|
Are you saying your mind is wide open on the subject? I find that very often the people pushing the 'your mind is closed' argument are often not all that open minded on the subject themselves.
There are certain subjects where my mind is made up and your not going to convince me differently. for example having guns Target Touch AC is one of the dumbest thing that Paizo imo has done. It makes a class very powerful. Even if historical certain guns were better against armor. D&D is not a historical accurate rpg. Last time I checked dragons the size of jumbo jets were not flying around in the middle ages.
Other subjects I am ore open minded about. If I say a certain feat, item etc is overpowered. And the posters prove me wrong. I'm not going to get angry and offended because I was proven wrong. Or that someone opinion differs from mine. The difference is that I'm not going around and telling others that if your not doing it my way then your not playing/running the game wrong. If you ask my opinion on how much powers players should have at the gaming table. I tell you. It's not what you wanted to hear. Then tell me I'm doing it wrong because I'm encouraging entitled players. Well what was the purpose of being asked for my opinion only to be told I'm wrong and be shown how "to run a proper table".
Again it's not so much not wanting to hear a different opinion. I like hearing both sides. It's when posters act like they want to hear both and truly are not interested in hearing anything that deviates from what they think. As well do we really need the same topic reworded, rehashed over and over again.
Not specifically you, neccesariy but i often see the open minded thing used almost more as 'why don't you just be open minded and adopt my position."
Nobody is wrong at their own table if they are all having fun. However, i'm not going to agree that I'm doing it wrong at my own table - especially since both I and my players like it. I don't have any objection to the existence of Kirth's style; I even enjoy playingin it from time to time. It just isnt much my style of gming. Although interestingly enough, thatone world that the paladins got put into was originally designed communally and then became and established world with restrictions through continuous use.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not specifically you, neccesariy but i often see the open minded thing used almost more as 'why don't you just be open minded and adopt my position."
I admit I am not perfect. I have caused my share of being annoying on these boards. As well I have seen the same on my mend where someone who is open minded is anything but.As well as your postion. No one is perfect. I just want some posters to at least acknowledge that even if one has a difference of opinion neither side is doing it wrong. More often than not imo there seems to be either your with us or againast attitude taken by some posters.
Nobody is wrong at their own table if they are all having fun. However, i'm not going to agree that I'm doing it wrong at my own table - especially since both I and my players like it. I don't have any objection to the existence of Kirth's style; I even enjoy playingin it from time to time. It just isnt much my style of gming. Although interestingly enough, thatone world that the paladins got put into was originally designed communally and then became and established world with restrictions through continuous use.
Their is a difference between your postion and some I read on the board. At your table you like things done a certain way. I may not agree with it. Nor do you have to defend it. Gamers tastes are different. Except Im not seeing you come here and start a thread after thread bringing up the same subject. Or when given feedback unahppy that it does not back up the subject matter. Whats the point of asking if player XYZ is entitled when told no he is not. Then go on a rant on how player XYZ is being entitled and no one will tell you otherwise. not exactly conductive to a interesting and good discussion on these forums.
Why does the lack of dragons and magic in real life mean that other areas within the game cannot at least attempt to follow some kind of logical sense?
Because Chewbacca.
I agree, it's silly.
I'd also point out that in the middle ages they actually believed there were Dragons, hence the biblical stories and the tale of St George. According to the mariners there were Sea Serpents and mermaids too.
We know it is bunkum now, but AT THE TIME there was a belief this stuff was real.
Even today people want to tell us there are ghosts and demons and the power of the Debil, and they say it with a straight face and 100% conviction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always find this argument baffling...Why does the lack of dragons and magic in real life mean that the game cannot at least attempt to follow some kind of logical "mundane" sense?
Because D&D imo is a rpg where logical and mundane sense gets tossed out the window. In a rpg where gods exist. Where Clerics can raise the dead and Wizards create demiplanes and summon creatures out of thin air. Logic and mundane just are simply not something thay imo can be attrbuted to D&D. At least imo. Now if we were talking about Ars Magica which is a rpg that does model the middle ages well its another story.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because D&D imo is a rpg where logical and mundane sense gets tossed out the window... Where Clerics can raise the dead and Wizards create demiplanes and summon creatures out of thin air. Logic and mundane just are simply not something thay imo can be attrbuted to D&D.
If you're going to use that logic, then USE it! Don't just pick and choose things to your advantage...
Never use gravity or combustible material in ANY game you run; because you know... Dragons and stuff!
