Drizzt is certainly 'special and unique' in a setting where good surface-dwelling drow never happen.
Why is a setting which doesn't have room for good drow a problem with the player who wants to play a good drow, not a problem with the setting? It sounds like the easiest way for everyone to get what they want is to drop the implausible and unrealistic restriction that all drow must be evil and cannot travel above ground.
[Claiming people who play special snowflakes are selfish, petty, malicious.]
That sure is a bunch of words condemning a lot of people and making up facts about their psychology.
[Claiming people who play special snowflakes can only play one character.]
Too true! Not only are the people who play characters I don't like selfish and mean, they are also unimaginative to boot! They truly are the worst kind of people! /s
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drizzt is certainly 'special and unique' in a setting where good surface-dwelling drow never happen.Why is a setting which doesn't have room for good drow a problem with the player who wants to play a good drow, not a problem with the setting? It sounds like the easiest way for everyone to get what they want is to drop the implausible and unrealistic restriction that all drow must be evil and cannot travel above ground.
[Claiming people who play special snowflakes are selfish, petty, malicious.]That sure is a bunch of words condemning a lot of people and making up facts about their psychology.
[Claiming people who play special snowflakes can only play one character.]Too true! Not only are the people who play characters I don't like selfish and mean, they are also unimaginative to boot! They truly are the worst kind of people! /s
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?
I don't think some of you quite understand the point of certain restrictions and storyline.
Here is the dilemma with your drow proposal. Let's say I allow you to play one but because of their common nature, which most people are aware of, your character ends up getting killed by a mob. Are you then going to call me a bad DM because I didn't ignore the obvious and just allow you to walk around in the open with no repercussions?
What if the other player's decide to kill you outright because they know the reputation of the drow?
When I build custom campaign worlds and I create a situation that bans a certain race from being played because of their part in the campaign I do it for a reason. You asking to play one anyway upsets that notion and actually takes away a part of what makes that campaign unique.
Just because you think it's a good idea doesn't make it one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, it's probably the LEAST important bit to explain.Eh, if "special snowflake" just means a character which disrupts the game, whence the name? I'd call such a character disruptive or something like that, not special nor a snowflake. As that's not the label being used, clearly there's more to being a special snowflake than disrupting the game. What else is there? I find "special" absurdly vague.
The root of the name, I believe, comes from the old saying that every snowflake is different, and therefore special.
This leads to the idea that being "Different" or "special" indicates some positive quality that makes it better.
Being different does not make you better. It just makes you different.
That isn't "bad" or "good" in and of itself. But it does indicate it is something that most people choose not to do, and there is generally a reason for that. Frankly, the reason is usually "That way is generally worse, hence why the rest of us don't choose that way."
And quite often, "special" is simply attention seeking for the person rather than what the actual goal you want from everyone involved: Making the game more fun for everyone at the table.
If you come to the table with an idea that people don't like, you have failed at the primary goal you should have. To make something the group looks forward to playing with.
So at that point, why wouldn't you change?
And here lies the root of the problem. The failure of some people to realize that because they like an idea doesn't mean that idea is something others will like or enjoy.
Reasonable people, the kind I would play with, would not blink if they were told a single idea doesn't sound good by the GM or fellow players. They would realize "Oh, this group and this idea don't mix, I want to make the game enjoyayble, let me think of something else."
Even more reasonable people come to the table with many ideas, rather than one.
But some, unreasonable people, feel what they want > what the group wants.
And to often some on the messageboard applaud and encourage this behavior.
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?
To an extent? Because I'm a player, and changing the setting is what players do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?To an extent? Because I'm a player, and changing the setting is what players do.
Incorrect.
Player's change the setting while staying with in it's boundaries that were set forth by the DM before the game even started.
I think you are confused when it comes to changing a setting.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps we should come up with a label for people whose brown-haired white male human fighters with greatswords ruin everyone else's fun.
