|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about an old doctor. A 50 to 55 year old doctor is not usually someone you need to fear. That's not really the age where the mind goes and the hands shake.
It has nothing to do with losing mental faculties and everything to do with not having the time to keep up to date with the latest, cutting edge medical knowledge. Most doctors will absolutely try, but finding time between everyday workloads is hard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's being open minded to say you can ONLY perform under exact circumstances, those circumstances being that absolutely nothing whatsoever is made unavailable to you? You really going to stick to that position?Now here is the follow up question; is a mind that insists they have to have every single color of paint available to make a pretty painting really being open minded?Experience is a material.
An open mind will use it to build great wonders.
A closed mind will use it to shape an endless jail.
Available? Yes, that's really being open-minded.
In use, because pretty paintings definitionally use more colors than ugly paintings? Not so much.
Ars, I honestly don't understand what you're inferring from my post; it seems like you ignored my second sentence in favor of assuming I'm telling you how Gm.
Keeping your options open (as a painter or GM) is more open minded than dismissing said options. However, if you use every single option available to you in every single piece you create, you're likely to end up with a oeuvre of garish nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's being open minded to say you can ONLY perform under exact circumstances, those circumstances being that absolutely nothing whatsoever is made unavailable to you? You really going to stick to that position?Now here is the follow up question; is a mind that insists they have to have every single color of paint available to make a pretty painting really being open minded?Experience is a material.
An open mind will use it to build great wonders.
A closed mind will use it to shape an endless jail.
Available? Yes, that's really being open-minded.
In use, because pretty paintings definitionally use more colors than ugly paintings? Not so much.
Ars, I honestly don't understand what you're inferring from my post; it seems like you ignored my second sentence in favor of assuming I'm telling you how Gm.
Keeping your options open (as a painter or GM) is more open minded than dismissing said options. However, if you use every single option available to you in every single piece you create, you're likely to end up with a oeuvre of garish nonsense.
Accepting a limited pallet or other limits on your work can be very open minded.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I was taught in art class that you only need a very few colors of paint, and from those you can create any color you need.
The issue for me isn't odd being the problem, it is "LOOK AT ME!" being the problem.
When I am a player, my focus is on my character. Which is fine. I want the GM to make a world that is interesting and exciting for my character, and therefore for me to play in.
When I am the GM, my focus is on trying to make 4+ people all have a good time and hopefully be excited about exploring a world we are creating together.
When one player pulls the focus away from the group and onto themselves, for any reason, it causes problems. If we are playing a Kitsune game, and you want to play a human...that can be a problem.
Some players can play "odd" without making the game about them. Some, frankly, can't.
I don't want the game to be the "Steve the Awakened Pony Show". I want everyone at the table to feel like what they made is a part of the world we are exploring and creating. I want everyone to be integrated into a group that is a part of the world.
So when someone makes something that is difficult to integrate, they make it more difficult to do my job. They make it harder to make a game that "makes sense" and involves everyone.
My group is wonderful in that we always make a party, not just characters. The GM suggests an outline, gets approval, and 90% of the time the players talk and find a way to create connecting threads and reasons everyone is in a place willing to become a party.
The snowflake is a problem not because of weird ideas, but because they want to be the special unique snowflake unlike anyone else. Look at me, I'm different and special. Accommodate me. You change to meet my needs.
What most of us want in our fellow players and GMs are people who are trying to work with us.
What this article warns people about is that sometimes that person doesn't care as much about being helpful as you do. Sometimes that person only cares about what they want, and doesn't understand why you won't give it to them.
Some people believe they are the unquestionable hero of their own personal life narrative. Some of them have read fountainhead one to many times and think they are a genius and people who don't like the things they want to do are close minded and blind to their genius.
These people...IMHO not worth gaming with.
Not every PC of a non-core published or homebrewed race is a special snowflake, and not all of them are "Look At Me." the problem is a combination of the DM's inablity to revisualize and the player seeking to be disruptive, not the race.
i agree that Steve the awakened pony with a heavy my little pony influence, pretty colors, and otherwise idealized aura of silliness isn't a good fit for a traditional fantasy game that doesn't takes ponies into consideration
but for example, some theoretical or hypothetical races or classes are better fit for the setting, even if it sometimes takes reskinning
in a world where humans and nymphs both exist and humans are known to produce hybrids with just about anything, it would make sense for a half-nymph to exist as a possibility, though if they aren't sufficiently understood, they could be mistaken for something more common, like half elves
other logical hybrids that require a bit of homebrewing, would be stuff born of the resulting unwilling unions from an orcish raid on a dwarven settlement, what happens when an aasimaar and tiefling reproduce, or a variety of things
logical published races to allow, if you allow humans, would include the 8 species of planetouched, because the player can control how snowflaky they want to be by focusing more on either the human side, or the planar side, and in a game without snowflakes, they might be little more than a human with an odd hair or eye color, an easily concealable appendage when you wear the right garments, and rarely, a skin color acheivable with body paint.
in a fantasy world where magic is commonplace and 2/3 of the classes can cast spells, whose to say that planar magic hasn't mutated human offspring into something with minor planar qualities and bestowed some of said qualities among a handful of children? or whose to say some conjurer wasn't lonely one night and bound a bunch of female outsiders of different varieties to fullfill his needs? romantic, erotic, and social alike?
