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


Gamer Life General Discussion

2,051 to 2,100 of 2,339 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Once again lack of info on why is the issue. In the Viking example it's evident why humans only. However lets say a guy shows up with a short bearded human with a high con, a Scottish accent, worse alcoholism than the cast of Jersey Shore, and a big axe. Will you be frustrated because he is a dwarf rip-off? ( and yes I know that guy fits in great with Vikings)
Well since he is human, he can put his +2 in con and be a short stocky human. Will he be taking a dwarf's stats? Nope.

Dwarf = Short Stocky Human

Elf = Tall Point Eared Human

Half-Orc = Green Skinned Muscular Human

Half-Elf = Less Pronounced Tall and Pointy Eared Human

Halfling = Short, Fat, Slow, Annoying, Human

Gnome = Shorter, Slower, More Annoying, Human

For someone complaining that people don't take their odd race choices seriously or object to them for what you consider silly reasons, its quite interesting to reas your eescriptions of core races - which fit very few of those races I actually see played in my games ...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

If everything is just human with a modifier, then we don't need races at all! Exotics are just humans with funny masks or wigs or costumes on! That means that we don't have to worry about any of this, because everyone is human and most people are not stopping people from having those in game! Thread is over!

(My victory lap may be premature I fear)

Now in fairness, humans can vary in shapes and sizes. That is why they get a + 2 modifier to apply to any stat.

Now you still have to be realistic with this. Humans aren't normally born with green skin and pointed ears so you have to exercise caution.


knightnday wrote:

If everything is just human with a modifier, then we don't need races at all! Exotics are just humans with funny masks or wigs or costumes on! That means that we don't have to worry about any of this, because everyone is human and most people are not stopping people from having those in game! Thread is over!

(My victory lap may be premature I fear)

i mean, there is little we know about how exotic these exotic races truly are, because we push our human views down their throats and call them exotic. as examples, many published races are based off a few aspects or a view of one or more human cultures

look at Hobgoblins, they are a unified group of refined phalanx soldiers bred for war, basically spartans

Orcs. hordes of people who charge into combat with axe and falchion fighting recklessly and breeding like flies, started with a few steriotypes of the nordic people by other countries, adopted a bit of native american and african here and there

Elves, a race of tall androgynous people who love beautiful art, music, and poetry, revere nature, and are generally peaceful and wealthy artists and philosophers, sounds like a romanticized view of Athens to me. throw in the modern enviromentalist movement to B.C. Athens, you got the idea

Dwarves, a short and stocky race of miners, mountaineers, blacksmiths, and axe crazy lunatics, lets see, we have the nordic berserkers again, the metallurgy of damascus, the mountains associated with germany, and the axes of scottsman, berserkers and loggers.

Aasimaars, a race of people inclined towards doing good due to their celestial blood, pure, virtuous and sweet. a Romanticized and Naive idealization of many Catholic Saints, Medieval Nobles, and a Variety of English Queens. thing is, most of these Saints, Nobles and Queens, were far Darker than we portray them to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

If everything is just human with a modifier, then we don't need races at all! Exotics are just humans with funny masks or wigs or costumes on! That means that we don't have to worry about any of this, because everyone is human and most people are not stopping people from having those in game! Thread is over!

(My victory lap may be premature I fear)

I ban humans in some of my games. You'll have to play a giant halfling, sorry.

Arssanguinus wrote:
For someone complaining that people don't take their odd race choices seriously or object to them for what you consider silly reasons, its quite interesting to reas your eescriptions of core races - which fit very few of those races I actually see played in my games ...

I think she might have been writing sarcastically...


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


Aasimaars, a race of people inclined towards doing good due to their celestial blood, pure, virtuous and sweet. a Romanticized and Naive idealization of many Catholic Saints, Medieval Nobles, and a Variety of English Queens. thing is, most of these Saints, Nobles and Queens, were far Darker than we portray them to be.

That's why evil Aasimars are so fun, because sometimes Light Is Not Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Same with good Tieflings, because Dark Is Not Evil is also fun sometimes.

Liberty's Edge

"Sometimes" being the operative word.


Agreed everything has a sometime. It's just a matter of knowing when the right time to bring up your awakened horse cleric or you good aligned dual wielding drow


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything in moderation, including moderation.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone remember when Invocation and Evocation were separate schools?

Good times.


Matt Thomason wrote:


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...

