What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1,751 to 1,800 of 2,339 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is my problem with the "GM needs to be open minded" position.

It isn't wrong that an open minded GM can make a campaign better. But it is wrong to say that whatever idea a player has will make a campaign better, and it is a double standard to say a player doesn't have to also be open minded to trying to play the setting that they agreed to play.

If a player can only come up with one concept, they aren't being creative or open minded.

If you really can't play in the setting the GM proposed, don't agree to play in the setting and then at the character creation phase refuse to do what you agreed to.

On more than one occasion a GM I generally play with proposed an idea I had no interest in playing. I didn't try to make them run what I wanted to play, I simply bowed out of that particular campaign.

What bothers me is when people demand anyone, on either side, do something they don't want to do.

You have no right to tell someone they must run a concept they don't want to run in the same way you have no right to tell a player they must play in a setting they don't want to play in.

As a GM, if I have an idea I like for a campaign that I propose to a player, they have every right to say "I don't like that idea, what else have you got?"

Why can't the GM do the same? If anything, given they were picked to be the GM, they should have at least the same right of refusal.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
It would bother me if I hadn't gotten any heads up about it, and when I tried to take a level in the class, the GM suddenly tossed up a requirement that had never been present before and was now impossible for me to meet this level.

And it would bother some GM's if you didn't give them a heads up as to what you planned to do with the concept in the future so the GM could figure out ways to work it into the plot.

Because some GM's actually like to be able to work things into the story so they make sense.


Why is it always so easy for you to assume that the player's suggestion will cause the story not to make sense?

There have been examples here of player input giving the campaign world more depth, instead of breaking it into pieces.


Icyshadow wrote:

Why is it always so easy for you to assume that the player's suggestion will cause the story not to make sense?

There have been examples here of player input giving the campaign world more depth, instead of breaking it into pieces.

I would have to say that I wouldn't have any reason to talk about the times where it wouldn't cause a problem because, well' it's not causing a problem' so it goes without comment. Generally you aren't saying no to things that don't or wouldn't cause any problems ...


ciretose wrote:
Here is my problem with the "GM needs to be open minded" position.

Are you equating "GM needs to be open minded" with "a GM must always say yes", because those two are not the same thing. Not remotely.

Liberty's Edge

Icyshadow wrote:

Why is it always so easy for you to assume that the player's suggestion will cause the story not to make sense?

There have been examples here of player input giving the campaign world more depth, instead of breaking it into pieces.

I'm not assuming. I'm letting the person who knows what the story is and who was put in charge of the setting be the one who makes that determination.

Why is it so easy for you to assume the GM doesn't know what the setting is and what would and would not make sense better than the player?

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Here is my problem with the "GM needs to be open minded" position.
Are you equating "GM needs to be open minded" with "a GM must always say yes", because those two are not the same thing. Not remotely.

I wrote a very long post explaining exactly what I meant.

That you haven't linked to the rest of it speaks volumes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The GM is functionally the cook for the setting. They are preparing the meal.

They say to everyone "I like Italian food, and I think I'm good at cooking italian food and I enjoy cooking Italian food, who wants Italian?"

Some people raise their hand.

"Awesome, what would you like me to make?"

First player says Fettucini Alfredo, second says some tuscan dish, next picks a Cicilian Dish. Diverse menu, lots of ingredients but all still Italian.

Last place comes up and says "I want sushi."

DM, "Well...sushi isn't Italian"

"But I like sushi, sushi is awesome."

DM "I don't make sushi"

"It isn't hard to do, you could learn how to make sushi. They could make sushi in Italy. I bet there are Sushi places in Italy, so it is totally Italian if you think about it."

DM "But I told you, I'm cooking Italian food and the offer was to cook Italian food, so you need to order something that is Italian."

"WHY WON'T YOU COMPROMISE!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:
Sometimes it is difficult to avoid being incendiary or insulting on these threads, but I have taken a vow to restrain myself as best I can. I will say, though, that the quotes above...well, they do not show the same restraint. What's more, they represent what seems to me a calcified and narrow-minded point of view that is entirely out of touch with the complexity of modern gaming culture.

*chuckle* Oh? I'm not sure what "restraint" you're talking about. Describing my group's reactions and giving an example isn't really out of line, I'm afraid. And my group's preferences/reactions are not up for debate.

And you say "calcified and narrow-minded point of view", "out of touch", and "complexity of modern gaming" as if it has any relevance and meaning to my group and I.

Quote:
Arnwyn, who said that anyone is being dishonest?

My group is saying it, of course, within the example I presented. (It was a familiar example, and thus I used it for my own purposes.) If a person previously agrees on playing DL, and then someone tries to bring in an orc or drow, that's being dishonest. They should have just said they weren't interested in playing DL in the first place. What I am not saying is that anyone in your particular situation was necessarily dishonest - I don't know how the information was presented and who agreed to what.

Quote:
The situation you mentioned regarding the Dragonlance game happened to me, but with some significant differences. The GM in question wanted to run Dragonlance and, out of his five players, two (of which I was one) were seriously underwhelmed by the idea, and the other three were more or less neutral about it. And I DID tell him that I was not especially interested in the Dragonlance setting, but it was all he wanted to run. So I said fine, but work with me regarding character leeway. Needless to say, he was recalcitrant.

*shrug* Whatever process works for your group. If you don't like it, don't play. The DM isn't obligated to run anything he/she doesn't like. If that's all he wanted to run, that's fine for him. If no one likes it choose a different DM. (More people need to come to the realization that no game is better than a bad game/game they won't enjoy. Though I have a hard time believing that that isn't patently obvious.)