Actually, I was taught in art class that you only need a very few colors of paint, and from those you can create any color you need.
I keep telling Reaper this, but for some reason they keep making paint sets. Greedy ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I was taught in art class that you only need a very few colors of paint, and from those you can create any color you need.I keep telling Reaper this, but for some reason they keep making paint sets. Greedy ...
To paraphrase the argument people keep making ...
"Well, for the INEXPERIENCED artist that NEEDS them ...
|
...The issue for me isn't odd being the problem, it is "LOOK AT ME!" being the problem.
When I am a player, my focus is on my character. Which is fine. I want the GM to make a world that is interesting and exciting for my character, and therefore for me to play in.
When I am the GM, my focus is on trying to make 4+ people all have a good time and hopefully be excited about exploring a world we are creating together.
When one player pulls the focus away from the group and onto themselves, for any reason, it causes problems. If we are playing a Kitsune game, and you want to play a human...that can be a problem.
Some players can play "odd" without making the game about them. Some, frankly, can't.
I don't want the game to be the "Steve the Awakened Pony Show". I want everyone at the table to feel like what they made is a part of the world we are exploring and creating. I want everyone to be integrated into a group that is a part of the world.
So when someone makes something that is difficult to integrate, they make it more difficult to do my job. They make it harder to make a game that "makes sense" and involves everyone.
My group is wonderful in that we always make a party, not just characters. The GM suggests an outline, gets approval, and 90% of the time the players talk and find a way to create connecting threads and reasons everyone is in a place willing to become a party.
The snowflake is a problem not because of weird ideas, but because they want to be the special unique snowflake unlike anyone else. Look at me, I'm different and special. Accommodate me. You change to meet my needs.
What most of us want in our fellow players and GMs are people who are trying to work with us.
What this article warns people about is that sometimes that person doesn't care as much about being helpful as you do. Sometimes that person only cares about what they want, and doesn't understand why you won't give it to them.
Some people believe they are the unquestionable hero
When you are trying to play a race that doesn't normally exist in the world, or is a race that is now extinct, you have become a snowflake by default. Also, if you are playing a game that is one race only and you decide you want to be a different race then you are being a snowflake.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I was taught in art class that you only need a very few colors of paint, and from those you can create any color you need.I keep telling Reaper this, but for some reason they keep making paint sets. Greedy ...To paraphrase the argument people keep making ...
"Well, for the INEXPERIENCED artist that NEEDS them ...
It is an amazing thing to have available all 64 million colors... But trying to put ALL 64 million colors into one painting only makes a mess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha challenge accepted!, below witness a painting of all 64 million colors
>
>
>
>
>
>
> spiffy right!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you are trying to play a race that doesn't normally exist in the world, or is a race that is now extinct, you have become a snowflake by default. Also, if you are playing a game that is one race only and you decide you want to be a different race then you are being a snowflake.
but not everyone is asking to play a race that doesn't normally exist, maybe that want to play a hybrid that while perfectly feasible within the setting, is either published from a book you generally dislike or homebrewed from the available resources
i wouldn't be asking to play a half-elf in a world where elves are extinct
but if you wanted to play a Cheliax themed campaign? why can't i take the mechanics of that ninja and fluff it as a Chelexian "Hellstalker"
Wakazashi gets Renamed Bezekira Fang and becomes the iconic weapon of the hellstalkers (no change in stats) it gets described as a curved Sabre designed for quick drawing and quick sheathing
ki pool becomes renamed "Infernal Energy" and the chosen rogue talents and ninja tricks, are chosen to model the hellcat theme
but if you wanted to play a Cheliax themed campaign? why can't i take the mechanics of that ninja and fluff it as a Chelexian "Hellstalker"Wakazashi gets Renamed Bezekira Fang and becomes the iconic weapon of the hellstalkers (no change in stats) it gets described as a curved Sabre designed for quick drawing and quick sheathing
ki pool becomes renamed "Infernal Energy" and the chosen rogue talents and ninja tricks, are chosen to model the hellcat theme
That would work perfectly for me. I don't see character classes as really existing in the setting at all, they're just rules abstractions at the end of the day. "Clerics" in the game world may have no actual levels of the Cleric character class at all, they may just be priestly-types that conduct services, pray a lot and wave incense around. Someone that calls themselves a "fighter" might actually be a Rogue on their character sheet because that class better reflects their fighting style.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you are trying to play a race that doesn't normally exist in the world, or is a race that is now extinct, you have become a snowflake by default. Also, if you are playing a game that is one race only and you decide you want to be a different race then you are being a snowflake.
And we were doing so well.
A question based off of your assertion, shallowsoul: is being a "snowflake", in this case, being disruptive and causing problems for the group?
