|
In my special snowflake thread there were a few people throwing around the word "dictator" a little loosely when describing a DM who wishes to stick with the restrictions he set forth. I mean, if you feel like that is being a dictator then either A: You don't fully know what the word means, or B: They are so used to getting their way that anytime they are told no the DM is suddenly this cruel overlord who's only interest is tyranny.
Why am I a dictator just because I want to stick with my restrictions or my judgement call as a DM?
My honest opinion is that a "dictatorship" works much better than that collaborive project when you're dealing with new players who are just trying to work out what to play. I used to think the opposite, until my players started getting overwhelmed and leaving. :P
My other honest opinion is that we need to stop making these threads before they acquire sentience and destroy us all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "dictator" is, by definition "one who dictates." Since being the "one who dictates" is pretty much the job definition of a GM, it is accurate, if perhaps unfortunate from a rhetorical connotation sense, that "dictator" is a completely accurate word to describe the job of GM.
However, in the spirit of this thread, the reason people call GM's who put some limits on their personal desires "dictators" is because many people tend to be hyper-reactive, emotional and accusatory when they don't get their way.
I tend to think a democratic table has just the same problems as one where the GM takes more of a lead. You can still end up with a player being told "no", either way, and that appears to be the major source of objections.
Also, insert obligatory joke about how dictatorships at least manage to keep going without shutdowns.
My honest opinion is that a "dictatorship" works much better than that collaborive project when you're dealing with new players who are just trying to work out what to play. I used to think the opposite, until my players started getting overwhelmed and leaving. :P
My other honest opinion is that we need to stop making these threads before they acquire sentience and destroy us all.
You think they haven't already?
Is it because of all the democratically elected GMs who have been overthrown in coup d'etat's, and the players are being forced to participate in roleplaying by jackbooted thugs who carry off any dissenters and to secret, special prisons in former soviet republics?
|
It all depends on how a DM refuses something at the game table. If one hides behind "I'm the DM andgod at the table if you don't like it you can leave" they yes I would consider that DM a "dictator". If the dm reasonable tells me why I can't take something at the table while dissapinted I understand and either take something else or find another gaming group. The first leads to conflict at the table and imo quite unnecessary. The second tends to do the opposite.
It all depends on how a DM refuses something at the game table. If one hides behind "I'm the DM andgod at the table if you don't like it you can leave" they yes I would consider that DM a "dictator". If the dm reasonable tells me why I can't take something at the table while dissapinted I understand and either take something else or find another gaming group. The first leads to conflict at the table and imo quite unnecessary. The second tends to do the opposite.
As long as you consider things like "those don't exist in this world". Or "it's tied to the plot but I can't exactly tell you how yet, trust me"
Are legitimate answers.
It all depends on how a DM refuses something at the game table. If one hides behind "I'm the DM andgod at the table if you don't like it you can leave" they yes I would consider that DM a "dictator". If the dm reasonable tells me why I can't take something at the table while dissapinted I understand and either take something else or find another gaming group. The first leads to conflict at the table and imo quite unnecessary. The second tends to do the opposite.As long as you consider things like "those don't exist in this world". Or "it's tied to the plot but I can't exactly tell you how yet, trust me"
Are legitimate answers.
It is less about what the explicit reason is and more about how the GM is discussing it with the player. It is from a position of respect and appreciation that the player is interested enough to want to include some of their own ideas into the setting and the suggest is thoughtfully considered. Or does the GM act as if some pathetic loser is daring to attempt to tell them how to run the game and the suggestion is dismissed out of hand without any consideration.
|
|
It is less about what the explicit reason is and more about how the GM is discussing it with the player. It is from a position of respect and appreciation that the player is interested enough to want to include some of their own ideas into the setting and the suggest is thoughtfully considered. Or does the GM act as if some pathetic loser is daring to attempt to tell them how to run the game and the suggestion is dismissed out of hand without any consideration.
Agreed and seconded and well said.
As long as you consider things like "those don't exist in this world". Or "it's tied to the plot but I can't exactly tell you how yet, trust me"Are legitimate answers.
