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...
You forgot:
"Not every single thing is negotiable". Being read as "nothing is negotiable, play a human fighter you ignoramus."
... 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...
Balance was always an illusion in my book anyway and only really came through in a few and limited number of situations, usually there will always be one or more characters that will for whatever reason be able to do more. For my games being a high perception character will give you tons of benefits since it is a skil I use probably way to much, on the other hand another GM in my area tend to do stuff that favours pure speklcasting characters, which means the balance is out the window to some degree.
Beardless female dwarvesI'm amazed that hating this is still a thing.
It came up last week and the ranting was legendary and did include the "pointless limitation" of a 10 dice max fireball rather then a level number of dice fireball.
If you are making perception too important, try making sense motive a bit more useful to sense what is coming and what is intended. Also knowledge skills and professions can be given a more centre stage, signifying important background material and enlivening the world through what is shared.
Encourage the players to take and use more than just perception. I have worked profession (bandit) for all it was worth before. "Okay, what does my bandit knowledge tell me, what type of raid seems to have gone down here?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I'll handle the motivations for my character, don't bother yourself with that.Really. So you determine what the quests are?
So your character doesn't "give a damn" what is going on, why you are here, etc...
How sad.
I remember when not giving a damn was cool.
Year 10 I think...
|
|
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.
Since you don't "give a damn" about the story or the setting, it probably isn't a large concession to you.
Others may actually care about such things.
YMMV.
|
|
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.
I think you aren't understanding what most of us (most) are arguing.
It isn't that you want to play something odd, specifically, that is a problem. Odd fits fine in a lot of campaigns.
I've player in an all Kitsune Campaign, I've played in a monster PC only campaign, etc...
The issue is that not every idea fits into every campaign, and some players don't seem to get that concept, and demand the GM "make it work", despite the GM not wanting that concept in the campaign because they think it will make the campaign less fun.
What is "good" is subjective. But when you have a group activity, you should try and be considerate of other people's preferences and tastes and not be inflexible by forcing people to accommodate things they don't like or want and acting entitled.
That is the point most of us are trying to make.
If your GM or fellow players balk at your idea, pick another idea.
Same as if you want to run a campaign and your fellow players balk at your idea, pick another campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I advocate working to find the middle ground.
Anyone, whether player or GM, who refuses to make the smallest effort to meet the other guy partway through will not be a good person to play with later on.
Because their needs will always come first at the expense of everyone else.
And this holds true for a GM just as much as for a player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I advocate working to find the middle ground.
Anyone, whether player or GM, who refuses to make the smallest effort to meet the other guy partway through will not be a good person to play with later on.
Because their needs will always come first at the expense of everyone else.
And this holds true for a GM just as much as for a player.
That's great, if middle ground isn't defined as "I get exactly the concept I pitch whether it can logically exist in the setting or not, make it happen." As long as, for example, 'there are no elves here, but how about an 'x' " is defined as middle ground.
|
|
Yeah because screwing over the player in such a obvious way possible is the smartest thing to do. Any DM that allows me to play a special snowflake then kills me off in the most embrassing way possible better do it in the safety of their own homes. Or I'm throwing them, their books, dice and notes out the door. If a DM does not want special snowflakes that's fine. Doing something that will get you possibly blacklisted in the gaming community and ruin a friendship as well as your game not so much.
|
|
At this point it's obvious the OP has not really been listening to anything being said in this thread. Every time we agree that both sides need to show respect and treat each other as equals the OP comes along and essentially goes "I'm still the god at my table no matter what is said in this thread". So I think it's time we close this thread. Since it's going nowhere. Interesting discussion ot be sure. Yet the person who started the thread is really in no mood to remotely listen to what is being said in it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point it's obvious the OP has not really been listening to anything being said in this thread. Every time we agree that both sides need to show respect and treat each other as equals the OP comes along and essentially goes "I'm still the god at my table no matter what is said in this thread". So I think it's time we close this thread. Since it's going nowhere. Interesting discussion ot be sure. Yet the person who started the thread is really in no mood to remotely listen to what is being said in it.
Hm, yes. We have reached broad, overwhelming consensus about the following:
1) There should be, as a rule of thumb, a balance of power regarding campaign setting creation, wherein the player can be considered to have a certain amount of influence over the setting as it relates to his character.