Quote:
It's not as simple as "the GM isn't obligated to run something he doesn't like and the players aren't obligated to play something they don't like."

When it comes to people's free time and how they spend it, yes, it is. It is exactly that.

Quote:
And it's not "idiocy" to want to play X race, or to be less than thrilled with Y campaign setting, though I agree that players should be honest about their preferences

No, that's not idiocy, but thankfully that's not what I said. Please go back and reacquaint yourself with what I really said.

But I'm glad you at least admit people should be honest with their preferences. That's all I said.

Quote:
Now, you did say that the GM doesn't need to consider allowing (pick your poison) in an "agreed upon" game. But that is adding a parameter that I, at least, was not previously dealing with.

That's okay. I wasn't responding to you. (I just used the DL example because it seemed to be nice, clean, and concise for my example/illustration.)

Liberty's Edge

Again why is it assumed that a player wanting to play a special snowflake automatically means that it's going to ruin a story. Most of us in this thread come to a consensus that it's give and take on both sides. Yet imo it's always the player that seems to be screwed.

Or to use ciretose example.

DM: Sure you can have sushi just not this time around I'm cooking italian.

Player: (more realistic response instead of the worst case scenarios I'm seeing used here all the time).

Sure okay sushi next time.

I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.


memorax wrote:

Again why is it assumed that a player wanting to play a special snowflake automatically means that it's going to ruin a story. Most of us in this thread come to a consensus that it's give and take on both sides. Yet imo it's always the player that seems to be screwed.

Or to use ciretose example.

DM: Sure you can have sushi just not this time around I'm cooking italian.

Player: (more realistic response instead of the worst case scenarios I'm seeing used here all the time).

Sure okay sushi next time.

I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.

Because you aren't going to post about having problems with the people you don't have problems with?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them

Possibly, depending on existing relationship, cooking skills, other nearby food options.

Quote:
while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence.

Strawman. Nobody's done this, anywhere. Stop it.

Quote:
All because the cook has to break a sweat.

How much cooking experience does he/she have? How much time does he/she have? What are his/her other options? How much interest does he/she have in cooking?

Having to "break a sweat" isn't necessarily a good thing. In fact, given time constraints, other responsibilities, other options, etc. it is often a bad thing. (Generally, when we're talking about entertainment time - of which there are a lot of competing options - having to "break a sweat" is almost always a bad thing.)

Quote:
Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.

Dunno. The players are free to not play. They are free to get a different DM that will cater to their desires and/or DM those types of things themselves. Why aren't the players doing that?

But: "I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players."

Gotta totally agree with that. For the love of pete, if you don't like half-oozes or 'homebrew races', why did you recruit such a player? And player: if you love half-oozes and the DM hates them, why in the name of all that is holy are you playing under that DM?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

Again why is it assumed that a player wanting to play a special snowflake automatically means that it's going to ruin a story. Most of us in this thread come to a consensus that it's give and take on both sides. Yet imo it's always the player that seems to be screwed.

Or to use ciretose example.

DM: Sure you can have sushi just not this time around I'm cooking italian.

Player: (more realistic response instead of the worst case scenarios I'm seeing used here all the time).

Sure okay sushi next time.

I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.

The Not coming because you don't like something isn't a bad thing. I was gaming with a group of people who, for whatever reason, thought it was ok scrubbing and canceling out at the last second. It led to many of cancelled sessions. I got tired of it, spoke with the group, they felt this was the norm; so I left the group. Made my own group, much better attendance.

In your Vegan or Vegetarian example there are plenty of options for Italian dishes that work with that, so I don't see a problem.

Now if you were inviting people over to partake in your Meat Worship, Pig Roast, and Carnivorous Orgy; I would truly wonder why the Vegan/Vegetarian would want to come to that. I would also say that it would be up to the Vegan or Vegetarian to make himself fit into that situation if he decides to come.

I would say the same to my Pig Roasting, Meat Worshiping, Carnivorous Loving Friend if he was invited to the Vegan's Non-Face Eating, Bountiful Vegetable Bonanza.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:


I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

As a Coeliac sufferer myself, I feel I can answer this one :)

If someone invites me to dinner, I feel responsible for informing them I can't eat anything with gluten in it, and that I have no problems if that creates a problem for them and they'd rather not invite me after all. I do my best to ensure they don't feel bad if that's a problem (e.g. if they were planning pizza night and the take-out doesn't do a gluten-free alternative).

In the same way, when I inform a prospective player of any campaign requirements, I assume they'll let me know if there's a problem, and if after talking it over it turns out to be insurmountable I hope they'll decide not to join the campaign after all and find another game rather than turn up anyway and then make demands.

Also, I really, really miss doner meat pizzas :(

It's also important to note the difference between inviting a friend over for dinner, and selling food at the roadside to anyone that passes. The former may feel obligated to cater to his coeliac friend. The latter probably does not feel the same towards the passing strangers. There's a big difference between game night for friends, and a lone GM recruiting new players - in the latter you can try to find people that want to play the same thing you do and not just run whatever the first five people you find want to do.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

Again why is it assumed that a player wanting to play a special snowflake automatically means that it's going to ruin a story. Most of us in this thread come to a consensus that it's give and take on both sides. Yet imo it's always the player that seems to be screwed.

Or to use ciretose example.

DM: Sure you can have sushi just not this time around I'm cooking italian.