And I would say that is fine. Your table, your rules.
What is frustrating for the rest of us is you not being willing to extend the same courtesy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps we should come up with a label for people whose brown-haired white male human fighters with greatswords ruin everyone else's fun.
And I would say that is fine. Your table, your rules.
What is frustrating for the rest of us is you not being willing to extend the same courtesy.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Holy Moses this right here!
The only thing I am arguing here is the fact that I have a right to restrict a campaign I am running in anyway I choose.
Some of you can't acknowledge that you don't get to have what you want at every table you sit at.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?
Because injecting the tiniest bit of nuance into the idea of an evil race is changing an entire setting. *rolls eyes*
Here is the dilemma with your drow proposal. Let's say I allow you to play one but because of their common nature, which most people are aware of, your character ends up getting killed by a mob. Are you then going to call me a bad DM because I didn't ignore the obvious and just allow you to walk around in the open with no repercussions?
There's a few ways to solve this. The most obvious is to not have any always CE races. As a nice bonus, this also adds to the realism and believability of the setting. Or you could take the route Golarion takes, where drow are mostly unknown and wouldn't be recognized by most people. Or the campaign could take place in a nation which believes in the rule of law; drow may be looked at with suspicion, but unless they commit crimes, they won't be harmed. Or someone in the party with high diplomacy can be the first to enter towns and convince the villagers to be welcoming to the good drow in the party. Or the drow character could have ranks in disguise. Or a hat of disguise. Or, especially as the party gets higher level, tales of the heroic good drow travelling around fighting evil would spread, and the drow character would be treated as a hero by NPCs.
This was all off the top of my head. It's really not a hard "problem" to solve.
You asking to play one anyway upsets that notion and actually takes away a part of what makes that campaign unique.
Sounds like that campaign is a special snowflake, concerned about being unique to the detriment of everyone else's fun. :P
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?To an extent? Because I'm a player, and changing the setting is what players do.Incorrect.
Player's change the setting while staying with in it's boundaries that were set forth by the DM before the game even started.
I think you are confused when it comes to changing a setting.
I'm entirely confident that as a player I've changed settings in ways the DM didn't even consider before the game started.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?To an extent? Because I'm a player, and changing the setting is what players do.
OMG player entitlement! Don't you realize that the world and the game are the DMs and players aren't allowed any influence? All you should be doing as a player is participating in their novel and letting them show off the cool and special and unique world building they thought up!
The only thing I am arguing here is the fact that I have a right to restrict a campaign I am running in anyway I choose.
Oh hey, a one sentence summary of what makes for a bad DM.
|
|
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?Because injecting the tiniest bit of nuance into the idea of an evil race is changing an entire setting. *rolls eyes*
Here is the dilemma with your drow proposal. Let's say I allow you to play one but because of their common nature, which most people are aware of, your character ends up getting killed by a mob. Are you then going to call me a bad DM because I didn't ignore the obvious and just allow you to walk around in the open with no repercussions?There's a few ways to solve this. The most obvious is to not have any always CE races. As a nice bonus, this also adds to the realism and believability of the setting. Or you could take the route Golarion takes, where drow are mostly unknown and wouldn't be recognized by most people. Or the campaign could take place in a nation which believes in the rule of law; drow may be looked at with suspicion, but unless they commit crimes, they won't be harmed. Or someone in the party with high diplomacy can be the first to enter towns and convince the villagers to be welcoming to the good drow in the party. Or the drow character could have ranks in disguise. Or a hat of disguise. Or, especially as the party gets higher level, tales of the heroic good drow travelling around fighting evil would spread, and the drow character would be treated as a hero by NPCs.
This was all off the top of my head. It's really not a hard "problem" to solve.
You asking to play one anyway upsets that notion and actually takes away a part of what makes that campaign unique.Sounds like that campaign is a special snowflake, concerned about being unique to the detriment of everyone else's fun. :P
But that is what I envisioned the race as. What gives you the right to change the game around just so you can play a race that I have banned? Nothing is the answer that you refuse to accept.