They are and while I would be disapointed I would understand. Or if I really wanted to play a certain concept find another game. It's better than "NO! because I said that's why". As long as both sides are respectful which is the point imo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It all depends on how a DM refuses something at the game table. If one hides behind "I'm the DM andgod at the table if you don't like it you can leave" they yes I would consider that DM a "dictator". If the dm reasonable tells me why I can't take something at the table while dissapinted I understand and either take something else or find another gaming group. The first leads to conflict at the table and imo quite unnecessary. The second tends to do the opposite.As long as you consider things like "those don't exist in this world". Or "it's tied to the plot but I can't exactly tell you how yet, trust me"
Are legitimate answers.
They are.
|
|
Again it all depends on how you present your reasons. If it's "I'm the DM that's why take it or leave it" and then point to the door then yeah your being a dictator. Now if you tell me you don't like Gunslingers because you don't think they belong in a fantasy rpg. I may be disspaointed and take something else.
Being a DM and a player means being diplomatic sometimes. Not just a power trip to get your own way. Nothing at all wrong with explaining and giving reason why for not allowing something. Or asking a DM to take something else.
A gunslinger player.
Ewwww.
They are.It all depends on how a DM refuses something at the game table. If one hides behind "I'm the DM andgod at the table if you don't like it you can leave" they yes I would consider that DM a "dictator". If the dm reasonable tells me why I can't take something at the table while dissapinted I understand and either take something else or find another gaming group. The first leads to conflict at the table and imo quite unnecessary. The second tends to do the opposite.As long as you consider things like "those don't exist in this world". Or "it's tied to the plot but I can't exactly tell you how yet, trust me"
Are legitimate answers.
Alas, we have found out in a couple of threads that for some players those are not acceptable answers in the least.
Only speaking for myself Lizard, but "It's tied to the plot but I can't tell you how yet, trust me," sounds entirely acceptable, whereas "Those don't exist in this world," sounds less so. Whenever I have the the "Just don't exist" answer it's because I've been tried or grouchy, and those aren't moments I think of proudly.
And I thought this thread would be about U.S. politics... :P
Alas, we have found out in a couple of threads that for some players those are not acceptable answers in the least.
And to those people, I'd say "there's the door."
I don't mean that quite as harshly as it sounds, but really, if someone is telling me that my answer is unacceptable, they're kinda doing it to themselves.
Again I go Dragonlance and Dark Sun where"they don't exist was 100% viable. If we are willing to accept established settings with that detail, why not home brew?
That's not suppose to sound snarky, when I re-read it I could see it interpreted as snarky. And that isn't a jab at you Hit, both our experiences with that response have been very different it seems.
I didn't take it as a jab, no worries. "It doesn't exist in this world" is a perfectly reasonable answer when dealing with a published setting.
With home brew settings, I've found that if the GM doesn't account for the player's character preferences, you end up in a situation where I like Robin Hood, one of my players like John Carter, and another likes Willow, we end up running three different campaigns, and none of get to play the characters we want to.
Edit: A large part of my point of view may have to do with the fact that my group gets together about once a month. When you're playing that infrequently with a group of varying size, campaigns the length of an AP are much less useful than one-shot adventures.
|
|
Alas, we have found out in a couple of threads that for some players those are not acceptable answers in the least.They are.It all depends on how a DM refuses something at the game table. If one hides behind "I'm the DM andgod at the table if you don't like it you can leave" they yes I would consider that DM a "dictator". If the dm reasonable tells me why I can't take something at the table while dissapinted I understand and either take something else or find another gaming group. The first leads to conflict at the table and imo quite unnecessary. The second tends to do the opposite.As long as you consider things like "those don't exist in this world". Or "it's tied to the plot but I can't exactly tell you how yet, trust me"
Are legitimate answers.
Those players would very quickly be shown the doors. I won't run my games for people who think they can tell me what to do.
To be clear, "those don't exist in this world" and "those can't exist in this world" are very different answers.
The first may involve an oversight (the GM never considered the race one way or the other), perhaps a metagame change (a race appears in monster book 10 that wasn't in monster books 1-9, i.e. it didn't exist prior to monster book 10), or maybe just due to GM preference (GM doesn't like gnomes and so leaves them out of the setting even though thematically they might fit perfectly in the setting).