Because if that is your definition than your assertion is wrong... in certain groups.
Because not all groups play the same way.
To reiterate what many, many, many people have said, "Each group plays their own way. When differences arise within a group, the best thing is to talk it out. If this is impossible, the player should step out of a game if they and the GM are unable to compromise. None of this is wrong."
Groups I've run for:
1) serious role-players who focused entirely on campaign integrity and were very focused on making their characters "fit".
2) a group of out-for-fun goofballs who just wanted to hang with friends and have a good time with silly fun-ness.
3) a group that consisted of both of the above at the same time.
Out of all three groups mentioned above, there were three players that were disruptive.
One played an elf cleric. He attempted to force the campaign to revolve around him. He killed NPCs arbitrarily, killed his own (temporary) character in a bid to generate a new one, and generally made things unpleasant for everyone. He was asked to leave and not come back.
One played a dwarf cleric. And a human Red Wizard. And a human Druid. He attempted to carefully and methodically "win" D&D by defeating every trap, looting every vault and corpse, and beating every organization by himself, even when I, the GM, looked him in the eye and told him, "Look, I know you want this stuff, but right now you need to talk. You won't win against this group. They're too high level. They will work with you, and you will get the stuff. Just wait for a few minutes." He would then roll for initiative, get disowned by the rest of the party, and owned by whatever too-powerful supposed-to-be-allied NPC group he was assaulting due to impatience. Eventually, he left the game.
One played a human sorcerer. He engaged in all sorts of wacky hijinks. He had a female yak as a familiar that was eventually polymorphed into a human woman. If things got "boring" to him, he had the odd tendency to fireball his own group on occasion (and then prestidigitate flowers and chocolate to "make up for it" when the only one he never had problems with was the only one that ever got hurt due to lacking fire-and-spell resistance). He often died and was reincarnated. He caused all sorts of problems for the group. He was also fun, laughed at his own mistakes, and genuinely helped the players out, too. He stayed in our group to the end and had a great time.
The svirfneblin psion? (Chosen because the svirfneblin were extremely rare and practically vanished from the world.) Golden. The model player. Had his own story lines, but ensured that everyone got the spotlight. Liked to keep to the shadows.
The half-giant barbarian? (Chosen because half-giants, though exceedingly rare, were "really cool", and because the race and barbarian class synergize well with ability scores.) Flawless. Another model player. Had his own story lines, but ensured that everyone else got time to shine.
The human swashbuckler and human wizard were pretty great as well. (The wizard eventually went a little crazy, though, and became a villain, when the player's time to play shifted around a bit. He then abandoned it and created a new character to fit in with the party better.)
Those are just a few players by way of examples. Despite the fact that the first three players chose core race/class combinations (that were major elements of the setting), they were highly disruptive. They were all three the more negative stereotype of "special snowflake". But...
... the second one functioned fine (if acting foolishly), and the story proceeded well. He would have stayed in the game if he'd wanted to.
... the third one was a genuine boon to the party as a whole, despite his "LOOK AT ME!" antics. He became a friend - in game and out - of all of us.
The second set of players chose races (and one class) that didn't really synergize well with the campaign setting at all. One was completely missing from the upper world. The other was terrible at social stuff in a social-heavy campaign and hailed from a race that had a total of about 523 members in the world. For a campaign that took place half-way around the world where there kind had never even been heard of.
But they were excellent players, and good people to have, both in the game and out.
(Point in fact, I actually retconned my own reality and history so that they could play those races. Those races which, previously, didn't exist at all.)
My point isn't that all people who play weird races that don't fit into the setting's presumptions are automatically good players. Rather, that they can be good players or even better ones than those who's characters are tailor made for the setting presumptions.
Thus, if having a strange race or class (that doesn't fit in with the setting as it currently exists) makes someone a snowflake by default, then being a snowflake isn't a bad thing.
If being a snowflake is a bad thing, then, then that doesn't automatically include all those who play races or class that don't fit into a setting (as it currently exists).
(I do tend to value setting integrity, though, and, in general, would prefer that be kept rather than not.)
being a snowflake isn't always disruptive
a disruptive player can be disruptive with any race or class
in fact, a disruptive player, is more likely to be disruptive with a gnome than he is, with an aasimaar, tiefling or half-nymph
being a snowflake isn't always disruptive
a disruptive player can be disruptive with any race or class
in fact, a disruptive player, is more likely to be disruptive with a gnome than he is, with an aasimaar, tiefling or half-nymph
Why would they be more likely with a gnome? Unless this is continuing the "All gnomes must be wacky" trope that people perpetuate.
As far as all the rest from the last several dozen posts, yeah. There is no right way. Special snowflakes will be special regardless of what they play, because they want the attention or spotlight in the game. They want to win. They want to amaze their friends. They want to create havoc. I imagine there are as many reasons as their are special snowflakes.
being a snowflake isn't always disruptive
Depends on how it is being defined. Some folks are defining snowflake to be a PC that is disruptive. So using that definition, the snowflake is by definition disruptive.