Hm, I see where you're coming from here. But think about what I'm saying. Again, I'm not advocating that the GM lose the power of final approval. In fact, point #2 reiterates that they have it. And while I understand your apprehension about the suggestion that an attitude needs to go away, I would also say this: no gaming group has ever been improved by an air of superiority, frustration or condescension on the part of one of its members. All I am saying is that GMs need to treat their players with respect and engage them as collaborators, if they expect to be given the kind of respect and authority in return that many of them seem to feel is their due.


shallowsoul wrote:


What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.

But what kind of behavior? This is the thing I think you're missing. Your idea of a "special snowflake" might not be someone else's. We all come to the table with potentially very different referents regarding the various conventions of fantasy and the way campaign worlds work.

Usually, the player in question genuinely believes that his character will enhance the gaming experience of the world in question, based on his understanding of that world and its conventions. It is therefore actually pretty rude, and not at all helpful, for the GM to scoff and repudiate the character, and to scold the player or apply derogatory labels like "special snowflake" to his efforts.

Did you ever consider that the problem may be your own failure to sufficiently delineate the set of genre assumptions that you are working with when you imagine the campaign setting? It's like a director who starts yelling at an actor, at the first rehearsal, for a portrayal of a character that isn't exactly what he envisioned. Sure, directors like that are probably out there. But they aren't generally the most effective, and I have a feeling they don't keep finding work for long.

Silver Crusade

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


What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.

But what kind of behavior? This is the thing I think you're missing. Your idea of a "special snowflake" might not be someone else's. We all come to the table with potentially very different referents regarding the various conventions of fantasy and the way campaign worlds work.

Usually, the player in question genuinely believes that his character will enhance the gaming experience of the world in question, based on his understanding of that world and its conventions. It is therefore actually pretty rude, and not at all helpful, for the GM to scoff and repudiate the character, and to scold the player or apply derogatory labels like "special snowflake" to his efforts.

Did you ever consider that the problem may be your own failure to sufficiently delineate the set of genre assumptions that you are working with when you imagine the campaign setting? It's like a director who starts yelling at an actor, at the first rehearsal, for a portrayal of a character that isn't exactly what he envisioned. Sure, directors like that are probably out there. But they aren't generally the most effective, and I have a feeling they don't keep finding work for long.

Why are you trying to make this into some sort of "lack of creativity" argument?

You continue to mistake "choice" for "incapability".

If I want to run a campaign using all humans then there will be nothing but humans at the game. I don't give a damn how creative or how much more you think your character will bring to the game. You either work with what you are given or you sit this one out and wait for another game to come along that will suit your needs better.

Just because "you" think your ideas are great doesn't mean they are or that everyone else thinks so.

I have almost 30 years of gaming experience and I can assure you, I can run a game that allows any and everything there is, but that doesn't mean it's going to be every game I run. There are other members of the group and they may want an all human game, well hell if they voted to play in it then they must want it.

Can't always be about you.

Liberty's Edge

One persons "creative" is another persons "silly".

Silver Crusade

Who do you think is more badass?

1: Guy disarming a bomb using all the latest bomb disposal gear.

or

2: Guy disarming the same bomb using a used toothpick, some bellybutton lint, and a single pubic hair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

guy who does not bother to disarm the bomb and instead walks away in slow motion while it blows up, not even looking back at the explosion

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

guy who does not bother to disarm the bomb and instead walks away in slow motion while it blows up, not even looking back at the explosion

Cool guys don't look at explosions!


shallowsoul wrote:


Why are you trying to make this into some sort of "lack of creativity" argument?

I'm not. I'm not sure why you think I'm saying that.

Quote:

You continue to mistake "choice" for "incapability".

I'm not sure I know what this means...

Quote:


I don't give a damn how creative or how much more you think your character will bring to the game.

You don't see that, in a collaborative medium, that attitude is a problem? I would venture to say that "not giving a damn about" someone else's input/point of view is a poor idea in virtually every endeavor that you are not performing entirely by yourself. Listen, I'm not saying you have to accept all, or even any, of your players' suggestions or points of view. But you absolutely should consider them to see whether they might have anything to offer. There are several reasons to do this, but I really don't see why I have to enumerate any more of them than this: it is respectful of your player as a human being.

Quote:


You either work with what you are given or you sit this one out and wait for another game to come along that will suit your needs better.