Player: (more realistic response instead of the worst case scenarios I'm seeing used here all the time).

Sure okay sushi next time.

I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.

What if the GM just doesn't want to make sushi ever. It isn't something they are interested in cooking.

Why must the GM run something they don't want to run.

Would you argue that a player must play in a setting they don't want to play in?

And if not, why the double standard?

Why is it ok for the player to say "I am not interested in playing in the setting you described, what else can you offer" but it is not ok for the GM to say "I'm not interested in writing a quest line for the concept you described, what else can you offer?"

Liberty's Edge

RDM42 wrote:


Because you aren't going to post about having problems with the people you don't have problems with?

True. Yet in the case of this thread like many it's presented like a yes and no thread with the OP wanting to hear both sides. Yet has laready picked a side. While seeking validation.

Arnwyn wrote:


Dunno. The players are free to not play. They are free to get a different DM that will cater to their desires and/or DM those types of things themselves. Why aren't the players doing that?

I have dropped out of games where I could not agree with the DM 90% of the time it's been with respect and as equals. The other 10% I will admit did not go well. Unlike what is presented in this thread I do think players try to see if a new DM is good for their group. Better no gaming than bad gaming imo.

Arnwyn wrote:


Gotta totally agree with that. For the love of pete, if you don't like half-oozes or 'homebrew races', why did you recruit such a player? And player: if you love half-oozes and the DM hates them, why in the name of all that is holy are you playing under that DM?

Honestly I don't think Dms that don't want special snowflakes do. Not unless the DM is desperate to run a game. Played in one of those many years ago never again. I also made the mistake of ignoring my own advice about bad gaming because I had no played D&D in a long time as well. To be honest I don't think we will ever get a answer that makes sense. The player that wanted to play a Drow without the anti-drow racism will never be in my games. Not a bad guy yet I have no interest to be called a racist because I'm enforcing the racism against drow.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
memorax wrote:

Quote:
while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence.
Strawman. Nobody's done this, anywhere. Stop it.

If you can't find anything on the menu you can eat and be happy, you are in the wrong restaurant.

If you can only eat one thing and be happy, you have bigger problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

What if the GM just doesn't want to make sushi ever. It isn't something they are interested in cooking.

Why must the GM run something they don't want to run.

Exactly so.

If I don't like sushi (and believe me, I don't), and people want me to cook, I am not going to make sushi. EVER. No matter how much my friends like sushi. They will never, ever, see it from me.

In such circumstances, I will wonder why they want me to cook for them (unless they're fine with - WAIT FOR IT! - other things I make, and like making).

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


Because you aren't going to post about having problems with the people you don't have problems with?
True. Yet in the case of this thread like many it's presented like a yes and no thread with the OP wanting to hear both sides. Yet has laready picked a side. While seeking validation.

There were actually role plays earlier, abandoned by the other side I think because they exposed the flaw in the logic.

The player isn't being told you must do this. They are being told, you can't do this, but you can do lots and lots of other things.

On the other side, the player is telling the GM they must allow this, and providing no other options or alternatives.

If the GM said "We are running this setting, and you must play" we would laugh and laugh....because the GM can't make anyone sit down and play at the table they are running. And each and every session, they have to deliver to keep people coming back rather than doing something else.

The GM can only say "Hey, do you all want to play this setting/questline/etc..." and players either say "yes" or "no".

The issue is when a player says "Yes" to the setting and quest line and then tells the GM "This is 'the' character and you must write the campaign and quest for it. I am unwilling to give you any other options to choose from."

Double standard.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
memorax wrote:


I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

As a Coeliac sufferer myself, I feel I can answer this one :)

If someone invites me to dinner, I feel responsible for informing them I can't eat anything with gluten in it, and that I have no problems if that creates a problem for them and they'd rather not invite me after all. I do my best to ensure they don't feel bad if that's a problem (e.g. if they were planning pizza night and the take-out doesn't do a gluten-free alternative).

In the same way, when I inform a prospective player of any campaign requirements, I assume they'll let me know if there's a problem, and if after talking it over it turns out to be insurmountable I hope they'll decide not to join the campaign after all and find another game rather than turn up anyway and then make demands.

Also, I really, really miss doner meat pizzas :(

It's also important to note the difference between inviting a friend over for dinner, and selling food at the roadside to anyone that passes. The former may feel obligated to cater to his coeliac friend. The latter probably does not feel the same towards the passing strangers. There's a big difference between game night for friends, and a lone GM recruiting new players - in the latter you can try to find people that want to play the same thing you do and not just run whatever the first five people you find want to do.

And more importantly, the snowflake isn't saying "Here is a list of things I can't eat, what can we find that I can" they are saying "Here is the one thing I am willing to eat and you must prepare it"

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


And more importantly, the snowflake isn't saying "Here is a list of things I can't eat, what can we find that I can" they are saying "Here is the one thing I am willing to eat and you must prepare it"

Not really. You keep implying that every player with a special snowflake is going to act like he has to play that special snowflake no matter what. Making them out to be a streotype of a player who is not willing to compromise or play something else. Maybe it's the norm for you. Certainly not the hobby. I have yet to meet anyone who said "I play what I want I don't care what you say". Some posters in this thread are making it out to be like such rigid players are hiding behind every rock, corner, darl alley or attic. They are very rare. More often than no I get " can I play this special snowflake".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
ciretose wrote:


And more importantly, the snowflake isn't saying "Here is a list of things I can't eat, what can we find that I can" they are saying "Here is the one thing I am willing to eat and you must prepare it"
Not really. You keep implying that every player with a special snowflake is going to act like he has to play that special snowflake no matter what. Making them out to be a streotype of a player who is not willing to compromise or play something else. Maybe it's the norm for you. Certainly not the hobby. I have yet to meet anyone who said "I play what I want I don't care what you say". Some posters in this thread are making it out to be like such rigid players are hiding behind every rock, corner, darl alley or attic. They are very rare. More often than no I get " can I play this special snowflake".