Because D&D imo is a rpg where logical and mundane sense gets tossed out the window. In a rpg where gods exist. Where Clerics can raise the dead and Wizards create demiplanes and summon creatures out of thin air. Logic and mundane just are simply not something thay imo can be attrbuted to D&D. At least imo. Now if we were talking about Ars Magica which is a rpg that does model the middle ages well its another story.
I always find this argument baffling...Why does the lack of dragons and magic in real life mean that the game cannot at least attempt to follow some kind of logical "mundane" sense?
Ah. So the existence of any fantastical element presupposes the existence of ALL fantastical elements?
Or maybe you pick and choose what realism means to you.
I hate using the term 'realism' anyway. Internal consistency works. Believability might work. Verisimilitude might work. Realism is, I think, entirely the wrong term.
Or you could say about the real world, then, 'in a world where black holes and 'spooky action at a distance' exist "
When its obvious what is being meant by realism, I think playing semantic games with the definition of realism is a bit much, perhaps?
Since it is obvious they don't mean "just like the real world" what is the point of brining up that meaning to shoot it down?
If dragons, then the components and efforts to make gunpowder will have never existed. See it works for the GM that want's to ban stuff also. ;D
If dragons, then the components and efforts to make gunpowder will have never existed. See it works for the GM that want's to band stuff also. ;D
... Complete non sequitur?
If dragons, then the components and efforts to make gunpowder will have never existed. See it works for the GM that want's to band stuff also. ;D... Complete non sequitur?
I think that's the joke.
So, shall we begin to talk about the realism of the Adult Red Dragon being able to fly with those small* wings they've got?
* = If you compare to how big and heavy the dragon itself is...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again. People latch onto the "if dragons exist then you shouldn't restrict anything." Like a bulldog and won't let go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again. People latch onto the "if dragons exist then you shouldn't restrict anything." Like a bulldog and won't let go.
"Well, if dragons can exist, then obviously my awakened pony sorcerer half-fiend Jedi/Sith cyborg hyrbid riding a lightsaber-wielding T-Rex, should too. Or else you're a bad DM for not making it happen."
The Circle of Thread-Life continues...
Here we go again. People latch onto the "if dragons exist then you shouldn't restrict anything." Like a bulldog and won't let go.
Then let's restrict / ban everything and go home instead.
Just as sound a plan as yours, if you ask me, and equally fun!
Last but not least, you missed the point. I said they shouldn't be able to fly, not that they shouldn't exist.
"Well, if dragons can exist, then obviously my awakened pony sorcerer half-fiend Jedi/Sith cyborg hyrbid riding a lightsaber-wielding T-Rex, should too. Or else you're a bad DM for not making it happen."
The Circle of Thread-Life continues...
Hyperbole is cute and all, but still a fallacy. I still prefer a golden middle way regarding this topic. Also, what's a hyrbid?
|
|
Let me sum up my position, so that later it can be twisted and misquoted.
1. If I am GM, I make a proposal. If 4 people like it, it generally happens. If a 5th or 6th person doesn't like it, and what the 5th person proposes changing makes the game in any way less fun for me and the other 4 players, the 5th player should move on.
That simple.
2. If I am GM and I make a proposal and 3 people like it and 3 people don't, that proposal fails unless I can get a 4th, at which point see 1.
3. If I am a player and a GM makes a proposal that 4 people like and I don't like the proposal, I take a pass.
4. If I am a player and a GM makes a proposal that 3 people like and I think I could like if only "X", I propose "X". If the GM says no to "X" I politely bow out.
5. If I am a player and another player asks to play a concept that makes the game less fun for me, but that the rest of the group likes, I generally politely bow out and make room for someone who enjoys that type of game.
Life is too short to waste time at tables you won't enjoy.
You said both of these sentences in the same posts."Then let's restrict / ban everything and go home instead."
"Hyperbole is cute and all, but still a fallacy."
I am aware of that. Hyperbole is a fallacy, regardless of who uses it.
Also, if you are GM, do you allow players to make any kind of proposals?
Here we go again. People latch onto the "if dragons exist then you shouldn't restrict anything." Like a bulldog and won't let go.Then let's restrict / ban everything and go home instead.
Just as sound a plan as yours, if you ask me, and equally fun!
Last but not least, you missed the point. I said they shouldn't be able to fly, not that they shouldn't exist.
Hyperbole is cute and all, but still a fallacy. I still prefer a golden middle way regarding this topic. Also, what's a hyrbid?"Well, if dragons can exist, then obviously my awakened pony sorcerer half-fiend Jedi/Sith cyborg hyrbid riding a lightsaber-wielding T-Rex, should too. Or else you're a bad DM for not making it happen."