Others seem to be using the term as defined as something out of the ordinary. Under this definition depending on the person speaking it may always be disruptive or it might just be potentially disruptive.
Kind of reminds me of the discussions trying to define the term GMPC.
being a snowflake isn't always disruptiveDepends on how it is being defined. Some folks are defining snowflake to be a PC that is disruptive. So using that definition, the snowflake is by definition disruptive.
Others seem to be using the term as defined as something out of the ordinary. Under this definition depending on the person speaking it may always be disruptive or it might just be potentially disruptive.
Kind of reminds me of the discussions trying to define the term GMPC.
This is very true.
I've seen more than one disagreement where the only real problem was that both posters were using the term "special snowflake" while meaning completely different things.
The now-locked snowflake thread was created with the intention of questioning why a player should get to play a character that is so gosh-darned special that they just have to play that one and nothing else, despite it being a bad fit for the campaign, and refuse to listen to any reasoning about changing it. Unfortunately the clarity of that got lost and caused more than a few people to get upset at the idea that any unique character was somehow being defined as bad for the game.
(and don't get me started on GMPCs! ;) )
From what I'm seeing, the majority of anti-snowflake comments are from people whose definition of "special snowflake" is as I just posted - the player whose choice of character is so far out that it would be disruptive to the campaign, and that the player themselves is being disruptive by refusing to talk about other options.
The majority of pro-snowflake comments are from people whose definition of "special snowflake" is "anything that has a unique feel to it".
If you personally identify yourself as a player of "special snowflakes", but disagree with the commonly accepted connotation of the term, choose a new term to identify yourself with. The overwhelming majority of the hobby has acceded to the negative definition.
I don't think a few posters on a single website can ever be used to claim an "overwhelming majority" of anything.
Nor does the half-drider draconic dryad with levels of druid need to be a "special snowflake", in the right campaign. Someone once mentioned a campaign of odd-ball monster races seeking acceptance amongst the normals. This character would be a shoo-in for such a game.
This is just a pet peeve of mine, but if someone wants to make up a wacky example, at least make it possible. I mean you can have a half-drider half-dryad draconic druid, but you can't have a half-drider dryad anything, because then it wouldn't be a dryad in that case.
being a snowflake isn't always disruptiveI'm sorry, but I think you're the only person who wants to re-argue that ground. By general acclamation and overwhelming intent in use, the term "special snowflake" has a negative connotation deriving from its perception as a form of disruptive player. Notably, by trying to force the spotlight onto themselves, at the expense of the group, due to some perceived "special uniqueness". This is sometimes, but not always, the product of choosing unexpected/unusual races or classes.
This horse need not be resurrected again. If you personally identify yourself as a player of "special snowflakes", but disagree with the commonly accepted connotation of the term, choose a new term to identify yourself with. The overwhelming majority of the hobby has acceded to the negative definition.
the word has multiple definitions, if you go by the definition of "look at me, i am so unique and special. i poop rainbows." then yes, it is disruptive
but if you go by the definition in the old thread of "i play non-tolkein races" or "i don't conform to steriotypical portrayals." then it needn't always be disruptive
i identify by the latter definition, not the former, i prefer the phrases "Exotic Race Advocate" "Exotic Class Advocate" and "Player whom prefers to avoid the Tolkein influenced Steriotypes" over "Special Snowflake." but some people can't differentiate the two
i don't hog spotlight unless a character's role is one designed to be overly social, amiable, and the type to start interactions with others on a regular basis, such as my half-nymph bard when she gathered information, i roleplayed out the diplomacy checks, because the DM wanted me to, well, i didn't do it all the time, and i gave other people a chance to interact as well. i'd even nudge others to interact and assign cute nicknames to everyone, i remember each of the other 14 our of 15 PCs, the 15 cohorts and 15 hirelings, were given a code name based on a type of dessert.
the Dwarven Fighter who liked his Rum, i didn't call him Hans, i called him Uncle Tiramisu, he knew better after a while when he realized i was referencing the fact Tiramisu is made with Rum. i'd be asking; "Uncle Tiramisu, what is your opinion?" and i would do such with the more bored and more introverted players to convince them to think on the spot and keep them engaged
a disruptive player can be disruptive with any race or classAgreed, see above & many examples provided in this (and other) threads of special snowflakes who were simple core race/class combinations. No one is trying to say that all special snowflakes are half-drider draconic dryads with levels in druid.
Nor does the half-drider draconic dryad with levels of druid need to be a "special snowflake", in the right campaign. Someone once mentioned a campaign of odd-ball monster races seeking acceptance amongst the normals. This character would be a shoo-in for such a game.
many examples of snowflakes are core, i got people to interact and kept them engaged.
in fact, a disruptive player, is more likely to be disruptive with a gnome than he is, with an aasimaar, tiefling or half-nymphAgreed. And, should that disruption take the form of hogging the spotlight, especially with an effort of claiming some "special uniqueness", regardless of source, we call them "special snowflakes".
the uniqueness is a disruptive thing if you flaunt it or focus on it, many people use gnomes as an OOC excuse to be silly because they think of the sillier aspects of Gnomish lore
being a snowflake isn't always disruptive
a disruptive player can be disruptive with any race or class
in fact, a disruptive player, is more likely to be disruptive with a gnome than he is, with an aasimaar, tiefling or half-nymph
Why would they be more likely with a gnome? Unless this is continuing the "All gnomes must be wacky" trope that people perpetuate.
