Speaking as a food service worker, anyone who's talking about the Chef "wanting" to prepare anything has a vast misapprehension about how the industry functions.
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.
To remove the false dichotomy of noble players vs selfish gm ...
3: those who think its more like a shared world universe, where the gm sets the set, props, what is in the world, and then the players are let loose to be the show on that stage.
Or alternately ... Its like a sports league setting the rules of the game, the size and shape of the field, and then having the players play a game on that field within those boundaries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a food service worker, anyone who's talking about the Chef "wanting" to prepare anything has a vast misapprehension about how the industry functions.
As an aside. I find it a bit humorous when someone says that a GM isn't a service worker, then tries to compare them to service workers and uses service industry slang like "special snowflake".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
Happily, no one is doing or suggesting that! :)
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.
People are very much suggesting the GM must allow concepts they don't want to run. They are downright stating it.
That isn't cooperation.
Cooperation is discussing the setting you want before you agree to play, and then when you agree to play having more than one idea you are willing to play.
Cooperating is sometimes deciding not to be in a game that is in a setting you don't want to play rather than demanding the GM make the setting what you want to play.
The GM is the chef. They are putting the ingredients together to make something everyone will enjoy. The players decide if they want the meal the chef wants to cook, or if they want someone else to cook.
The Chef tries to make the players happy by making things he thinks they will like to the best of the chefs ability. But if they want something the Chef doesn't want to make, isn't comfortable making, or thinks will ruin the meal...
Saying "I don't want to run that" is no less a viable response than "No I don't want to play in that setting"
|
|
Speaking as a food service worker, anyone who's talking about the Chef "wanting" to prepare anything has a vast misapprehension about how the industry functions.As an aside. I find it a bit humorous when someone says that a GM isn't a service worker, then tries to compare them to service workers and uses service industry slang like "special snowflake".
Service worker or just someone who likes to cook for his friends.
Like I do every time I have a Barbeque.
If I tell friends I'm having a cookout and someone demands I also make them a cake or I'm being unreasonable, they can bite me.
Y'see, Cire, when you say stuff like that, it just makes me glad I've never been invited to one of your barbecues. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine if you brought a cake and said, "I know you said there wasn't going to be any deserts provided, but I thought it would be nice to have some cake for people if they want it." The host would run over, grab the cake and slam it on the ground. "I said no deserts!"
If we just have to use food as an analogy, I'd say that the so-called special snowflake isn't asking for something reasonable like "hey, can you include some pineapples while you cook those steaks on the grill".
Instead, they are bringing a durian fruit and cracking that bad boy open and then looking offended when you complain about the smell. The special snowflake isn't interested in compromise, they are looking for attention and for what they want. A regular snowflake, not so much.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine if you brought a cake and said, "I know you said there wasn't going to be any deserts provided, but I thought it would be nice to have some cake for people if they want it." The host would run over, grab the cake and slam it on the ground. "I said no deserts!"
If the player wants to GM, and others want them to GM, great.
Otherwise...
But you knew that.
The issue isn't that someone wants cake. The issue is that you want someone to make you a cake who didn't offer you cake.
They offered you something you said you wanted, that they want to give you, but after saying "Yes" you move the goalposts.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jar-Jar?!...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?"
There you go. Hey, guys, we're gonna play a game what is everyone going to be?
Jedi, Jedi trainee, Queen in hiding, Bodyguard, annoying child who will be the savior and then kill lots of people. And you Steve? "Mesah gonna play an annoying stereotype with few redeeming qualities sah!"
This character would never make it past my other players let alone necessitate me needing to make the Gungan race.
Actually Jar-Jar, and the entire Phantom Menace, is an example of what happens when the director/writer/producer has free rein and none of the other people involved actually feel comfortable enough to challenge them.
EDIT: Now I have rewatch the red letter media review of the Phantom Menace.
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?
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.
Your argument doesn't make a lick of sense to me. How does not liking sushi affect my willingness to make it?? *blinks* I don't like it, I'm terrible at making it, and I have limited time to make something if I'm going to make anything at all - if I'm going to make something, which I don't have to. How can it not affect my willingness? I'm truly baffled... and a straw poll at my office pretty much baffles everyone else. They're having trouble even figuring out the competing argument.