All you need to do in this instance is vote "no" to play it and either don't play it or play something that has been allowed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should the entire setting have to change just for you?To an extent? Because I'm a player, and changing the setting is what players do.OMG player entitlement! Don't you realize that the world and the game are the DMs and players aren't allowed any influence? All you should be doing as a player is participating in their novel and letting them show off the cool and special and unique world building they thought up!
The only thing I am arguing here is the fact that I have a right to restrict a campaign I am running in anyway I choose.Oh hey, a one sentence summary of what makes for a bad DM.
Oh hey look, it's the mark of a bad player.
Now what?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that is what I envisioned the race as. What gives you the right to change the game around just so you can play a race that I have banned? Nothing is the answer that you refuse to accept.
At least a couple of those (using diplomacy or using disguise) don't make any changes to how the race is perceived.
You can't play your drow in my game.
I gave it some thought and it just won't work.
Frankly, I don't think you gave it much thought. I gave it a couple minutes of thought and I came up with about half a dozen ways to make it work, some of which can be implemented without changing anything about the setting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Vivianne
You can't play your drow in my game.
I gave it some thought and it just won't work.
Or Vivianne, I've thought about your idea and I think it will cause a great deal of problems for the party if I'm going to keep the setting we all agreed to play in.
Can you think of any other ideas that may cause less disruption?
So to be clear, you being able to play your idea is more important than the ideas of your fellow players and GM.
And/or you can only play one option that will make you happy, so others must be happy with the idea you have.
What part of that is incorrect?
Where did someone say that? Either of those things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to be clear, you being able to play your idea is more important than the ideas of your fellow players and GM.
And/or you can only play one option that will make you happy, so others must be happy with the idea you have.
What part of that is incorrect?
To be fair Cire, no one in this thread is in the position of having the consensus of a table on their side; it's once again descended into everyone talking past each other about how no one else will compromise.
Good GMs account for their player's preferences, and good players account for their GM's preferences. Beyond that point it's all just special snowflake vs special snowscape.
|
|
Where did someone say that? Either of those things?So to be clear, you being able to play your idea is more important than the ideas of your fellow players and GM.
And/or you can only play one option that will make you happy, so others must be happy with the idea you have.
What part of that is incorrect?
No offense but are you blind or are you choosing to read what you want to read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, you misunderstand my position. But I think you know that.
My contention is that the conflict between the "special snowflake" character and the rest of players and the setting is overstated. It's possible for everyone to have what they want (unless what you want is to micromanage the choices of others). In the example of playing a good-aligned drow, I listed a few ways a player could do this while everyone else players the characters/DMs the campaign they want.
When I DM or play, I want other people to play characters they want to play. People are more invested in roleplaying and in the game that way which makes it overall more enjoyable. Even in cases where people have played characters I haven't liked, I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do. I don't need my friends to completely conform to what I like in order to enjoy playing Pathfinder with them. Because I have this attitude, I have personally never had any problems with "special snowflake" characters. I've never felt that one of my friends playing the character they want to play was ruining the game for me.
I think the easiest way to resolve this alleged conflict, the way that is the most fun for the most people, is to not try to force your friends to only do what you want.
|
|
So to be clear, you being able to play your idea is more important than the ideas of your fellow players and GM.
And/or you can only play one option that will make you happy, so others must be happy with the idea you have.
What part of that is incorrect?
To be fair Cire, no one in this thread is in the position of having the consensus of a table on their side; it's once again descended into everyone talking past each other about how no one else will compromise.
Good GMs account for their player's preferences, and good players account for their GM's preferences. Beyond that point it's all just special snowflake vs special snowscape.
But we are discussing the point where the group has voted to play the game.
See where I wrote "talking past each other?"
