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


Gamer Life General Discussion

2,151 to 2,200 of 2,339 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Erick Wilson wrote:


I think we are somehow reading different threads...

Everyone is reading the same thread. No matter what is said it's always going to be the players fault. No matter how much a player is going to compromise. Work with the DM or is reasonable. The OP is not interested in hearing anything that deviates from "a GM is a absolute god at the table. Some of us have more than once said that a player should not be forcing a DM to bend over backwards to accomodate players. Yet so many pages into this thread and where still at the stage where players are the ones destroying gaming tables. Like I said the OP is not interested one single bit in hearing anything that deviates from his position. He can pretend to be reasonable. He is anything but. I'm getting quite tired of being told that it's the players fault all the time.


Well it certainly seems some people on the thread reads way way more into a statement than is reasonable justified twisting it to be something it is not, something far more extreme and unreasonable in an attempt to avoid having to actually argue.

Silver Crusade

pres man wrote:
I find it humorous because I do know how to run a game where I am not "doing a lot of extra work, for very little gain."

So you can't just reskin the encounter and use it at a different time?

I find your statement humorous.

Silver Crusade

memorax wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:


I think we are somehow reading different threads...
Everyone is reading the same thread. No matter what is said it's always going to be the players fault. No matter how much a player is going to compromise. Work with the DM or is reasonable. The OP is not interested in hearing anything that deviates from "a GM is a absolute god at the table. Some of us have more than once said that a player should not be forcing a DM to bend over backwards to accomodate players. Yet so many pages into this thread and where still at the stage where players are the ones destroying gaming tables. Like I said the OP is not interested one single bit in hearing anything that deviates from his position. He can pretend to be reasonable. He is anything but. I'm getting quite tired of being told that it's the players fault all the time.

Well if you actually read the posts in the thread you will see that it has been the fault of the players and I hate to break it to you but at the end of the day the DM is god over his campaign. If you don't like it then write Paizo telling them they need to remove the part in the CRB about the DM being the final arbitor or simply don't play in the campaign.

What you and a few others don't seem to understand or want to understand is that every single campaign isn't going to be made for you. The attitude here has been it's the campaign that needs to change to accommodate the player instead of the other way around. If I proposea game and 5 out of 6 people are happy and ready to play then it's the DM who is holding all the cards.

If you are tired of hearing it then I would suggest hanging out in another thread and avoid this one.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
ciretose wrote:
You must hate Game of Thrones.

Going for a second gold star first prize in reading comprehension? I explicitly used GoT as an example of a work where, despite the generally high amount of deaths of the books, important characters aren't killed in trivial and arbitrary ways. E.g. Ned Stark died due to what happened and how he acted after Robert Baratheon's death. He didn't die because he failed a perception check while in a cave as part of some tertiary fetch quest.

Meaningful character death can make the game better and more fun for everyone. Pointless and inconsequential makes it worse. Wasn't your mantra was that we should do what makes the game better?

So I told a vet dm about what you said today, how dying to a trap would be disrespectful to the player. Do you know what he said?

Respect the trap.

That makes a lot of sense to me. If you don't want your favourite char of the year/moment/all time to die, really respect the traps. Be careful, try your best to discover them, have precautions if you don't, keep your hp high, use magic to find them. When you do find them, disarm them or go around them. Respect the trap, don't just rely on your entitled attitude (that if you die it is wrong and the dm is bad) to protect your char from trap-death. The guillotine blade coated in old yellow mould does not care for your attitude. If it kills your char, that is how the story for that char turned out. Failure. Another adventurer never made it.

Or walk from all games with dangerous traps if you like. My games have them, all the dms I know and play with have dangerous traps in their games. It is as old as Gygax's games, and traps serve as a reminded of the dangers of adventuring.


Gygax did not like 3.x. Just saying.


Yeah I know, he didn't like where it went and the crafting fill all my item slots direction.

My point, to be clearer, is that traps which can truly kill off characters have been a part of the game and all of its editions since way back in the old days. Dangerous traps as unfair, dangerous traps as disrespectful to the players? They are in the game and its rules and regardless of opinions, have been for a long time.

A dm who finds them unfair and a detriment to the game can of course take them out. They don't have to run high risk dungeons where the traps are even more frightening than the monsters. Leave the old school behind if they are so offended by it.


memorax wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:


I think we are somehow reading different threads...
Everyone is reading the same thread. No matter what is said it's always going to be the players fault. No matter how much a player is going to compromise. Work with the DM or is reasonable. The OP is not interested in hearing anything that deviates from "a GM is a absolute god at the table. Some of us have more than once said that a player should not be forcing a DM to bend over backwards to accomodate players. Yet so many pages into this thread and where still at the stage where players are the ones destroying gaming tables. Like I said the OP is not interested one single bit in hearing anything that deviates from his position. He can pretend to be reasonable. He is anything but. I'm getting quite tired of being told that it's the players fault all the time.

If they agreed to a game where 'x' wasn't included and they insist on 'x' then at the end of the day it kinda is. It would be roughly similar to the gm promising you CAN play 'x' and then reneging at the table. I bet you would find that one unacceptable but why on the other hand is a player agreeing in essence not to then bringing that to the table not considered non kosher?

Really, it's about presentation though. If you come in with for example, "I know you said no elves but I've always like the flavor of 'x' with ''x', 'x' and 'x', is there any way I can get that here?

Or "I know you didn't include paladins as a playable class, but I've been looking at the background you gave and I've got an idea that I think might fit what you gave me, could you tell me if it works for you?"