As far as all the rest from the last several dozen posts, yeah. There is no right way. Special snowflakes will be special regardless of what they play, because they want the attention or spotlight in the game. They want to win. They want to amaze their friends. They want to create havoc. I imagine there are as many reasons as their are special snowflakes.
they will be special regardless of what they play because they want the spotlight, even when i talked heavily and interacted with plot relevant NPCs, i'd help engage the other PCs and help encourage them to converse, i helped many PCs find acceptable romantic interests, made sure every PC had their say, even the timid, unnatractive and creepy ones, and made sure that not just the Shy got their say but the bored. in fact, i would also interact with bored PCs to keep them focused on the game.
the group was mostly hackenslashers, but Seth, Harvey, Javier and I, convinced a lot of players to come out of their shell. Dale and Matt would also sometimes help.
I would agree billygoat gruff.
Be unique, punish everyone with your uniqueness. Make the dm groan and annoy the other players.
Honestly, the fellow pcs should just murder the snowflake if it goes too far. Yes, pvp can solve problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are the only person I know of who uses the second without making the mistake of lumping it into the first. If your intention is to differentiate the second from the first, I'd encourage you stick to another name, and not try to defend the term "special snowflake".
Once you start defending the "special snowflake" term, you've bought into defending disruptive players, as well as yourself.
I don't think I've ever encountered a word or phrase that didn't have multiple contradictory meanings.
And most of what I read are math journals where everyone tries to be as precise as possible, and we still end up with contradictory terminology.
Generally when definitions are unclear, and clarity is required, people will state definitions at the beginning of the text.The definition of special snowflake that you are using, even within this thread, is in direct contradiction with how it is being used by other posters, including shallowsoul and Umbriere, so everyone (including both umbriere and you) need to be a bit more precise if you want to avoid confusion...which apparently is the entire cause of this disagreement. Neither definition is "correct", because they are both definitions. As of right now, not everyone in the thread is using the same definition of "special snowflake"--there are at least three conflicting definitions flying around, and none of them have an 'overwhelming majority'. I think it wasn't particularly clear (at first) what Umbriere meant when he/she kept using the phrase. However, now he/she has made clear what definition he/she is using:
Assuming you understood this
...the word has multiple definitions, if you go by the definition of "look at me, i am so unique and special. i poop rainbows." then yes, it is disruptive
but if you go by the definition in the old thread of "i play non-tolkein races" or "i don't conform to steriotypical portrayals." then it needn't always be disruptive
i identify by the latter definition, not the
I've probably repeated my definition four or five times now. Only to have people argue against me telling people what I mean when I say special snowflake. I know what I mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blah blah blahblah blah lots of really cool smart stuff.
There. Argument over.
I'd agree that not all disruptives are special snowflakes--there are people who are disruptive for other reasons. But those who disrupt to get attention? Special snowflakes. I don't much like the term--it originated as a pretentious play on what people told their kids to insult anybody who plays anything unusual--but if we are to use "special snowflake" efficiently, and therefore critically, this is where it needs to be applied.
Blah blah blahblah blah lots of really cool smart stuff.There. Argument over.
I'd agree that not all disruptives are special snowflakes--there are people who are disruptive for other reasons. But those who disrupt to get attention? Special snowflakes. I don't much like the term--it originated as a pretentious play on what people told their kids to insult anybody who plays anything unusual--but if we are to use "special snowflake" efficiently, and therefore critically, this is where it needs to be applied.
Well if we want to apply it universally to problem situations, then if we are using it to describe a character, we are using it wrong. It should instead be used to describe a player. A player can be a special snowflake, but a character would not be. It is the player that is being disruptive, not the character. An awaken pony wizard in and of itself is not disruptive, as I pointed out earlier there is evidence of other magical intelligent animal like creatures in the game that fit just fine. It is the player that makes the character disruptive.
When the term "special snowflake" is used in retail, it is used to describe the customer, not the order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say we just scrap the term altogether. An insult that basically originated so Free-Form Roleplayers on second-rate roleplaying forums could be snobs has no place on the Paizo forums.
'Cause we're so mature.
|
|
When you are trying to play a race that doesn't normally exist in the world, or is a race that is now extinct, you have become a snowflake by default. Also, if you are playing a game that is one race only and you decide you want to be a different race then you are being a snowflake.And we were doing so well.
A question based off of your assertion, shallowsoul: is being a "snowflake", in this case, being disruptive and causing problems for the group?
Because if that is your definition than your assertion is wrong... in certain groups.