Or Vivianne, I've thought about your idea and I think it will cause a great deal of problems for the party if I'm going to keep the setting we all agreed to play in.
Can you think of any other ideas that may cause less disruption?
Sure, I'll play along with this make-believe that you're a DM and I'm one of your players.
What's disruptive about a character who disguises herself as an elf everywhere they go? There's even a 2nd level spell in the ARG to do this for 24 hours, so it's really easy. I can even use a mundane disguise on top of the spell, so that if it's dispelled there's no issue.
|
|
But that is what I envisioned the race as. What gives you the right to change the game around just so you can play a race that I have banned? Nothing is the answer that you refuse to accept.At least a couple of those (using diplomacy or using disguise) don't make any changes to how the race is perceived.
Frankly, I don't think you gave it much thought. I gave it a couple minutes of thought and I came up with about half a dozen ways to make it work, some of which can be implemented without changing anything about the setting.You can't play your drow in my game.
I gave it some thought and it just won't work.
So now you are giving me a time limit in which I need to think about it?
Im sorry but your value as a player is not enough to put up with this kind of behaviour.
|
|
Ciretose, you misunderstand my position. But I think you know that.
My contention is that the conflict between the "special snowflake" character and the rest of players and the setting is overstated. It's possible for everyone to have what they want (unless what you want is to micromanage the choices of others). In the example of playing a good-aligned drow, I listed a few ways a player could do this while everyone else players the characters/DMs the campaign they want.
When I DM or play, I want other people to play characters they want to play. People are more invested in roleplaying and in the game that way which makes it overall more enjoyable. Even in cases where people have played characters I haven't liked, I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do. I don't need my friends to completely conform to what I like in order to enjoy playing Pathfinder with them. Because I have this attitude, I have personally never had any problems with "special snowflake" characters. I've never felt that one of my friends playing the character they want to play was ruining the game for me.
I think the easiest way to resolve this alleged conflict, the way that is the most fun for the most people, is to not try to force your friends to only do what you want.
And you seem to be saying that not being interested in an idea is micromanaging.
Your list doesn't actually address the problem of a group not wishing to have to change things to accommodate someone who is unwilling to change to accommodate them.
Having a concept that others "can" fit is not the same as having a concept that fits in the same way that I "could" walk to work, but I have a car, so why would I?
You have provided a list of ways you seem to expect others to change to accommodate you, and how you think it is reasonable to expect people to make changes to do so.
I bolded the part where you say it isn't reasonable when the shoe is on the other foot.
This is the problem I have with your position. It is not "Everyone should be reasonable and work to consensus" but rather "Everyone else should be reasonable and work to do what I want to do"
|
|
Or Vivianne, I've thought about your idea and I think it will cause a great deal of problems for the party if I'm going to keep the setting we all agreed to play in.
Can you think of any other ideas that may cause less disruption?
Sure, I'll play along with this make-believe that you're a DM and I'm one of your players.
What's disruptive about a character who disguises herself as an elf everywhere they go? There's even a 2nd level spell in the ARG to do this for 24 hours, so it's really easy. I can even use a mundane disguise on top of the spell, so that if it's dispelled there's no issue.
Vivianne, I don't wish to have conflict at the table or to add difficulty to the party, and I am uncomfortable with the amount of effort that will be required by all of us to make this concept work in the setting we discussed and we all agreed to.
If you want to bow out because of this, I'll understand, but this concept isn't going to work. What other ideas do you have?
|
|
Where did someone say that? Either of those things?So to be clear, you being able to play your idea is more important than the ideas of your fellow players and GM.
And/or you can only play one option that will make you happy, so others must be happy with the idea you have.
What part of that is incorrect?
So what part is incorrect?
So what part is incorrect?
The part where anyone thinks either of those things maybe? I mean, I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm asking if anyone actually said those things.
|
|
So what part is incorrect?The part where anyone thinks either of those things maybe? I mean, I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm asking if anyone actually said those things.
