| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just amuses me to think that everyone is talking about me when they say Steve. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the DM get to declare what kind of game it is without the input of the players (who, in your scenario, obviously want to play in a game that allows for their "odd character" concepts)?And if you reply back with, "Because he's the DM," I'm going to ask you to actually justify that by breaking it down, so let's just skip right to that, hm?
In my personal case, it's because I've designed said game before any other players are invited, and only then do I start recruiting players, showing them the game info and saying "would you like to join this game?" Character creation and any other prep occurs before the first session even starts (as a cooperative process between the player and myself to find a good fit for the game that we both like), to ensure there's none of the above special snowflake issues.
In the event I don't get enough players to run it, I realize my idea must have been a bad one and start again - however in over 25 years of gaming that's only occurred twice that I can actually recall.
It's important to me that everyone at the table wants to play that specific game. That includes me, too. I'm certainly not going to invite half a dozen random people to an undefined game, then ask them what they want to play, and then sit there as GM-slave for the evening running something that I and a couple of the others end up hating. Therefore I make sure from the beginning I get players that want the same type of game that I do, and such issues are therefore minimized if not completely absent.
Indeed. As a GM, I've often put it to the folks as "Hey, here's what I've got ready for you <gives out handouts and so forth.>" If people are disinterested, they tell me and I can see what else I am prepared to play. If no compromise can be reached, I suggest someone else GM. While I can certainly GM from the back of a napkin with an idea I made up in the car, I prefer a little more input and work from myself in getting things ready so I can properly entertain my friends/players.
The commentary in many posts seems to suggest that the GM should just nod and allow anything as long as it makes it fun for the players, keeping restrictions and rule changes to a bare minimum as not to restrict some arbitrary notion of fun and free will. Which .. no. Sorry, I'm all for roughhousing and having a free for all to blow off steam in some generic world every once in a while, but if people don't want any boundaries then I am not the GM for them.
Because the GM devotes as much time to the game as the rest of the players combined? I know i do.
Depends on your game and group, as does it your goals.
Man, I love this idea so much that I would pay to see a video of the session where it happened.
I hope that's just a humorous view rather than something serious though. Would add another story to the "worst thing a GM has done" thread.
hi steve
did you bring me a monkey
hi steve
did you bring me a monkey
No.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of de-specialling the snowflake, actually. If a player insists on taking the spotlight every game, it'd be a pretty fun prank to play on him.
GM: "You are greeted by the giant purple people-eater townsfolk. They eye the humans with confusion, ignoring the GPPE gunslinger ninja."
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
will it be funny for that player, too?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the crux of the argument is if all the players want to play ill-fitted characters, they should. But if – and I’m not saying a decent DM shouldn’t adjust some things for the players to make for an enjoyable game – the DM made clear the type of game that would be being played, and the players didn’t pull out, then whatever handicaps they chose (whatever they may be) is just that – their choice.But, again, why is it the DM who is deciding what type of game it will be, and the players being forced into a position of reacting to that decision? Sure, the DM shouldn't be forced to run a game he doesn't want to run, but neither should the players be put into a position where their only option is to play in a game they don't want to play. There should be enough flexibility on both sides that the players and DM can find a style of game agreeable to everyone.
In the scenario, I'm implying that the players, had agreed to play the game. If the dm communicated that the style of game was such, and they went another direction...then either there's a miscommunication, or didnt want to play. If its the latter, it begs the question of why did they agree to play?
Hm...I guess I may be throwing too many hypotheticals, so I guess I may be throwing it of subject.
I guess I've misunderstood, but all games I've participated i, the dm proposes the game, and if people are intersted they'll attend. But that may be my experiences. I've only bowed out of one game I didnt like due to its content, among other things (and I didnt see him changing).
Yes, I agree, both parties need to compromise - but there needs to be vocalization of concerns, instead of passive-agressively going along with it. That wastes everyones time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it being a "special snowflake" if you want to play a custom race that you work with the GM to design and implement?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
will it be funny for that player, too?
No. It will scar them for life, ruining their emotional state and making them unable to get a job. They will be forced to live in the sewers, eventually contracting a fatal disease.