Because not all groups play the same way.
To reiterate what many, many, many people have said, "Each group plays their own way. When differences arise within a group, the best thing is to talk it out. If this is impossible, the player should step out of a game if they and the GM are unable to compromise. None of this is wrong."
Groups I've run for:
1) serious role-players who focused entirely on campaign integrity and were very focused on making their characters "fit".2) a group of out-for-fun goofballs who just wanted to hang with friends and have a good time with silly fun-ness.
3) a group that consisted of both of the above at the same time.
Out of all three groups mentioned above, there were three players that were disruptive.
One played an elf cleric. He attempted to force the campaign to revolve around him. He killed NPCs arbitrarily, killed his own (temporary) character in a bid to generate a new one, and generally made things unpleasant for everyone. He was asked to leave and not come back.
One played a dwarf cleric. And a human Red Wizard. And a human Druid. He attempted to carefully and methodically "win" D&D by defeating every trap, looting every vault and corpse, and beating every organization by himself, even when I, the GM, looked him in the eye and told him, "Look, I know you want this stuff, but right now you need to talk. You won't win against this group. They're...
You still don't seem to get it, no matter how long of a post you make. The problem is the few posters who question a DMs ability when they are told no to a certain race, class, etc..
They are trying to imply that I am wrong for saying no. These same people can talk about everyone plays differently and at the same time can't accept the words that come out of their own mouth.
Again, the moment you want to play outside of the given restriction you are asking to be a snowflake. Doesn't matter the race or even the class. If I have a game setup around a certain theme and you want to play something that is outside that theme then you are a snowflake.
|
|
Blah blah blahblah blah lots of really cool smart stuff.There. Argument over.
I'd agree that not all disruptives are special snowflakes--there are people who are disruptive for other reasons. But those who disrupt to get attention? Special snowflakes. I don't much like the term--it originated as a pretentious play on what people told their kids to insult anybody who plays anything unusual--but if we are to use "special snowflake" efficiently, and therefore critically, this is where it needs to be applied.
Emmmmm no. Far from over.
What a damn interesting thread.
Umbriere Moonwhisper is correct. Special snowflakes are NOT always disruptive. Just because you want to turn the term purely negative doesn't make it so Billy. In fact MUCH of the last thread people were incorrectly using the term. The proper term for someone who insists on playing only this ONE character is "Entitlement Player".
Not to say special snowflake is a purely good term either. It IS a play style. If you use it to hog the spotlight then yes you are the negative version. If you are using it to merely gain mechanical advantage then there ARE some who would still call you negative while OTHERS would staunchly defend your number crunching. If you are using it to breath extra life and angst into your character then you are using it for good. Those are the three accepted gaming definitions of the term... as you can see it is NOT a clear case of automatic negativity...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the few posters who question a DMs ability when they are told no to a certain race, class, etc..
They are trying to imply that I am wrong for saying no. These same people can talk about everyone plays differently and at the same time can't accept the words that come out of their own mouth.
Again, the moment you want to play outside of the given restriction you are asking to be a snowflake. Doesn't matter the race or even the class. If I have a game setup around a certain theme and you want to play something that is outside that theme then you are a snowflake.
This is the crux of it really. After dozens of threads with dozens of pages what it boils down to is some folks, and shallowsoul mentioning specifically here, that he doesn't like being told that his playstyle makes people question his abilities as a gm. I'm not trying to call you out or attack you personally, but I'd like to address what you said there specifically so that it's put into proper context.
Although you have control over the games you run and the people you allow at your table/choose to play with... you simply have no control over other people's feelings and opinions. A lot of people have a hard time agreeing that they have any control over their own feelings, much less anyone elses.
You're going to a place you have no right to go. You're trying to be in charge of how others see your playstyle. You may not agree with it, but you have no control over it. It's a natural place for you to overstep your bounds because it's the same thing as your style of choosing what the players can/cannot/will/won't play. You have no control over what they want to play and you never willl... You can keep them from your table but your power ends there.
Even if you're painting yourself as a better person for not calling them 'bad players' by avoiding the counterinsult of calling them snowflakes or entitled players.... Bottom line is it's immaterial. What seems to be important is what you choose to try controlling that you can't.
You can't control what players play.
You can't control what players WANT to play.
You can't make players play what you want them to if they don't want to.
You want to control so much of what you have literally no control over.
Then you take it one step further..
You want to control how they feel about how good of a GM you are.
If other people thinking you're a bad gm is so troubling for you, either find out what they don't like and get better at that so that you're the kind of gm that can be flexible to playstyles other than your own, or don't. Enjoy the fact that people are people and that you can't please everyone all the time.
Next time you hear someone call you a bad gm on the threads
1. flag it. it's not supposed to happen here.
2. add an imaginary 'for me' or 'imho' to what they say. You're not a bad gm. You're a bad gm for me. It's too bad when folks leave this kind of thng out but it happens.
3. we've even been able to get away with snark on these threads so you could repost what they post and add the 'for me' onto the end and tell them you fixed that for them.