It's kind of a douche move asking someone who hates sushi and can't make it well to spend the time doing so when somebody else likes sushi and is perfectly capable of making it well.
Speaking as a food service worker, anyone who's talking about the Chef "wanting" to prepare anything has a vast misapprehension about how the industry functions.
... Is that where people were going with this? I'm just a dude in my own kitchen who happens to have a tiny bit of spare time.
Fun times with analogies!
My problem is, I want to see some sort of dramatic soliloquy by JarJar: "And theysa say, 'JarJar, yousa Galactica Senator now, why not concentrate power under the aegis of Palpatine?' ...And mesa sign papers. And theysa say, 'JarJar, Palapatine listen to yousa, why not give mesa expense accout?' And mesa sign the papers. And they say, 'Jarjar, yousa, you don't sign Order 66, Galatic Empire doomed!' And mesa signed dem papers. Mesa signed dem papers!!"
Seriously, there's one special snowflake I would have loved to see RP a bit harder. Like On the Waterfront, but with a Gungan.
|
The issue isn't that someone wants cake. The issue is that you want someone to make you a cake who didn't offer you cake.
LOL...
That statement reminds me of Shallowsoul's "Brownie/Cheese Danish thread".
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?
Drawbacks, I have no issue with at all - I don't see any character as "crippled" as long as they're able to add to the story, combat ability is secondary for me (balance, schmalance!) and I'll ensure they still get a way to contribute. Somehow. :)
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?
Ooo, good one. Yes, to a degree. They're going to have to run it as a horse, of course (of course, a horse, although I'll not force), and I'm certainly not going to leave them stuck like it longer than they can stand playing - or the party can stand them playing it (if the party can't organize a dispel, they'll be able to find a handy NPC that'll do it for payment or a favor). Having an NPC casting Baleful Polymorph in the first place would have to be done at the right time, too.
(Man, given who many threads the concept has spawned and derailed, I think "Steve" deserves some sort of internet golden turkey award!)
This. So very much this.
(Testing merged ID)
Your argument doesn't make a lick of sense to me. How does not liking sushi affect my willingness to make it?? *blinks* I don't like it, I'm terrible at making it, and I have limited time to make something if I'm going to make anything at all - if I'm going to make something, which I don't have to. How can it not affect my willingness? I'm truly baffled... and a straw poll at my office pretty much baffles everyone else. They're having trouble even figuring out the competing argument.
Yes, you have a limited time...but as you're making 4 separate dishes anyway (since in your example 4 people asked for 4 different dishes) this isn't taking up any extra time for you.
Not being able to make it well is a valid excuse, but that's not affected by you liking something or not. I hate a lot of things that I can cook well.
You asked what people wanted, one person said sushi. "I don't like sushi, therefore I won't make it" is kind of silly.
"I suck at making sushi, therefore it won't be good, why don't you pick something else" is much more valid.
It's kind of a douche move asking someone who hates sushi and can't make it well to spend the time doing so when somebody else likes sushi and is perfectly capable of making it well.
The fact that you add another factor to make your argument ("I can't make it well") says to me that you realize the original factor was a non-issue.
"I don't like sushi" was just your excuse for not making it, not a valid reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Limited time and limited interest.
If given the choice between investing time and effort in something I think I will enjoy doing and investing time and effort in something I don't think I will enjoy...
How is "I don't like doing it" or "I don't want to do it" not a valid reason to ask someone to not make me do something?
Limited time and limited interest.
If given the choice between investing time and effort in something I think I will enjoy doing and investing time and effort in something I don't think I will enjoy...
How is "I don't like doing it" or "I don't want to do it" not a valid reason to ask someone to not make me do something?
Because you offered and asked someone what their preference was.
If you don't care what their preference is, don't ask them.
Basically what I'm saying is if you don't want someone to pick something you don't like, don't ask them "So what do you want?" give them a list of options that are palatable to you and ask them to pick the one they like best out of that list.
|
|
No one offered to run something they didn't like.
They offered to run a game, in a setting everyone agreed to. And the offer was accepted.
If you can't find something you are willing to play, in the setting you agreed to let someone run...
It isn't about not letting them play something they want.
It is about them not being able to be happy unless they can play one specific thing.
No one is arguing the GM can make someone play anything.
