So why can't you help make a restricted campaign world your own?


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
"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.

Icyshadow wrote:
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?

What part of "And you don't" do you not understand as meaning a person does not what to run it?

What part of my answer does not make it clear that I don't want to run it, therefore leading to "I know you don't want to run this but do it anyway" (again note no explanation point you keep adding...)

At that point my table has no issues, because no one at my table would insist the GM run something the GM didn't want to run. Because that would be selfish. And I don't game with selfish people.

So there would be no problem.

Unless...you game with someone who would say " "I know you don't want to run this but do it anyway" (still no exclamation point)

I wouldn't.


ciretose wrote:
What part of "And you don't" do you not understand as meaning a person does not what to run it?

I understand that fine. I never said anything about that. Where did I say that you had to run it or did? Actually none of what you just said has anything to do with what I said.


ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
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.

Can I ask how often you deal with players insisting that you run something you don't want to? It seems like you fall back on that example a lot. (Not to put words in your mouth, but more often than a GM who is willing to compromise even slightly with his players would find it reasonable to use.)

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
What part of "And you don't" do you not understand as meaning a person does not what to run it?
I understand that fine. I never said anything about that. Where did I say that you had to run it or did? Actually none of what you just said has anything to do with what I said.

So then we are agreed that the player should pick another concept if the GM doesn't want to run the idea they have.

Cool!

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
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.

Can I ask how often you deal with players insisting that you run something you don't want to? It seems like you fall back on that example a lot. (Not to put words in your mouth, but more often than a GM who is willing to compromise even slightly with his players would find it reasonable to use.)

Insisting? Never twice.

I've seen it online and I've seen it fairly often at FLGS events, which is why I don't game at FLGS.

Part of the pre-screening process to see if you will be welcome in any home group I've ever been a part of is the "insisting" part.

As in "If you insist your wishes are needs to be met, we decline to invite you into a group activity as you don't seem to get the concept"


Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.

On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
What part of "And you don't" do you not understand as meaning a person does not what to run it?
I understand that fine. I never said anything about that. Where did I say that you had to run it or did? Actually none of what you just said has anything to do with what I said.
So then we are agreed that the player should pick another concept if the GM doesn't want to run the idea they have.

Maybe. Depend on the circumstance and concept and your taking things out of context. Obviously you can't force anyone to play and you shouldn't play if you don't have fun.

At the same time, forcing someone to play something else with no discussion or they're jerks who want you to serve them is a little extreme.

Also, you never answered to what I said earlier about you adding things. You just took something out of context and said "hey you agree about this thing everyone agrees on!" to make it look like I had to agree with you, but the statement can still be twisted so its a bit of a trap to say one way or the other.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:


Also, you never answered to what I said earlier about you adding things. .

Like when you added an exclamation point?

The discussion starts with "I really don't want to run that."

Actually, it started with "I'm thinking of running something in "X" setting, who is interested?"

But when we move forward to "Yes I would like to play in the game in "X" setting and I am willing to allow you to GM said game" and we then come to "I have an idea that you have said that you don't want to run..." which should end with "...how about this idea instead?"

Because the GM can't force the player to play anything.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.

Well, Ars, given my current infatuation with speaking from experience, how often do you actually deal with setting breaking concepts? I'm asking because the red light/yellow light/green light list you've described sounds entirely reasonable. So reasonable that I don't understand why setting breaking concepts are such a large part of the conversation.


Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.
Well, Ars, given my current infatuation with speaking from experience, how often do you actually deal with setting breaking concepts? I'm asking because the red light/yellow light/green light list you've described sounds entirely reasonable. So reasonable that I don't understand why setting breaking concepts are such a large part of the conversation.

... That would be someone insisting on playing a removed, or red light, concept.

Which the general thrust seems to be, nothing should be on a restricted or banned list, ever, for any reason, they aren't going be an extensive list, but there ARE going to be some things that are just not an option in any given campaign.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.
Well, Ars, given my current infatuation with speaking from experience, how often do you actually deal with setting breaking concepts? I'm asking because the red light/yellow light/green light list you've described sounds entirely reasonable. So reasonable that I don't understand why setting breaking concepts are such a large part of the conversation.