The Circle of Thread-Life continues...
You bring up a fallacy and point out a minor spelling error? You win teh intewebz.
Josh, you shouldn't be taking offense over that spelling error joke.
I'm not taking this thread as seriously as I did a while back, after all :3
Josh, you shouldn't be taking offense over that spelling error joke.
I'm not taking this thread as seriously as I did a while back, after all :3
How am I supposed to know that was a joke? Less important things have been picked apart much more fervently on this forum.
Good point. I should make sure to use more emotes next time I'm joking around. >_>
Good point. I should make sure to use more emotes next time I'm joking around. >_>
We do need a joking/sarcasm font. Some forums actually have font colors assigned for things like that.
|
|
You said both of these sentences in the same posts."Then let's restrict / ban everything and go home instead."
"Hyperbole is cute and all, but still a fallacy."
I am aware of that. Hyperbole is a fallacy, regardless of who uses it.
Also, if you are GM, do you allow players to make any kind of proposals?
They can make whatever proposals they like.
But I game with people who try to make the game fun for everyone and not just use the table as a personal playground, and who submit several ideas for approval after discussing party composition with the group.
Wo I don't generally have any of these problem, as I follow the first rule.
Don't game with jerks.
But I game with people who try to make the game fun for everyone and not just use the table as a personal playground, and who submit several ideas for approval after discussing party composition with the group.
I'll assume you're saying that in general instead of claiming anyone was actually doing that here.
Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?
But I game with people who try to make the game fun for everyone and not just use the table as a personal playground, and who submit several ideas for approval after discussing party composition with the group.I'll assume you're saying that in general instead of claiming anyone was actually doing that here.
Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?
Easy; attempt to find a common ground and compromise. If it's a setting-breaking change, maybe a different game needs to be played.
|
|
But I game with people who try to make the game fun for everyone and not just use the table as a personal playground, and who submit several ideas for approval after discussing party composition with the group.I'll assume you're saying that in general instead of claiming anyone was actually doing that here.
I'm saying anyone who insists on playing anything the group doesn't want them to play is trying to use the table as a personal playground.
Do you disagree.
I think we need to add more details and ignore more questions and make more blanket statements everyone agrees with as part of our post but are unrelated to anything anyone is saying.
Circumstances make the difference in a lot of these hypotheticals. Someone could be a giant jerkface or he could be a nice guy and just want to talk it out before having his idea thrown away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I game with people who try to make the game fun for everyone and not just use the table as a personal playground, and who submit several ideas for approval after discussing party composition with the group.I'll assume you're saying that in general instead of claiming anyone was actually doing that here.I'm saying anyone who insists on playing anything the group doesn't want them to play is trying to use the table as a personal playground.
Do you disagree.
I do not disagree. Why would you think I would?
Easy; attempt to find a common ground and compromise. If it's a setting-breaking change, maybe a different game needs to be played.But I game with people who try to make the game fun for everyone and not just use the table as a personal playground, and who submit several ideas for approval after discussing party composition with the group.I'll assume you're saying that in general instead of claiming anyone was actually doing that here.
Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?
I prefer your answer to Ciretose's, to be honest.
Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?I say I really don't want to run that and that solves the problem.
Because I don't game with jerks who think anyone at the table is there to serve them.
I don't think that's the person that was described. Where was it said he was a guy who wanted you to serve him? Is anyone who you just don't like a jerk who wants the table to serve them?
I think we need to add more details and ignore more questions and make more blanket statements everyone agrees with as part of our post but are unrelated to anything anyone is saying.
Circumstances make the difference in a lot of these hypotheticals. Someone could be a giant jerkface or he could be a nice guy and just want to talk it out before having his idea thrown away.
Validate my preconceived notions! Validate, I say!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if you come to the table with an idea and that idea is going to make someone at the the table, anyone at the table, have less fun, the polite and courteous thing for a creative person to do is come up with a new idea that isn't going to make someone at the table have less fun.
It is really that simple to me.
It is a group activity. I keep saying that over and over because it is the core of the discussion.
If a GM proposes an idea that people don't like, it should be replaced with an idea that people do like.
If a player proposes an idea that people don't like it should be replaced with an idea that people do like.
If you love an idea that you can't get the GM to run...so what? Do you really only have one idea? Do you really want to make your friend enjoy the game less to serve your wishes?
Is it ever not inconsiderate to make anyone in your life that you value do something you want that you know they do not want to do, simply because you want it?
If you don't like the game, don't make the game worse for other people because you are to inflexible to come up with something that doesn't make the game worse for other people.
