|
Personally, I'm beginning to like the sound of:
Group gets together and decides on a game.
One of the people that likes the idea gets to be GM. Anyone that hates the idea gets to leave and find another game.
Everyone wins, right?
This is basically how we do it, with the exception if it generally being multiple GM's with each bringing an idea and people breaking off into subgroups to run various games.
I really don't believe that there are people who cannot have fun in a game if everyone else isn't doing exactly what they want.
"Gee, shucks, I would have enjoyed being part of this game, but Bill wanted to play a dwarf cleric and that just ruined everything for me. If he would have played a human cleric instead I'd be having a lot of fun, but since he selfishly and meanly chose to play a dwarf, my fun is ruined forever!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not demanding everyone else change their characters. I could have lots of fun, even if someone plays a race I don't like.
Do you not understand the difference between wanting to do something and wanting everyone else to not do something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't believe that there are people who cannot have fun in a game if everyone else isn't doing exactly what they want.
"Gee, shucks, I would have enjoyed being part of this game, but Bill was playing a dwarf cleric and that just ruined everything for me. If he would have played a human cleric instead I'd be having a lot of fun, but since he selfishly and meanly chose to play a dwarf, my fun is ruined forever!"
How about (and I apologize to everyone that read this already in the other thread)
I have an urge to play a game in a diplomatic low-combat setting. I'll set one up, let people know its happening, and see who wants to play.
Six players join.
Three of them come up with core race diplomat-type characters, looks good to me.
One of them picks some unusual race, but still a diplomatic-type. We discuss the race, work out we can fit it in, and they're in.
The really unimaginative one picks a human barbarian. I ask if they're sure they'll enjoy playing a combat character in a mostly-dialogue game. They say sure, they're fine with that, they'll be the big grunting bodyguard of one of the diplomats. They're in.
The final one picks a dwarven fighter. I ask if they're sure they'll enjoy playing a combat character in a mostly-dialogue game. They say hell no, they fully intend to hit NPC that moves cause they want a combat-orientated game. I tell them to go back to the drawing board.
Am I wrong to disallow that final player's fun, when they'll be getting it at the expense of everyone else who specifically turned up to do the diplomatic mostly-dialogue RPG, quite possibly because they're bored to death of killing orcs all day?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not demanding everyone else change their characters. I could have lots of fun, even if someone plays a race I don't like.
Do you not understand the difference between wanting to do something and wanting everyone else to not do something?
You want them to run a campaign for your character, to allow your character into the party, to write a series of adventures that not only include your character, but provide motivations.
And if they don't want to, you say that is unreasonable.
On the other hand, you don't think it is unreasonable to for the player to not offer other options.
If someone thinks what you are doing is going to make things less fun for themselves and the group, is it not reasonable to ask you to do something else, given other options exist?
And how is it reasonable to say to them "No, you must accommodate me. It is unreasonable for you to ask me to change, but reasonable for me to demand that you do."
My only experience with a special snowflake:
Me: So, I know you guys all died last time we played and are still kind of sore about all that, but, what were you thinking of playing for the next game?
Player: I want to be a gnome...
Me: Uh, well, you see, gnomes don't really exist in the Scarred Lands, maybe you'd rather be a half...
Player: ...A gnome artificer.
Me: Um, artificers are from Eberron, they don't exist in the Scarred Lands either.
Player: Yeah, well, that's what I want to play.
Me: Yeah, but you can't.
Player: Did I mention how I am the guy who brings the good weed to the game? How you guys always have dirt-brown shag, and I've always got nice stuff that tastes like fruit and has names like "Hyperbole"?
Me: So, you're a gnome artificer, huh? That's pretty neat...
Heck yeah, Scarred Lands! If you're going to let a gnome artificer into a game, can I bring a half-dragon druid?
Or decide he doesn't want to GM for that group.
I'm all for that group existing and having a great time. I'm not for that being what must happen, because, and I quote " I don't think telling them to change it is a reasonable thing to do."
Emphasis mine.