Or even "I want to play a ninja/priest multi-class and reskin it as a cleric of Osveta, the god of revenge and retribution."

Then it's going to get some thought and consideration during the pre campaign character discussions.

Vs;

"I know you said no 'x' but here is my 'x' build and if you don't let it in you're a tyrant and a jerk'

Or "I want to be 'x' BECAUSE you said no 'x' and I'd be completely unique, man!"(yes, I did actually have that once)

This or something vaguely similar however is going to get about as much consideration as a free root canal booth along the side of the road.

Note that all of the positive examples include some consideration for the milieu they will be playing in and ask 'how can I make this character concept fit into the world". Rather than "how can YOU make the world fit this character concept?"

The paladin concept did end up changing the world, by adding a specific city-state and a deity - but through work by the player and some tweaking on my part both fit into the world like they belonged there. But if the player is going to assume that something that was specifically excluded in the character creation notes should be fit in, its going to be automatic that it's inserted and that I'm responsible for all the work then I'm sorry, but s/he is going to be disappointed. You might not like it, but its a fact of life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a separate note, regarding the "meaningless deaths" - that is one reason I favor the concept of hero points. A "remove meaningless death" reserve. Then I don't have to hold back on things like traps or random encounters, and they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Gygax did not like 3.x. Just saying.

Due to many of the thing that you advocate for...you are putting yourself in a trap on this road, be careful or Viv will get mad :)


Arssanguinus wrote:
they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.

Ah yes. My life is not forfeit... It's fiat... That's so much better.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.
Ah yes. My life is not forfeit... It's fiat... That's so much better.

Fiat? Explain fiat? You have a resource you can spend to convert a death into something else. Is it fiat if someone casts "breath of life" and restores you? Is it 'fiat' if someone casts raise dead? Its a resource, in the players hands, which they can use as they see fit.

Is that somehow worse than a gm fudging dice rolls or giving them only and always plot significant encounters and nothing else?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
On a separate note, regarding the "meaningless deaths" - that is one reason I favor the concept of hero points. A "remove meaningless death" reserve. Then I don't have to hold back on things like traps or random encounters, and they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.

I think that is a very reasonable way to solve the problem.

Immoral Greed wrote:
So I told a vet dm about what you said today,

This is rather funny in light of recent discussion in this thread about people throwing out the number of years they've been DMing.

Immoral Greed wrote:
Or walk from all games with dangerous traps if you like.

Eh, I do use traps sparingly in my games. It's less because I don't want to kill PCs for stupid reasons (traps are actually really weak in Pathfinder), but rather because I don't think they're very interesting, mechanically or fluff-wise.

Immoral Greed wrote:
Dangerous traps as unfair, dangerous traps as disrespectful to the players? They are in the game and its rules and regardless of opinions, have been for a long time.

This is a rather weak argument. First, your premises are wrong. Dangerous traps are not in the game. Look at Chapter 13 in your copy of the CRB and compare traps to PCs whose level is around the trap's CR. It's hard to kill a PC with a trap in Pathfinder without using a trap with CR will above the PC's level. It's true that earlier D&D had more dangerous traps, but they've been gone since at least 3rd edition. Since they were removed, it would suggest the designers thought deadly traps were a bad design decision...

Second, something being written into the rules doesn't magically make it good. For a really extreme example of this, consider just about any rule from the game FATAL. For a less extreme example, consider alignment in Pathfinder. This is commonly house-ruled, removing it all together, weakening alignment restrictions on classes, changing how it works, etc. There are clearly a lot of people who feel that running the alignment rules as written lowers the quality of their game.

Immoral Greed wrote:
Leave the old school behind if they are so offended by it.
ciretose wrote:
you are putting yourself in a trap on this road, be careful or Viv will get mad :)

Yes, this is quite obviously a problem with my emotional state. When I've been calmly explaining why meaningless character deaths lessens the fun of the game and pushes players towards not being invested in their characters or the campaign, it's really just been me emoting all over the place. *rolls eyes*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
On a separate note, regarding the "meaningless deaths" - that is one reason I favor the concept of hero points. A "remove meaningless death" reserve. Then I don't have to hold back on things like traps or random encounters, and they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.

Ditto here - I'd much rather utilize hero points to explain a character's heroism than abnormally high stats, actually, as it really does model the narrative concept of heroism far better.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
On a separate note, regarding the "meaningless deaths" - that is one reason I favor the concept of hero points. A "remove meaningless death" reserve. Then I don't have to hold back on things like traps or random encounters, and they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.

I think that is a very reasonable way to solve the problem.

Immoral Greed wrote:
So I told a vet dm about what you said today,

This is rather funny in light of recent discussion in this thread about people throwing out the number of years they've been DMing.

Immoral Greed wrote:
Or walk from all games with dangerous traps if you like.

Eh, I do use traps sparingly in my games. It's less because I don't want to kill PCs for stupid reasons (traps are actually really weak in Pathfinder), but rather because I don't think they're very interesting, mechanically or fluff-wise.

Immoral Greed wrote:
Dangerous traps as unfair, dangerous traps as disrespectful to the players? They are in the game and its rules and regardless of opinions, have been for a long time.

This is a rather weak argument. First, your premises are wrong. Dangerous traps are not in the game. Look at Chapter 13 in your copy of the CRB and compare traps to PCs whose level is around the trap's CR. It's hard to kill a PC with a trap in Pathfinder without using a trap with CR will above the PC's level. It's true that earlier D&D had more dangerous traps, but they've been gone since at least 3rd edition. Since they were removed, it would suggest the designers thought deadly traps were a bad design decision...