2) The balance of power favors the GM, but while he is the final arbiter, he should not be seen as the sole arbiter regarding these issues. The attitude many GMs have of being heavily authoritarian over the player- acting as though they are giving concessions or doing favors by even considering (much less actually making) changes to the world- needs to go the way of the dodo. A player who encounters such a GM can rightly regard him as unreasonable.
3) The bar for what is or is not a "snowflake" or a ridiculous concept, changes from campaign setting to campaign setting. It is almost certainly unreasonable to make much of a push for playing a gunslinger in Krynn, for instance, or in a setting based on ancient Greece. But in, say, Eberron, you'd expect to have the idea considered.
Despite this consensus, there are still GMs coming on to post something to the effect of "Screw all that, I'm the big man and I decide, peon." There are also, sadly, still a few players popping up saying, in effect "Even my most highly indulgent and esoteric concepts should be incorporated into the GM's campaign world no matter what kind of crazy world bending legerdemain is involved in doing so, because the GM is here to serve me and make me have fun."
It is because the rest of us are still trying to get through to these holdouts that the thread still trundles on.
|
|
Very well said Erick. Still those Dms/Players are imo are not the standard let alone the norm. More often than both are reasonable and regard eaco others with respect and equals at the gaming table. If not soon they find themselves either not running games since players stay away from them. Or Dns refuse to put up with unreasonable players. After all it's not like our hobby is some sort of super secret exclusive club. where only the cool kids can play. Mind you I have experienced players willing to put up with whatever negatvie thing a DM does to them just to play. As well as DMs who who put up with unreasonable players just to run a game. Again the exception not the norm. In those cases imo each side gets what they deserve. Better no gaming than bad gaming.
As for the holdouts I think it's truly a waste of time to get through to them. Both sides opinions are set in adamantium and will not change so why bother. Which is why I think the thread has imo reached it's conclusion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point it's obvious the OP has not really been listening to anything being said in this thread. Every time we agree that both sides need to show respect and treat each other as equals the OP comes along and essentially goes "I'm still the god at my table no matter what is said in this thread". So I think it's time we close this thread. Since it's going nowhere. Interesting discussion ot be sure. Yet the person who started the thread is really in no mood to remotely listen to what is being said in it.
Something you seem to forgot or not understand is the fact that the way I run my games isn't wrong nor does it make me a bad DM. A few people in this thread can't seem to grasp that concept and think their way is the right way. My way is right for me and my group. I run restrictive games to achieve a certain atmosphere, I run kitchen sink style games to give everyone a chance to play what they want to play. I do run both so if you don't like one then wait for the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point it's obvious the OP has not really been listening to anything being said in this thread. Every time we agree that both sides need to show respect and treat each other as equals the OP comes along and essentially goes "I'm still the god at my table no matter what is said in this thread". So I think it's time we close this thread. Since it's going nowhere. Interesting discussion ot be sure. Yet the person who started the thread is really in no mood to remotely listen to what is being said in it.Hm, yes. We have reached broad, overwhelming consensus about the following:
1) There should be, as a rule of thumb, a balance of power regarding campaign setting creation, wherein the player can be considered to have a certain amount of influence over the setting as it relates to his character.
2) The balance of power favors the GM, but while he is the final arbiter, he should not be seen as the sole arbiter regarding these issues. The attitude many GMs have of being heavily authoritarian over the player- acting as though they are giving concessions or doing favors by even considering (much less actually making) changes to the world- needs to go the way of the dodo. A player who encounters such a GM can rightly regard him as unreasonable.
3) The bar for what is or is not a "snowflake" or a ridiculous concept, changes from campaign setting to campaign setting. It is almost certainly unreasonable to make much of a push for playing a gunslinger in Krynn, for instance, or in a setting based on ancient Greece. But in, say, Eberron, you'd expect to have the idea considered.
Despite this consensus, there are still GMs coming on to post something to the effect of "Screw all that, I'm the big man and I decide, peon." There are also, sadly, still a few players popping up saying, in effect "Even my most highly indulgent and esoteric concepts should be incorporated into the GM's campaign world no matter what kind of crazy world bending legerdemain is involved in doing...
Sorry, but that is my campaign world just like its your character, and yes, i do reserve the power of veto over any significant changes. You can rail against the stars and call it unfair, but there you go. It is what it is.