If the player isn't that rigid, then they aren't likely to be a problem. Because they are willing to discuss other options, including ones that don't cause any issues. Thus they may be a snowflake, but they wouldn't be a SPECIAL snowflake.

And some people here are making it sound like there are GMs hiding behind rocks to jump out And laugh manically, saying 'NO! You can't play ANYTHING you like! Human fighters ONLY!!!!'


memorax wrote:


Not really. You keep implying that every player with a special snowflake is going to act like he has to play that special snowflake no matter what.

Going back to the thread that spawned this one, that pretty much was the definition: A player that comes to a game with a character so special they refuse to play anything else, no matter how bad a fit it was for the campaign, and whether in such a circumstance the GM is obligated to find a way to make it work (my own opinion: It depends on the group, there is no universal right and wrong answer)

Unfortunately, that fact was lost early on so we've ended up with a thread that's generated hostility on both sides due to differing definitions, and people feeling that one or the other side is being treated unfairly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


There were actually role plays earlier, abandoned by the other side I think because they exposed the flaw in the logic.

The player isn't being told you must do this. They are being told, you can't do this, but you can do lots and lots of other things.

On the other side, the player is telling the GM they must allow this, and providing no other options or alternatives.

If the GM said "We are running this setting, and you must play" we would laugh and laugh....because the GM can't make anyone sit down and play at the table they are running. And each and every session, they have to deliver to keep people coming back rather than doing something else.

The GM can only say "Hey, do you all want to play this setting/questline/etc..." and players either say "yes" or "no".

The issue is when a player says "Yes" to the setting and quest line and then tells the GM "This is 'the' character and you must write the campaign and quest for it. I am unwilling to give you any other options to choose from."

Double standard.

No offence the OP always seems to present a worst case scenario with the players always being portrayed as the most stubborn, unflexiable demanding players who keep trying to force the DM to do their wishes. The type of player who only seem to exist in the mighty world of strerotype. Maybe it's the kind of thing one sees in the younger crowd. Yet to this day I have never ever had to deal with such a player. As well I'm getting tired of posters who post a open ended thread claiming to want hear from both sides. Yet in reality wants a feel good backslapping validation echo chamber style thread.

The Op has not shown to me at least any indication he wants to compromise even a little bit at the the table. I can respect yet not agree with him. That being said why even seek to hear from both sides on a topic when one has already made up ones mind on the subject. I feel like it's a waste of time. The same thing posted so many different ways with the same outcome.


Hey, I tired to start a thread asking for each side to give the merits of the other side's position. It lasted 39 posts before fading away.

Liberty's Edge

RDM42 wrote:


If the player isn't that rigid, then they aren't likely to be a problem. Because they are willing to discuss other options, including ones that don't cause any issues. Thus they may be a snowflake, but they wouldn't be a SPECIAL snowflake.

That's the point though. Only in the mighty land of streeotypes do we see such rigid players. I'm not saying they don't exist. They are thankfully I hope very rare. It's bothersome to see that everytime someone tries to play something different that the player that does so is trying to be a problem player.

RDM42 wrote:


And some people here are making it sound like there are GMs hiding behind rocks to jump out And laugh manically, saying 'NO! You can't play ANYTHING you like! Human fighters ONLY!!!!'

That is true as well. And the OP is not helpng his case either by wating to hear from both sides yet already made up his mind no matter what anyone says.

Liberty's Edge

Matt Thomason wrote:


Going back to the thread that spawned this one, that pretty much was the definition: A player that comes to a game with a character so special they refuse to play anything else, no matter how bad a fit it was for the campaign, and whether in such a circumstance the GM is obligated to find a way to make it work (my own opinion: It depends on the group, there is no universal right and wrong answer)

Unfortunately, that fact was lost early on so we've ended up with a thread that's generated hostility on both sides due to differing definitions, and people feeling that one or the other side is being treated unfairly.

And you are right it depends on the group and the DM. Except everytime we come to a consensus that both sides need to either come to a comprise or go their seperate ways. A poster has to bring up the mighty stereotype of the uncompromising player.


memorax wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


If the player isn't that rigid, then they aren't likely to be a problem. Because they are willing to discuss other options, including ones that don't cause any issues. Thus they may be a snowflake, but they wouldn't be a SPECIAL snowflake.

That's the point though. Only in the mighty land of streeotypes do we see such rigid players. I'm not saying they don't exist. They are thankfully I hope very rare. It's bothersome to see that everytime someone tries to play something different that the player that does so is trying to be a problem player.

RDM42 wrote:


And some people here are making it sound like there are GMs hiding behind rocks to jump out And laugh manically, saying 'NO! You can't play ANYTHING you like! Human fighters ONLY!!!!'
That is true as well. And the OP is not helpng his case either by wating to hear from both sides yet already made up his mind no matter what anyone says.