Yes, this MAY very well be the conclusion of the sit down that you have with your player/s. But it should not be the starting point. Have you ever done theater? Again, I really think that might be the best parallel. Throwing down the hammer and saying "You're going to play it this way and that's the end of the conversation" is generally considered the tactic of last resort by directors, because they know that, although they may indeed understand the play better than the actor, it is still incumbent on them to patiently communicate their reasoning to the actor, because...

once again, the actor, like the player in an RPG, is a collaborator , not an audience member, and furthermore...

they know also that they will get better results by treating their actors with respect.


shallowsoul wrote:


Just because "you" think your ideas are great doesn't mean they are or that everyone else thinks so.

As I keep pointing out, this argument cuts both ways. Just because you, the GM, think your ideas are great does not mean they are either.

Quote:


I have almost 30 years of gaming experience and I can assure you, I can run a game that allows any and everything there is, but that doesn't mean it's going to be every game I run. There are other members of the group and they may want an all human game, well hell if they voted to play in it then they must want it.

I have 26 years of gaming experience, and quite a few years of theater experience as well, so I'd say we're about even there. And yes, it's cool that you partition your games into more and less permissive categories. I do the same thing myself. My Birthright campaign, for instance, is my least permissive. But even there, I finally decided to allow firearms recently because it really wasn't worth opposing them anymore. And it's been just fine since. As it turns out, I was all worried about nothing. I actually think it has improved the game. And it makes the player happy, which, you know, does actually matter. No, it's not everything. But it really, really should matter to you.

Also, if a voting process went on as you describe and there was one odd man out, then it does change things. But still what it does is just move the bar for where player un-reasonableness begins. It moves it significantly, but nonetheless there should always be some kind of discussion/collaboration process. Now, if you've carefully explained your vision/intent to the player, and if you can say you've genuinely considered whatever they're offering, even for a moment, and if you still think it's inappropriate and if you've calmly explained why, but the player is still pushing...then fine. Go nuts. At that point you are probably in the right and the player is probably being a dick.

But if you can't be bothered to go through that process with a given player, then you probably don't respect them enough to be gaming with them. And if you don't respect someone, you're inviting your own trouble by inviting them to game with you in the first place.


Erick Wilson wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


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...

Hm, I see where you're coming from here. But think about what I'm saying. Again, I'm not advocating that the GM lose the power of final approval. In fact, point #2 reiterates that they have it. And while I understand your apprehension about the suggestion that an attitude needs to go away, I would also say this: no gaming group has ever been improved by an air of superiority, frustration or condescension on the part of one of its members. All I am saying is that GMs need to treat their players with respect and engage them as collaborators, if they expect to be given the kind of respect and authority in return that many of them seem to feel is their due.

Okay, that I can get behind :) I was afraid you might have meant attitudes such as "GM makes the world, Players play in it" were bad :) (And while I accept that's true for some people, it isn't across the board)


Matt Thomason wrote:


Okay, that I can get behind :) I was afraid you might have meant attitudes such as "GM makes the world, Players play in it" were bad...

Well, I think that attitude is bad only if you hold it dogmatically. Even if you hold "GM makes world, players play in it" to be a basic precept of gaming, I think you need to be open to the possibility that things will not always play out that way, depending on your collaborators.

Again, to use the theater analogy, a good director simply can't work dogmatically like that. Val Kilmer is just not going to respond the same way to (whatever your theories about drama are) as Dennis Hopper, who is also going to react very differently than George Clooney etc. But a really good director will be fluid enough to work with all of them. The famous "Mommy" scene of Blue Velvet, for instance, was played by Hopper entirely differently than the way Lynch originally envisioned it. Now granted, Hopper later regretted pushing for his interpretation and believed that Lynch's way would have been better. But the point is that Blue Velvet is a classic because Lynch knew better than to get caught up on that one point when, overall, he had a great collaborator in Hopper.


Erick Wilson wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


Okay, that I can get behind :) I was afraid you might have meant attitudes such as "GM makes the world, Players play in it" were bad...

Well, I think that attitude is bad only if you hold it dogmatically. Even if you hold "GM makes world, players play in it" to be a basic precept of gaming, I think you need to be open to the possibility that things will not always play out that way, depending on your collaborators.

Again, to use the theater analogy, a good director simply can't work dogmatically like that. Val Kilmer is just not going to respond the same way to (whatever your theories about drama are) as Dennis Hopper, who is also going to react very differently than George Clooney etc.