Hopefully a reasonable GM would stop and take some time to consider that just because the race hadn't been present prior to this point in the setting, is there truly a need for them not to be present in the setting. And make the final decision based off that rational thought process.
The answer might still be "those don't exist in this world", but the approach from a reasonable GM should be to consider opinions that this person they have respect for has. Not to treat them as impetuous child, to be dismissed out of hand without a consideration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, "those don't exist in this world" and "those can't exist in this world" are very different answers.
The first may involve an oversight (the GM never considered the race one way or the other), perhaps a metagame change (a race appears in monster book 10 that wasn't in monster books 1-9, i.e. it didn't exist prior to monster book 10), or maybe just due to GM preference (GM doesn't like gnomes and so leaves them out of the setting even though thematically they might fit perfectly in the setting).
Hopefully a reasonable GM would stop and take some time to consider that just because the race hadn't been present prior to this point in the setting, is there truly a need for them not to be present in the setting. And make the final decision based off that rational thought process.
The answer might still be "those don't exist in this world", but the approach from a reasonable GM should be to consider opinions that this person they have respect for has. Not to treat them as impetuous child, to be dismissed out of hand without a consideration.
Reposting from other thread ...
I have three lists basically. Red light is 'this does not exist, cannot be here'. This list is small and targeted. Green light is 'this is easy, likely automatic approval'. Anything not on those two lists is 'yellow light' as in 'I'm disinclined to put it in or didn't specifically include it, but talk to me and if you can make it fit the setting well, I'll add it. But you will have to do some work to make that happen.'
That is a good idea. Leave it a little open.
pres man must have had a lot of rude GMs. Rudeness isn't the issue. YES I think playing with a rude GM or a rude player would wear thin really really fast... but I fail to see why that has anything to do with accepting a GMs rulings or not and calling him a dictator?
Since we are trying to divine facts about other posters instead of discussing ideas. I'm going to toss out a guess. Some kind of NT, INTJ probably? How close am I?
It's a social game, and comes with all of that prickliness. It's no different than getting upset with someone else at a football game.
"You call THAT a pass??"
...and then watching the two tackle each other on the field. Watching the red-faced parent approach the ref and begin screaming. At a child's game.
Words like "dictator" will fly through the air just like a mud-swinging fist when we get wrapped up in a thing.
We can hope for better, and better expression. Some of that needs to happen at a broader level, though. But, it's possible? It might also begin at the gaming table.
We can also remember to take breaks if it gets heady, and to work on friendship outside of the table.
Only to someone who can't take no for an answer.To be clear, "those don't exist in this world" and "those can't exist in this world" are very different answers.
While agree that it is probably true for someone that couldn't take no as answer, I would disagree that it is true only for them.
All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
I didn't take it as a jab, no worries. "It doesn't exist in this world" is a perfectly reasonable answer when dealing with a published setting.
With home brew settings, I've found that if the GM doesn't account for the player's character preferences, you end up in a situation where I like Robin Hood, one of my players like John Carter, and another likes Willow, we end up running three different campaigns, and none of get to play the characters we want to.
Edit: A large part of my point of view may have to do with the fact that my group gets together about once a month. When you're playing that infrequently with a group of varying size, campaigns the length of an AP are much less useful than one-shot adventures.
Seem this leads to the question of why a setting that was published gains the sanctity of "this doesn't exist" vs the home brew that was crafted with the same care.
I'm all for the art of comprise especially for fun and friendship, but it seems odd to accept that if I paid or dled a setting that it remains setting pure vs a home brew myself or another dm created.
I didn't take it as a jab, no worries. "It doesn't exist in this world" is a perfectly reasonable answer when dealing with a published setting.
With home brew settings, I've found that if the GM doesn't account for the player's character preferences, you end up in a situation where I like Robin Hood, one of my players like John Carter, and another likes Willow, we end up running three different campaigns, and none of get to play the characters we want to.
Edit: A large part of my point of view may have to do with the fact that my group gets together about once a month. When you're playing that infrequently with a group of varying size, campaigns the length of an AP are much less useful than one-shot adventures.