See, when you say stuff like that, it comes across as, "Everyone has to play characters I approve of, in my setting, or I'm taking my toys and going home."
Options have gotten wider with the OGL, but I used to play AD&D in a party with a Samurai, a Druid and a Jester; that's about as far from historically accurate as you can get, and it was great fun.
Yes.
If I don't think the game will be fun to run, I'm not going to run it.
Just like if I don't think the game is going to be fun, I not going to make a character to be a player in it.
Is there a part of this that you think is wrong? Must a GM run a game they don't enjoy running?
Of course a GM doesn't have to run a game they don't enjoy. I just find that my own enjoyment of running a game is based much more on what system I'm running and who I'm running it for, than the setting and characters with in that setting, you see?
Heck yeah, Scarred Lands! If you're going to let a gnome artificer into a game, can I bring a half-dragon druid?
Depends on what else your bringing.
Also, half dragon druids tend to change the game a bit more than artificers in my experience.
|
|
Of course a GM doesn't have to run a game they don't enjoy. I just find that my own enjoyment of running a game is based much more on what system I'm running and who I'm running it for, than the setting and characters with in that setting, you see?
And that is you.
Similarly if I told you that I would play whatever concept you like but you had to run a setting you didn't enjoy, that might be a proposal you decline.
I would not accuse you of being unreasonable if you did so.
Heck yeah, Scarred Lands! If you're going to let a gnome artificer into a game, can I bring a half-dragon druid?Depends on what else your bringing.
Also, half dragon druids tend to change the game a bit more than artificers in my experience.
*That was the joke*
badum tssss
In all seriousness, I miss that playing in that setting. It was the first real D&D campaign my group played in. Lots of memories, memorable snowflakes abound.
Once I played a 150+ year old human wizard(magic kept him alive) who fought alongside his now-dead god in the Divine War. This was the DM's, idea... Fun stuff!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matt Thomason, I don't know what thread you are reading. I'm reading a thread where people are asserting their right as DM to forbid players from playing a race they don't like, no matter how well it fits into the game. I'm reading a thread where people are saying that the setting is immutable and DMs shouldn't have to make any compromise ever, even on minor and unimportant setting details. I'm reading a thread where people are saying those who like playing non-core races are malicious and trying to ruin everyone else's fun.
If the thread was about things like your example, I think there'd be a lot less disagreement. I don't think anyone would fault the DM in your example for not playing with the last player. Although, if you do want that player in your game, and they have motives beyond "lol I want to ruin the game" (that is, if they are a real person instead of a hypothetical scenario), then I do think there's room for some compromise. You can have a diplomacy-focused game where the dwarf fighter player gets ample opportunity to shine in combat. Maybe the PCs' enemies send assassins after them. It's not going to be a game centered around going into dungeons, killing strange-looking creatures, and taking their stuff. But it can be a game with some combat. Of course, this requires that the dwarf fighter player be willing to compromise some too.
Sadly, the thread has not been about things like your example.
I really don't believe that there are people who cannot have fun in a game if everyone else isn't doing exactly what they want.
"Gee, shucks, I would have enjoyed being part of this game, but Bill was playing a dwarf cleric and that just ruined everything for me. If he would have played a human cleric instead I'd be having a lot of fun, but since he selfishly and meanly chose to play a dwarf, my fun is ruined forever!"
How about (and I apologize to everyone that read this already in the other thread)
I have an urge to play a game in a diplomatic low-combat setting. I'll set one up, let people know its happening, and see who wants to play.
Six players join.
Three of them come up with core race diplomat-type characters, looks good to me.
One of them picks some unusual race, but still a diplomatic-type. We discuss the race, work out we can fit it in, and they're in.
The really unimaginative one picks a human barbarian. I ask if they're sure they'll enjoy playing a combat character in a mostly-dialogue game. They say sure, they're fine with that, they'll be the big grunting bodyguard of one of the diplomats. They're in.
The final one picks a dwarven fighter. I ask if they're sure they'll enjoy playing a combat character in a mostly-dialogue game. They say hell no, they fully intend to hit NPC that moves cause they want a combat-orientated game. I tell them to go back to the drawing board.