Guess that's what you get for asking a kobold for game advice.
I prefer being called the prettiest princess
Is it being a "special snowflake" if you want to play a custom race that you work with the GM to design and implement?
Personally, I'd say no. If you're willing to work with the GM that implies you want something that fits into both the setting and the game style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or if it is still a snowflake, it's a harmless one. The general definition of a "special snowflake" is a character who's made unique solely because the player wants attention, or to be "cooler" than the other "boring" PCs.
Honestly, the term for a player who insists on playing something that doesn't fit setting should be broader, since there are plenty of non-annoying-roleplaying reasons to play something exotic. Like playing a goliath to abuse those size benefits, or a whisper gnome to max out your Stealth. It's still unhelpful, but not related to the classic "special snowflake" reasons.
Sometimes someone just has a concept that doesn't fit. That doesn't make it any more justifiable, but it doesn't make them a special snowflake, either.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the crux of the argument is if all the players want to play ill-fitted characters, they should. But if – and I’m not saying a decent DM shouldn’t adjust some things for the players to make for an enjoyable game – the DM made clear the type of game that would be being played, and the players didn’t pull out, then whatever handicaps they chose (whatever they may be) is just that – their choice.But, again, why is it the DM who is deciding what type of game it will be, and the players being forced into a position of reacting to that decision? Sure, the DM shouldn't be forced to run a game he doesn't want to run, but neither should the players be put into a position where their only option is to play in a game they don't want to play. There should be enough flexibility on both sides that the players and DM can find a style of game agreeable to everyone.
One, unless there are guns involved, the player is never forced to play a game they don't want to play.
Not playing is always an option. One that can deny the ability for a GM to run the game. Which is functionally the same denial of wishes that you seem to find problematic to happen to players.
For me the issues is this.
I think it is a lesser sin to be denied what you want than to be told what you must do.
I think we should come to consensus on what we're talking about with snowflakes then. I think it describes a situation where someone wants to play something at the expense of the rest of the group that defines a snowflake. For me it's a person who knows the group includes a priest of the sun god and a paladin who wants to play a necromancer *because it's in the rules*. They know that this character will have goals diametric to what other PCs want to do. It's a person who's character steals from other characters causing the game to derail. I don't think snowflakes are the people who want to be unique, per se. To me they are the people who want to be unique and don't care if it ruins other peoples' fun or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, playing something at the expense of the group is not okay.
Here's a question, though: Is it okay for a GM to ban a race or class just because he doesn't like it?
I generally don't allow most of the Bestiary 2-3 races. That's because I feel they were only added as options for a GM, if he wants to include, say, critters from Japanese myth. Some players have asked to play kitsune, and I've been pretty negative on the idea (though I haven't strictly ruled it out yet). I prefer a European theme. I also disparage most of the new planetouched, since I honestly just don't care for them and think the Bestiary creatures are plenty. Long live the kobold/tengu/goblin/hobgoblin/orc/tiefling/aasimar team!
Obviously, players are free to leave over such a restriction (though if they do, it kinda says a lot about their attitude towards gaming). Is the restriction harming fun? Or is it no different from a GM deciding to include a dangerous monster as an enemy--just another choice of the little robed man we call Dungeon Master?
All these arguments, like many others, seem to come down to one person saying "GMs ARE ALLMIGHTY GODS AND YOU MUST BEND TO THEIR WILL AND IF YOU DON'T YOU'RE A JERK MAKE YOUR OWN GAME STOP BOTHERING ME GMING IS SOHARD I SPENT FIVE YEARS ON THIS CAMPAIGN THAT HINGES ON THERE BEING NO KITSUNE NINJA" and one other person saying "GMs SHOULD BE MY PLAYTHINGS AND LET ME BE A KITSUNE NINJA IN A GREEK GAME BECAUSE MY CHARACTER HINGES ON BEING A KITSUNE AND/OR NINJA" and then the last person being "hey guys remember when this was advertised as a game that's fun for everyone."