Second, something being written into the rules doesn't magically make it good. For a really extreme example of this, consider just about any rule from the game FATAL. For a less extreme example, consider alignment in Pathfinder. This is commonly house-ruled, removing it all together, weakening alignment restrictions on classes,...

Viv, it is okay. You don't have to make your players excited and cautious about the traps that may be ahead. Please, drain the challenge of getting through dungeons out, remove any fear of threat. Leech it until the dungeons of safety meet OH&S requirements. Go for it. I want to hear more on this and how it goes.

By saying the traps by their CR can't kill the players you clearly don't know much about traps. Trap use requires a lot of thought and the CR rating of traps is not especially important. It isn't just a matter of can trap b kill player c if the player bumbles into it. There is more artistry which comes from really understanding the types of traps and what they counter and do well against (e.g. magnetism works on fighters, but less on some other classes), what can be used and how it can create a really tough challenge for the players.

Consider the stacking of traps, whether they reset or set off further traps, are players trapped/stuck/glued/pinned (floors, pits, containers formed), and if so for how long? Will they use gravity, are sheer surfaces involved, will players drown, what will happen to their gear, will this hamper their ability to escape, and how will these traps function alongside the monsters and denizens of the dungeon/castle/pit/natural tunnel environment?

Further ask, how much is magic, how much is non-magical and how much is environmental and in a sense natural (drowning, running out of air, gas)? What poisons are involved, what is the likelihood of that being the most important part at various levels of the players? Will the trap sap the combat or spellcasting capabilities of the players, and what does that set them up to lose to (the trap didn't kill me, but now death is very likely) later? How fantastical do you want to make it (attack of the moulds, pits of will o wisps) and what will they need to do to get around the trap, overcome it, or endure it?

CR isn't even the beginning of traps and using them as an actual threat. Please, try to use them more fully, or refrain from talking about that which you don't use and clearly don't understand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
On a separate note, regarding the "meaningless deaths" - that is one reason I favor the concept of hero points. A "remove meaningless death" reserve. Then I don't have to hold back on things like traps or random encounters, and they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.
Ditto here - I'd much rather utilize hero points to explain a character's heroism than abnormally high stats, actually, as it really does model the narrative concept of heroism far better.

Basically, you are giving them some degree of plot armor. Then, if you allow hero point to negate hero point, and only give hero points to important 'name villans'. Then you render big fights potentially deadly and minor fights less so.

The other option I've done is that if you leave a hero point unspent and allow yourself the 'meaningful death' or sacrifice, then you can cash in the unspent point for a benefit at character creation, say an additional trait or something.


Viv, I just want to get your position really clear. Cut through the fat as it were.

Are you saying a trap can't kill a pc, because they are weak?

How does this stand in the face of traps which crit (scythes, axes), or which inflict massive poison damage or continue to inflict poison damage following terrible saves? There is also placement to consider, as in walking into traps after already injured, being hit by a grouping of damaging traps or while trying to engage with a ranged foe (I would be interested to hear what you think of those as well).

From that, if multiple traps are used, if effective traps are utilised, if the party is damaged/trapped by a trap, hindered or crippled how are traps weak? Or is it that if traps are not weak, and they kill, they are by default disrespectful?

Is using traps against characters, to attack players? Is that your belief?

Do you hate ability drain, does it seem wrong to you? If a future fight is made more challenging due to ability drain from traps, is that bad? Is a hard struggle all that is badwrongfun?

Why do you hate freedom, and a heavily trapped dungeon? There is so much for the players to overcome, so much challenge! A deathtrap dungeon if you will, to be conquered and its loot plundered.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
On a separate note, regarding the "meaningless deaths" - that is one reason I favor the concept of hero points. A "remove meaningless death" reserve. Then I don't have to hold back on things like traps or random encounters, and they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.
Ditto here - I'd much rather utilize hero points to explain a character's heroism than abnormally high stats, actually, as it really does model the narrative concept of heroism far better.

Basically, you are giving them some degree of plot armor. Then, if you allow hero point to negate hero point, and only give hero points to important 'name villans'. Then you render big fights potentially deadly and minor fights less so.

The other option I've done is that if you leave a hero point unspent and allow yourself the 'meaningful death' or sacrifice, then you can cash in the unspent point for a benefit at character creation, say an additional trait or something.

How many unspent hero points at character creation for a unique race?

(I'm sorry. Truly, truly sorry. I just couldn't stop myself.)


Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
On a separate note, regarding the "meaningless deaths" - that is one reason I favor the concept of hero points. A "remove meaningless death" reserve. Then I don't have to hold back on things like traps or random encounters, and they don't end up dying in meaningless encounters, or at least have the means to negate those deaths into something else.
Ditto here - I'd much rather utilize hero points to explain a character's heroism than abnormally high stats, actually, as it really does model the narrative concept of heroism far better.

Basically, you are giving them some degree of plot armor. Then, if you allow hero point to negate hero point, and only give hero points to important 'name villans'. Then you render big fights potentially deadly and minor fights less so.

The other option I've done is that if you leave a hero point unspent and allow yourself the 'meaningful death' or sacrifice, then you can cash in the unspent point for a benefit at character creation, say an additional trait or something.

How many unspent hero points at character creation for a unique race?

(I'm sorry. Truly, truly sorry. I just couldn't stop myself.)

If you do the work and work with me to make it actually fit into the setting well? Zero. If you don't? Infinity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:
Viv, I just want to get your position really clear. Cut through the fat as it were.