But some seem to be arguing a player should be able to make a GM run something.
Limited time and limited interest.
If given the choice between investing time and effort in something I think I will enjoy doing and investing time and effort in something I don't think I will enjoy...
How is "I don't like doing it" or "I don't want to do it" not a valid reason to ask someone to not make me do something?
Because you offered and asked someone what their preference was.
If you don't care what their preference is, don't ask them.
Basically what I'm saying is if you don't want someone to pick something you don't like, don't ask them "So what do you want?" give them a list of options that are palatable to you and ask them to pick the one they like best out of that list.
The problem that some people are having is there is an argument being made that picking something off that list you offered is the GM's problem and the player is perfectly right in doing so.
GMs run the NPCs and the setting, players run the PCs. Well, at least that is how it happens where I come from. I guess there can be GMs that run the PCs too and the players just sit there ask, "So what does my guy do now?"
No one offered to run something they didn't like.
They offered to run a game, in a setting everyone agreed to. And the offer was accepted.
If you can't find something you are willing to play, in the setting you agreed to let someone run...
It isn't about not letting them play something they want.
It is about them not being able to be happy unless they can play one specific thing.
No one is arguing the GM can make someone play anything.
But some seem to be arguing a player should be able to make a GM run something.
Bro I'm talking about Italian food and sushi here, get ye back on topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs run the NPCs and the setting, players run the PCs. Well, at least that is how it happens where I come from. I guess there can be GMs that run the PCs too and the players just sit there ask, "So what does my guy do now?"
So listing a few things that a character can't be at the beginning of the process is just running the character? Isn't that just a bit of hyperbole?
I was commenting on people who say as GM they don't want to "run the character". They are using poor word choice. Players run the character, GMs run the setting. The GM may run a campaign for the character, but they don't run the character.
I was commenting on people who say as GM they don't want to "run the character". They are using poor word choice. Players run the character, GMs run the setting. The GM may run a campaign for the character, but they don't run the character.
Ah. Might want to quote someone or at least provide more exposition in that case, just so its clearer what you refer to.
|
|
If these "some" who supposedly think that a player can/should force a GM to run something existed, surely you could name them? And post a link to when they made such an argument?No one offered to run something they didn't like.
They offered to run a game, in a setting everyone agreed to. And the offer was accepted.
If you can't find something you are willing to play, in the setting you agreed to let someone run...
It isn't about not letting them play something they want.
It is about them not being able to be happy unless they can play one specific thing.
No one is arguing the GM can make someone play anything.
But some seem to be arguing a player should be able to make a GM run something.
Sure
If you gave me some time, I could find more. Those were the two off the top of my head.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was commenting on people who say as GM they don't want to "run the character". They are using poor word choice. Players run the character, GMs run the setting. The GM may run a campaign for the character, but they don't run the character.
No, I said exactly what I meant.
If you are the GM, you run the game. You set up the story to create motivations for the players, you control what quests will occur to highlight the players and give them incentives.
You run a campaign for the players. You have to run what the players bring to the table.
If I don't feel like writing and designing quests and motivations for a concept, and you tell me I have to, you are making me do something I don't want to do.
That is the core of the whole thing.
|
|
Bro I'm talking about Italian food and sushi here, get ye back on topic.No one offered to run something they didn't like.
They offered to run a game, in a setting everyone agreed to. And the offer was accepted.
If you can't find something you are willing to play, in the setting you agreed to let someone run...
It isn't about not letting them play something they want.
It is about them not being able to be happy unless they can play one specific thing.
No one is arguing the GM can make someone play anything.
But some seem to be arguing a player should be able to make a GM run something.
And if I have a kitchen set up for Italian food, and I invite you over for italian food because I really like making Italian food, and after accepting the invitation for Italian food you throw a fit because I won't prepare sushi for you, you are being a jerk.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any way we can put this thread on a loop so that it just repeats itself automatically instead of us having to retype in the same stuff over and over?
Maybe that's a site feature enhancement we really need.
I'll handle the motivations for my character, don't bother yourself with that.
I'll handle the motivations for my character, don't bother yourself with that.Really. So you determine what the quests are?