Seem this leads to the question of why a setting that was published gains the sanctity of "this doesn't exist" vs the home brew that was crafted with the same care.
I'm all for the art of comprise especially for fun and friendship, but it seems odd to accept that if I paid or dled a setting that it remains setting pure vs a home brew myself or another dm created.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think people take a lot of published settings too sacrosanct, which I think is a little silly. I kind of view it as the difference between writing a story and making a movie based on the story. While the general story may carry over, there are going to be differences that have to occur. Likewise, while a I may use a lot of a setting, I am going to change the things that need to be tweaked.
Now where I kind of disagree, is trying to put the Enterprise into a Star Wars Saga game. Or have the Millennium Falcon with Han and Chewy do a fly by of Serenity. In those cases you aren't playing a generic sci-fantasy game, but a very specific setting. That doesn't mean a GM shouldn't feel able to deviate within the setting (maybe the Falcon didn't make it out of that asteroid field at all and Luke goes all dark side with the loss of his friends and sister). But you don't usually want to cross the streams.
Seem this leads to the question of why a setting that was published gains the sanctity of "this doesn't exist" vs the home brew that was crafted with the same care.I'm all for the art of comprise especially for fun and friendship, but it seems odd to accept that if I paid or dled a setting that it remains setting pure vs a home brew myself or another dm created.
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think people take a lot of published settings too sacrosanct, which I think is a little silly. I kind of view it as the difference between writing a story and making a movie based on the story. While the general story may carry over, there are going to be differences that have to occur. Likewise, while a I may use a lot of a setting, I am going to change the things that need to be tweaked.
Lets face it, the second you start a game you're changing the canon setting anyway, with more changes the longer you keep playing.
Whether you're willing to make a change to accommodate a player's wish to play something that doesn't exist there is another question altogether though. Personally I don't think I'd be comfortable with the idea for a published setting, just because of the possibility of other players saying "hey, I agreed to play in setting X, you're messing with established facts too much", in the same way I wouldn't be comfortable, say, switching out a well-known city in that setting for something else ("Wait... you replaced Neverwinter with Sandpoint?") without making it clear to my players before they joined the game. The movie analogy is a good one - variances happen, but there's also a limit on how far you can vary things before fans of the original hate it (which doesn't mean it can't still be good, but if half the players joined with expectations it would conform more to the original you may have issues.)
I could, possibly, be talked into allowing someone that's arrived through a portal of some kind, as long as I felt they fit the theme of the game and the player could come up with an interesting back story. Ideally I'd try and work their arrival into the first game session to weave it better into the story we're telling.
When it's the GM's own setting, though, I think asking for them to change it can be worse than asking them to change a published setting. They've invested their own time in it, and by now are probably emotionally invested too. Saying you can't see an issue with them making a change because "it's not a published setting" could well be taken as "of course you can make changes, it's not like it's a real setting that actually matters, is it?" depending on the GM, so while I don't see any harm in making a request, pushing the issue when they say "no" is taking it a bit too far.
It's a social game, and comes with all of that prickliness. It's no different than getting upset with someone else at a football game.
"You call THAT a pass??"
...and then watching the two tackle each other on the field. Watching the red-faced parent approach the ref and begin screaming. At a child's game.
Words like "dictator" will fly through the air just like a mud-swinging fist when we get wrapped up in a thing.
We can hope for better, and better expression. Some of that needs to happen at a broader level, though. But, it's possible? It might also begin at the gaming table.
We can also remember to take breaks if it gets heady, and to work on friendship outside of the table.
I am reminded of a point by Kant, that language was originally emotional and rhetorical long before it became technical and modernised.
I am reminded of a point by Kant, that language was originally emotional and rhetorical long before it became technical and modernised.It's a social game, and comes with all of that prickliness. It's no different than getting upset with someone else at a football game.
"You call THAT a pass??"
...and then watching the two tackle each other on the field. Watching the red-faced parent approach the ref and begin screaming. At a child's game.
Words like "dictator" will fly through the air just like a mud-swinging fist when we get wrapped up in a thing.
We can hope for better, and better expression. Some of that needs to happen at a broader level, though. But, it's possible? It might also begin at the gaming table.