Fat? Seems like you are piling on the lard in that post. LOL

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


Well if you actually read the posts in the thread you will see that it has been the fault of the players and I hate to break it to you but at the end of the day the DM is god over his campaign. If you don't like it then write Paizo telling them they need to remove the part in the CRB about the DM being the final arbitor or simply don't play in the campaign.

Thank you for proving my point about not wanting to hear anything but your point of view. Why do you start these threads anyway. To get more of a post count. To get some sort of feel good validation that you can point out to your players at the table that your right.

Here another thing. DMs have power a the table for as long as the players are willing to put up with. Push players hard enough and eventually all your doing is trying to lord over a empty table with empty seats. Which is what some people in the hobby forget. Players need a DM to get a game running. Yet DMs need players in the first place. No one is saying that either side has to get their way. When possible both sides such work to some sort of consensus. Neither side has to be forced into doing anything they don't want to. Sometimes that's impossible and either side or both go their seperate ways. The majority of posters in this thread have agreed to that. You just keep trying to put the blame on players. While portraying them assome sort of stereotype that cannot or will not listen to reason.

Is that how you approach every game. As seeing players as the enemy. Thankfully for the hobby not every player or DM is the stereotype.

shallowsoul wrote:


What you and a few others don't seem to understand or want to understand is that every single campaign isn't going to be made for you. The attitude here has been it's the campaign that needs to change to accommodate the player instead of the other way around. If I proposea game and 5 out of 6 people are happy and ready to play then it's the DM who is holding all the cards.

I and others know and understand that not every camapaign is about giving in ti player peer pressure/ Or that players should have to put up with tyrant DMs. Either we can come to some sort of consensus. Treatign each other as equals with respect. Or either side or both go their speperate ways. All I'm noticing is that your the only one in the thread that keeps painting players as the worst stereotypes ever. That no matter what the DM is right. Can never be wrong. Which is great and works at your table. Guess what. Your table is not or ever will be a representation of what truly happens in the hobby. Dms and players that think they are god are rare. A good thing for the hobby. Being in the hobby for awhile I can say that what happens at your table has almost never ever happened to me. Except maybe three times. Once with a DM that liked killing players which I never plaed with again. Second time with a DM that turned the gaming experience into a "me vs players" which he admitted was his fault. Third a player not so much wanting everything so much as wanting all the DMs attention on him. The DM as good I have never came across and luck willing never in my life.

shallowsoul wrote:


If you are tired of hearing it then I would suggest hanging out in another thread and avoid this one.

The majority if the posters have come to a consesus. Your the one that keeps being a broken record insisting that no matter what anyone says players are the problem. With nothing written in this thread changing your mind. Maybe it's time you acknowledge that a decent amount of the posters on this board don't agree with your position on many topics. But if playing the broken record makes you feel better go for it.


I can, at times, be a kind of silly Dungeon Master, and have only ever used the "Rocks fall you die" fiat, on a party once, while they were sleeping at an Inn.

Liberty's Edge

Arssanguinus wrote:


If they agreed to a game where 'x' wasn't included and they insist on 'x' then at the end of the day it kinda is. It would be roughly similar to the gm promising you CAN play 'x' and then reneging at the table. I bet you would find that one unacceptable but why on the other hand is a player agreeing in essence not to then bringing that to the table not considered non kosher?

Really, it's about presentation though. If you come in with for example, "I know you said no elves but I've always like the flavor of 'x' with ''x', 'x' and 'x', is there any way I can get that here?

Or "I know you didn't include paladins as a playable class, but I've been looking at the background you gave and I've got an idea that I think might fit what you gave me, could you tell me if it works for you?"

Or even "I want to play a ninja/priest multi-class and reskin it as a cleric of Osveta, the god of revenge and retribution."

Then it's going to get some thought and consideration during the pre campaign character discussions.

Vs;

"I know you said no 'x' but here is my 'x' build and if you don't let it in you're a tyrant and a jerk'

Or "I want to be 'x' BECAUSE you said no 'x' and I'd be completely unique, man!"(yes, I did actually have that once)

This or something vaguely similar however is going to get about as much consideration as a free root canal booth along the side of the road.

Note that all of the positive examples include some consideration for the milieu they will be playing in and ask 'how can I make this character concept fit into the world". Rather than "how can YOU make the world fit this character concept?"

The paladin concept did end up changing the world, by adding a specific city-state and a deity - but through work by the player and some tweaking on my part both fit into the world like they belonged there. But if the player is going to assume that something that was specifically excluded in the character creation notes should be fit in, its going to be automatic that it's inserted and that I'm responsible for all the work then I'm sorry, but s/he is going to be disappointed. You might not like it, but its a fact of life.
[

What I mean by consensus i that we have agreed that a DM could allow some concepts that a player wants within reason. With the right to sat no if they don't fit the campaign or what the DM wants. While a player can ask to have something non-standard from the DM within reason and if the DM allows it and it fits into the campaign. Neither side forcing the issue. Treating each other as equals with respect. At least that's how I see it. The OP keeps playing the same broken record of no matter what playrs are bad and nothing anyone is going to say is going to change his mind. I disagree yet imo he can't seem to let it go. From what I see here. elsewhere and in real life it's just not the case. Why keep bringing it up. It's like he seems obsessed at painting players are the worst possible stereotype imo. All i have to wonder is what's the point.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
I can, at times, be a kind of silly Dungeon Master, and have only ever used the "Rocks fall you die" fiat, on a party once, while they were sleeping at an Inn.