Once you start playing? You do what you do and it has the effect it has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, if we are playing at your place and you are supplying god like snacks, you can create almost any kind of character you want.
It's a matter of priorities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah because screwing over the player in such a obvious way possible is the smartest thing to do. Any DM that allows me to play a special snowflake then kills me off in the most embrassing way possible better do it in the safety of their own homes. Or I'm throwing them, their books, dice and notes out the door. If a DM does not want special snowflakes that's fine. Doing something that will get you possibly blacklisted in the gaming community and ruin a friendship as well as your game not so much.
HA! Oh wow.
If a char of yours died in a humiliating way, you would physically throw out the dm and all of their gear?
What about the other players? What about if they interject and do not agree with dm being thrown out the door? >:D
Ha ha, I would like to see that. It would be a most shameful display on your part.
And a side note: being blacklisted in the gaming community does not exist. People talk but the gossip of a few gamers has only so much reach. Now throwing out a dm through the use of physical violence, that is likely to have some repercussions don't you think mighty thrower man?
...At this point it's obvious the OP has not really been listening to anything being said in this thread. Every time we agree that both sides need to show respect and treat each other as equals the OP comes along and essentially goes "I'm still the god at my table no matter what is said in this thread". So I think it's time we close this thread. Since it's going nowhere. Interesting discussion ot be sure. Yet the person who started the thread is really in no mood to remotely listen to what is being said in it.Hm, yes. We have reached broad, overwhelming consensus about the following:
1) There should be, as a rule of thumb, a balance of power regarding campaign setting creation, wherein the player can be considered to have a certain amount of influence over the setting as it relates to his character.
2) The balance of power favors the GM, but while he is the final arbiter, he should not be seen as the sole arbiter regarding these issues. The attitude many GMs have of being heavily authoritarian over the player- acting as though they are giving concessions or doing favors by even considering (much less actually making) changes to the world- needs to go the way of the dodo. A player who encounters such a GM can rightly regard him as unreasonable.
3) The bar for what is or is not a "snowflake" or a ridiculous concept, changes from campaign setting to campaign setting. It is almost certainly unreasonable to make much of a push for playing a gunslinger in Krynn, for instance, or in a setting based on ancient Greece. But in, say, Eberron, you'd expect to have the idea considered.
Despite this consensus, there are still GMs coming on to post something to the effect of "Screw all that, I'm the big man and I decide, peon." There are also, sadly, still a few players popping up saying, in effect "Even my most highly indulgent and esoteric concepts should be incorporated into the GM's campaign world no matter what kind of crazy world bending
Yep. I very much disagree with the supposed consensus of point 2.
As a dm I like to be surprised, and love it when my players head out and do whatever they want, in character. Go for it, have fun, solve the problems and quests, participate in a sandbox, interact with an npc in an unexpected way, and so on.
The setting, what is allowed to be genned, what exists, that is the dm's responsibility. To confuse the player role with the dm role is an error. Players may ask questions or make requests, but the dm is the creator, and they paint the canvas. Then the players are let lose in the setting they have been given, hopefully then given pretty free reign (minimal railroading) and agency inside the setting run and/or created by the dm.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HA! Oh wow.
If a char of yours died in a humiliating way, you would physically throw out the dm and all of their gear?
If it was an intentional bait and switch, damn right. You don't tell someone 'yeah go ahead' and then dick them over when they do.
It's exactly the same as the player who says 'yeah I'll play in your low magic world' and then brings in a space marine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, yes. We have reached broad, overwhelming consensus about the following:1) There should be, as a rule of thumb, a balance of power regarding campaign setting creation, wherein the player can be considered to have a certain amount of influence over the setting as it relates to his character.
2) The balance of power favors the GM, but while he is the final arbiter, he should not be seen as the sole arbiter regarding these issues. The attitude many GMs have of being heavily authoritarian over the player- acting as though they are giving concessions or doing favors by even considering (much less actually making) changes to the world- needs to go the way of the dodo. A player who encounters such a GM can rightly regard him as unreasonable.
3) The bar for what is or is not a "snowflake" or a ridiculous concept, changes from campaign setting to campaign setting. It is almost certainly unreasonable to make much of a push for playing a gunslinger in Krynn, for instance, or in a setting based on ancient Greece. But in, say, Eberron, you'd expect to have the idea considered.