Absolutely - and individual directors may be somewhat choosy about who their collaborators are for that reason. Major differences in technique can lead to unwanted friction.

My personal opinion is "Groups are organized as they see fit". Some work with a different model to others, and none is more correct than any other. All that matters is that the model works for the individual group in question. When it doesn't, then something needs to change - either the model, the expectation, or the group composition.

"Everyone should want to play the same way I do." is the only attitude I'd see as bad. While "I'm going to try to find people that play the same way I do" is just common sense :)


This is not the film industry though Erick.

Players are not professionals paid to be there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:

This is not the film industry though Erick.

Players are not professionals paid to be there.

Even more reason to treat them as with respect, since they aren't getting money for being treated poorly.


I don't define respect as letting them play what isn't in the setting.


Also why the focus on respect?

Is it respectful to the player, for their character they love to die in traps they bumbled into? No. Yet it is an old part of the game.


Immortal Greed wrote:
Is it respectful to the player, for their character they love to die in traps they bumbled into? No. Yet it is an old part of the game.

Well, since you brought it up...

I would argue that arbitrarily killing off PCs through things like traps, which have utterly no story importance, is disrespectful, at least for a lot of playstyles. If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal. I've never witnessed a PC dying due to a trap, or a random encounter, or just bad luck and thought the game was better off for it happening. Every time, I've thought that it would have been better if the PC had never died for such an inconsequential reason.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal.

I'll never fully understand this...

If the PC's are in an ancient dungeon complex, that is home to evil humanoids and who knows what else, then those residents are going to "wander" around, set [deadly] traps, and what have you. Heroes are not invulnerable.

Yeah, yeah, I know, YMMV and all of that!

Good gaming people; however sanitized or un-sanitized you like it...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Is it respectful to the player, for their character they love to die in traps they bumbled into? No. Yet it is an old part of the game.

Well, since you brought it up...

I would argue that arbitrarily killing off PCs through things like traps, which have utterly no story importance, is disrespectful, at least for a lot of playstyles. If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal. I've never witnessed a PC dying due to a trap, or a random encounter, or just bad luck and thought the game was better off for it happening. Every time, I've thought that it would have been better if the PC had never died for such an inconsequential reason.

D&D/Pathfinder, by default, do not come with plot armour, never has. Traps and death are a part of the game. Now having your character survive because it is prewritten is a playstyle that can be played but the game wasn't designed with that in mind. That is why we use dice and we have such things as HP, saves, AC, etc...

Saying that using traps is disrespectful is not just subjective, it's flat out wrong. You can't hold that over a person's head because they used the rules of the game and you just managed to have a bad dice roll. Heroes are born after events have taken place, not before. You can't claim to be a hero before you've saved someone from being knocked down by a car.


shallowsoul wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Is it respectful to the player, for their character they love to die in traps they bumbled into? No. Yet it is an old part of the game.

Well, since you brought it up...

I would argue that arbitrarily killing off PCs through things like traps, which have utterly no story importance, is disrespectful, at least for a lot of playstyles. If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal. I've never witnessed a PC dying due to a trap, or a random encounter, or just bad luck and thought the game was better off for it happening. Every time, I've thought that it would have been better if the PC had never died for such an inconsequential reason.

You can't hold that over a person's head because they used the rules of the game

I agree with your post but I do find this one clause humorously ironic given that your entire argument so far has been that just because something is in the rules you don't think it should necessarily be used.

@Viv: Once you get to a level where raise dead has a negligible cost I don't mind randomly killing people off. It's TPKs you want to avoid when possible.

Silver Crusade

137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Is it respectful to the player, for their character they love to die in traps they bumbled into? No. Yet it is an old part of the game.

Well, since you brought it up...

I would argue that arbitrarily killing off PCs through things like traps, which have utterly no story importance, is disrespectful, at least for a lot of playstyles. If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal. I've never witnessed a PC dying due to a trap, or a random encounter, or just bad luck and thought the game was better off for it happening. Every time, I've thought that it would have been better if the PC had never died for such an inconsequential reason.

You can't hold that over a person's head because they used the rules of the game

I agree with your post but I do find this one clause humorously ironic given that your entire argument so far has been that just because something is in the rules you don't think it should necessarily be used.