Playing something different is not a problem, as long as you make that something different from Legos that are actually in the box set. There are plenty of very different things that can be made in even the most restrictive of settings. I think most of the dms with restrictions WANT to see different things. There are just some kinds of different they don't want to add. I love a vibrant and unique concept I hadn't thought of that nonetheless fits in the setting. I live for those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
I think most of the dms with restrictions WANT to see different things. There are just some kinds of different they don't want to add. I love a vibrant and unique concept I hadn't thought of that nonetheless fits in the setting. I live for those.

Absolutely!

For me, it's the "way too over-the-top, out of place for the campaign feel I'm looking for" character (yes, its Hypothetical Steve and his awakened pony sorcerer again) that causes me issues, not the one that just happens to be from a non-core race or has a unique background.

"Can it possibly exist in the setting?" is secondary for me to "Will it feel right in the story?" Or to put it another way "If I picked up a book of the same theme, would I want to keep reading it past the first paragraph that mentions this character, or would I feel the author needs psychiatric help?"

Liberty's Edge

memorax wrote:
ciretose wrote:


And more importantly, the snowflake isn't saying "Here is a list of things I can't eat, what can we find that I can" they are saying "Here is the one thing I am willing to eat and you must prepare it"
Not really. You keep implying that every player with a special snowflake is going to act like he has to play that special snowflake no matter what. Making them out to be a streotype of a player who is not willing to compromise or play something else. Maybe it's the norm for you. Certainly not the hobby. I have yet to meet anyone who said "I play what I want I don't care what you say". Some posters in this thread are making it out to be like such rigid players are hiding behind every rock, corner, darl alley or attic. They are very rare. More often than no I get " can I play this special snowflake".

I'm not implying it.

Several people have stated that. As in if the GM doesn't let me play exactly what I want, they are being close minded.

You are coming to a 1700 post thread very late.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


I'm not implying it.

Several people have stated that. As in if the GM doesn't let me play exactly what I want, they are being close minded.

You are coming to a 1700 post thread very late.

I have read the thread. Whenever both sides to s consensus imo and with all the respect due you keep trying to keep trying to put the blame on the player. Most us have agreed that if a player can't play a special snowflake he either leaves or takes a option allowed by the DM. If a dm does not like special snowflakes he asks the player to take something else or try to work it into the game. Notice I'm not saying either side has to do anything. This is the consensus from some in this thread. I'm not seeing any other without both the player and the DM being at odds. Beyond both finding new players to run a game with or a new DM.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Memorax, having been an active participant in this thread, I don't believe your characterization of ciretose's comments is accurate. It is my opinion that ciretose has primarily throughout the course of this thread been reacting to repeated accusations from several very vocal thread participants that the GM is somehow obligated to accommodate player wants, but the player is not obligated to accommodate the GM's. For that reason ciretose's comments have been directed specifically at the premise that GMs are at fault for not allowing special snowflakes to play. He has repeatedly given specific examples from this thread and others of commenters insisting that a GM who doesn't allow them to play their special snowflakes are selfish or control freaks (or worse, there was an entire multi-page rant about how such GMs are probably racist or sexist or something, that was deleted by the mods).

My position on this whole thing remains unchanged. When these issues arise it is almost always because of a lack of respect on one side or the other or both. Mutual respect is usually all that is needed to resolve it.


Matt Thomason wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
I think most of the dms with restrictions WANT to see different things. There are just some kinds of different they don't want to add. I love a vibrant and unique concept I hadn't thought of that nonetheless fits in the setting. I live for those.

Absolutely!

For me, it's the "way too over-the-top, out of place for the campaign feel I'm looking for" character (yes, its Hypothetical Steve and his awakened pony sorcerer again) that causes me issues, not the one that just happens to be from a non-core race or has a unique background.

"Can it possibly exist in the setting?" is secondary for me to "Will it feel right in the story?" Or to put it another way "If I picked up a book of the same theme, would I want to keep reading it past the first paragraph that mentions this character, or would I feel the author needs psychiatric help?"

Matt, I have a question, with a bit of a preamble; just bear with me for a bit. After the example of a awakened pony wizard, I started to consider the proposition, and one of the first thing I realized was that given the lack of hands, said awakened pony wizard is going to be able to cast spells that only have verbal components. Then I stopped thinking about it (cause I'm not a brony, and, what you said about psychiatric help) but what occurred to me is that anyone who wants to play said character is probably asking their GM to hand wave any rule that that really affects gameplay. That's what would make that player unwelcome at my table, more than whether their character fits the setting.

My question is, how would you feel about someone who wanted to play with all the drawbacks inherent in the character? Also, if character which you had approved for your game got hit with Baleful Polymorph and transformed into a horse, would you allow the player to continue running that character?

As always, the answer to these question will vary from table to table. I guess my point is some very good writers have needed psychiatric help.

(Man, given who many threads the concept has spawned and derailed, I think "Steve" deserves some sort of internet golden turkey award!)

Liberty's Edge

As someone who once played a Nigh Invulnerable Hillybilly Luchadore in a Mutants and Masterminds campaign, the issue for me isn't odd. The issue is unwelcome.

If someone at your table does not like your concept, it seems logical and reasonable to me that you should try to come up with something people at your table do like.

No one should force anyone to have run something they don't want to run.

Being a special snowflake is being someone who wants what they want, regardless of what anyone else wants, or how anyone else feels about it.

Over and over most of us on this side of the argument have said that it isn't the oddity, it is being able to fit into what we agree to do when we started the game. What the player agreed to play when the GM was asking permission of the group to run a game. What the player gave the GM permission to run.