It seems to be (at least partially) based on background, though. Normally the people in the first group were DMing when no one else wanted to, where as people in the second group were in a position where there was a heavy roleplaying group around where they lived and they got to pick and choose what they wanted to be in. The first group I dislike for carrying their baggage everywhere and the second group I dislike for just being dumbs. But when you get past all the straw men both raise to try and act like their fun is superior, and just ask a simple question of "What if the GM/Player is actually willing to work together to have fun for once", everyone reverts to what the last group's original statement was.
Nothing is ever right or wrong all the time. It depends on the group.
Don't let it get to you, Terquem. He probably stole them all.
And hey, mystery is sexy. Keep rockin' that 'no avatar' look. ;)
|
|
Obviously, playing something at the expense of the group is not okay.
Here's a question, though: Is it okay for a GM to ban a race or class just because he doesn't like it?
Yes.
And it is alright for people to think that GM is a close-minded jerk and not let them GM for them.
What isn't alright is making anyone play or run anything they don't want to play or run.
But see, that's the issue. Is he being a close-minded jerk? Is this an issue of the GM having "the right to be wrong", or is that just your way of saying they have different playstyles?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am generally against monster races, and the monster-ier they are, the less I like them. Kobolds are a good example of a monster that I would allow, because the world is full of kobolds. You see them everywhere, they are virtually always evil, but you see them. Human NPCs would likely comment/discriminate against a Kobold in a game I run, but I would make that clear to a player wanting to play a Kobold in character creation so s/he didn't feel punished for the choice after the game started. Talking horses? not so much. An innkeeper aught to be shocked by an Illithid cube wanting to rent a room. Drow are attacked on sight. Dragons cause people to flee in terror. The monster race rules lay out rules in case people want to use them. I don't think races in particular must necessarily be included just because they are stat-ed out. DMs put a lot of work into the game, and we often have an idea of how we want our game to play.
Lets turn the question around. Steve finally finds a game he can play his Horse in. Everyone is shocked he can talk. None of the shopkeepers will sell him anything, and he doesn't have pockets anyway since he's a Horse. The Innkeeper tries to stable him. Is it fair for a DM to let someone play a very exotic race and then have a bunch of in game negative consequences? I don't think so. I think that takes away from Steve's fun. Should Horses be stigmatized in Golarian? I think so. I think Horses are weird. I think people should think Horses are weird. I know it's a high fantasy game, but even fantasies have and should have limits. Without any limits on what to expect, you have no way of anticipating how the world works and making rational decisions.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But see, that's the issue. Is he being a close-minded jerk? Is this an issue of the GM having "the right to be wrong", or is that just your way of saying they have different playstyles?
Despite all of the "racism" threads, gaming is not the civil rights movement.
It is a hobby.
The goal is for everyone to have fun. Including the GM.
If I hate anchovies and we are ordering a Pizza, I am not going to order a Pizza with anchovies.
Would you say I don't have that "right" or would you say that since I'm ordering a pizza we all are going to eat, we should come up with a pizza we can all enjoy?
If the GM hates Dwarves, and you only play Dwarves, you all shouldn't game together.
It isn't that he is closed minded or you are open mindeds, and it certainly isn't vice versa if you are only willing to play dwarves.
It is finding what will make everyone enjoy the leisure activity they are engaging in.
And that is my point. If you create a special snowflake, and then through the course of play every interaction your character has is no different from other player’s character interactions (shop keepers, barmaids, local constables, farmers, children in the streets all treat your character the same way they treat the Halfling Rogue) then where is the harm? If the player is allowed to feel good about the game because their choice was respected, then that is great in my opinion, but if the player has as a goal the attitude of being a point of disruption every time there is an interaction with their character, then the concept of the special snowflake isn’t the problem, the player’s understanding of what the game is supposed to mean to everyone involved is the problem.If the players find that character distasteful, they will simply ignore said character, only interacting with him in asking what his next combat action will be, and outside of combat treating the character either as if he wasn't there, or just as another human. Is the player playing the 'weird' character okay with that?
Same goes for the DM - if the DM finds the character distasteful, the DM will simply ignore the character and just treat him by all NPCs and the world as just another human. Is the player okay with that? That, essentially, the only uniqueness that exists is the race name written on the...