@Viv: Once you get to a level where raise dead has a negligible cost I don't mind randomly killing people off. It's TPKs you want to avoid when possible.

You aren't reading my post from the right angle. Not using everthing there is not the same as getting angry and calling someone disrespectful because they used a rule from the game is not comparing like for like. If I told you ahead of time that I wasn't going to use traps in my game and I went and did it anyway then you have room for argument but trap use isn't a player option so as a player you shouldn't be worried if I use traps or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Is it respectful to the player, for their character they love to die in traps they bumbled into? No. Yet it is an old part of the game.

Well, since you brought it up...

I would argue that arbitrarily killing off PCs through things like traps, which have utterly no story importance, is disrespectful, at least for a lot of playstyles. If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal. I've never witnessed a PC dying due to a trap, or a random encounter, or just bad luck and thought the game was better off for it happening. Every time, I've thought that it would have been better if the PC had never died for such an inconsequential reason.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Trap kills as disrespectful, you sure make me smile. Enjoy that view Vivianne.


137ben wrote:
@Viv: Once you get to a level where raise dead has a negligible cost I don't mind randomly killing people off. It's TPKs you want to avoid when possible.

Oh I certainly agree with that. If the cost of death is a few thousand gold pieces and having to delay a day for someone to prepare raise dead, then of course it isn't harmful to the narrative.

Anyway, the specific example of traps is kind of a moot point, since traps in Pathfinder are so weak that it's difficult to kill a PC with a remotely CR-appropriate trap.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:


As I keep pointing out, this argument cuts both ways. Just because you, the GM, think your ideas are great does not mean they are either.

Difference being as a GM, I proposed my idea to the group and they either agreed to play it or said no. My idea underwent an approval process, that is how I got be the GM.

The player is now proposing the idea they have.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:

This is not the film industry though Erick.

Players are not professionals paid to be there.

Even more reason to treat them as with respect, since they aren't getting money for being treated poorly.

And the GM is getting paid at your table to run things they don't want to run?

That might explain your position...

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Is it respectful to the player, for their character they love to die in traps they bumbled into? No. Yet it is an old part of the game.

Well, since you brought it up...

I would argue that arbitrarily killing off PCs through things like traps, which have utterly no story importance, is disrespectful, at least for a lot of playstyles. If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal. I've never witnessed a PC dying due to a trap, or a random encounter, or just bad luck and thought the game was better off for it happening. Every time, I've thought that it would have been better if the PC had never died for such an inconsequential reason.

Bad things should never happen to a PC. Having things attack them is mean.


The thief, Black Leaf, did not find the poison trap, and I declare her dead.

Second one:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
I would argue that arbitrarily killing off PCs through things like traps, which have utterly no story importance, is disrespectful, at least for a lot of playstyles. If the point of the game is to tell a story about a certain group of characters, characters dying for basically no reason is antithetical to that goal. I've never witnessed a PC dying due to a trap, or a random encounter, or just bad luck and thought the game was better off for it happening. Every time, I've thought that it would have been better if the PC had never died for such an inconsequential reason.
Bad things should never happen to a PC. Having things attack them is mean.

Congrats, ciretose, you win the gold star first prize for reading comprehension!

There's many ways for PCs to face negative consequences. They could be taken prisoner, the big bad could get the important McGuffin, NPCs they care about could die, etc., etc. All of these allow the game and the story to continue on.

To expound on my earlier points, in other forms of fiction, important characters dying for narratively unimportant reasons is rare. As a random example, take the original Dragonlance trilogy. Sturm Brightblade didn't die to a random trap he failed a perception check to notice. He died sacrificing himself to protect others at an important point in the story. Even works like Game of Thrones, which are known for a high body count, don't have important characters killed off for arbitrary, inconsequential reasons.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I kind of wish people would learn to use restraint when throwing around their "years of experience as a Dungeon Master" as part of an argument.

I have 37 years of experience as a DM, and I am a s&!#ty DM.


I know the feel about the years of experience thing, honestly mostly to me it is mostly useful to show where in the history of rpgs one started and through that give an idea about what assumptions are made about the game at the time.

I like to throw in that I kind of wish people would stop deliberately reading more into what a post contains for the purpose of being able to ridicule the poster without actually having to make a rational response to the post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:

I kind of wish people would learn to use restraint when throwing around their "years of experience as a Dungeon Master" as part of an argument.