While I'd agree with you that there's a consensus on 1) and 3), I'd say there's nothing near that over 2). The point is that these are variable from GM to GM, group to group, and situation to situation - and none of us have the right to tell anyone else here how they should be playing. I'd say it's far more like an even split on those topics.
1) As "a certain amount of influence" can be interpreted many different ways (enough to influence their family? Their hometown? Their homeland) that's an easy one for everyone to agree on I think as we're all going to define that certain amount as we see fit ;)
2) I'd certainly say we're all agreed with that point (Final =/= Sole) up until the point you say certain attitudes need to go the way of the dodo. That's precisely the thing we shouldn't be doing here, which is assuming any of us knows the "right" way to play and that some people are "doing it wrong". You and I cannot judge how well it works for others in their game, and shouldn't even be thinking about it. A heavily authoritarian GM is fine if their group enjoys that game.
3) Pretty much agreed by everyone here, individual games and their setting/tone define what does and doesn't seem out of place.
Jessica, please lock this thread. Nothing good will come of it by this point.
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.
I am? They did? Argh! I hate long rambling analogies!
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.
That's cool. Not me (and not anyone I know). That might account for some of my confusion. (Though I probably should have stayed away from the cooking analogies in the first place, since that's not really my thing. Whoops on my part.)
"I don't like sushi" was just your excuse for not making it, not a valid reason.
You won't be finding agreement from me. It's valid.
Okay, so it's going to be that kind of post.
Yeah... it was the moment you responded to my post. The whole "restraint" line and all that.
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.
That's quite the impression. I suspect your past and the baggage you currently carry covers a lot of that. But, again - it's irrelevant what my friends and I enjoy. I wonder why you keep bringing it up, and pretend that it has any meaning whatsoever?
If what your group does has no relevance to anyone else, why are you posting about what your group does?
Because it's fun to post a real group/personal preference example in a fascinating thread while I'm whiling away break time at the office? You seem to be new to the internet. Believe me - I'm not here to 'convince' anyone of anything, or to tell anyone what to do. I will, though, on an internet messageboard, point out when I see something that is completely alien - or distasteful - to me. ('cause it's fun)
Is it "wrongbadfun" to play orcs in DL? Not if everyone agrees that that's a cool thing to do! But it *is* dishonest to agree to play in DL and then try to bring in an orc, instead of saying 'I want to play an orc - is there a campaign we can play that accomodates that?' and accepting that the DM isn't obligated to run anything he/she doesn't want to run. (If one wants to play an orc, why agree to play DL in the first place, then? It's something that I really am confused about. The only rational response I can see is - no, I don't really want to play in DL since I really want to play an orc. If that's all you're willing to DM, then maybe somebody else can DM, or I'll have to sit this one out.)
If you don't like that position... well, then I consider you a problem player. And you consider me (and my entire group) an authoritarian DM and authoritarian (?) players. It's not something we're going to get around, I'm afraid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This metaphor fits the situation poorly, ciretose, and thus the appeal based off the metaphor seems weak to me. A Dnd game (at least, any Dnd game I've ever played in) is not very much at all like dining out and being catered to by a chef.
For one thing, there is not one Chef who slaves away making everything whilst everyone else merely sits and consumes. Pathfinder of course differs sharply from a chef catered dining experience in that everyone is expected to contribute a dish (the dish in this extended metaphor being their character) to the overall meal.
So it's more like a block party barbecue in which there may be one guy whose yard it's in and who's working the grills, but people bring dishes they cooked to contribute as well. So maybe the GM is out doing a lot of leg work, setting up tables beforehand and grilling up all the meat during the party, but there's another guy who brought a rice and veggie dish, one more who mailed it in with tortilla chips, the girls down the street brought bacon mac and cheese and lasagna, but the guy upstairs brought homemade chicken tikka masala only to discover that NO!! GM HATES INDIAN FOOD!!!
(Also more like a block party in that it's a casual setting in which passers by, SOs, etc. occasionally wander through and maybe stop to observe or chat or interrupt... rare at fancy dinner out, in my experience)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't just an RPG problem by the way. We almost had a game of Axis & Allies ruined because one player wanted to play with "alternate rules" that he preferred while the rest of the group wanted to play by the normal rules.