So this caught my eye, (edited a touch from what it was put just grab some point). If the player that just fought so hard to be a non-standard race to the setting has no problem being treated like a run of the mill human or elf by the NPCs or players then I ask, why did you put up the fuss of being this particular character. If the player starts getting upset because I treat their hemopliac albino half celestial dhampir sorcerer(slyven blooded) like the genetic freak it is in game and have wizards trying to study it and townsfolk trying to burn it, I will again ask why they wanted that particular concept.
Now this is a personal experience and does not speak to the larger group, but anytime I had a "special snowflake" type player they did get upset when their choices brought out certain reactions from various PCs.
My prior example might seem like I'm punishing the player, but in all honesty if you are playing something that is extremly rare you are going to get strong reactions from NPCs. Even if Drazzt is trying to break out of his hertige's sterotypes a farmer is going to be scared of him and possibly rally the villagers when he enters town. The PC needs to be either prepped or expect certain reactions for their snowflakes.
|
Honestly, it all depends on the game I am running as to what I will and won't allow.
Typically though, I will put together a list of the races allowed to PCs and classes/archetypes, either because they just don't fit the campaign very well or because they are simply broken.
I view these types of things as the ground rules for the game, whether I am running or playing. If I know I will be in a game where A, B and C are legal, but D is not, I still have a hell of a lot of options to run with. I really can't see my imagination being limited to the point of a game being unplayable, even if the rules set were limited to Core only.
But maybe that's just me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this caught my eye, (edited a touch from what it was put just grab some point). If the player that just fought so hard to be a non-standard race to the setting has no problem being treated like a run of the mill human or elf by the NPCs or players then I ask, why did you put up the fuss of being this particular character.
Because they worked hard to play it and of all things your punishing them for it? Very possibly without any warning? If I let you play your super awesome race/class combo (that you invested time in convincing someone to use and building) and have everything pinned against you and kill you day 1 over it, your not going to be particularly happy. The goal is to be happy.
Now this is a personal experience and does not speak to the larger group, but anytime I had a "special snowflake" type player they did get upset when their choices brought out certain reactions from various PCs.
Maybe its the way you brought it up? Not being allowed to purchase items, allowed in the town in, and being generally reviled makes the life of an adventurer pretty hard. Maybe I can overcome that... Oh, and now wizards are trying to kidnap me and experiment on me. Didn't see that coming or want that to happen to any of my characters! I mean, I don't know what happened or how, but there could be a lot of explanations.
Something to consider is why they want to be a snowflake. Do they just want to be the character they are most comfortable with? Are they living out a fantasy? Do they want to suffer hardship? Are they an attention stealing spotlight hog? Are they just a minmaxer? Maybe they just think it adds to the story and its a personal preference? All sorts of explanations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM hates Dwarves, and you only play Dwarves, you all shouldn't game together.
When phrased like that, as a general rule, I have to disagree from personal experience...
I hate dwarves.Half the PCs in the party in my original Houston home game, and 2/5 of the PCs in my current PBP game, were/are dwarves. And I still had a blast running them, and intend to keep on doing so. Because the players' liking for their dwarves is infectious. They bring the characters to life in a way that makes me forget I don't like dwarves, and that's priceless to me.
So, maybe it's better to say, "If the GM hates Dwarves, and is so distracted by his hatred for dwarves that it interferes with him running the game, you shouldn't game together."
It just amuses me to think that everyone is talking about me when they say Steve. :)
Ironic, I thought it was me.
I'd see this as being nobodies fault. You're not badwrongfun for liking it, the GM isn't badwrongfun for not wanting it. Perhaps you and that GM are incompatible, in which case you both just accept it and move on.
Because I know part of this will be "playing a non-standard race". Why? I know GMs might hate certain races but what if a player at their table loves the concept? All other players at the table not-withstanding, it has to be asked, why am I badwrongfun for liking x when the Gm doesn't like x?
Late replying here (long day) but to be honest, I agree with this. I simply found the original question smacked of the very militancy about roleplaying I was speaking from. Because the very term special snowflake is derogatory and, by that, inherently implies the disagreeing player is at fault because of it.