Am I wrong to disallow that final player's fun, when they'll be getting it at the expense of everyone else who specifically turned up to do the diplomatic mostly-dialogue RPG, quite possibly because they're bored to death of killing orcs all day?
All poor Billy-Bob wanted was to play an Arcane Trickster! That's a perfect fit for a diplomatic game!!
. . . stupid, stupid group consensus . . .
Matt Thomason, I don't know what thread you are reading. I'm reading a thread where people are asserting their right as DM to forbid players from playing a race they don't like, no matter how well it fits into the game. I'm reading a thread where people are saying that the setting is immutable and DMs shouldn't have to make any compromise ever, even on minor and unimportant setting details. I'm reading a thread where people are saying those who like playing non-core races are malicious and trying to ruin everyone else's fun.
I'm reading a thread where people are saying some characters don't fit, and are discussing whether or not it's okay to tell a player "no".
The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't all black and white :)
Why not just rely on the fact most groups are simply going to ditch their GM if they don't like how they're running things, while those that are doing a good job will retain their players?
Everyone is giving examples and answers at both extremes of possibility, without taking the time to admit to one another that 99% of the time both sides are reasonable enough to make it work, and the 1% that doesn't is usually a cut-and-dry case of one person (whichever side of the GM screen they happen to be) demanding too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All poor Billy-Bob wanted was to play an Arcane Trickster! That's a perfect fit for a diplomatic game!!. . . stupid, stupid group consensus . . .
Yup, sometimes it really is just....
Wait, I have the strangest feeling we've been here before... :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All poor Billy-Bob wanted was to play an Arcane Trickster! That's a perfect fit for a diplomatic game!!
. . . stupid, stupid group consensus . . .
A vivisectionist/wizard with student of philosophy could actually be pretty awesome in a diplomatic game. Lots of skill points and magic and intellect to diplomacy/bluff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck yeah, Scarred Lands! If you're going to let a gnome artificer into a game, can I bring a half-dragon druid?Depends on what else your bringing.
Also, half dragon druids tend to change the game a bit more than artificers in my experience.
*That was the joke*
badum tssss
In all seriousness, I miss that playing in that setting. It was the first real D&D campaign my group played in. Lots of memories, memorable snowflakes abound.
Once I played a 150+ year old human wizard(magic kept him alive) who fought alongside his now-dead god in the Divine War. This was the DM's, idea... Fun stuff!
[Scarred Lands fistbump]
In the end, I came up with some crazy-ass story about how he was a gnome artificer from Eberron who had somehow, mysteriously, ended up in the Scarred Lands. There was going to be a whole, long plot about how schismatic Coreanites had brought him back with hopes of activating the Mithril Golem, but the campaign petered out around third level...
EDIT: Oh yeah, it was pretty funny, too, how he tried to convince everyone that he met that he was just an old, midget elf...
You want them to run a campaign for your character, to allow your character into the party, to write a series of adventures that not only include your character, but provide motivations.
Um, you do realize characters are more than their race, right? In the case of this hypothetical drow character, she's a paladin of Abadar who thinks that more trade and more travel between different groups would lead to an overall better world. There'd be the same character hooks for this character if she was an elf. Sure, the fact that she's a drow does inform a lot of her character (e.g. she thinks a major problem with drow society is that centuries of living in isolated underground cities has caused their society to stagnate and that increased interaction with the rest of the world would force cracks in the demon-worshipping aristocracy that controls drow society). But it's not the entirety of the character and it doesn't have to be the only way she interacts with the setting.
Anyway, I don't see where I claimed that the campaign should be run for my character, that my character must be the center of everything. I just wanted to play in the hypothetical campaign we agreed on as a drow. Nothing in there is asking you to restructure the game to focus on only me.
Mr Sin, are you going to ask her the question you asked me?I'm reading a thread where people are saying those who like playing non-core races are malicious and trying to ruin everyone else's fun.
Did you miss this post earlier in the thread?
|
|
Um, you do realize characters are more than their race, right?
