and no mention is made of them in the setting. Awakened pony wizards however are in Pathfinder Core.Both are set on "Earth" (or earth and the solar system) sy The things I mention are as prevalent, if not significantly more prevalent on earth than your awakened pony wizard is on Golarion.
But please keep posting. I look forward to linking to this thread in the future.
I hope you do. Some aspiring GMs might learn how to be more creative and go out of their way to become experienced in the rules. Which is a plus in my book!
(Also if the Die Hard setting had a rulebook, no Pygmies would appear in it since they are not mentioned. You assume they are in the setting but you know what they about assuming...)
|
|
Nothing wrong with encouraging people to better themselves in a craft (GMing in this case) is there?
Unless they are players, in which case asking them to come up with something that people actually want to have in the game is to much to ask...
Man am I going to link to this thread often. This is gold you are giving me. Thank you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was pushed to measure "fun", it would be something along the lines of:
The group seemed pretty happy and excited during the game, didn't look bored or find alternative things to do when it wasn't their turn, and nobody fell asleep during the game. Plus, nobody came to me after and said "If you're insane enough to let Bob come back with his awakened pony wizard next week, you can count me out of the campaign."
On the other hand, if the other players are complaining to me that I've let the game descend to constant parody levels, there's a problem. Well, unless we've been playing Paranoia.
|
|
The goal is to make something better. Not worse.Then we need to define "better" a lot better. "Better" in only the DM's opinion? In only one player's opinion? In the majority opinion?
Also, "better" in terms of a more consistent setting? Or in terms of more freedom of options?
You saw the flowchart. It really is that simple.
If you bring something to the table and the response is "meh" you should probably rethink it and strive for "That sounds cool" or "awesome!"
You have just as much responsibility to try to make the game enjoyable for everyone as the GM does. If you are causing problems you are, by definition, causing problems.
When you show up for the next installment of the campaign then it is assumed you had some measure of fun. Let's not break into an argument of semantics please, you know exactly what I meant in my post.I quibble with this, insofar as one cannot practically and realistically measure "fun."
(1) For a few vocal people, what is meant by "everyone had fun" is "the DM got everything he wanted, so of course he had fun, and none of the players shot at him, so they must have had fun, too -- and, besides, we all know that the DM knows best what's fun for everyone."
(2) For most others, including myself, "everyone had fun" pretty much means "All of the players, including the DM, were glad they spent the time doing that, instead of something else."
(3) For a very few people, it might mean "eveyone got exactly what they wanted," which I personally don't see as a particularly useful or obtainable goal.
That's just it. I'm assuming you mean #1. I'm assuming Anzyr means #3. I mean #2. And that means none of the three of us can even agree on what we're disagreeing about. "Semantics" isn't irrelevant, in this case -- it's the key blockage to communication.
|
|
That's just it. I'm assuming you mean #1. I'm assuming Anzyr means #3. I mean #2. And that means none of the three of us can even agree on what we're disagreeing about. "Semantics" isn't irrelevant, in this case -- it's the key blockage to communication.When you show up for the next installment of the campaign then it is assumed you had some measure of fun. Let's not break into an argument of semantics please, you know exactly what I meant in my post.The creativity of a DM is not measured based upon how much he can shove into a campaign, it is measured by how much fun you and the group had during the game.I quibble with this, insofar as one cannot practically and realistically measure "fun."
(1) For a few vocal people, what is meant by "everyone had fun" is "the DM got everything he wanted, so of course he had fun, and none of the players shot at him, so they must have had fun, too -- and, besides, we all know that the DM knows best what's fun for everyone."
(2) For most others, including myself, "everyone had fun" pretty much means "All of the players, including the DM, were glad they spent the time doing that, instead of something else."
(3) For a very few people, it might mean "eveyone got exactly what they wanted," which I personally don't see as a particularly useful or obtainable goal.
If only the GM had fun, most of the time the campaign dies quickly.
It is hard enough to get people to come to things they want to come to, let alone crappy games.
People should want to game with other people, not with racist caricature dwarf #8.
If Steve wants to play an Awakened Pony Wizard in a setting that allows for, I would assume people are there to game with Steve. And if Steve wants to play said Awakened Pony Wizard, I would hope that Joe playing his Dark Elf bimbo is mature enough to let Steve play the character he wants to.
If only the GM had fun, most of the time the campaign dies quickly.
I would also hope that would be true, but sadly I've seen it turn out otherwise in many cases.
|
|
If only the GM had fun, most of the time the campaign dies quickly.I would also hope that would be true, but sadly I've seen it turn out otherwise in many cases.