Seems Umbriere was all for a Kyonin-based intrigue campaign with only elves and sylvan races. Apparently, then, some limitations are okay?
i was only accepting because along side the sylvan races, were races that cater to my desires, half-nymphs and such
the mostly martial party who didn't follow the restrictions, decided to justify their existence by roleplaying my "Servants"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term "special snowflake" generally is used to apply to a player who won't take no for an answer, Unfeasible. Ultimately, the GM has more right to ban a race than the player has to demand a race be allowed, since the GM designs the setting.
The player can request, sure, and perhaps even make a case if the GM and other players seem receptive to a rules change. But the term "special snowflake" really comes into play when the player tries to make demands.
Because in the beginning there was no game.
(etc)
I see a slightly different version, although it's certainly similar.
In the beginning there were no games, and everyone drifted aimlessly in the void.
Then someone said "Hey, who wants to play?"
And a great many people looked up from their mundane existences and said "Me me me me! But.. what should we play?"
And a great cacophony picked up as many, many ideas were announced simultaneously.
Some people clustered together for protection from the noise, formed groups, and made their way to side rooms to decide together, as a group, what to play, with one of their number sprouting a GM hat.
Others wandered around sprouting their own GM hats and shouting out ideas, while others gathered to those with the idea they liked the sound of. These too made their way into side rooms to play games.
And everyone was happy for a while, and neither style was bad, as people found the one that suited them best.
Then along came Steve, who approached one of the shouting GMs, and told him his idea was bad, and he should change it because he had a better idea.
The GM picked up Steve and threw him across the void for being such a jerk.
Steve then tried joining one of the groups without a game, and lay in wait for them to decide what to play before announcing it was a bad idea, and they should change it because he had a better idea.
The group together picked up Steve and threw him across the void for being such a jerk.
After a while, players started to detach from their groups and returned to the void, some forming new groups in the same manners as they had before, while others drifted off into the side rooms to see if there were any spaces available.
And everyone was happy.
Except for Steve.
But quite honestly, he was a jerk, so who cares?
I like your origin story a lot.
The term "special snowflake" generally is used to apply to a player who won't take no for an answer, Unfeasible. Ultimately, the GM has more right to ban a race than the player has to demand a race be allowed, since the GM designs the setting.
The player can request, sure, and perhaps even make a case if the GM and other players seem receptive to a rules change. But the term "special snowflake" really comes into play when the player tries to make demands.
See, under such a scenario - I can agree that special snowflake players are problematic. However, I have only heard it used in the same vein as "Mary Sue"; someone has a concept (except in opposition to 'Sue, they're not necessarily a cliche) that is disregarded simply for being different. But a disruptive player? (Almost) Always in the wrong.
At which point, I have to rescind previous rooted opposition on a point of definition.However - whilst I posited earlier despite talking about 1 player vs the GM and as you mention, there're other players. Which is where I completely disagree the GM has the right over the player(s). The GM has the right of rule if there's an even split on who wants what - they're admittedly the bigger gaming bottleneck. Though, if I were to run a game with 6 players, 4 of whom wanted x and I didn't and decided that, as GM, rules are my right - I've just taken away from the majority of players at the table for a minority's sake.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A special snowflake is also a player who knowingly designs a character so exotic and 'different' that it pretty much warrants extra special treatment by everyone he sees. And then has the gall to get insulted when guards hassle him more then the band of humans he comes in with, or when criminals wanna capture him and sell him to someone wealthy like an exotic animal..etc...
A special snowflake is also a player who knowingly designs a character so exotic and 'different' that it pretty much warrants extra special treatment by everyone he sees. And then has the gall to get insulted when guards hassle him more then the band of humans he comes in with, or when criminals wanna capture him and sell him to someone wealthy like an exotic animal..etc...
Gal? That's pretty hateful. Are you sure that's a safe way to think? I've always liked to try and help people fit their ideas in, so I might be a little biased, but I've never tried to sell someone off like an exotic animal, though I might consider it if that was their point. I certainly wouldn't say 'Gal' though. Gotta watch out for thought like those, they can bring some bad karma down and preconceived notions. Worse you might forget to talk to the players about the consequences of your actions and spring it on them to their shock and horror.
|
I have both played and GMed quite a bit, like most people on this thread.