4. There are going to be people who actually think you're a bad gm based on the things you count as being your preferred playstyle. You have no control over their opinions, so either hunger for getting their approval and change what you're doing or allow them to have opinions, as people often do... whether you agree with them or not... and move on.
They're free to think what they will about your abilities and you're free to think they're wrong. You're even as free to think they're bad gm's for thinking you're a bad gm based on your playstyle. I'd even go so far as to say you're free to think they're bad people for thinking you're a bad person based on your playstyle.... Which seems over the top but is still possible.... Everyone's free to have a feeling or opinion no matter how wrong anyone else thinks it is.
If the reason I keep seeing these threads is because you want to control how other people feel then I just want to let you know that's gonna be a conversation you'll probably never be satisfied with.
I was going to go all Godwin and say the last time someone was convinced that they could 'control' how other people feel was hitler... But maybe Westboro Baptist is a more recent reference. It's still godwin going for churches though I think. I'm not up to speed on Godwin. And it's painting a picture of you I also don't find appropriate. Lets try this a different way.. Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus can think they're the hardest working most put upon people in showbusiness. And even if they're totallly right they still can't control the opinions of the LEGION of people who think they're no talent hacks. Those people can be just as right about him being a no talent hack as he is about being the hardest working most put upon person in showbusiness...At the same time!!!!
You're free not to like it. You're even free to post about how you don't like it. I hear ya man. Loud and clear. Other people's feelings on your gm style are simply not a steering wheel you have access to though, so if you're just posting to say how you feel, I gotcha.
If you keep bringing this up to tell people they're wrong for not liking your style... Thats cool for me but not so cool for the forum rules. I know Jessica Price and the other moderators aren't expecting a beautiful zen garden when they start their thread moderator shift.... And I can say for sure i'm probably one of the guys who dances right on the very edge of what's appropriate.... You may not have the ability to control how people feel about your style of gaming but you certainly have (and have expressed) the freedom to try.
It just might be helpful to know what your goal is so you can start thinking about what the metric is for which you'll know you have, or even can, achieve it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.
wow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.wow.
As mean as that sounds I actually totally agree with it. A lot of people can do a thing for a long long time and not 'learn' the same lessons from it that someone else might. Doesn't really apply to the thread since nobody is 'doing it wrong'
What i've come away with after 30 years of gaming can be and is quite different from a ton of other equally experienced folks here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.wow.I know, right? Common sense ain't always common.
If your form is off, your muscle memory will force you to do it wrong every time.
I've always felt that "common sense" really means "think like I do".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt that "common sense" really means "think like I do".Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.wow.I know, right? Common sense ain't always common.
If your form is off, your muscle memory will force you to do it wrong every time.
Which is true, if you are the common man. ;D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt that "common sense" really means "think like I do".Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.wow.I know, right? Common sense ain't always common.
If your form is off, your muscle memory will force you to do it wrong every time.
I've gotta admit, I'm continually surprised by how all the most rational, level headed people just happen to agree with me. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.wow.As mean as that sounds I actually totally agree with it. A lot of people can do a thing for a long long time and not 'learn' the same lessons from it that someone else might. Doesn't really apply to the thread since nobody is 'doing it wrong'
What i've come away with after 30 years of gaming can be and is quite different from a ton of other equally experienced folks here.
Which is one reason experience is so valuable. Your experience provides input into other folks about what CAN work under different circumstances, so they can evaluate that and see how it fits their own circumstances.
I could use a dozen examples from sports, arts, science or hobbies. Usually when I am seeking advice, I am not asking "Hey, what is the one single perfect way to accomplish this goal?." What I am asking is almost always "Hey, I'm trying to figure out a way to do this thing that works for me, so I'd love to hear what works for other people so I can evaluate whether it would work for me. Those things that appeal to me will probably mean I'll want to do some more follow up as I narrow down to a choice that I hope will work for me."
Speaking of common sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've gotta admit, I'm continually surprised by how all the most rational, level headed people just happen to agree with me. ;)I've always felt that "common sense" really means "think like I do".Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.wow.I know, right? Common sense ain't always common.
If your form is off, your muscle memory will force you to do it wrong every time.
IKNORITE!!!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, practice doesn't always make perfect, just permanent.wow.As mean as that sounds I actually totally agree with it. A lot of people can do a thing for a long long time and not 'learn' the same lessons from it that someone else might. Doesn't really apply to the thread since nobody is 'doing it wrong'
What i've come away with after 30 years of gaming can be and is quite different from a ton of other equally experienced folks here.
Which is one reason experience is so valuable. Your experience provides input into other folks about what CAN work under different circumstances, so they can evaluate that and see how it fits their own circumstances.
I could use a dozen examples from sports, arts, science or hobbies. Usually when I am seeking advice, I am not asking "Hey, what is the one single perfect way to accomplish this goal?." What I am asking is almost always "Hey, I'm trying to figure out a way to do this thing that works for me, so I'd love to hear what works for other people so I can evaluate whether it would work for me. Those things that appeal to me will probably mean I'll want to do some more follow up as I narrow down to a choice that I hope will work for me."