Which is as much the fault of the players as the GM.
If you give an idiot the keys to the car and they do something idiotic...
If you decide to let someone take 4 hours of your life once, shame on them.
If you keep coming back week after week...shame on you.
|
|
People should want to game with other people, not with racist caricature dwarf #8.
If Steve wants to play an Awakened Pony Wizard in a setting that allows for, I would assume people are there to game with Steve. And if Steve wants to play said Awakened Pony Wizard, I would hope that Joe playing his Dark Elf bimbo is mature enough to let Steve play the character he wants to.
I want to play an Amish Necrophiliac in a Sci-Fi modern setting.
Or a flat-earth believer in a space setting!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The goal is to make something better. Not worse.Then we need to define "better" a lot better. "Better" in only the DM's opinion? In only one player's opinion? In the majority opinion?
Also, "better" in terms of a more consistent setting? Or in terms of more freedom of options?
"Better": Overall, the group were happier with the game than they would have been with the "worse" alternative.
Which involves some extrapolation of how happy they would have been with that alternative, yes, but being able to do that is all part of putting a group together that works. At the end of the day, *that* is the thing, not whether you allow X or Y or ban Z. You know what your group wants out of the game, and ensure it stays on track so as to avoid doing the things it doesn't want happening in the game.
If you did it right, you've also found a group that gives you what *you* want out of the game. If not, then it's time to example your choice of group.
We're all different. Groups are all different. Saying it's right or wrong for a specific group to allow/disallow a specific thing just isn't possible.
Saying that you, personally, do not want to be in a group that allows [insert idea here] (or one that *disallows* it, if that's your thing) because it'll ruin your sense of immersion into the setting - and more importantly the style of story you want to be a part of in that setting - is just common sense.
That's just it. I'm assuming you mean #1. I'm assuming Anzyr means #3. I mean #2. And that means none of the three of us can even agree on what we're disagreeing about. "Semantics" isn't irrelevant, in this case -- it's the key blockage to communication.When you show up for the next installment of the campaign then it is assumed you had some measure of fun. Let's not break into an argument of semantics please, you know exactly what I meant in my post.I quibble with this, insofar as one cannot practically and realistically measure "fun."
(1) For a few vocal people, what is meant by "everyone had fun" is "the DM got everything he wanted, so of course he had fun, and none of the players shot at him, so they must have had fun, too -- and, besides, we all know that the DM knows best what's fun for everyone."
(2) For most others, including myself, "everyone had fun" pretty much means "All of the players, including the DM, were glad they spent the time doing that, instead of something else."
(3) For a very few people, it might mean "eveyone got exactly what they wanted," which I personally don't see as a particularly useful or obtainable goal.
Oh no, no no. My players have quite the struggle getting what they want in a campaign. There's all these enemies with backgrounds and motivations of their own getting their PCs way and foiling their plans. Every player is encourage to pursue their own goals, but I let the dice fall where they may (which is really why its fun, who wants to play a campaign where everything always goes as you plan?)
The only place "everyone should get what they want" is that players should be allowed to play the character they want to play. Why make Steve have to be a regular wizard when he has a great theme about an Awakened Pony Wizard who needs to learn the values of friendship, cooperation and that not everything can solved my magic.
No is making the GM run a zombie campaign when he doesn't want to, I don't see why a player should be forced to run a character different than the one they chose.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've figured out his disconnect.
Anzyr seems to be under the impression that Pathfinder is a setting.
Pathfinder is not a setting. Pathfinder is a ruleset.
In his mind awakened pony wizards exist within the ruleset and the ruleset = a setting therefore awakened pony wizards must exist in the setting.
Everything exists is a valid setting (not one I'd want to play in) but certainly valid.
What he's missing is that settings can be made by taking parts of a ruleset and not the whole of the ruleset.
It takes a creative and experienced GM to do it well though.
- Torger
P.S. either that or he's just trolling (quite well I might add)
|
|
That's just it. I'm assuming you mean #1. I'm assuming Anzyr means #3. I mean #2. And that means none of the three of us can even agree on what we're disagreeing about. "Semantics" isn't irrelevant, in this case -- it's the key blockage to communication.When you show up for the next installment of the campaign then it is assumed you had some measure of fun. Let's not break into an argument of semantics please, you know exactly what I meant in my post.I quibble with this, insofar as one cannot practically and realistically measure "fun."
(1) For a few vocal people, what is meant by "everyone had fun" is "the DM got everything he wanted, so of course he had fun, and none of the players shot at him, so they must have had fun, too -- and, besides, we all know that the DM knows best what's fun for everyone."