I have used this only once myself. If a player insists in going into a area without having the Rogue or someone with trapfinding not search the area first. Or not using tactics or waiting for the rest of the party and kicking in a door and getting taken out by the enemy. Then sometimes as DM it's unavoidable that a character dies. When a DM kills a character even after the rogue gets a really high roll to search for traps. Is being careful and using tactics is when I start ti question a call on wheter a player dies. The first sometimes happens by chance. The second is the DM imo trying to force the issue.

It's happened in a game I'm in. A player has a Sorceress cohort with a Leadership feat. Yet insists on placing her into situations she has no good reason being in. Without even protecting her with spells let alone items. Eventually the cohort died. We ressurected her yet told the player either runs the cohort more intelligently or he pays out of his own pocket to being her back if she dies again.

Silver Crusade

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


If they agreed to a game where 'x' wasn't included and they insist on 'x' then at the end of the day it kinda is. It would be roughly similar to the gm promising you CAN play 'x' and then reneging at the table. I bet you would find that one unacceptable but why on the other hand is a player agreeing in essence not to then bringing that to the table not considered non kosher?

Really, it's about presentation though. If you come in with for example, "I know you said no elves but I've always like the flavor of 'x' with ''x', 'x' and 'x', is there any way I can get that here?

Or "I know you didn't include paladins as a playable class, but I've been looking at the background you gave and I've got an idea that I think might fit what you gave me, could you tell me if it works for you?"

Or even "I want to play a ninja/priest multi-class and reskin it as a cleric of Osveta, the god of revenge and retribution."

Then it's going to get some thought and consideration during the pre campaign character discussions.

Vs;

"I know you said no 'x' but here is my 'x' build and if you don't let it in you're a tyrant and a jerk'

Or "I want to be 'x' BECAUSE you said no 'x' and I'd be completely unique, man!"(yes, I did actually have that once)

This or something vaguely similar however is going to get about as much consideration as a free root canal booth along the side of the road.

Note that all of the positive examples include some consideration for the milieu they will be playing in and ask 'how can I make this character concept fit into the world". Rather than "how can YOU make the world fit this character concept?"

The paladin concept did end up changing the world, by adding a specific city-state and a deity - but through work by the player and some tweaking on my part both fit into the world like they belonged there. But if the player is going to assume that something that was specifically excluded in the character creation notes should be fit in, its going to be

...

This statement is proof that you haven't read the thread or understood it. We have already stated long ago that a player can make a request. What has been repeated by certain posters here is that their concepts should always be allowed.

These same people have stated repeatedly that you are a bad DM if you do not allow it. What I am trying to make clear is that I run my games the way it suits my players. You can run your game however you see fit but don't assume we all run our games that way.

I have two games going at the moment, one on a Tuesday and another on a Thursday. The Tuesday game is a restricted game that is elves only while Thursday is all races from the CRB plus three from ARG. I reserve the right to run a restricted game on one night and another on a different night. That is my compromise, that is how I do things. If I say all humans then it's all humans. Don't show up with an elf after I have told you the restrictions.

You have a nasty habit or arguing for the sake of arguing or you just don't take the time to actually read.


Heh, again we see the "if the players don't like the GM, they just don't have to play with that GM." statement.

That goes both ways, but once again the social impact is assymetric. If the GM doesn't like the way a player is driving his game, the GM doesn't have to play with that player. Among the options available to that GM are the two most obvious ones. Kick the player out, or just refuse to run the campaign. In the second case the impact is not to one player, it's to the entire group of players. So when a player pushes this "you should accommodate me better!" mantra, they are not just putting the GM into a position of reacting to the player's demand, they are frequently putting the whole player group at risk of not having a game to play at all.

This thread has repeatedly been dominated by the "GM MUST accommodate the player!" contingent, and that's fine, there are more players than GMs. But I can tell you right now that there are some things I just don't want to run, so that approach can quite easily mean that one player ruins the fun of the entire group. Which is one of the main points that the "player MUST accommodate the GM" contingent has been trying to make.

My fundamental attitude is that I really couldn't care less about what people on these boards demand, argue or assert baselessly. All I care about is that if I'm the GM and one player won't cooperate wtih me AS I PERSONALLY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE, then that player is either going to be disinvited or else the whole game is going to stop and a new game will have to be set up.

So those of you who keep pushing the player's perspective here can do as they like, but be ready to face the consequences of your expectations.

Silver Crusade

I would also not even think twice about shelving a campaign for another time so I don't "have to have" players. Im not going to cry if nobody wants to play in it. I will politely put it away and wait for someone else to propose a game they will run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The Mandate of Heaven" for you chinese philosophy buffs.


I sniffed all around for any trace of those varmints and couldn't find any anything. You sure they were here and it wasn't just all in your head?


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
"The Mandate of Heaven" for you chinese philosophy buffs.

Umm what here represents the mandate of heaven? Not much I have seen qualifies as the right o rule because because you rule in a way that is beneficial to all.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


This thread has repeatedly been dominated by the "GM MUST accommodate the player!" contingent...

Again, I haven't seen anyone saying that. I certainly haven't been advocating that. I would say there is a definite imbalance in the attitude of the two camps, in that regard: the "pro-player" camp seems to me to be advocating a fairly moderate position, while the "pro-GM" camp often appears more extremist. I do think, however, that each camp is mis-characterizing the other's position as more extreme than it actually is, which is not good for anyone.

Let me take one more crack at getting across my position.

1. When one person has more power than another in a relationship, it is incumbent upon that person to adhere to a higher standard of sensitivity/self-control with regard to the workings of that relationship.