If my character doesn't give a damn, what does it matter what the quest is? You can toss out quests, I'll find the reason, or you might say the motivation, for my character to care about it. And since the quest applies to the entire group, no extra work on your part for my character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, neither of those say that the player should force the GM to run a game he/she doesn't want to:|
The first one is a purely semantic argument about what you call the game you run. It says virtually nothing about whether you can or cannot run the game you want to run.The second one says that Vivianne Laflamme, personally, does not want to flat out say no to a character. In that case, no one is forcing her to run anything; she is choosing to run a game that would make other people happy, regardless of her own desires. She is volunteering HERSELF to run a game that she may not like as much. There is a huge difference between one person...
Well, the guy with the pony sorcerer mentioned that people really should run what he wants to play, but I'm not going to dig through that whole thread for his commentary. And there have been a number of posters who have suggested that not allowing people to play what they want and make large concessions is wrongbad for the GM to do. So yes, there have been comments, although I imagine most of them are hyperbolic at best.
It's about communication, as always. GM states what they are willing to run and what the game is about, the player makes an informed decision. With luck, everyone can agree and happiness can be had.
The GM is not wrong to say no, anymore than the player is wrong to ask. It's when tempers flare that we get to the more colourful interactions that people keep posting.
And there have been a number of posters who have suggested that not allowing people to play what they want and make large concessions is wrongbad for the GM to do.
I think there is probably hyperbole here. There have been posters that have said that if it doesn't require large concessions to the setting then yes it is probably going to lead to better gaming experience to allow it. But I don't think hardly anyone (and probably no one) has claimed that the GM should make large concessions to the setting/campaign.
Of course there may be disagreement what qualifies as large concessions.
Give me a break...
I would have been happy to do that, until you added...
...and improve your reading.
Okay, so it's going to be that kind of post.
I'm sorry...
Oh, cool then. That was all you had to say. Wait...
...you took offense - you must have seen a lot of yourself in my post based on how you're reacting.
Oh. So you're not sorry...
As for whether I see myself in it, well, it depends what you mean. Have I ever had to deal with difficult GMs before who rest on their old-school laurels and sneer at newness and innovation with a hopelessly puffed up air of superiority, when they don't actually even understand the thing they deride? Yes I have, so in that sense yes I do see myself in your description. I also see you in it, and I have seen you many times before.
But nowhere did I say [all the things I said].
I am now paraphrasing but you say here that you were being hyperbolic, etc, and basically that I'm overreacting. To which I reply that the way you speak matters as much as what you are saying. Your post gives the distinct impression that you are the sort of man that believes that there is some kind of inherent superiority in playing the "pure," "classic," canonical form of a campaign in a given setting. You are highly and aggressively dismissive of anyone who would, in your eyes, dilute that purity. I know, I get it. I even understand and appreciate your desire to have such a game and to play in this way. But what I am telling you is that this medium has evolved quite a bit, and there are now many, many different, very well thought out ways of understanding what it is we are doing when we game. So by all means, voice your preferences. But you need to dial back your rhetoric regarding the sort of people who might have different perspectives.
Again - irrelevant. What my group does is of no relevance to... anyone outside my group! (and certainly not you) Watch the wrongbadfun nonsense!
If what your group does has no relevance to anyone else, why are you posting about what your group does? Anyway, probably my words above make it clear that I was never suggesting that what your group does is "wrongbadfun." My issue was with you taking a superior attitude towards those who play differently- basically, labeling as "wrongbadfun" those who want to, say, play orcs in Dragonlance. (Incidentally, does anyone else think "wrongbadfun" is just an awful turn of phrase?)
And there have been a number of posters who have suggested that not allowing people to play what they want and make large concessions is wrongbad for the GM to do.I think there is probably hyperbole here. There have been posters that have said that if it doesn't require large concessions to the setting then yes it is probably going to lead to better gaming experience to allow it. But I don't think hardly anyone (and probably no one) has claimed that the GM should make large concessions to the setting/campaign.
Of course there may be disagreement what qualifies as large concessions.
This whole thread is a disagreement on what qualifies as anything, at this point! But yes, we're at the point where we're nitpicking on what giving ground is, how much is enough, how little is not enough and so on.