(2) For most others, including myself, "everyone had fun" pretty much means "All of the players, including the DM, were glad they spent the time doing that, instead of something else."
(3) For a very few people, it might mean "eveyone got exactly what they wanted," which I personally don't see as a particularly useful or obtainable goal.
Oh no, no no. My players have quite the struggle getting what they want in a campaign. There's all these enemies with backgrounds and motivations of their own getting their PCs way and foiling their plans. Every player is encourage to pursue their own goals, but I let the dice fall where they may (which is really why its fun, who wants to play a campaign where everything always goes as you plan?)
The only place "everyone should get what they want" is that players should be allowed to play the character they want to play. Why make Steve have to be a regular wizard when he has a great theme about an Awakened Pony Wizard who needs to learn the values of friendship, cooperation and that not everything can solved my magic.
No is making the GM run a zombie campaign...
You, as a player, have the right to refuse to play in a campaign but you must acknowledge the fact that you may be the only one not playing.
Where you continue to go wrong is you think a DM and a player are under equal situations but they are not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this thread has opened my eyes in one regard: I was considering thri-kreen an exotic race, but they're positively mundane next to an Awakened Pony Wizard.
People should want to game with other people, not with racist caricature dwarf #8.
If Steve wants to play an Awakened Pony Wizard in a setting that allows for, I would assume people are there to game with Steve. And if Steve wants to play said Awakened Pony Wizard, I would hope that Joe playing his Dark Elf bimbo is mature enough to let Steve play the character he wants to.
That's not how I usually find a group.
More often, I want to play game X, to build a story of style Y, and then seek players who want something similar.
I don't like the idea of straining my friendship with Steve by forcing myself to play a game I'm not enjoying with him (or vice versa). I'll find something we both enjoy (perhaps Steve enjoys watching Baseball?) and perhaps spend time with him doing that instead, as it doesn't really make sense to me to make my friends miserable in the time we spend together.
Alternatively, maybe Steve will be more at home in my lighthearted sci-fi game than my serious, gritty fantasy game?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No is making the GM run a zombie campaign when he doesn't want to, I don't see why a player should be forced to run a character different than the one they chose.
No, but the player may be making a GM run a campaign in which every mundane NPC in town has to have an astonishing tolerance for awakened velociraptors, there's a race of intelligent dinosaurs, or in which every arrival in a town starts with a stock "Oh, MY GOD! It's a monster!" scene. And, frankly, all three of those are pretty pervasive changes because a player wants to "be creative".
Just because something is in the rules doesn't mean it should be accommodated in every campaign or every setting using those rules. And that should go without making snide comments about someone's creativity or level of maturity.
Where you continue to go wrong is you think a DM and a player are under equal situations but they are not.
B.S. They're all playing a game with imaginary characters in an imaginary setting doing imaginary things. If they have different roles within that game, so be it, but playing the wizard shouldn't make Steve "more equal" than Bob, and playing the DM doesn't make me any "more" than TOZ or houstonderek.
If you think a GM hat makes you somehow better or more important than your actual friends, or makes your opinion somehow trump theirs, then I wouldn't be friends with you, wouldn't be gaming with you, and probably don't even want to talk with you.
More often, I want to play game X, to build a story of style Y, and then seek players who want something similar.
Good players aren't that common, in my experience. Almost always, I need to find them first, then ask everyone "what kind of story/setting do you guys want to play in?"
Pathfinder is not a setting. Pathfinder is a ruleset for running high fantasy. Awakened Pony Wizards are high fantasy (seriously talking horse is not new to the genre) and thanks to the magic of well... magic, High Fantasy settings can include virtually everything (including spaceships and robots which are staples of the Pathfinder's tabletop predecessors).
You can make Pathfinder a low magic setting, or a no magic setting sure, but there are other systems out there to use that are better suited for that, which is why I recommend using those instead of Pathfinder if thats the game you wish to run.
But seriously, Dragons and Awakened Pony Wizards either both make sense, or both don't make sense... Pathfinder is setting where both make sense.
Where you continue to go wrong is you think a DM and a player are under equal situations but they are not.B.S. They're all playing a game with imaginary characters in an imaginary setting doing imaginary things. If they have different roles within that game, so be it, but playing the wizard shouldn't make Steve "more equal" than Bob, and playing the DM doesn't make me any "more" than TOZ or houstonderek.
If you think a GM hat makes you somehow better or more important than your actual friends, or makes your opinion somehow trump theirs, then I wouldn't be friends with you, wouldn't be gaming with you, and probably don't even want to talk with you.