When a player is only willing to play a concept that is unwelcome, that player is creating the problem, not the GM.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Memorax, having been an active participant in this thread, I don't believe your characterization of ciretose's comments is accurate. It is my opinion that ciretose has primarily throughout the course of this thread been reacting to repeated accusations from several very vocal thread participants that the GM is somehow obligated to accommodate player wants, but the player is not obligated to accommodate the GM's. For that reason ciretose's comments have been directed specifically at the premise that GMs are at fault for not allowing special snowflakes to play. He has repeatedly given specific examples from this thread and others of commenters insisting that a GM who doesn't allow them to play their special snowflakes are selfish or control freaks (or worse, there was an entire multi-page rant about how such GMs are probably racist or sexist or something, that was deleted by the mods).

I stand corrected. I guess I let emotion get the better part of me. It is a slighlty sensitive issue with me. Having been treated badly by a DM previous to the one I'm gaming with. So I get kicked out because I could not go the game twice in a row. Once because of work and second time because I was laid up with a gastro. It almost soured me on the hobby and DMs in general. So I'm man enough to admit I made a mistake. I do hope your joking about a DM being accused of sexist and racist. I can see a player espcially a entitled one being angry about being told no. Yet racist and sexist. In what universe. Actually truth be told yes I can see it. After all one of my DMs was called racist because he dared to enforce racism against a Drow.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:


My position on this whole thing remains unchanged. When these issues arise it is almost always because of a lack of respect on one side or the other or both. Mutual respect is usually all that is needed to resolve it.

Mutual respect is needed at the table. A meeting of equals. If one or both sides ar lacking in both it's a clear sign to me that the game is doomed to failure.

That being said the OP can stand to actually not be so one sided with his threads. I get that he is of the school of thought that the DM is right at all times. I completely an utterly disagree with that. Yet it's kind of hard to want to read let alone respond in one of his threads because it's obvious he only wants to hear those who echo his opinion.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And Ciretose just want to apologize. I may not agree with everything you post on these boards. I can respect and even sometimes agree with them as well. (Extends a virtual handshake).


Arnwyn wrote:


*chuckle* Oh? I'm not sure what "restraint" you're talking about.

That is clear. I don't find it funny, however.

Quote:

Describing my group's reactions and giving an example isn't really out of line, I'm afraid. And my group's preferences/reactions are not up for debate.

This is fatuous. Obviously, the issue is that your "description" of events was heavily laden with sneering, insulting characterizations of the type of person that would disagree with you. Such a person, in your view, is "a dishonest git" whose preferences/values are "idiocy." You even go so far as to imply that actual physical violence against such a person would be a reasonable response.

Quote:

And you say "calcified and narrow-minded point of view", "out of touch", and "complexity of modern gaming" as if it has any relevance and meaning to my group and I.

True, it may be that that the evolutions in this medium's complexity have entirely passed you and your group by, and thus have no relevance to you. I am not sure, however, that I would wear that as a badge of honor.


Arnwyn wrote:


But: "I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players."

Gotta totally agree with that. For the love of pete, if you don't like half-oozes or 'homebrew races', why did you recruit such a player? And player: if you love half-oozes and the DM hates them, why in the name of all that is holy are you playing under that DM?

You must admit that this attitude is pessimistic if not fatalistic/defeatist, in that it eschews the possibility of effective compromise among people with different attitudes.

In a theoretical world of limitless gaming availability, it would perhaps make more sense. In my experience, however, the idea that you're just going to easily find a group that shares all of your exact prejudices, with regards to the style of play and the type of campaign that you want, and who are furthermore compatible with you in terms of personality, geography and availability, is on the other hand optimistic to the point of naivete.

If you have such a group, fine. But that is your own exceptional good fortune, whereas these threads are or should be, I think, directed at providing advice/perspectives for the sort of situations that many other people find themselves in. And it is a reality for those people that they must either find ways to compromise or they must simply give up the hobby altogether. I agree that, often, "no game is better than a bad game." But please be aware that that is far easier to say when you have other options, or another game to play that you do enjoy. Many people don't.


Arnwyn wrote:
ciretose wrote:

What if the GM just doesn't want to make sushi ever. It isn't something they are interested in cooking.

Why must the GM run something they don't want to run.

Exactly so.

If I don't like sushi (and believe me, I don't), and people want me to cook, I am not going to make sushi. EVER. No matter how much my friends like sushi. They will never, ever, see it from me.

In such circumstances, I will wonder why they want me to cook for them (unless they're fine with - WAIT FOR IT! - other things I make, and like making).

Relax. You don't have to make the sushi. Who can compel you to make it? But I suggest that:

1) At least attempting to make it would be a show of respect and excellent good will toward the person that wanted it. If then you still did not enjoy it and said so, that person would likely be more responsive, perhaps even grateful.

and

2) Having never tried it, you might actually discover that it is better than you previously thought. Your life could change. The pursuit of new experience could cause whole new vistas to open themselves to you. While shopping for sushi ingredients at a specialty grocery that you would previously never have visited, you could meet your 100% perfect girl for you. You could bond with her over your mutual frustrations trying to make the notoriously counter-intuitively difficult to prepare fish. It turns out she too has a difficult, sush-demanding friend! What a coincidence! You both laugh. You live happily ever after with the 100% perfect girl for you, who you would never have met at all if not for that difficult friend who demanded sushi on Italian night...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
And Ciretose just want to apologize. I may not agree with everything you post on these boards. I can respect and even sometimes agree with them as well. (Extends a virtual handshake).