I think setting breaking is to high a bar.

I think "Makes the game less fun for people at the table" is the bar.

As in "Having that included will make the game less fun for "x" number of people, while another idea could make the game more fun for "x" number of people, so pick another idea."

If you ever find yourself in a group activity where you are telling someone in the group that they must accept what you are doing despite it making the activity less enjoyable for them, and you have other options you could select that both you and the other person could enjoy...who is the source of the problem in that scenario?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.
Well, Ars, given my current infatuation with speaking from experience, how often do you actually deal with setting breaking concepts? I'm asking because the red light/yellow light/green light list you've described sounds entirely reasonable. So reasonable that I don't understand why setting breaking concepts are such a large part of the conversation.

From my experience, it's less about "setting breaking concepts"(even though I mentioned it above), and more often conflicting game styles. I'm all for compromising as much as possible, so that everyone involved has fun, but sometimes it just doesn't work.

I've run several combat-light, RP-heavy games, and had players join up who solely wanted a testing ground for some crazy build they found on a message board. I insist that the game we were(already) playing was not combat-intensive at all, yet they insisted on playing anyway. Fast forward a few sessions, and the player is whining and carrying on about the lack of combat... I remind them of what I told them in the first place, and they act surprised.

Or, a simpler example; DM wants to run a AP, players want a sandbox with no structure. Sure, middle-ground can be found, but I have met some players who will resist and rebel at any attempt to coerce them into an adventure, pre-published or home-brewed. They demand to play only their little, microcosmic world for their character, and any attempt to have them engage in any other activity aside from their immediate demands(like making Profession checks all day for loose change... seriously) is met with stone-wall resistance.

These are the examples which I feel, should be playing a different game.

I might have drifted off on a tangent, there...


Arssanguinus wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.
Well, Ars, given my current infatuation with speaking from experience, how often do you actually deal with setting breaking concepts? I'm asking because the red light/yellow light/green light list you've described sounds entirely reasonable. So reasonable that I don't understand why setting breaking concepts are such a large part of the conversation.

... That would be someone insisting on playing a removed, or red light, concept.

Which the general thrust seems to be, nothing should be on a restricted or banned list, ever, for any reason, they aren't going be an extensive list, but there ARE going to be some things that are just not an option in any given campaign.

I understand the overlap between red light and setting breaking material. But my question is, do you deal with players demanding that sort of material often enough that it's worth discussing on the internet ad nauseam?

Similarly, Ciretose, I understand that you know the dynamic of your home table so well that one play session is more than enough to tell if a new player is a good fit or not. My question is, do you deal with problem players often enough that discussing special snowflakes for not just weeks but more than a month now, seems like a worthwhile use of time?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in for the length of the conversation too, but I'd love to get to the point where we can get past the example of MLP type characters as a legitimate concern, y'know?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
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.

Well, as a real example many years ago I had a player that was dead set on playing a mutant from Gamma World with an M-16. Didn't matter what else we were going to do, that was his default character: mutant badger with M-16 and Army Ranger training.

Now, there were some games we played where that would have been ok -- a Dark Champions game, for example. But that wasn't good enough, he wanted that in D&D, in Battletech, in Traveler, in anything we played. After a while, I took him aside and explained that either he needed to broaden his character designs or else sit out on games where this thing wouldn't fit. He was less than pleased with me and the rest of the group -- quite a bit of name calling and dire threats of never talking to us again, that sort of thing. He decided to opt out of the group and, while it was sad, it also relieved a lot of the background tension that was in the group.

Icyshadow wrote:
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?

Then we need to decide if this is the right game for me to GM or should I let someone else take the screen and I'll play, or not play if the idea is truly repugnant to me. I admit that there's only been a handful of times over the years that there was something that I couldn't fit in or opted to step aside for. There are some options that won't work on some campaigns I run -- I've mentioned this before -- I keep a default generic setting that I am not emotionally invested in that I'll run the weird, wild and wacky in.