2. In the GM/player relationship, GMs have more relative power, for exactly the reasons that AD's post, above, explains.

3. It is therefore incumbent on GMs to deal with player requests with a greater degree of sensitivity and consideration than might have been shown by the player in making the request in the first place.

To argue with my conclusion (3), you will first have to dispute my premises (1 and 2), which I think you will find it difficult to do. Premise 1 is the reason that, for example, it is considered poorer form for a man to hit a woman than it is for a woman to hit a man: men are (usually) physically stronger than women. That still does mean, obviously, that women should go around hitting men with impunity. As for premise 2, it is nothing more than what the pro-GM camp has been saying the whole time, so I doubt anyone from that camp will dispute it.

I suggest to GMs that the next time a player comes to you with an aggravating request, you just take a moment to check yourself, and then calmly refuse it. Short of intimidation or outright name-calling, who cares what tactics the player employs to persuade you? You really do have the power. Let him exhaust himself bashing senselessly against your wall of calm. There is no need to condescend, penalize or insult the player, nor to engage in brinksmanship.

Once you feel genuinely secure in your power, you will no longer feel threatened by the player, and it is my belief that this will invariably lead you to consider his desires with greater clarity of perspective. At that point, you can do what you think best and no one can gainsay you.


Erick Wilson wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


This thread has repeatedly been dominated by the "GM MUST accommodate the player!" contingent...

Again, I haven't seen anyone saying that. I certainly haven't been advocating that. I would say there is a definite imbalance in the attitude of the two camps, in that regard: the "pro-player" camp seems to me to be advocating a fairly moderate position, while the "pro-GM" camp often appears more extremist. I do think, however, that each camp is mis-characterizing the other's position as more extreme than it actually is, which is not good for anyone.

Let me take one more crack at getting across my position.

1. When one person has more power than another in a relationship, it is incumbent upon that person to adhere to a higher standard of sensitivity/self-control with regard to the workings of that relationship.

2. In the GM/player relationship, GMs have more relative power, for exactly the reasons that AD's post, above, explains.

3. It is therefore incumbent on GMs to deal with player requests with a greater degree of sensitivity and consideration than might have been shown by the player in making the request in the first place.

To argue with my conclusion (3), you will first have to dispute my premises (1 and 2), which I think you will find it difficult to do. Premise 1 is the reason that, for example, it is considered poorer form for a man to hit a woman than it is for a woman to hit a man: men are (usually) physically stronger than women. That still does mean, obviously, that women should go around hitting men with impunity. As for premise 2, it is nothing more than what the pro-GM camp has been saying the whole time, so I doubt anyone from that camp will dispute it.

I suggest to GMs that the next time a player comes to you with an aggravating request, you just take a moment to check yourself, and then calmly refuse it. Short of intimidation or outright name-calling, who cares what tactics the player employs to persuade you? You really do...

However, the guy being bigger doesn't give the woman one iota more of a right to initiate force or hostilities. It might restrain what response you give, true, and should. Since what I have said from the beginning is, whatever discussions, exchanges of ideas or whatever go on I maintain the right of final refusal in a game I GM ... I don't think anyone is advocating for the right to abuse a player because they requested something you don't want. Instead I see advocating for the right to just say 'no, I'm not putting that in'. Or even 'if yo can't accept playing anything else then I'm sorry, but this just isn't going to work out'. Please name this mythical gm in here who is advocating for the right to be abusive?

I don't think being in a lesser position of power gives the player even one bit more right to be crude, rude or obnoxious, frankly. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think manners go both ways equally. If I go in and am a jackass to my boss, not only might I get fired, but I should be fired, and I see no reason he should hold back just because he has more power.

Liberty's Edge

Erick Wilson wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


This thread has repeatedly been dominated by the "GM MUST accommodate the player!" contingent...

Again, I haven't seen anyone saying that.

I linked to it when you said this before...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Immortal Greed wrote:
Why do you hate freedom,

I think this is a really concise summary of the sentiment behind your two posts. I'm not sure why you have felt the need to appoint yourself defender of traps' honor.

Anyway, I'm not going to respond to you blow-by-blow, since this is getting rather off topic. I'll contain myself to just pointing out that if you run traps as you describe, you are using a lot of house rules/content not from Pathfinder material. For example, at one point you refer to "magnetism" as a type of trap. The only trap I could find involving magnetism was one trap from an adventure path (you have to scroll to find it; sorry). If you use house rules that's fine, but it doesn't affect my claim that the traps in Chapter 13 of the CRB are far from deadly. PCs have enough HP and good enough saves and AC to survive level-appropriate traps. If someone does get poisoned, that's easily fixed with a wand of lesser restoration at the earliest opportunity.

ciretose wrote:
I linked to it when you said this before...

No one thinks that you've not linked to posts before. Rather, people don't think the posts say what you claim. One of the posts you linked was mine. I can tell you from the privileged position of being the person who wrote it that what you read into it is not what I was saying.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I will take one final crack at this, although I don't know why I am wasting my time. It's clear that people simply are not going to recognize their deeply ingrained biases.

This goes back to what I posted with the dialog between the player and the GM.

Where the player crossed the line in that exchange was when the GM and players agreed to not have constructs in the game, and then the player went back to the GM and tried to do so anyway.

Those who think that was OK and that the GM should have just been "willing to listen to the player" will probably never understand why that is already crossing the line, although the logic is absolutely clear.

The player had already agreed not to play a construct. There was a social contract in place. The GM was already engaged in work based on that agreement.

Sure, a really nice GM might entertain such a request, but the idea that the GM is somehow more obligated to listen to the player at that point in the dialog is simply dead wrong. The GM already has an agreement in place that the player is now attempting to re-negotiate.