For myself and my group, there are certain hard lines that we're not interested in crossing and certain play styles that do not mesh with ours. And that's fine! I've played with all sorts of people across the years and the states, and I'll break out some setting that I am not personally invested in for games where I am uncomfortable with the play styles and personalities and decisions involved.
Maybe the sushi will be great. Maybe the pony sorcerer will work beyond my wildest dreams. And if so, I am willing to rethink some of my world building and insert things and make changes. But I'm less willing to willy nilly add them at the last moment, which is where a great deal of the conversation on this and other threads seems to take place: Steve the player arrives with his creation that doesn't fit the GMs hand outs and is at odds with the rest of the group.
As for whether I see myself in it, well, it depends what you mean. Have I ever had to deal with difficult GMs before who rest on their old-school laurels and sneer at newness and innovation with a hopelessly puffed up air of superiority, when they don't actually even understand the thing they deride? Yes I have, so in that sense yes I do see myself in your description. I also see you in it, and I have seen you many times before.
<snip>
If what your group does has no relevance to anyone else, why are you posting about what your group does? Anyway, probably my words above make it clear that I was never suggesting that what your group does is "wrongbadfun." My issue was with you taking a superior attitude towards those who play differently- basically, labeling as "wrongbadfun" those who want to, say, play orcs in Dragonlance. (Incidentally, does anyone else think "wrongbadfun" is just an awful turn of phrase?)
The emphasis above is mine. I have a question, and I mean this in all honesty: which newness and innovation are we speaking of? I keep seeing this phrase used in this thread and I am legitimately curious what we mean by this? I ask this because the vast majority of GM advice and play advice I see in printed products strongly resembles what I've read since AD&D.
To address the second part, yes, wrongbadfun is a horrible phrase. I assume it is used in place of saying something profane about the other person and their resemblance to a vacuum or otherwise insinuating that they are a horrible person for doing things the way the other would not. It's caught on like a virus on message boards and I hope one day they find a cure.
... old-school laurels and sneer at newness and innovation ...... I have a question, and I mean this in all honesty: which newness and innovation are we speaking of? I keep seeing this phrase used in this thread and I am legitimately curious what we mean by this? ...
While I can't answer for Erick Wilson, I can give a couple of examples I encountered from other "old" players:
Dwarf wizards
Beardless female dwarves
Non-hobbit halflings (that isn't Kenders)
oracle/gunslingers/alchemist/ninja pathfinder classes
Archtypes
3pp products (if they are not made by the creator of the game they are inherently bad, ie. non-paizo books for pathfinder for example).
If we just have to use food as an analogy, I'd say that the so-called special snowflake isn't asking for something reasonable like "hey, can you include some pineapples while you cook those steaks on the grill".
Instead, they are bringing a durian fruit and cracking that bad boy open and then looking offended when you complain about the smell. The special snowflake isn't interested in compromise, they are looking for attention and for what they want. A regular snowflake, not so much.
This is an important distinction. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to be arising unnecessarily because people (myself included, probably) are conflating things posters are saying about one thing with what others are saying about another. I'm going to try to untangle this...
1) First, the idea of a "snowflake" character is (apparently) a contentious one. Some people show restraint and reserve that label only for truly ridiculous examples of player excess, but others overuse it, labeling as "snowflake" any character that deviates slightly from their preconceived notion of "true" or "classic" D&D, or of the "pure" canonical form of a given campaign setting.
2) A lot of comments on the thread are basically expressing concern about GMs needlessly opposing reasonable player requests (more akin to the pineapples than the sushi). Then a lot of people respond by assuming that those posters are actually sticking up for totally unreasonable, absurd PC concepts. This is further confused by the fact that...
3) Some people here really are championing totally unreasonable, absurd concepts and the player's right to play them in any campaign they want.
4) There is also confusion regarding the idea of obligation. Repeatedly, someone suggests that GMs should always consider a concept before rejecting it out of hand, or that compromise is better than rigidity. Then many people respond as though the person said "GMs are obligated to allow any concept players want to play in every situation," which is a stance that I have seen few if any people taking. Yet there is tremendous resistance being expressed to this (virtually non-existent) point of view.
So:
"There is a give and take in gaming, even in campaign creation, and though that balance of power favors the GM, it is not unreasonable for players to expect at least a modest influence over the aspects of the campaign world that pertain to their character."
is somehow being read as...