I have read the back and forth.
I think Scott Betts fielded a a question: "why does it have to be the GMs way? " Now maybe I haven't gotten Mr. Betts words down exactly but I think that is the gist of it.
I do think there needs to be a bit of give and take between the players and GM.
I think that when I am a GM, as Host, as someone with name beginning with "K" earlier in the tread mentioned, I am responsible for the hospitality, for entertaining my friends for the evening, wether they are in my home, I am in a friends home, or I am at a Game Store.
As guests, their responsibility, is not to impose upon my hospitality, and make thing difficult for me, but to try and be helpful, and to help make sure things are running smoothly. What does this mean in terms of being a player? Well I suppose I can sum it up in terms of simple curtesy, don't be a jerk.
Again, I am willing for there to be, and expect some give and take. I want the players to be interested, invested in, and to be excited about their characters. I also like to when I can weave their characters back stories into the plot of the campaign, and I do my best to make sure their characters are the "main protagonists" of the story. I try to make sure the story is about the player's characters' exploits.
That being said as the GM, I get to set the parameters of the game. Traditionally it is the GM's prerogative to do so. Why is this so? Well the simple answer is that I have put the work into setting the stage for the game.....wether it is writing the plot, creating the antagonists, creating the game world, drawing the maps.....or studying the adventure path, and researching what all of the spells feats etc can do.....etc.
So while I encourage a give and take between players and GM, I do get to say no to a player. I do get to say no, this is why, and my answer is still no.
I started a home game about a month ago. I sent out about 8 invitations, expecting to only get 4 acceptances. I ended up with 10 players. Luckily based on schedules, they have neatly split into two groups of 5 which will be meeting on alternating saturdays and sundays, every two weeks. I had one player who wanted to play a Death Mage, an interesting 3pp class. I read over the materiel, and I discussed the class with him. I expressed my reservations about the class, (1/3 bab d8 hp and full spell progression), and said that we will run the class unmodified to see how it does, and if it seems to be unbalancing the game we would have to modify the class. I also asked him not to pick the zombie herding options. My player was ok with this. His wife asked if she could play a Kobold because they were so cute. I told her no, because, I wanted the monsters to remain monsters, or black hats to remain black hats, and the white hats to remain white hats. I told her it would open up a can of worms that I didn't want to open up. I did say, that if i was running a "monster game" that she would then be most welcome to play a kobold. she was ok with this and made herself a fun halfling alchemist who was a chef....with explosive recipies.
So I don't know if this answers the question of why to everyones satisfaction, but when I am GMing, i ultimately get to set the parameters of the game.
When I am in one of my friends games, when they are GMing they get to set the parameters of the game. If I come up with a what I think is a funny character concept, lets say a Tengu druid who has jumped in a bucket of yellow paint, and has a mini mammoth animal companion called Snufflelufagus, and who calls himself Big Bird, the GM gets to say if I can have that character in his campaign or not.
I hope this helps
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait what
Gal
Gall
I would recommend you allow kobolds. Especially if you can get newish gamers into playing monsters with cuteness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However - whilst I posited earlier despite talking about 1 player vs the GM and as you mention, there're other players. Which is where I completely disagree the GM has the right over the player(s).
He has the right over A player, not over the players. I tried to be pretty clear about that.
I would recommend you allow kobolds. Especially if you can get newish gamers into playing monsters with cuteness.
Personally I think kobolds are icky. They're all scaley and gross.
I would recommend you allow kobolds. Especially if you can get newish gamers into playing monsters with cuteness.
Cute kobolds? What a strange and silly idea you have there.
Gee, I hope my computer doesn't once again fall prey to that strange virus which embeds links into my posts that undermine my points.