Which is why I am saying that the "GM must always accommodate the player" contingent here is simply unable to even understand what they are saying, at least as far as I can see. They are arguing, and have been arguing for pages and pages, that even after an agreement is in place, the GM should STILL BE OBLIGATED to renegotiate just because the player wants to.

This is wrong in a social contract sense. Forget gaming. Forget rules. Forget "special snowflakes". The inability to recognize this is the problem.

Anyway, I'm done with this. As I said, this almost never happens to me in real life. No, let me amend that. This has NEVER happened to me in 35 years of playing. And I don't think it ever will. That's because I play with people who understand the nature of social contracts.

Have fun dudes and dudettes. I'm outahere.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Why do you hate freedom,

I think this is a really concise summary of the sentiment behind your two posts. I'm not sure why you have felt the need to appoint yourself defender of traps' honor.

Anyway, I'm not going to respond to you blow-by-blow, since this is getting rather off topic. I'll contain myself to just pointing out that if you run traps as you describe, you are using a lot of house rules/content not from Pathfinder material. For example, at one point you refer to "magnetism" as a type of trap. The only trap I could find involving magnetism was one trap from an adventure path (you have to scroll to find it; sorry). If you use house rules that's fine, but it doesn't affect my claim that the traps in Chapter 13 of the CRB are far from deadly. PCs have enough HP and good enough saves and AC to survive level-appropriate traps. If someone does get poisoned, that's easily fixed with a wand of lesser restoration at the earliest opportunity.

ciretose wrote:
I linked to it when you said this before...
No one thinks that you've not linked to posts before. Rather, people don't think the posts say what you claim. One of the posts you linked was mine. I can tell you from the privileged position of being the person who wrote it that what you read into it is not what I was saying.

That is okay. You don't have to get into an argument with me about traps. You clearly don't know much about them or how to make them a challenge (that yes, can indeed kill players).

You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs. If you don't think it can work, please go and try it. Then come back and post.

Out of healing and trapped with traps that reset is another dangerous set up. That killed a pc a year back. It happened in a short pathfinder adventure I was running. It had a trap filled pyramid, some really good traps in there too, like invisible swarms. Or are they all house ruled and not at all official? LOL!

Respect the trap, and don't complain if it kills you, don't try to present the dm as a ba**ard for using them. That is just whining and an attack on dangerous excitement being in the game. Or, only play safe games where the traps aren't a challenge (and avoid all pf adventures that do put effort into death traps or trap and monster combos).


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I will take one final crack at this, although I don't know why I am wasting my time. It's clear that people simply are not going to recognize their deeply ingrained biases.

This goes back to what I posted with the dialog between the player and the GM.

Where the player crossed the line in that exchange was when the GM and players agreed to not have constructs in the game, and then the player went back to the GM and tried to do so anyway.

Those who think that was OK and that the GM should have just been "willing to listen to the player" will probably never understand why that is already crossing the line, although the logic is absolutely clear.

The player had already agreed not to play a construct. There was a social contract in place. The GM was already engaged in work based on that agreement.

Sure, a really nice GM might entertain such a request, but the idea that the GM is somehow more obligated to listen to the player at that point in the dialog is simply dead wrong. The GM already has an agreement in place that the player is now attempting to re-negotiate.

Which is why I am saying that the "GM must always accommodate the player" contingent here is simply unable to even understand what they are saying, at least as far as I can see. They are arguing, and have been arguing for pages and pages, that even after an agreement is in place, the GM should STILL BE OBLIGATED to renegotiate just because the player wants to.

This is wrong in a social contract sense. Forget gaming. Forget rules. Forget "special snowflakes". The inability to recognize this is the problem.

Anyway, I'm done with this. As I said, this almost never happens to me in real life. No, let me amend that. This has NEVER happened to me in 35 years of playing. And I don't think it ever will. That's because I play with people who understand the nature of social contracts.

Have fun dudes and dudettes. I'm outahere.

Yeah, a good point on social contracts. A setting and what works within it is part of that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Immortal Greed wrote:
You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs.

Then it's not the trap killing them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


This statement is proof that you haven't read the thread or understood it. We have already stated long ago that a player can make a request. What has been repeated by certain posters here is that their concepts should always be allowed.

These same people have stated repeatedly that you are a bad DM if you do not allow it. What I am trying to make clear is that I run my games the way it suits my players. You can run your game however you see fit but don't assume we all run our games that way.

I have two games going at the moment, one on a Tuesday and another on a Thursday. The Tuesday game is a restricted game that is elves only while Thursday is all races from the CRB plus three from ARG. I reserve the right to run a restricted game on one night and another on a different night. That is my compromise, that is how I do things. If I say all humans then it's all humans. Don't show up with an elf after I have told you the restrictions.

You have a nasty habit or arguing for the sake of arguing or you just don't take the time to actually read.

Ah the "you have not read or understood the thread" nonsense that people on the internet use whenever someone disagrees with them. I read the thread I understood the purpose or this thread. The majority of the posters have come to a consensus on how both how a DM and player should handle special snowflakes. Instead you get playing the same broken record and keep making it so that no matter what players are always the problem. Whatever floats your boat. Don't insult my reading comprehension.

shallowsoul wrote:


You have a nasty habit or arguing for the sake of arguing or you just don't take the time to actually read.

While you have a nasty habit of posting the same topic over and over again. Just slightly reworded. Then getting unhappy and defensive when posters don't agree with you. Without any sign of stopping so your one to talk. anyways I'm done with the thread. I can't wait next week when we get another thread where players are once again portrayed as over-entitled brats.