Sure. Taking each one and explaining the logic of why this seems to be the opinion I am observing..
"So to be clear, you being able to play your idea is more important than the ideas of your fellow players and GM."
If your idea is not more important the ideas of your fellow players or your GM, what issue would you have coming up with an idea that they actually like if you find they don't like your idea.
So if you insist, you are saying "Your feelings about this matter are less important than my feelings. I wish for this thing, and you are wrong if you do not provide it, regardless of what you wish for."
Second sentence.
"And/or you can only play one option that will make you happy, so others must be happy with the idea you have."
If you have more than one option you can play and enjoy, why insist on the idea that others don't care for?
So, we come down to this.
If you propose an idea, and the GM or Group don't like it, what reason do you have for insisting they run it for you anyway, other than the above two?
Straight question.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what part is incorrect?The part where anyone thinks either of those things maybe? I mean, I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm asking if anyone actually said those things.
Honestly, Sin, I think half the posters in the thread are operating on the assumption that a snowflake is a player who chooses a game-wrecking character just to wreck the game, and the other half are operating on the assumption that a snowflake is character with a detailed backstory.
...And never shall the twain meet!!
So now you are giving me a time limit in which I need to think about it?
Im sorry but your value as a player is not enough to put up with this kind of behaviour.
That's a hilarious misunderstanding of what I said. I said that I came up with those half dozen or so ideas in a few minutes, not that you had only a few minutes to come up with ideas. You said you had given the matter "some thought" and determined that such a character couldn't work with the setting. But I quickly listed several ways to make the character work, some of which required all of zero change to the setting, which suggests that maybe you didn't give it as much thought as you claimed.
Vivianne, I don't wish to have conflict at the table or to add difficulty to the party, and I am uncomfortable with the amount of effort that will be required by all of us to make this concept work in the setting we discussed and we all agreed to.
No effort is required by anyone except me. I don't even intend to advertise being drow to the rest of the party. Sure, they might found out eventually, but I don't think it adds much conflict or difficulty to not kill the LG paladin/oracle who has been traveling with you for months.
Really it sounds like you are making up excuses to ban this character. Are you trying to ban a character just because you don't like it? That seems petty.
And so the group saying they don't like something should be all the indication you need to adjust.
What's this about the whole group saying something? Bill said he liked my idea for the drow paladin/oracle. It appears you are the only one who doesn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only experience with a special snowflake:
Me: So, I know you guys all died last time we played and are still kind of sore about all that, but, what were you thinking of playing for the next game?
Player: I want to be a gnome...
Me: Uh, well, you see, gnomes don't really exist in the Scarred Lands, maybe you'd rather be a half...
Player: ...A gnome artificer.
Me: Um, artificers are from Eberron, they don't exist in the Scarred Lands either.
Player: Yeah, well, that's what I want to play.
Me: Yeah, but you can't.
Player: Did I mention how I am the guy who brings the good weed to the game? How you guys always have dirt-brown shag, and I've always got nice stuff that tastes like fruit and has names like "Hyperbole"?
Me: So, you're a gnome artificer, huh? That's pretty neat...
|
|
Vivianne, I don't wish to have conflict at the table or to add difficulty to the party, and I am uncomfortable with the amount of effort that will be required by all of us to make this concept work in the setting we discussed and we all agreed to.No effort is required by anyone except me. I don't even intend to advertise being drow to the rest of the party. Sure, they might found out eventually, but I don't think it adds much conflict or difficulty to not kill the LG paladin/oracle who has been traveling with you for months.
Really it sounds like you are making up excuses to ban this character. Are you trying to ban a character just because you don't like it? That seems petty.
I disagree with you. And to be honest, no I don't particularly like the character very much. I don't think it would add to the fun of the group and I do think it will cause problems that will make the game more difficult and less fun. I think you could make something that would fit in better with the party and the rest of the group, and make the game more enjoyable for everyone. I can make suggestions if you like, but I would prefer you come up with some ideas and we can discuss them.