Ok.
And more factors might mean more reasons others might not like your idea.
Or vice versa, you may sell me on your story and get me to change my mind about the concerns I have.
But if I don't, your position seems to be "If you don't agree with me, you are unreasonable and so I should never be asked to change my concept."
|
|
Did you miss this post earlier in the thread?Mr Sin, are you going to ask her the question you asked me?I'm reading a thread where people are saying those who like playing non-core races are malicious and trying to ruin everyone else's fun.
Are you wearing the secret decoder glasses again or did you link to the wrong post?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you won't even consider adjusting a completely fictional made up world for your friend, something is wrong.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your world to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
It's equally important to remember that not everyone is gaming with friends, or if they are they it can be a group of friends that doesn't feel the same need to stick together as a group on a given night.
Some are making a setting and saying "anyone who wants to play this setting, read it through and if you like it give me a shout." In that case, they've already agreed they can find a way to fit into it.
Also, not everyone treats friends as a giant group that has to hang out every night, some like to mix it up and form smaller dynamic groups to do something that subset wants to do, and then form different subsets another night. Some don't like the idea of dragging the entire group to something a few aren't going to enjoy, and prefer the subset model because that way nobody feels any resentment towards anyone else for holding them back from something they want to do. Some have too many friends to fit in and are happy enough to take the first 4-6 that say yes.
It's a perfectly valid way of setting up and running a game, even if you're not used to doing it personally.
People really need to accept that not everyone does things the same way. Different minds work different ways, as we're not clones.
Indeed, in such a situation you have a lot more leverage in designing your own setting.
You don't have unlimited leeway, though: if everyone in your pool of potential players either likes your setting overall but would prefer if that one tiny detail were changed, or doesn't like the setting, you'll have to give something up. Even in places where it is a GM's market, compromise still occurs.
That's also why I feel the whole thing is a non-issue (or at least, nowhere near the scale of the rather extreme examples given in this thread). The system pretty much polices itself, as a true "bad GM" will find themselves at an empty table - as will our hypothetical "bad player".
|
|
That's also why I feel the whole thing is a non-issue (or at least, nowhere near the scale of the rather extreme examples given in this thread). The system pretty much polices itself, as a true "bad GM" will find themselves at an empty table - as will our hypothetical "bad player".
And both of them will think it is because they are the reasonable ones :)
I prefer not to play with people who exhibit mild symptoms of OCD like behavior.
So, I'm afraid most of you are right out!
However, a group of OCD characters of extremely divergent origin would be one hellov a game!
I think a video of a group of players who really don't want to play together trying to play together, in a civil manner, would also be hilarious.
Forget the video, I'm setting that up as a game. Everyone gets to RP an RPGer fitting one of the stereotypes.
I can see it being quite combat-orientated... anyone know the damage roll for a rulebook?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improv weapon d3+str+1/2 bludgeoning
I am assuming it is being two handed
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you won't even consider adjusting a completely fictional made up world for your friend, something is wrong.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your world to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.It's equally important to remember that not everyone is gaming with friends, or if they are they it can be a group of friends that doesn't feel the same need to stick together as a group on a given night.
Some are making a setting and saying "anyone who wants to play this setting, read it through and if you like it give me a shout." In that case, they've already agreed they can find a way to fit into it.
Also, not everyone treats friends as a giant group that has to hang out every night, some like to mix it up and form smaller dynamic groups to do something that subset wants to do, and then form different subsets another night. Some don't like the idea of dragging the entire group to something a few aren't going to enjoy, and prefer the subset model because that way nobody feels any resentment towards anyone else for holding them back from something they want to do. Some have too many friends to fit in and are happy enough to take the first 4-6 that say yes.
It's a perfectly valid way of setting up and running a game, even if you're not used to doing it personally.
People really need to accept that not everyone does things the same way. Different minds work different ways, as we're not clones.
Indeed, in such a situation you have a lot more leverage in designing your own setting.