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

That is okay. You don't have to get into an argument with me about traps. You clearly don't know much about them or how to make them a challenge (that yes, can indeed kill players).

You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs. If you don't think it can work, please go and try it. Then come back and post.

Out of healing and trapped with traps that reset is another dangerous set up. That killed a pc a year back. It happened in a short pathfinder adventure I was running. It had a trap filled pyramid, some really good traps in there too, like invisible swarms. Or are they all house ruled and not at all official? LOL!

Respect the trap, and don't complain if it kills you, don't try to present the dm as a ba**ard for using them. That is just whining and an attack on dangerous excitement being in the game. Or, only play safe games where the traps aren't a challenge (and avoid all pf adventures that do put effort into death traps or trap and monster combos).

Let's change tack from whether CRB traps are deadly. Instead, I'm curious as to why you seem so giddy over the prospect of killing PCs with traps.

Let me let you in on a secret: it's not an accomplishment as a DM to kill PCs. You hold all the cards. You can arrange the cards so they lead to PC death relatively easily. It doesn't even take much creativity. Just look at your party's average level, multiply it by 3 and add 4, then make an encounter of that CR! If that doesn't kill them, then don't ever give them a chance to rest or to control the pace of encounters. Limit their access to limited-use items so they often run out of healing. "Forget" to ask them for perception checks. Etc.

What's the enjoyment in seeing how many PCs you can kill off?

Oh, and to try to tie this back in to the original topic of the thread, the antagonistic attitude that sees DMing as being in conflict with the party is relevant. Except now, the conflict isn't between a player wanting some race/class/etc. combination and the DM not wanting a "special snowflake". Instead, the conflict is between a player who just wants to play a certain character and the DM who wants to kill off characters.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Where the player crossed the line in that exchange was when the GM and players agreed to not have constructs in the game, and then the player went back to the GM and tried to do so anyway.

Yes, I was worried you were driving at this, but you must admit it's a bit of a misdirection. You added a parameter (the previous establishment of a certain rule, in this case not playing constructs) that was not being discussed before. When I (and probably most of those who did) responded, I wasn't really sure whether to address this or just stay on point, so I chose the latter hoping to minimize the already tangential nature of the conversation. Can you see how I now feel a bit manipulated, especially since I asked you, at the time, to clarify where you stood on your hypothetical conversation?

Also, I'm curious whether, when you say that the rule was "agreed upon," you really mean simply that it was stated by the GM at some point (which, considering the long-running nature of many campaigns, could have been months or even years in the past) and not specifically argued with at the time.

I maintain my call for greater overall patience and more comprehensive understanding on the part of GMs. I do not direct that specifically at AD or Shallow or anyone else. When I say "greater patience," I mean greater than the average level that I have personally experienced as a player. And, again, please bear in mind that the far greater balance of my total gaming time has been spent as a GM.


ciretose wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


This thread has repeatedly been dominated by the "GM MUST accommodate the player!" contingent...

Again, I haven't seen anyone saying that.
I linked to it when you said this before...

Impossible, since I have never said it. Are you perhaps referring to my assertion that GMs must consider player requests? Please note that there is a tremendous difference between consider and accommodate .

EDIT: I just re-read this and it occurred to me that you maybe are not accusing me personally of saying it, but that you mean you linked to someone else saying it. And yes, I will grant you that there were maybe like one or two people saying that, all of whom stopped posting like 20 pages ago. I have not seen anyone seriously pushing that agenda in quite a few posts now, and those voices were by far the exception, rather than the rule, when they did crop up. Meaning that the point still stands: the thread certainly has not "repeatedly been dominated by" that contingent. Even calling them a "contingent" is a bit outrageous.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

I'm curious as to why you seem so giddy over the prospect of killing PCs with traps.

I can actually answer this one, Viv. They are giddy over it because in the right kind of game it is freaking awesome to kill players with traps. Your comments are largely reflecting a narrativist approach to gaming, which I totally respect. But I also respect the more gamist/challenge-based/puzzle-focused approach which, although it has lost a great deal of favor since the old days, can still be totally awesome as long as there is proper GM signalling and an understanding among the group of what's going on.

Quote:


...the antagonistic attitude that sees DMing as being in conflict with the party is relevant. Except now, the conflict isn't between a player wanting some race/class/etc. combination and the DM not wanting a "special snowflake". Instead, the conflict is between a player who just wants to play a certain character and the DM who wants to kill off characters.

This is an extremely good point, and is a good way to phrase the unfortunate phenomenon I have been trying to draw attention to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:
I can actually answer this one, Viv. They are giddy over it because in the right kind of game it is freaking awesome to kill players with traps. Your comments are largely reflecting a narrativist approach to gaming, which I totally respect. But I also respect the more gamist/challenge-based/puzzle-focused approach which, although it has lost a great deal of favor since the old days, can still be totally awesome as long as there is proper GM signalling and an understanding among the group of what's going on.

It's fun to build mechanically interesting and challenging encounters for your party. It's fun to play in those sorts of encounters. But that isn't what Immortal Greed is talking about. His excitement seems to not be about the encounter itself, but rather the end result: death of a PC. If he was talking about how he likes to use traps in creative ways to create interesting and fun encounters and seeing his players come up with creative ways to survive difficult challenges, that'd be cool by me. That's not the same thing as saying he likes to use traps to kill PCs. That's just antagonistic.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs.
Then it's not the trap killing them.

Yeah, it's the sudden loss of hit points.

2,151 to 2,200 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