Well Knight, it sounds like you dealt with that one in the only way possible. As some touchy-feely hippie who's always counseling compromise, if the dude was playing Traveller and had to have a raccoon instead of a Vargr, there was probably just no way to give peace a chance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.
Well, Ars, given my current infatuation with speaking from experience, how often do you actually deal with setting breaking concepts? I'm asking because the red light/yellow light/green light list you've described sounds entirely reasonable. So reasonable that I don't understand why setting breaking concepts are such a large part of the conversation.

I think setting breaking is to high a bar.

I think "Makes the game less fun for people at the table" is the bar.

As in "Having that included will make the game less fun for "x" number of people, while another idea could make the game more fun for "x" number of people, so pick another idea."

If you ever find yourself in a group activity where you are telling someone in the group that they must accept what you are doing despite it making the activity less enjoyable for them, and you have other options you could select that both you and the other person could enjoy...who is the source of the problem in that scenario?

I dislike gnomes enough to want to ban them so long as I am DM. I have yet to do so in any campaign I've run. Why? Because my players like gnomes, and denying them that feels selfish and overly arbitrary in my opinion. I can reduce my own fun a bit if it means that the other four are having more fun. Are situations like those non-existent at your table, Ciretose?


Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.
On the other hand, if its a setting breaking concept, perhaps a different concept needs to be played.
Well, Ars, given my current infatuation with speaking from experience, how often do you actually deal with setting breaking concepts? I'm asking because the red light/yellow light/green light list you've described sounds entirely reasonable. So reasonable that I don't understand why setting breaking concepts are such a large part of the conversation.

I think setting breaking is to high a bar.

I think "Makes the game less fun for people at the table" is the bar.

As in "Having that included will make the game less fun for "x" number of people, while another idea could make the game more fun for "x" number of people, so pick another idea."

If you ever find yourself in a group activity where you are telling someone in the group that they must accept what you are doing despite it making the activity less enjoyable for them, and you have other options you could select that both you and the other person could enjoy...who is the source of the problem in that scenario?

I dislike gnomes enough to want to ban them so long as I am DM. I have yet to do so in any campaign I've run. Why? Because my players like gnomes, and denying them that feels selfish and overly arbitrary in my...

And there is absolutely nothing else whatsoever they enjoy playing other than gnomes where they could play something they enjoy and you could not be annoyed!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:


I dislike gnomes enough to want to ban them so long as I am DM. I have yet to do so in any campaign I've run. Why? Because my players like gnomes, and denying them that feels selfish and overly arbitrary in my opinion. I can reduce my own fun a bit if it means that the other four are having more fun. Are situations like those non-existent at your table, Ciretose?

Yes.

Because if my friends knew I disliked gnomes, they wouldn't ask to run gnomes in my campaigns.

And vice versa, I wouldn't ask to them to run anything I know they dislike, because there are so many other options I could choose from.

I'm sorry you have friends who are less considerate than my friends.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Taken inversely, your friend likes gnomes, why not let him play gnomes? A person's choice in race won't be the dealbreaker for me personally, more so how they play them. Snooty elves who don't help party members or act superior all the time for example bother me, doesn't mean I ban all elves.

ciretose wrote:
I'm sorry you have friends who are less considerate than my friends.

Or, he's considerate about his friends wants and doesn't let his ideas of gnomes ruin their good time. I have more fun if my friends are having fun, so long as they aren't literally doing something to bother me.


MrSin wrote:

Taken inversely, your friend likes gnomes, why not let him play gnomes? A person's choice in race won't be the dealbreaker for me personally, more so how they play them. Snooty elves who don't help party members or act superior all the time for example bother me, doesn't mean I ban all elves.

ciretose wrote:
I'm sorry you have friends who are less considerate than my friends.
Or, he's considerate about his friends wants and doesn't let his ideas of gnomes ruin their good time. I have more fun if my friends are having fun, so long as they aren't literally doing something to bother me.

So you take the position that both getting something they like and neither getting something they dislike is inherently less reasonable than one just swallowing something they dislike, and the other getting something they like?


Arssanguinus wrote:
So you take the position that both getting something they like and neither getting something they dislike is inherently less reasonable than one just swallowing something they dislike, and the other getting something they like?