We probably had an hour long argument before the player finally agreed to play the way everyone else wanted to.
I'm sure I could come up with a million other examples. "Hey, why are you playing in G-minor dude? We're all in A!" "Well, I prefer G-minor..."
|
|
Who said the chef is slaving away?
The chef enjoys cooking things that the chef enjoys cooking. And the chef loves watching everyone enjoy the meal they prepared.
What they don't like is when they invite people over for the meal and people tell them they have to cook things they don't want to cook or they are being unreasonable.
|
|
This isn't just an RPG problem by the way. We almost had a game of Axis & Allies ruined because one player wanted to play with "alternate rules" that he preferred while the rest of the group wanted to play by the normal rules.
We probably had an hour long argument before the player finally agreed to play the way everyone else wanted to.
I'm sure I could come up with a million other examples. "Hey, why are you playing in G-minor dude? We're all in A!" "Well, I prefer G-minor..."
Some people don't get the whole "Group" concept...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Dnd game (at least, any Dnd game I've ever played in) is not very much at all like...
Anecdotal is anecdotal, and thus only pertains to YOUR personal experience. People play the game in countless different ways, so just because cireose's analogy does not match up to the way YOU have ever seen the game played (regardless of whether you have been a gamer for 1 or 100 years), does not mean that his analogy is flawed or incorrect in any way what-so-ever.
just because cireose's analogy does not match up to the way YOU have ever seen the game played (regardless of whether you have been a gamer for 1 or 100 years), does not mean that his analogy is flawed or incorrect in any way what-so-ever.
That is what it means, actually. Or at least it means it's open to question. ciretose might then contest my criticism it by (for example) describing how his games actually are like in his analogy, and illuminating the ways in which the GM at his table is the sole imaginatory chef and the players' only interaction with the food of roleplay is as its consumers, and enumerating the advantages that this approach offers over the various others discussed in the thread.
Alternately, he could always agree with me that my analogy is better ( ;) ), and the discussion could go from there. The question of the thread seems unlikely to be resolved by one analogy, whether apt or poor, so the result, even if he agreed with me entirely, would likely be merely a shifting of the terms of the discussion.
Or, he might just not bother, as seems to be the case so far, which is also fine. This remains a casual messageboard and most of us are indeed only in this posting business for the fun of it.
However, I'm not gonna go mute just because someone other than myself used the analogy in question. Just as I post my posts about communication and such because I believe that my experience may be applicable outside of the narrow confines of my weekly game, so ciretose was also presumably not directing his analogy at an audience inside of his own skull, and said analogy may perhaps be open to question (and discussion) outside of those no doubt serene hemispheres.
Or, of course, all the people on the other side of the argument claiming any GM who doesn't allow whatever concept they've come up with into the game is a tyrant.
There are extremes on both sides here.
I think his point was that no one, at least apparently in this thread, has claimed such a thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damned if I'm going to reread the whole thread, but there's been plenty of talk in this thread and its kin about authoritarian GMs.I think his point was that no one, at least apparently in this thread, has claimed such a thing.Or, of course, all the people on the other side of the argument claiming any GM who doesn't allow whatever concept they've come up with into the game is a tyrant.
There are extremes on both sides here.
There has been plenty. Most of it is of this sort:
"Players should be able to play what they like."
"What if the GM doesn't like it?"
"GMs shouldn't object. It will make their game better."
"What if the GM doesn't have time or desire to make changes to their world?"
"It's not a big deal, GMs should just make the change."
etc. etc. etc... So even if the argument isn't TECHNICALLY that a GM who won't allow a special snowflake is a "tyrant" the conversation makes it clear that there is no acceptable rationale for a GM to refuse to allow something, and working out the implication that "the GM is a tyrant" is left as an exercise for the reader.
Damned if I'm going to reread the whole thread, but there's been plenty of talk in this thread and its kin about authoritarian GMs.I think his point was that no one, at least apparently in this thread, has claimed such a thing.Or, of course, all the people on the other side of the argument claiming any GM who doesn't allow whatever concept they've come up with into the game is a tyrant.
There are extremes on both sides here.
There has been plenty. Most of it is of this sort:
"Players should be able to play what they like."
"What if the GM doesn't like it?"