Additionally, I don't really appreciate you telling me I'm making up excuses when I'm trying to be direct with you about concerns I have with your concept being able to fit in this campaign. We discussed the setting, and this concept isn't going to work without everyone else having to make more accommodations than I think we should be asked to do for a concept that I don't feel adds much to the fun of the group.
Again, if you don't wish to play because this concept is not allowed, I will understand, but I would prefer you simply provide some new ideas that will fit in better with the setting we agreed to.
(Also, if this were a 1st level start campaign, your 2nd level spell doesn't work)
|
|
My only experience with a special snowflake:
Me: So, I know you guys all died last time we played and are still kind of sore about all that, but, what were you thinking of playing for the next game?
Player: I want to be a gnome...
Me: Uh, well, you see, gnomes don't really exist in the Scarred Lands, maybe you'd rather be a half...
Player: ...A gnome artificer.
Me: Um, artificers are from Eberron, they don't exist in the Scarred Lands either.
Player: Yeah, well, that's what I want to play.
Me: Yeah, but you can't.
Player: Did I mention how I am the guy who brings the good weed to the game? How you guys always have dirt-brown shag, and I've always got nice stuff that tastes like fruit and has names like "Hyperbole"?
Me: So, you're a gnome artificer, huh? That's pretty neat...
That player was increasing the fun for the entire party :)
I'm operating on the assumption everyone should be working to make the group happy, and not just to get what they personally want.
And so the group saying they don't like something should be all the indication you need to adjust.
I agree, but that means that, in a case where five people want to play five of the worst kind of snowflakes, and, as a whole, don't give two hoots about how the party fits into the setting, the GM should say, "Well, I guess my setting now has cat-folk, gearforged, thri-kreen, strix and awakened ponies in it," and, no insult, you've sort of been talking as if the setting is inviolate.
(Don't get me wrong, I think that campaign would be a mess; the only way I can imagine running it off the top of my head is a Matrix-style shared hallucination while everyone's brains get eaten by Mind Flayers. And, see, Mind Flayers aren't official PF material either, so right back atcha, snowflakes!)
|
|
If I do not want you to play a Drow character in my game, and I am unwilling to compromise on this
And you want to play a Drow character in my game and are unwilling to compromise on this
We problably should not play together
You are not a bad Player
I am not a bad Dungeon Master
We just want different experiences
And you ONLY want to play a Drow character in my game and are unwilling to compromise on this
|
|
I'm operating on the assumption everyone should be working to make the group happy, and not just to get what they personally want.
And so the group saying they don't like something should be all the indication you need to adjust.
I agree, but that means that, in a case where five people want to play five of the worst kind of snowflakes, and as whole, don't give to hoots about how the party fits into the setting, the GM should say, "Well, I guess my setting now has cat-folk, gearforged, thri-kreen, strix and awakened ponies in it," and, no insult, you've sort of been talking as if the setting is inviolate.
(Don't get me wrong, I think that campaign would be a mess; the only way I can imagine running it off the top of my head is a Matrix-style shared hallucination while everyone's brains get eaten by Mind Flayers. And, see, Mind Flayers aren't official PF material either, so right back atcha, snowflakes!)
Or decide he doesn't want to GM for that group.
I'm all for that group existing and having a great time. I'm not for that being what must happen, because, and I quote " I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do."
That player was increasing the fun for the entire party :)
It's true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, the funny thing about this farcical game of make-pretend is that I've provided arguments as to why this concept could fit in the setting and you've provided nothing but raw assertions. You're doing a good job roleplaying the unreasonable DM who refuses to compromise even in the most minor matters and doesn't have any reason besides "I must micromanage everyone else's choices". :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the easiest way to resolve this alleged conflict, the way that is the most fun for the most people, is to not try to force your friends to only do what you want.
And therein we have one of the big differences.
You're playing with friends.