Speaking of common sense.
I agree. I think if that's what these threads are about they'd be a lot shorter and more pleasant. The worm has turned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I found the root of the problem ;-)The problem is the few posters who question a DMs ability when they are told no to a certain race, class, etc..
They are trying to imply that I am wrong for saying no.
Yep. When I saw those words my gut reaction was to post something more like
Both of them are victims of perspective bias... And both of them are entirely correct in their biased opinions.
Because perspective bias allows you to move your own goalposts.
Bieber probably doesnt cry himself to sleep at night about the fact that there are so many, so adamant non beliebers.
Beiber probably is as successful as he is because he's so adamant about doing what he thinks he's good at and ignoring his critics.
"Paranoia the game" has a line in it I love...
If commies hate being commies so much, why would they rather die than stop being commies?
The difference of course is that you love being a restrictive or 'more narrative/setting' focused gm.
So you have to decide... Is the priority making people love you or is the priority doing what you do and understanding that comes with problems.
Because if I say "Restrictive gm's always cause problems at my table"
and you say "Snowflake players always cause problems at my table"
both of which are true.
Then what these threads have been about is
"Why can't you snowflakes stop being a problem for me so I can ignore adressing the problem our side brings to your table... Can't you just deal with it?"
and when we say "We do... We play at tables without controlling gms.... And suggest you feel happy about the fact that it means you can play without snowflakes..."
What... That's not good enough?
You should be free to cause problems at our table while we simply be happy to do things your way?
But that's not really productive... The only productive direction I think it's possible to take the thread is to simply remind people that the forum rules are to avoid calling another way the wrong way... I'd be curious to see if any post has said such a thing and survived the moderators yet.
And then to remind the other people that even if someone does play different than you and then has opinions on your playstyle and capabilities that they're not able to express here in the forums or else violate dont-be-a-jerk no-wrong-bad-fun.... you know deep down that you're style is right-good-fun for you and you can't possibly control how they feel about you and your style and your capabilities as a gm... so there's barely anything you can actually do to resolve THAT particular problem.
Not saying it can't be done but we're talking about making a sway in opinions. Great headway has been made to change the public consensus on gay marriage, smoking in public, legality of marijuana... atheists getting into heaven... But to say that those things happened without opposition? You can be a martyr for your playstyle all you want but you don't get to be beiber without also having a throng of nonbeliebers...
And if you want to be the Bieber of restrictive gm style, then do it the way he's doing it. Ignoring the haters and doing what he do as best he can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. When I saw those words my gut reaction was to post something more like ** spoiler omitted **...
<gasps>
Okay, I have to admit I've seen a lot of insults thrown around these forums, but please don't start using the B word! Nobody here deserves that! ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always get a kick out of the reactions people have to pop stars. When I was a kid there was this dude named Bobby Goldsboro and it was the fashionable thing to do to hate on the guy. He was cute. He sang bubble-gum pop teen love songs. He had a screaming legion of girl fans. To express any appreciation of Bobby was to instantly destroy any credibility you might have as a music aficionado.
That was about the same time that this "made up band" called "The Monkees" came out. The general reaction to them was more or less the same as to Bobby Goldsboro. They weren't even a real band! Just a bunch of pretenders thrown together by some Hollywood hack to capitalize on the Beatles craze. To express appreciation for them was to not only destroy musical credibility, but to identify yourself with the capitalist pigs who were destroying art in the greedy pursuit of money.
But I loved "Honey." I still find myself singing it.
And "Last Train to Clarksvillle" was clearly a powerful anti-war protest song with one of the most compelling guitar riffs in music history.
So I bought their records and I'm glad I did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always get a kick out of the reactions people have to pop stars. When I was a kid there was this dude named Bobby Goldsboro and it was the fashionable thing to do to hate on the guy. He was cute. He sang bubble-gum pop teen love songs. He had a screaming legion of girl fans. To express any appreciation of Bobby was to instantly destroy any credibility you might have as a music aficionado.
That was about the same time that this "made up band" called "The Monkees" came out. The general reaction to them was more or less the same as to Bobby Goldsboro. They weren't even a real band! Just a bunch of pretenders thrown together by some Hollywood hack to capitalize on the Beatles craze. To express appreciation for them was to not only destroy musical credibility, but to identify yourself with the capitalist pigs who were destroying art in the greedy pursuit of money.
But I loved "Honey." I still find myself singing it.
And "Last Train to Clarksvillle" was clearly a powerful anti-war protest song with one of the most compelling guitar riffs in music history.
So I bought their records and I'm glad I did.
it was fashionable to hate the Jackson Five too, as well as mj. Hate is a weird part of the industry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once almost got suspended from school for defending the Monkees during lunch break, a stance that ended up with me and a much bigger dude rolling around in the dirt and both ending up with bloody noses.
The things we do for art...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait
what are you all even talking about anymore