We can also remember to take breaks if it gets heady, and to work on friendship outside of the table.
I heard Kant was real pissant who was very rarely stable.
My other honest opinion is that we need to stop making these threads before they acquire sentience and destroy us all.
I heard Kant was real pissant who was very rarely stable.I am reminded of a point by Kant, that language was originally emotional and rhetorical long before it became technical and modernised.It's a social game, and comes with all of that prickliness. It's no different than getting upset with someone else at a football game.
"You call THAT a pass??"
...and then watching the two tackle each other on the field. Watching the red-faced parent approach the ref and begin screaming. At a child's game.
Words like "dictator" will fly through the air just like a mud-swinging fist when we get wrapped up in a thing.
We can hope for better, and better expression. Some of that needs to happen at a broader level, though. But, it's possible? It might also begin at the gaming table.
We can also remember to take breaks if it gets heady, and to work on friendship outside of the table.
There is a lot of slander on any writer of importance.
Read his works, make up your own mind.
I heard Kant was real pissant who was very rarely stable.I am reminded of a point by Kant, that language was originally emotional and rhetorical long before it became technical and modernised.It's a social game, and comes with all of that prickliness. It's no different than getting upset with someone else at a football game.
"You call THAT a pass??"
...and then watching the two tackle each other on the field. Watching the red-faced parent approach the ref and begin screaming. At a child's game.
Words like "dictator" will fly through the air just like a mud-swinging fist when we get wrapped up in a thing.
We can hope for better, and better expression. Some of that needs to happen at a broader level, though. But, it's possible? It might also begin at the gaming table.
We can also remember to take breaks if it gets heady, and to work on friendship outside of the table.
There is a lot of slander on any writer of importance.
Read his works, make up your own mind.
I was quoting an old Monty Python sketch Bud. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't take it as a jab, no worries. "It doesn't exist in this world" is a perfectly reasonable answer when dealing with a published setting.
With home brew settings, I've found that if the GM doesn't account for the player's character preferences, you end up in a situation where I like Robin Hood, one of my players like John Carter, and another likes Willow, we end up running three different campaigns, and none of get to play the characters we want to.
Edit: A large part of my point of view may have to do with the fact that my group gets together about once a month. When you're playing that infrequently with a group of varying size, campaigns the length of an AP are much less useful than one-shot adventures.
Seem this leads to the question of why a setting that was published gains the sanctity of "this doesn't exist" vs the home brew that was crafted with the same care.
I'm all for the art of comprise especially for fun and friendship, but it seems odd to accept that if I paid or dled a setting that it remains setting pure vs a home brew myself or another dm created.
If you're running a published setting as written, it has to have the sanctity of "this doesn't exist," or you're tacking your home brew onto a published setting. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. (I far prefer home brew, because I can suit my world the the preferences of my players. The thing you're describing as sanctity, I'd describe as a drawback.)
Why am I a dictator just because I want to stick with my restrictions or my judgement call as a DM?
Reading comprehension answers all questions.
If you're running a published setting as written, it has to have the sanctity of "this doesn't exist," or you're tacking your home brew onto a published setting. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. (I far prefer home brew, because I can suit my world the the preferences of my players. The thing you're describing as sanctity, I'd describe as a drawback.)I didn't take it as a jab, no worries. "It doesn't exist in this world" is a perfectly reasonable answer when dealing with a published setting.
With home brew settings, I've found that if the GM doesn't account for the player's character preferences, you end up in a situation where I like Robin Hood, one of my players like John Carter, and another likes Willow, we end up running three different campaigns, and none of get to play the characters we want to.
Edit: A large part of my point of view may have to do with the fact that my group gets together about once a month. When you're playing that infrequently with a group of varying size, campaigns the length of an AP are much less useful than one-shot adventures.
Seem this leads to the question of why a setting that was published gains the sanctity of "this doesn't exist" vs the home brew that was crafted with the same care.
I'm all for the art of comprise especially for fun and friendship, but it seems odd to accept that if I paid or dled a setting that it remains setting pure vs a home brew myself or another dm created.
For sure.
All those limits, that the players like, can work with, and appreciate.