(returns virtual handshake and adds fistbump far cooler than what I can actually accomplish in real life)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:


1) At least attempting to make it would be a show of respect and excellent good will toward the person that wanted it. If then you still did not enjoy it and said so, that person would likely be more responsive, perhaps even grateful.

Or the person could order off of the menu something the chef actually wants to prepare, because they aren't paying the chef to perform a service, they are participating in a group activity.

And my experience with people who demand you do things you don't want do isn't that they gain respect for you when you cave in and give it to them.

Quite the opposite.

Much like other activities between consenting adults, no one, on either side, should ever tell someone they must do something they don't want to do and pressuring them isn't cool either.

Silver Crusade

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

For the sake of argument, I'm going to do a hypothetical here. And it will be a very realistic one.

I have a 35 year old campaign world. I have included lots of new content, including races and classes since I started it. I modified it to Pathfinder about three years ago. But I have not added EVERY race or class to it yet. For example, I do not yet have any catfolk nor are there any gunslingers.

So, let's say a player wanted to play a catfolk gunslinger. What does that mean for my world?

Well, there are two seriously impactful consequences. First, I have to work out the impact that gunpowder and guns have on my world. Now I know a lot of the folks on this thread are going to say "heck, that's no problem! Just have someone invent one!" But it's not their world. It's mine. Technology is a key aspect of my world. To introduce guns would mean introducing the history behind the development of both guns and gunpowder. What would that mean for my world-spanning spelllcasting illuminati? Well, right of the bat, they probably would have an interest in the development of such an impactful new technology. What would they do? I'd have to spend quite a bit of time working it out. Which is WHY I don't yet have guns in my world.

Then there are catfolk. If they exist, I have to figure out where. That may mean creating an entirely new habitable part of the world. It may mean putting them in the heart of darkness in my southern continent. But wait, what sort of culture do they have? How do they govern themselves? How do they trade with the people around them? What are their main political goals and motivations? What are the trade routes?

These are very important things for me to work out. And they can't be done overnight. They can't be done in a week. Not to the level of detail and consistency that I personally feel is necessary for me to remain invested in my own gaming world.

So if someone wants to play a catfolk gunslinger, my immediate reaction is going to be "Well, that's a problem unless you are willing...

I pretty much agree with every part of this to a certain extent. If I am going to allow something like gunpowder then it has to be implemented properly but remember that word 'if'. I may not want gunpowder in my campaign and that's okay.

Sometimes I want my world to remain the way I envision it. You are more than welcome to play in it or it may not be your cup of tea and thats alright too.


ciretose wrote:


Or the person could order off of the menu something the chef actually wants to prepare, because they aren't paying the chef to perform a service, they are participating in a group activity.

That argument cuts both ways though. It's endless. Furthermore it is inaccurate, in a way that is utterly revelatory of my point, to characterize the GM as the chef and the players as the passive beneficiaries of his creation.

Quote:

And my experience with people who demand you do things you don't want do isn't that they gain respect for you when you cave in and give it to them.

Quite the opposite.

It's not caving. It's cooperation. You make it clear that you are trying to cooperate and that you make no promises about the longevity of the experiment. It is possible to be firm in your position without being entirely unyielding. Forgive me the hackneyed aphorism, but: "The reed bends so that it does not break."

More importantly though, you mischaracterize, I think, the opposing position with your use of the word "demand." The player is not demanding, he is indicating his preference. That preference should, however, have weight, because the player is your collaborator, not an audience member.

Quote:


Much like other activities between consenting adults, no one, on either side, should ever tell someone they must do something they don't want to do and pressuring them isn't cool either.

Happily, no one is doing or suggesting that! :)


shallowsoul wrote:


Sometimes I want my world to remain the way I envision it. You are more than welcome to play in it or it may not be your cup of tea and thats alright too.

Which is fine, as long as "sometimes" is the operative word in your statement.


It occurs to me, after these last few posts, that there is underlying this discussion a fundamental difference of perspective between:

1) Those who view the GM as the performer and the players as his audience

and

2) Those who view the GM and players collectively as both ensemble cast and audience at once.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I just don't take any ownership of the worlds I run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I do hope your joking about a DM being accused of sexist and racist. I can see a player espcially a entitled one being angry about being told no. Yet racist and sexist. In what universe. Actually truth be told yes I can see it. After all one of my DMs was called racist because he dared to enforce racism against a Drow.

I would say the description was inaccurate. If you are in fact interested and would like to hear a more detailed counter description, you might post a question about it in the "The LGBT Gamer Community Thread." I know some of the people that were involved in the discussion post there and it would be on topic for that thread. It is obviously off topic for this one, which is why it was removed.


Erick Wilson wrote:

Relax. You don't have to make the sushi. Who can compel you to make it? But I suggest that:

1) At least attempting to make it would be a show of respect and excellent good will toward the person that wanted it. If then you still did not enjoy it and said so, that person would likely be more responsive, perhaps even grateful.

and

2) Having never tried it, you might actually discover that it is better than you previously thought. Your life could change. The pursuit of new experience could cause whole new vistas to open themselves to you. While shopping for sushi ingredients at a specialty grocery that you would previously never have visited, you could meet your 100% perfect girl for you. You could bond with her over your mutual frustrations trying to make the notoriously counter-intuitively difficult to prepare fish. It turns out she too has a difficult, sush-demanding friend! What a coincidence! You both laugh. You live happily ever after with the 100% perfect girl for you, who you would never have met at all if not for that difficult friend who demanded sushi on Italian night...