"GMs are there to serve the players' whims, and must change their campaign setting in any way a player desires."
And "GMs should consider a player's concept for his character, even if it does not fit strictly into the original vision of the world the GM had. In the absence of a group that strongly favors a certain interpretation, the game is far better served by a GM that is willing to make small, reasonable changes to his campaign in order to adapt to his PCs"
is being read as...
"The GM is obligated to accept any concept a player brings him, no matter how absurd, and is a dick if he does not do so."
All of which is why I keep urging people to relax a bit. Please don't automatically assume that we are advocating the most ridiculous, extreme positions, and then fly off the handle in response. Calm down and consider what we are really suggesting. Come to think of it, that's all we are asking regarding character creation too...
The emphasis above is mine. I have a question, and I mean this in all honesty: which newness and innovation are we speaking of?
A fair question. There are a lot of things. On one level, I am talking about exactly the kind of nitpicky knee-jerk opposition to insignificant details that Zouron mentions a couple of posts above. On a more fundamental level, I am talking about the nature of some very foundational notions, like the relationship between player and GM. It's really too much to go into in this thread, but the idea of "narrativist" gaming, for one, really constitutes a significant critique of the traditional format of many D&D games, which is often either very gamist, very participationist, or both. For more information about what the hell I'm talking about, go here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/
Incidentally, I am not claiming affiliation with any side of this debate. I absolutely do not assert that narrativist or participationist or gamist or simulationist play is "the best," or necessarily superior to the others. I don't even necessarily support those terms and their current definitions, I just use them for lack of anything better. Another useful (if hilarious and a bit snarky) set of terms to describe different types of gaming is: retro, pretentious and stupid.
http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.h tml
Anyway, I'm just trying to get certain people to become a bit more acknowledging of the full complexity of the things they are arguing about.
... old-school laurels and sneer at newness and innovation ...... I have a question, and I mean this in all honesty: which newness and innovation are we speaking of? I keep seeing this phrase used in this thread and I am legitimately curious what we mean by this? ...While I can't answer for Erick Wilson, I can give a couple of examples I encountered from other "old" players:
Dwarf wizards
Beardless female dwarves
Non-hobbit halflings (that isn't Kenders)
oracle/gunslingers/alchemist/ninja pathfinder classes
Archtypes
3pp products (if they are not made by the creator of the game they are inherently bad, ie. non-paizo books for pathfinder for example).
Yup. You nailed it. And there are a ton of other examples too.
Though I will say I have had a lot of problems with 3rd party products, which often have significant balance issues. I do tend to oppose those (except for modules and the like) as a blanket policy. Basically, I have a (probably overdeveloped) knee-jerk response to potentially OP character concepts that is on the level of the knee-jerk response to non-canonical concepts that is possessed by many GMs (and hardly at all by me). But then, balance issues are at this point creeping more and more into the Paizo material anyway...
... old-school laurels and sneer at newness and innovation ...... I have a question, and I mean this in all honesty: which newness and innovation are we speaking of? I keep seeing this phrase used in this thread and I am legitimately curious what we mean by this? ...While I can't answer for Erick Wilson, I can give a couple of examples I encountered from other "old" players:
Dwarf wizards
Beardless female dwarves
Non-hobbit halflings (that isn't Kenders)
oracle/gunslingers/alchemist/ninja pathfinder classes
Archtypes
3pp products (if they are not made by the creator of the game they are inherently bad, ie. non-paizo books for pathfinder for example).
Yup. You nailed it. And there are a ton of other examples too.
Though I will say I have had a lot of problems with 3rd party products, which often have significant balance issues. I do tend to oppose those (except for modules and the like) as a blanket policy. Basically, I have a (probably overdeveloped) knee-jerk response to potentially OP character concepts that is on the level of the knee-jerk response to non-canonical concepts that is possessed by many GMs (and hardly at all by me). But then, balance issues are at this point creeping more and more into the Paizo material anyway...
Ah! Thank you and Zouron for expounding on this, I was afraid I had missed something else. I can see what you mean now and can understand where you are coming from. For our game, we've incorporated all sorts of things on this list so it isn't much of an issue. About the only thing I'm relatively hardcore oldie about is my musical tastes. I think I'm single handedly keeping our classic rock station alive.