As a long time GM, I view GMs who consider their contribution to be greater or superior to everyone else's with the utmost disdain. Such individuals should really avoid GMing or adopt a better attitude. One of the first things I teach new GMs is to not be the DM of the Rings.
|
|
Where you continue to go wrong is you think a DM and a player are under equal situations but they are not.B.S. They're all playing a game with imaginary characters in an imaginary setting doing imaginary things. If they have different roles within that game, so be it, but playing the wizard shouldn't make Steve "more equal" than Bob, and playing the DM doesn't make me any "more" than TOZ or houstonderek.
If you think a GM hat makes you somehow better or more important than your actual friends, or makes your opinion somehow trump theirs, then I wouldn't be friends with you, wouldn't be gaming with you, and probably don't even want to talk with you.
Its not BS I'm afraid. I've been gaming for 28 years and I can tell you that the odds are far greater that you could be the only one who doesn't want to play while everyone else does. All a DM has to do is propose his game and its decided whether or not its played and all you have to do is show up with your character. You may refuse to play but you don't speak for everyone else.
|
|
As a long time GM, I view GMs who consider their contribution to be greater or superior to everyone else's with the utmost disdain. Such individuals should really avoid GMing or adopt a better attitude. One of the first things I teach new GMs is to not be the DM of the Rings.Where you continue to go wrong is you think a DM and a player are under equal situations but they are not.B.S. They're all playing a game with imaginary characters in an imaginary setting doing imaginary things. If they have different roles within that game, so be it, but playing the wizard shouldn't make Steve "more equal" than Bob, and playing the DM doesn't make me any "more" than TOZ or houstonderek.
If you think a GM hat makes you somehow better or more important than your actual friends, or makes your opinion somehow trump theirs, then I wouldn't be friends with you, wouldn't be gaming with you, and probably don't even want to talk with you.
Then how come the rule books give the final say so to the DM?
So would you guys also say then that NOTHING should be ADDED or you really arent playing pathfinder anymore? Or that, in essence, Pathfinder can ONLY be used if you play in Golarion with all options?
Pathfinder is not a setting. Pathfinder is a ruleset for running high fantasy. Awakened Pony Wizards are high fantasy (seriously talking horse is not new to the genre) and thanks to the magic of well... magic, High Fantasy settings can include virtually everything (including spaceships and robots which are staples of the Pathfinder's tabletop predecessors).
You can make Pathfinder a low magic setting, or a no magic setting sure, but there are other systems out there to use that are better suited for that, which is why I recommend using those instead of Pathfinder if thats the game you wish to run.
But seriously, Dragons and Awakened Pony Wizards either both make sense, or both don't make sense... Pathfinder is setting where both make sense.
So Space Above and Beyond is science fiction, so is Str Trek, so everythin that is in one should be in the other? The ruleset and the setting are not one and the same.
So would you guys also say then that NOTHING should be ADDED or you really arent playing pathfinder anymore? Or that, in essence, Pathfinder can ONLY be used if you play in Golarion with all options?There is no one true right way to play the game.
Uh -huh. Yup.
So would you guys also say then that NOTHING should be ADDED or you really arent playing pathfinder anymore? Or that, in essence, Pathfinder can ONLY be used if you play in Golarion with all options?
I'm saying the Pathfinder system should be used to run high fantasy (Which if you can think of something that doesn't fit in high fantasy try thinking a bit harder), which is what it was written for and if you don't want to run high fantasy, there are number of other quality TTRPGs whose rulesets are more in line with genre they want to play.
As a long time GM, I view GMs who consider their contribution to be greater or superior to everyone else's with the utmost disdain. Such individuals should really avoid GMing or adopt a better attitude. One of the first things I teach new GMs is to not be the DM of the Rings.
As a long time GM, I recognize this is more of a philosophical statement or political position than reality. The truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking. And if it's not but the other players want to play, I'm OK with sitting out. Same goes for when I'm GMing. If the players accept my pitch (and I'm OK if they don't), then I expect them to work with me not at cross purposes. If they can't, then it's clear that it's not time to play that particular campaign.
Its not BS I'm afraid. I've been gaming for 28 years and I can tell you...
...nothing at all, if duration is all that counts here, because I've got you trumped there. And, yeah, more than one player disagreeing is the norm in my experience, not the exception, even if the others are too polite to mention it.
But, like I keep saying, any DM should learn in far less than 28 years that it pays to screen your players in advance, so that the one dickwad guy never even comes up. I've somehow successfully avoided him for longer than you've been playing.