You don't have unlimited leeway, though: if everyone in your pool of potential players either likes your setting overall but would prefer if that one tiny detail were changed, or doesn't like the setting, you'll have to give something up. Even in places where it is a GM's market, compromise still occurs.
Emphasis mine above.
Compromise suggests, however, that it is a two way street. In the (very) hypothetical situation we keep running across with the "problem" player and "problem" GM, there is no give an take. The player wants to get their idea in, and if the GM can just budge then they would be happy. The GM has laid out the world and suggested that X, Y, and Z are not going to work in this.
Both sides can easily lay out any number of scenarios where they believe their idea works. In the end, though, I am not hearing compromise being offered, but more "change this so I can have my character idea" Which part of that is compromise, unless you are suggesting the rest of the sentence is "or I won't play."
Communication is a large factor in this theoretical argument. The thread suggests that everything is a surprise when you get to the table: the player has no idea of the restriction and the GM has no idea that Steve the player is going to make something that is off limits to their set up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compromise suggests, however, that it is a two way street. In the (very) hypothetical situation we keep running across with the "problem" player and "problem" GM, there is no give an take. The player wants to get their idea in, and if the GM can just budge then they would be happy. The GM has laid out the world and suggested that X, Y, and Z are not going to work in this.
That's probably because the cases where the GM accepted the player outside of the suggested bounds were non-issues, however you're right in that we're not seeing it. Therefore we're unable to put the proper perspective on it, and are taking default situations with our own minds filling in the blanks.
I'm always willing to listen and discuss, so by default I read the situation as a player that refuses to budge from their original idea after I've tried and failed to find a way to fit it in properly. Perhaps they came to me with an idea to make it work, but I felt it felt too forced. Perhaps they just came up with a totally off-the-wall idea that would reduce a campaign intended as serious to the level of a sitcom - or the reverse. Perhaps they want to play a drider in an very specific all-elven-ranger adventure I've been writing, and seeing as they're a random person who is asking to join and the other players were fine with the adventure, I'm not making sweeping changes for that one person (although, had they wanted to be the half-elf or allied human, I'd likely have said it was fine.)
Every example we get is extreme - either the evil GM is repressing their player's rights to creativity, or the irritating player is coming up with absurd ideas. We're missing the 99% of times the GM says "yes" to a strange idea because it sounds cool and could be made to work, and the 99% of times that player has come up with an idea that fits in.
I still think the thing everyone needs to come from this conversation with is this:
What should happen is dependent on the situation, and that includes how flexible (or not) each person involved is and how unreasonable (or not) each is being.
We can't make generic judgement calls because we don't have all the variables involved.
We likewise can't say whether or not a GM has the right to decide what they're running before they get a group together, because the situation it is being organized in changes from table to table.
At the end of the day the only real right anyone has is to walk away if they don't like something.
Some people play for the chance to enjoy something with friends, while for some people playing the game with friends isn't enough if it's a game they'll dislike playing.
And most of all:
It really is such a non-issue the majority of the time that this entire thread and those like it are guilty of inflaming feelings on either side for no real reason at all.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your character to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it.
|
Ciretose, the funny thing about this farcical game of make-pretend is that I've provided arguments as to why this concept could fit in the setting and you've provided nothing but raw assertions. You're doing a good job roleplaying the unreasonable DM who refuses to compromise even in the most minor matters and doesn't have any reason besides "I must micromanage everyone else's choices". :)
You are still under the fallacy that your reasons for allowance are good because you think so.
When five out of six people are ready to play and agree to the terms of the game, then it's that one person who maybe has the problem and not the DM.
Wha I keep seeing is, in essence, 'We need to reacha compromise where the player gets what they want and the GM gets ... Well gee, I'm stumped. Doesn't a compromise equate to BOTH sides giving something up?
At the end of the day, you aren't making the world for yourself, you are making the world for your friends. If your friends don't like it, you failed. Maybe you like a...