I'm not. I'm playing with players I've just recruited that I probably never met before. I'm quite willing to say "no" to one of them rather than make major changes that could actually end up with one of the other players saying "This isn't the game I wanted, you've made changes.", and simply find another player.
However, some people prefer to simply not play something that one of their friends may dislike, and you'll find groups where people choose to do that.
As I'll repeat for the umpteeth time in this discussion: Not everyone thinks like you. Different personalities, different styles, different needs, and different thought patterns end up with different people doing things different ways.
One group of friends may get together and then decide what to do, and everyone tags along so the group can do it together.
One group of friends may have one person decide to do something, and those that wish to tag along go while those that don't like the sound of that activity go do something else.
Neither of those is badwrongfun. To each their own. We are all different. Insert various other silly quotes here.
The main issue in these threads is that a lot of people just don't get that and feel what works best for them should work best for everyone else, too.
It doesn't. Sometimes people just have to accept the way they do things is different to the way someone else does, and that the two may not be compatible.
Some players may ask the GM to change things. Some GMs may ask the player to change things. It's okay to ask. It's not okay to force the issue. If neither wants to make a change, then it's time for a parting of the ways, not for one or the other to make demands. We don't all have to play the same game together - something I'm eternally grateful for when I see just how far apart different people's styles and expectations are.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, the funny thing about this farcical game of make-pretend is that I've provided arguments as to why this concept could fit in the setting and you've provided nothing but raw assertions. You're doing a good job roleplaying the unreasonable DM who refuses to compromise even in the most minor matters and doesn't have any reason besides "I must micromanage everyone else's choices". :)
So again, you wanting to do it is more important than others not wanting you to do it..
I think the role play we are doing is excellent. I see a player who has only one idea accusing the GM of being close-minded without seeing the irony.
I'm operating on the assumption everyone should be working to make the group happy, and not just to get what they personally want.
And so the group saying they don't like something should be all the indication you need to adjust.
I agree, but that means that, in a case where five people want to play five of the worst kind of snowflakes, and as whole, don't give to hoots about how the party fits into the setting, the GM should say, "Well, I guess my setting now has cat-folk, gearforged, thri-kreen, strix and awakened ponies in it," and, no insult, you've sort of been talking as if the setting is inviolate.
(Don't get me wrong, I think that campaign would be a mess; the only way I can imagine running it off the top of my head is a Matrix-style shared hallucination while everyone's brains get eaten by Mind Flayers. And, see, Mind Flayers aren't official PF material either, so right back atcha, snowflakes!)
Or decide he doesn't want to GM for that group.
I'm all for that group existing and having a great time. I'm not for that being what must happen, because, and I quote " I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do."
Emphasis mine.
See, when you say stuff like that, it comes across as, "Everyone has to play characters I approve of, in my setting, or I'm taking my toys and going home."
Options have gotten wider with the OGL, but I used to play AD&D in a party with a Samurai, a Druid and a Jester; that's about as far from historically accurate as you can get, and it was great fun.
|
|
Or decide he doesn't want to GM for that group.
I'm all for that group existing and having a great time. I'm not for that being what must happen, because, and I quote " I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do."
Emphasis mine.
See, when you say stuff like that, it comes across as, "Everyone has to play characters I approve of, in my setting, or I'm taking my toys and going home."
Options have gotten wider with the OGL, but I used to play AD&D in a party with a Samurai, a Druid and a Jester; that's about as far from historically accurate as you can get, and it was great fun.
Yes.
If I don't think the game will be fun to run, I'm not going to run it.
Just like if I don't think the game is going to be fun, I not going to make a character to be a player in it.
Is there a part of this that you think is wrong? Must a GM run a game they don't enjoy running?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm beginning to like the sound of:
Group gets together and decides on a game.
One of the people that likes the idea gets to be GM. Anyone that hates the idea gets to leave and find another game.
Everyone wins, right?