I didn't say what position I take.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:

Taken inversely, your friend likes gnomes, why not let him play gnomes? A person's choice in race won't be the dealbreaker for me personally, more so how they play them. Snooty elves who don't help party members or act superior all the time for example bother me, doesn't mean I ban all elves.

ciretose wrote:
I'm sorry you have friends who are less considerate than my friends.
Or, he's considerate about his friends wants and doesn't let those ruin his time. I have more fun if my friends are having fun, so long as they aren't literally doing something to bother me.

Because the guy who likes gnomes presumably doesn't only like gnomes.

Presumably there is more than one thing he can play and be happy.

So if he could play something else that his friend wouldn't dislike, and he instead chooses to play the thing that his friend does dislike...

I like Hawaiian Pizza. It is my favorite. So does my wife. One of my friends doesn't like it, but all of us like sausage.

We are sitting down to order a Pizza for all of us, we are all paying for said pizza. Do I order Hawaiian Pizza?

No, I order a Sausage Pizza, because we all like Sausage so why order something that one person doesn't like?

I'm not literally going to be ordering the Hawaiian Pizza to bother my friend, but at the same time it would be inconsiderate to order something my friend doesn't like when I could instead order something we all like.

So again, I'm sorry his friends aren't as considerate as mine. I choose wisely.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.


TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.

My way is not wrong. Your way may work for you, not for me.

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.

What might be right for you, may not be right for some..


The cycle continues...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.

No my way is the right way blah blah blah!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.
My way is not wrong. Your way may work for you, not for me.

I was talking about everyone in this thread, not you specifically.

MrSin got it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.
My way is not wrong. Your way may work for you, not for me.

I was talking about everyone in this thread, not you specifically.

MrSin got it.

But if my way is the right way, does that mean your way is left?


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:


I didn't, but its easier to say "So what do you think?" without the added detail. Comes off much differently, at the moment its read more like an accusation. You could always ask me nicely what I think.

Because this is what you have been doing throughout this and other discussions...

If your position is that you should be accommodating, why does this responsibility never seem to fall on the player, who is the person who actually has the most options to choose from?

At my table the solution is simple, the player's job is the same as the GM.

Come up with something people like.

If either the GM or the player fails, they need to change to come up with something else.

If my position is that I should be accommodating... then my position is that I should be accommodating.

It's something I practice in both chairs.

To me, compromise is ideal, but not always possible, for a large number of valid reasons.

Example of recent compromise: when starting Carrion Crown (as a single-player, but multiple-character game), I had hoped that (much like most of the art) the player in question (my wife) would craft silver-haired characters (I had great reasons for this, as a GM, and it would have made things vastly easier, and worked to create a really cool thing). She simply couldn't do that as part of her character concepts. So, I trashed that idea, and asked her to come up with a single consistent feature between her characters across races. She settled on heterochromia, which I was able to apply to each of the characters, regardless of race. This made us both happy!

Example of successful compromise: when recently starting a short one-off game (also one-player, also with my wife) in a setting I've worked very hard on and put a lot of time and investment into, there were a few options that made it far more difficult for me, as a GM, to "sell" the game on as well as some that were simply more difficult to make function within the setting at large. A number of those exact options were the most intriguing for her. So, I sucked it up, reworked the setting a bit, and came out with something workable, even though I wasn't thrilled with it. Still enjoyed the game, though, a lot, even though I wasn't sure of it at the time.

Example of 'meh' (really failed) compromise: when playing Council of Thieves, a player really wanted to do some stuff with <spoilers> at the end of part four (you GMs know what I mean). I... asked her not to. I couldn't see it working in the story... at all. I explained that, as written, while they'd likely be successful, due to their high modifier, I simply didn't have the ability to accommodate them, and explained that, yes, they could definitely do what they were thinking of, but it would mean ending the Adventure Path as an Adventure Path. They were extremely disappointed, but I have regretted this ever since, and subsequently come up with not one, but eight different ways that I could have made everything function, allowed them to do what they wanted, and continued with (and fulfilled) the Adventure Path, better than we did since they did not. Had I allowed it? I would have had a much, much stronger Adventure Path.