Nah, I'm probably fine, and I will now post without checking to make sure no such links are included! What's the worst silliest that could happen?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A special snowflake is also a player who knowingly designs a character so exotic and 'different' that it pretty much warrants extra special treatment by everyone he sees. And then has the gall to get insulted when guards hassle him more then the band of humans he comes in with, or when criminals wanna capture him and sell him to someone wealthy like an exotic animal..etc...Gal? That's pretty hateful. Are you sure that's a safe way to think? I've always liked to try and help people fit their ideas in, so I might be a little biased, but I've never tried to sell someone off like an exotic animal, though I might consider it if that was their point. I certainly wouldn't say 'Gal' though. Gotta watch out for thought like those, they can bring some bad karma down and preconceived notions. Worse you might forget to talk to the players about the consequences of your actions and spring it on them to their shock and horror.
Err, Hama said 'gall' as in insolence, not 'gal' as in a derogatory term.
I think there's another angle to this issue. In other roleplaying games there tends to be a very narrow focus in terms of the types of characters people can play. For example I am running an L5R game, and in that no one would suggest playing anything other than a Samurai - because it's a game about playing Samurai.
However in D&D/PF that boundry doesn't exist. Perhaps in the past it was a game about playing 'Tolkien' races, but nowadays (especially if you throw the ARG into the mix) it is far broader than that. The issue is that some people still want a game that is about playing 'Tolkien' races in a pseudo Medieval fantasy setting while others want to explore the new options. When these two mindsets are sitting on opposite sides of the screen you can obviously get conflict.
I think it's an issue of communication. If the only description of the game beforehand was "Pathfinder Game" then of course there'll be disagreements when you show up with your Dwarf Fighter only to learn that the DM is running a Kitsune dominated us-vs-the-sharktopus setting. On the one hand the GM should be clear about the game he wants to run (it's kitsune vs the sharktopus) and on the other hand the players should say beforehand if they aren't interested in that idea. Then when the time comes to sit down and game everyone there is on the same page (or is absent if Kitsune vs the Sharktopus just wasn't for them).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why people think it's the GMs JOB to entertain everyone else, instead of everyone's GAME to have FUN. GMs make it sound as if the position is hell on earth in these types of discussions. Maybe that's why there aren't more of them
Scott--I apologize for hijacking this thread. It's literally my first post on Paizo boards and I don't know either the etiquette or the technical tricks so if this is rude or poorly formatted my apologies in advance. Scott-I have an important question for you. Would you be willing to share your notes/early designs/whatever you have for your Sins of the Saviors conversion? I've just DMed my group through the first four modules and would LOVE to keep them on with your work. I know I'll have to do Xin Shalast on my own as I understand you quit the project but I'd be incredibly grateful to you if you could share even very partial notes on Saviors. If you don't want to post I'll be happy to give you my email just let me know how you want to proceed. I also want to say that your conversion work is excellent! You hit the ball out of the park in your efforts. THanks--Gene
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the GM devotes as much time to the game as the rest of the players combined? I know i do.I guess the crux of the argument is if all the players want to play ill-fitted characters, they should. But if – and I’m not saying a decent DM shouldn’t adjust some things for the players to make for an enjoyable game – the DM made clear the type of game that would be being played, and the players didn’t pull out, then whatever handicaps they chose (whatever they may be) is just that – their choice.But, again, why is it the DM who is deciding what type of game it will be, and the players being forced into a position of reacting to that decision? Sure, the DM shouldn't be forced to run a game he doesn't want to run, but neither should the players be put into a position where their only option is to play in a game they don't want to play. There should be enough flexibility on both sides that the players and DM can find a style of game agreeable to everyone.
I think that's probably not true - it implies, for instance, that if you run a game once a week for four players lasting four hours, you are spending twenty hours per week working on the game. That's pretty extreme - assuming you work or go to school full time, 20 hours per week is nearly all of your leisure time. And that's assuming that none of your players spend any time at all outside of the game itself working on their character or backstory or reading up on the rules. If you have five players in your group it becomes 25 hours. Run a five-hour game? 30 hours.
It's not really important, though. The DM putting more time into the game (even if it were true) doesn't give him license to dictate the terms of the game. If you view the act of preparing for and running a game of D&D as a chore that earns you the right to have power over your friends for a few hours a week, maybe being a DM just isn't for you.
The entire game is based on conflict. Usually this is focused on the monsters and setting.
Theory: The "snowflakes" have actually taken metagaming to a new level.