You might be. I'm most likely making it for the first four to six random people I can find that like the sound of the world I've created. As long as I can find that four to six, why is there an issue?
|
|
Drizzt is certainly 'special and unique' in a setting where good surface-dwelling drow never happen.Why is a setting which doesn't have room for good drow a problem with the player who wants to play a good drow, not a problem with the setting? It sounds like the easiest way for everyone to get what they want is to drop the implausible and unrealistic restriction that all drow must be evil and cannot travel above ground.
[Claiming people who play special snowflakes are selfish, petty, malicious.]That sure is a bunch of words condemning a lot of people and making up facts about their psychology.
[Claiming people who play special snowflakes can only play one character.]Too true! Not only are the people who play characters I don't like selfish and mean, they are also unimaginative to boot! They truly are the worst kind of people! /sWhy should the entire setting have to change just for you?
If you won't even consider adjusting a completely fictional made up world for your friend, something is wrong.
It's important to remember that at the end of the day, you aren't gaming for the sake of gaming: you are gaming to have fun with friends. If you can't adjust your world to facilitate that goal, you won't reach it. Otherwise, you end up with situations like this:
[quote"hypothetical with no-compromises DM"]
DM: Hey guys, I made a new campaign setting, check it out!
Players: Wow, it's great, except for <small detail>...do you mind adjusting <detail>?
DM: No way, the perfection of my setting is more important than our friendship. Give it up, you can't always play the game you want (but I can always DM exactly what I want with no compromises)!
If you won't consider adjusting a completely fictional made up character for your friend's world and the other five players who want to play in it then there is something wrong.
See what I did thar?
Ciretose, the funny thing about this farcical game of make-pretend is that I've provided arguments as to why this concept could fit in the setting and you've provided nothing but raw assertions. You're doing a good job roleplaying the unreasonable DM who refuses to compromise even in the most minor matters and doesn't have any reason besides "I must micromanage everyone else's choices". :)You are still under the fallacy that your reasons for allowance are good because you think so.
When five out of six people are ready to play and agree to the terms of the game, then it's that one person who maybe has the problem and not the DM.
Then what of the scenario where I wanted to play a homebrew race?
None of the players were against this. The only one who said no was the DM.
|
|
Ciretose, the funny thing about this farcical game of make-pretend is that I've provided arguments as to why this concept could fit in the setting and you've provided nothing but raw assertions. You're doing a good job roleplaying the unreasonable DM who refuses to compromise even in the most minor matters and doesn't have any reason besides "I must micromanage everyone else's choices". :)You are still under the fallacy that your reasons for allowance are good because you think so.
When five out of six people are ready to play and agree to the terms of the game, then it's that one person who maybe has the problem and not the DM.
Then what of the scenario where I wanted to play a homebrew race?
None of the players were against this. The only one who said no was the DM.
Its not up to the other players what is allowed. I have already displayed what is allowed and the majority agreed to it.
If I tell you no you can't go to the other players asking for their permission.
|
|
Ciretose, the funny thing about this farcical game of make-pretend is that I've provided arguments as to why this concept could fit in the setting and you've provided nothing but raw assertions. You're doing a good job roleplaying the unreasonable DM who refuses to compromise even in the most minor matters and doesn't have any reason besides "I must micromanage everyone else's choices". :)You are still under the fallacy that your reasons for allowance are good because you think so.
When five out of six people are ready to play and agree to the terms of the game, then it's that one person who maybe has the problem and not the DM.
Then what of the scenario where I wanted to play a homebrew race?
None of the players were against this. The only one who said no was the DM.
It was also the only one who was asked.
But let's go with this.
We know that there are two people involved in the discussion. The player and the GM.
The Player wants the GM to do something (run this, specific character)
The GM doesn't want to do something (run this, specific character) and says so. The GM will run something else, presumably. Just not this.
The player insists the GM must run this specific character.
So at this point the player is saying "Yes, I know the group choose to run your campaign, and yes I know you don't want to run what I am describing, but what you want does not matter because this is what I want. You must not only allow it, but design things to make it work and be enjoyable for me."
What part of what I said is inaccurate?
I would, in most situations, end up saying "no" to a home brew race. There are just too many variables in Pathfinder for me to go adding new ones when trying to design encounters. I can have only so many balls in the air.