"GMs shouldn't object. It will make their game better."
"What if the GM doesn't have time or desire to make changes to their world?"
"It's not a big deal, GMs should just make the change."etc. etc. etc... So even if the argument isn't TECHNICALLY that a GM who won't allow a special snowflake is a "tyrant" the conversation makes it clear that there is no acceptable rationale for a GM to refuse to allow something, and working out the implication that "the GM is a tyrant" is left as an exercise for the reader.
Yes there has been plenty of talk like that. In fact exactly like that. Talk where someone builds a strawman and claims it is someone else saying that. So yes, there are people saying it, but they are claiming others are saying it. Nobody is claiming such statements or belief are their own. If there are, pull up some evidence. Someone else tried to earlier, but was proven that they just had poor reading comprehension.
Pres, are you an attorney? Because if not, I think the barristry has lost a great opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pres, are you an attorney? Because if not, I think the barristry has lost a great opportunity.
Frankly, I don't think it requires a career in law to recognize when someone is making false statements about others.
But, hey if you want to keep fighting these shadow posters, far from me it to stop you.
No Prez, the legalistic approach is what allows you to assert people are doing things they aren't and then wear them down with never ending rhetoric until they just give up.
Fight the good fight. You have the shadows on the run.
|
|
Something you seem to forgot or not understand is the fact that the way I run my games isn't wrong nor does it make me a bad DM. A few people in this thread can't seem to grasp that concept and think their way is the right way. My way is right for me and my group. I run restrictive games to achieve a certain atmosphere, I run kitchen sink style games to give everyone a chance to play what they want to play. I do run both so if you don't like one then wait for the other.
Then why ask to hear from both sides then. I may not agree with how you run your games. Yet almost every time you start a thread along the lines of "Does 2+2+4" then when the majority answer back that it's 4. You then go "your all wrong dammit it's 5 and nothing you say or post will change my mind". Again your more than welcome to that on these board. Except just be more honest in what you want to see in a thread.
It just seems to me that your looking just to hear from those that agree with you. Seeking some sort of validation and getting bothered that most of the time your not getting a echo chamber. If you want to run restrictive games run them. All I ask is that post a thread where you just want to hear from one side. To take this thread as a example post "I don't allow special snowflakes and here why". If as a DM your not interested in such characters why even star a thread to get feedback when your mind is set up. Seems like a waste of all our time.
|
|
If it was an intentional bait and switch, damn right. You don't tell someone 'yeah go ahead' and then dick them over when they do.
Agreed and seconded. So it's not okay for me to be unhappy because I was screwed over purposefully by the DM at the table. Yet I'm the bad guy if I show a negative reaction about it. To some in this thread try pulling a intentional bait and switch on your players that results in their characters being killed off on purpose then get back to me on how well it goes.
It's exactly the same as the player who says 'yeah I'll play in your low magic world' and then brings in a space marine.
And in such cases the DM is free to say no. I know I would.
memorax, just so you know that you have up to an hour to edit your posts (for example your first post says 2+2+4 not 2+2=4). I'd also recommend combining several posts into one, so as not to drive up the post count and make it harder for people to keep up. Just FYI.
|
|
memorax, just so you know that you have up to an hour to edit your posts (for example your first post says 2+2+4 not 2+2=4). I'd also recommend combining several posts into one, so as not to drive up the post count and make it harder for people to keep up. Just FYI.
Thanks Pres man. Too late to edit that post. I meant to say 2+2=4.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't we just say: "Hey, guys. This game is a group effort. Let's take a session to set some ground rules for character creation, the setting, and how we're gonna play together so that we can all have fun and not worry about a bunch of drama?" Then we could just be nice and friendly about the whole process and not create a hostile situation.
Seems like the easiest solution to me. >_>
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't we just say: "Hey, guys. This game is a group effort. Let's take a session to set some ground rules for character creation, the setting, and how we're gonna play together so that we can all have fun and not worry about a bunch of drama?" Then we could just be nice and friendly about the whole process and not create a hostile situation.
Seems like the easiest solution to me. >_>
Pfff, why don't you go back to your imaginary hippy fairyland where this stuff actually "happens", and leave the serious people to talk about the inevitable conflicts that must occur while playing RPGs.
Sheesh. We're trying to discuss the real world here.