Just walk away and find another game.
|
|
I don't think that's the person that was described. Where was it said he was a guy who wanted you to serve him? Is anyone who you just don't like a jerk who wants the table to serve them?Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?I say I really don't want to run that and that solves the problem.
Because I don't game with jerks who think anyone at the table is there to serve them.
If someone at the table says "I know you don't want to run this, but do it anyway" that person is asking me to serve them.
At that moment it stops being "Hey buddy, we are both coming up with something that we both want to do and enjoy" and becomes "Hey Buddy, I want to play this, run it for me even if you don't want to."
|
|
Easy; attempt to find a common ground and compromise. If it's a setting-breaking change, maybe a different game needs to be played.But I game with people who try to make the game fun for everyone and not just use the table as a personal playground, and who submit several ideas for approval after discussing party composition with the group.I'll assume you're saying that in general instead of claiming anyone was actually doing that here.
Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?
Always attempt compromise first, but when push comes to shove you have the following.
1. A person who wants "X", but could have other things.
2. A person who doesn't want "X', but is open to other things.
When in this scenario "Not X" is the compromise.
I don't think that's the person that was described. Where was it said he was a guy who wanted you to serve him? Is anyone who you just don't like a jerk who wants the table to serve them?Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?I say I really don't want to run that and that solves the problem.
Because I don't game with jerks who think anyone at the table is there to serve them.
If someone at the table says "I know you don't want to run this, but do it anyway" that person is asking me to serve them.
At that moment it stops being "Hey buddy, we are both coming up with something that we both want to do and enjoy" and becomes "Hey Buddy, I want to play this, run it for me even if you don't want to."
"I know you don't want to run this but do it anyway!" is a statement you made though, not the person in the example. You were asked what to do if someone has something four other people like and what you should do, but then you claim that guy is a jerk who's trying to get you to serve them instead of saying you would talk about it or it was circumstantial.
No one said you should play with jerks or that you had to play or that this isn't a group activity, but its bound to create a problem when you jump to claiming certain people are jerks or can't create more than one concept.
I think we need to add more details and ignore more questions and make more blanket statements everyone agrees with as part of our post but are unrelated to anything anyone is saying.
Circumstances make the difference in a lot of these hypotheticals. Someone could be a giant jerkface or he could be a nice guy and just want to talk it out before having his idea thrown away.
Y'know, the thing that's really driving me crazy about all these threads is that we (myself included, I'll admit it) keep speaking hypothetically. We're all gamers here, and a good number of us (once again, myself included) claim to have been playing for decades rather than years. We're in a perfect position to screw the hypotheticals and speak from experience, but we just won't do it.
|
|
"I know you don't want to run this but do it anyway!" is a statement you made though, not the person in the example.
In the example, I have told a person I don't want to do run something.
They are in fact saying "I know you don't want to run this but do it anyway" (Notice I removed the exclamation point you added...)
That is what they are saying.
They are saying that even though I know you don't want to do this, you should do it anyway because it is what I want.
Implicit in that is "Because what I want to do > what you don't want to do."
Let us break down what we know.
Fact: The player knows the GM doesn't want to run the concept.
That is not in dispute. So if they insist anyway they are in fact saying "I know you don't want to run this but do it anyway"
|
|
We're in a perfect position to screw the hypotheticals and speak from experience, but we just won't do it.
I have been speaking from experience. I don't game with people who insist that the GM run anything or the players run anything.
I leave those tables and people out of my games.
Because those people are selfish, and selfish people ruin good groups.
Y'know, the thing that's really driving me crazy about all these threads is that we (myself included, I'll admit it) keep speaking hypothetically. We're all gamers here, and a good number of us (once again, myself included) claim to have been playing for decades rather than years. We're in a perfect position to screw the hypotheticals and speak from experience, but we just won't do it.I think we need to add more details and ignore more questions and make more blanket statements everyone agrees with as part of our post but are unrelated to anything anyone is saying.
Circumstances make the difference in a lot of these hypotheticals. Someone could be a giant jerkface or he could be a nice guy and just want to talk it out before having his idea thrown away.
I try to do it now and then, I've shared the teenage necromancer and catgirl princess at least once and the liar who missed session 0 a few times I thought.
"I know you don't want to run this but do it anyway!" is a statement you made though, not the person in the example.In the example, I have told a person I don't want to do run something.
No, no one's said anything yet. All that was said was four guys like it and you don't and what would you do as GM, nothing was said.
Last question. Let's say there's a proposal that all 4 players like, yet you don't. What do you do as a GM?