Of course, I would probably talk about it and come to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wha I keep seeing is, in essence, 'We need to reacha compromise where the player gets what they want and the GM gets ... Well gee, I'm stumped. Doesn't a compromise equate to BOTH sides giving something up?
If both sides are willing to meet in the middle, we've removed "Special Snowflake" from the equation and it's not an issue related to this thread's topic any more. A Special Snowflake player will refuse anything that isn't their exact character concept, no matter what effort is made to help them find an alternative that fits better. That's the type of player we're discussing, not the ones that will make a reasonable attempt to meet the GM halfway.
And conversely, just to avoid accusations of bias here, the Special Snowflake GM turns to the player that has a creative idea and gives them an outright "no" without any discussion or attempt to find an alternative that will suit both.
Ciretose, the funny thing about this farcical game of make-pretend is that I've provided arguments as to why this concept could fit in the setting and you've provided nothing but raw assertions. You're doing a good job roleplaying the unreasonable DM who refuses to compromise even in the most minor matters and doesn't have any reason besides "I must micromanage everyone else's choices". :)You are still under the fallacy that your reasons for allowance are good because you think so.
When five out of six people are ready to play and agree to the terms of the game, then it's that one person who maybe has the problem and not the DM.
Then what of the scenario where I wanted to play a homebrew race?
None of the players were against this. The only one who said no was the DM.
It was also the only one who was asked.
But let's go with this.
We know that there are two people involved in the discussion. The player and the GM.
The Player wants the GM to do something (run this, specific character)
The GM doesn't want to do something (run this, specific character) and says so. The GM will run something else, presumably. Just not this.
The player insists the GM must run this specific character.
So at this point the player is saying "Yes, I know the group choose to run your campaign, and yes I know you don't want to run what I am describing, but what you want does not matter because this is what I want. You must not only allow it, but design things to make it work and be enjoyable for me."
What part of what I said is inaccurate?
The only part that's missing is the one where I threw my hands up in the air and said "whatever, I'll use some other character then", which is what happened in the end. What got me a bit more annoyed was that he basically planned EVERY campaign world he ever made to be such that my homebrews aren't allowed, which just shows he's either deliberately messing with me or he should switch to playing GURPS because he can't handle campaigns where races outside the Core exist. I'm actually surprised he didn't start to cry bloody murder now that he's in the player seat, I'm the DM, and my homebrew races exist on Golarion.
And even though my general willingness to accept little changes such as homebrew spells and reskinning has improved the fun for the group as a whole, he told me he won't return the kindness when he gets back on the DM seat. Let's just say that none of the players were happy to hear this, but as usual, they're not telling anything to his face. Even when he stole the spotlight a few times, they didn't call him out on it. They complained to me about it, and I had to personally chastise the guy for it. It's just somewhat ironic in my opinion that he complained about me being ungrateful, when he tends to be much worse in that regard.
This thread makes an awful lot of assumptions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only part that's missing is the one where I threw my hands up in the air and said "whatever, I'll use some other character then", which is what happened in the end. What got me a bit more annoyed was that he basically planned EVERY campaign world he ever made to be such that my homebrews aren't allowed, which just shows he's either deliberately messing with me or he should switch to playing GURPS because he can't handle campaigns where races outside the Core exist. I'm actually surprised he didn't start to cry bloody murder now that he's in the player seat, I'm the DM, and my homebrew races exist on Golarion.
When I read things like this, the first thing that enters my mind is "perhaps these two people should be playing at two different tables."
The second thing that enters my mind is "perhaps they need a third GM that can run things so Icyshadow can run their homebrew race sometimes."
I usually come down on the side of the person that has an objection, because finding an alternative everyone can accept feels better to me than making someone (whether it be the GM or another player) put up with something specific they have an objection to. I don't want anyone in my games to feel there's anything there they dislike enough to have felt the need to raise an objection. I still find it easier though to give people enough details of the campaign that they get the chance to see if it will suitable for them before they join.