Except in this case Arnwyn has clearly stated that they vehemently dislike sushi, so the more likely result is that the experience at at best a wash and at worst a very bad time for them and perhaps all involved.

Given their dislike, one might even think that Arnwyn has had experience with sushi (or cat people or katanas or whatever we are replacing this with) and made the educated opinion that it isn't something they are interested in, in any way.


Erick Wilson wrote:
This is fatuous. Obviously, the issue is that your "description" of events was heavily laden with sneering, insulting characterizations of the type of person that would disagree with you. Such a person, in your view, is "a dishonest git" whose preferences/values are "idiocy." You even go so far as to imply that actual physical violence against such a person would be a reasonable response.

Give me a break and improve your reading. I'm sorry you took offense - you must have seen a lot of yourself in my post based on how you're reacting.

But nowhere did I say someone who "disagrees with me" is a "dishonest git" (I made clear of that in the specific example - being dishonest about preferences gets one that label... and you agreed!) I was also clear and concise about what is 'idiocy' - again, read or don't bother responding to my posts... otherwise, we might really need to have a conversation about dishonesty. (Let me know if you need me to re-quote it... for whatever reason.)

The 'bodily thrown out' part was fun theorizing and hyperbole - though I apologize if you mistook it for something more serious. Such a situation would never even occur much less come to that, of course. We're careful who we game with. In any case, your concern is noted.

Quote:
True, it may be that that the evolutions in this medium's complexity have entirely passed you and your group by, and thus have no relevance to you. I am not sure, however, that I would wear that as a badge of honor.

Again - irrelevant. What my group does is of no relevance to... anyone outside my group! (and certainly not you) Watch the wrongbadfun nonsense!

Quote:
Relax. You don't have to make the sushi. Who can compel you to make it?

Awesome. I'm glad you agree.

But otherwise - nah. The person/people who like sushi and are good at making sushi should make sushi.


memorax wrote:
I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

You know, vegans and vegetarians are a good example here. Some vegetarians can be players who want "snowflakes", but are reasonable about it, and are willing to compromise. Some vegetarians are whiny brats who won't compromise. This is where the (justified) complaints are coming from on the GM side. Vegans are the "tyrant GMs" the "pro-player" side hates.

In a room with 5 normal people and a vegetarian.

"So we're going to order a pizza."

This can go one of a few ways.

"Hey how about we order one for us, and then a small vegetarian pizza for you?". The "non-snowflake" vegetarian says "Sure, that sounds fine.".

Compromise! Nothing in the major plans was changed, but everybody got what they wanted without upsetting the other person.

"Snowflake vegetarian", however, will have none of this.

"Eating meat is wrong and evil! And even though it's 5 against one I think everyone should eat the veggie pizza, because eating meat is wrong and evil!"

The one person is stalling the rest of the group. This is bad, and annoying.

The "Tyrant GM" vegan, as well, has some objections. But instead of forcing their own view of the meal (veggie pizza being the only option), they just want to flip the table and leave if they don't get exactly what they want.

"The smell of meat offends my delicate sensibilities, and even veggie pizza has cheese on it! Get something else!"

Essentially, there's three ways any "snowflake" scenario can go down.

1.) Compromise, among normal people, if the "snowflake" character is not something that utterly shatters the game. I don't think it takes much effort from a GM to work in most concepts into their game if it's a naturally high magic world. Your player wants to play a catfolk, but there are none? Do you REALLY need to add a colony of catfolk to your world? Really? Or could you just say it's a magical experiment to fuse cats and people? Why? I dunno, look at half the monsters in the Magical Beasts column. I can't explain why anybody needs an Owlbear either, but they freakin' exist.

Can you still say no? Sure. But "they don't exist yet and I would have to work them into the grand mythos" is not always true.

On the player side, if that's not an option, and your GM isn't willing to work them in in a grander way, well, that sucks, but sometimes it happens. As long as it's just one concept and he isn't restricting you to a very narrow set of options arbitrarily, there's a bunch of other ones you can pick. I know I have at least 10 ideas on hand at any given time, and I seem to be one of the least charop happy people on these boards.

2.) Snowflake unreasonability. When they won't take no for an answer. This doesn't really need to be explained any more.

3.) The tyrant GM. When they won't consider any option that isn't their absolute law. This one has also been talked to death.

I haven't seen many people talking about actual compromises, though admittedly I've just skimmed this thread.

I've seen a lot of people go "Well it's compromise if my GM agrees, otherwise he's a tyrant!" and "Nuh-uh, if a player steps out of line there should BE no compromise!" posts, though, so I figured I'd make the one serious post I'll likely make here.

Arnwyn wrote:

Exactly so.

If I don't like sushi (and believe me, I don't), and people want me to cook, I am not going to make sushi. EVER. No matter how much my friends like sushi. They will never, ever, see it from me.

In such circumstances, I will wonder why they want me to cook for them (unless they're fine with - WAIT FOR IT! - other things I make, and like making).

This is another argument I don't get though.

How does your not liking to eat sushi affect your willingness to MAKE it? You don't have to eat it. You're cooking for everyone anyway. So why not make it?

I hate sweet potatoes. I think they're absolutely disgusting. But one person in my family likes them.

Seems like kind of a douche move if I decided I wasn't going to make some sweet potatoes for them while I cooked everything else.

1,751 to 1,800 of 2,339 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway? All Messageboards