I have 37 years of experience as a DM, and I am a s~$+ty DM.

I have to admit half the time I see people do that (and I'm not targeting anyone in this thread here), I then look at the comment being made and my first thought is "huh, with that many years behind you how come you still don't know any better?"


random thought here: People making such comments are trying to make themselves into special snowflakes on the forum/thread?

(the thought just made me giggle)


Generic Dungeon Master wrote:

I kind of wish people would learn to use restraint when throwing around their "years of experience as a Dungeon Master" as part of an argument.

I have 37 years of experience as a DM, and I am a s&#$ty DM.

It's the internet. If we were on different forums, people would have to tell you that they are SEAL team members or black belts or have shot a gun since they were a fetus or attended Le Cordon Bleu or invented the Internet or whatnot. At least in most of our cases, our "brag" of years is usually true instead of made up like the above comments. But yeah, it's an overused measuring stick. I've known people that have worked on cars for 40 years that I wouldn't let put gas in mine, and people that have GMed for a long time that were average at best.


knightnday wrote:
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:

I kind of wish people would learn to use restraint when throwing around their "years of experience as a Dungeon Master" as part of an argument.

I have 37 years of experience as a DM, and I am a s&#$ty DM.

It's the internet. If we were on different forums, people would have to tell you that they are SEAL team members or black belts or have shot a gun since they were a fetus or attended Le Cordon Bleu or invented the Internet or whatnot. At least in most of our cases, our "brag" of years is usually true instead of made up like the above comments. But yeah, it's an overused measuring stick. I've known people that have worked on cars for 40 years that I wouldn't let put gas in mine, and people that have GMed for a long time that were average at best.

The one thing I would give people with a lot of GMing years behind them is this:

If they still have a group after all that time, they're obviously doing something right.

That still doesn't mean that same thing would be right for any other group, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
pres man wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:

This is not the film industry though Erick.

Players are not professionals paid to be there.

Even more reason to treat them as with respect, since they aren't getting money for being treated poorly.

And the GM is getting paid at your table to run things they don't want to run?

That might explain your position...

You seem to be of the belief that we are discussing a zero sum game here. That if you show respect to the players, the GM must therefore be disrespected. I would say that if that is your truly held belief that it is a bit sad.

I personally believe it is possible to show both sides of the screen respect. Asking a GM to include something they hadn't included originally isn't being disrespectful IMO. Now demanding it be included is. Telling a player that the character doesn't fit the setting after listen to the player attempt to explain how it could, isn't disrespectful, dismissing the idea out of hand is, IMO.

Liberty's Edge

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:


There's many ways for PCs to face negative consequences. They could be taken prisoner, the big bad could get the important McGuffin, NPCs they care about could die, etc., etc. All of these allow the game and the story to continue on.

So the GM can't tell you what you are playing or have anything that causes permanent harm occur.

Or at least not for a reason that you, personally, don't think is good enough...although again, no example of anything really bad happening.

You must hate Game of Thrones.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:

I personally believe it is possible to show both sides of the screen respect. Asking a GM to include something they hadn't included originally isn't being disrespectful IMO. Now demanding it be included is.

Awesome! We agree!

pres man wrote:


Telling a player that the character doesn't fit the setting after listen to the player attempt to explain how it could, isn't disrespectful, dismissing the idea out of hand is, IMO.

Still agree!

Why don't you come over to our side? You are arguing our position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"...I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, ..."
- Fangorn (Treebeard)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:

I kind of wish people would learn to use restraint when throwing around their "years of experience as a Dungeon Master" as part of an argument.

I have 37 years of experience as a DM, and I am a s%+&ty DM.

To suggest that multiple decades of GM experience is not relevant to any discussion of the dynamics of game play, the responsibilities of GM vs player or the importance of understanding rules and general game customs and mores is simply ridiculous.

That would be like saying that if you have a question about baseball, you shouldn't put any more weight on a 37 year veteran umpire than on a teenager who has watched a game or two.

Experience matters. Game mastery matters. Game skills matter, and in every arena of human endeavor I am aware of, exprience GENERALLY improves skills.

OK, you may be an exception to that rule.

I'm not. And I don't think the vast majority of long-playing GMs are an exception either.

Yes, I put weight on an opinion based on the experience, mastery and skill that is behind that opinion.


Hence the use of the word *restraint*

2,051 to 2,100 of 2,339 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway? All Messageboards