Example of waived compromise: when recently preparing for the Wrath of the Righteous game, I was asked to make several characters, which I did, though I made them under heavy restrictions of which I was not a fan. I was... okay with my characters, though I felt somewhat lacking in choice in the matter, and felt a substantial disconnect. The longer they "sit", however, the more I've grown to really like them and am interested in seeing them in play (likely after Carrion Crown).

Example of waived compromise: when (quite some time back) I created a paladin that'd fallen in love with a fey creature, and who had created a homonculus. The GM absolutely couldn't allow it for a number of story reasons. So, I said, "okay" and changed character concepts (still a paladin) to fit in with their story better.

Example of waived compromise: when a player created a character with the specific goal of attaining the Shade template, even though that wasn't in my story plans and could have had problems down-the-road, I rewrote a substantial amount of material to allow that to be in my plans.

Most of these examples are for single-player campaigns (as that's all I have right now - dang it, players, move to Ocala!), the same principles have held true whether or not they're single player.

Basically, I like accommodation people, and it's consistently worked out enjoyable for me. Sometimes I'd prefer compromise. Sometimes it doesn't work out.

Ultimately, we all keep saying very similar things and getting up in arms that they don't seem to be identical. I don't know why.

(Hey, those examples good, Hit Dice?)

Josh M. wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.
My way is not wrong. Your way may work for you, not for me.

I was talking about everyone in this thread, not you specifically.

MrSin got it.

But if my way is the right way, does that mean your way is left?

That's right!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.

What might be right for you, may not be right for some..

See, I was really hoping you had found a video of the marching cadence.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blah blah blah my way is the right way your way is the highway.

What might be right for you, may not be right for some..

See, I was really hoping you had found a video of the marching cadence.

Probably would have been better for topic, but I never miss a chance to have images of Gary Coleman re-enter the zeitgeist.

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:


If my position is that I should be accommodating... then my position is that I should be accommodating.

And my position is that if everyone involved is considerate and the person in each conflict who has the most options at each juncture utilizes those options to find something everyone can be happy with, everyone will find something they will agree on.

And if anyone is unwilling to be considerate, they need to leave the group before the group stops working.

If I don't like your setting, as a player, I can ask you for another setting or not play.

If I don't like your concept as a GM, I can ask you for another concept or find another player if you can't come up with one.


Tacticslion wrote:
A variety of examples.

Those were all terrific examples!

What I have long suspected, and found no reason to doubt, is that when people (three times now, myself included) speak hypothetically, the examples are rather outlandish, but when people (still counts) speak from experience, everyone sounds pretty reasonable.

Liberty's Edge

@Tacticslion - One player one GM is a very different discussion, you will concede.

In that instance the game doesn't happen if both aren't on the same page. The play is literally irreplaceable.

Silver Crusade

Well all I can say is; I'm not spending hours upon hours working on a campaign that I don't want to run. Running a campaign is a lot more work than playing a character.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Well all I can say is...

Somehow, I don't believe this. :)


I might allow some stuff I don't like, but I don't let those things ruin the shared fun I have with my friends that comes from allowing said stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It took me a long time to grow out of being the type of DM to try to dictate player's backgrounds and other character elements for fear that they would damage my beautiful pristine campaign setting.

Now I have tempered that with the ability to work with players to fit their concepts into each campaign. I think that one big thematic restriction is fine for a campaign, for example if a campaign is set in the Bronze Age and everyone is illiterate and therefore there are no wizards. That is an appropriate restriction since it is thematic, logically follows from the way the setting is built and is potentially relevant to the plot.

Basically, like for Kirth, a DM who forces players to play their story rather than being willing to collaborate with players to fit their concepts into a collective story is a huge red flag and that DM better be damn good to be able to be so picky with what they deign to allow into their stories.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the crux of the whole argument is the simple fact that there a people here that just won't admit that every table is not for them and that campaigns don't have to be changed in order to accommodate them.

201 to 250 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / So why can't you help make a restricted campaign world your own? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.