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


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Can I ask why you think that?


Saint Caleth wrote:

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.

See? Things like "grow out of". "Forces his players" "deign to allow", "dictate player backgrounds" ...

Gee, not even a little bit loaded, right?


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

I think that there are a lot of people who don't have the endless player base you seem to have in order to be able to toss players out until you have the perfect group that will go along with whatever your plan-du-jour is. My experience has always been with a far narrower player base where we had to make thematic compromises like normal people.

But you are absolutely right that every table is not for everyone.

Liberty's Edge

Saint Caleth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.
I think that there are a lot of people who don't have the endless player base you seem to have in order to be able to toss players out until you have the perfect group that will go along with whatever your plan-du-jour is. My experience has always been with a far narrower player base where we had to make compromises like normal people.

And I think many of these people don't have said endless player base because they keep burning bridges at the tables they are at because no one has pulled them aside to explain basic courtesies like "Try and make a character everyone enjoys, not just you."

This is why I keep coming back to these threads. So maybe the people reading the thread (I'm not even going to try and convert the posters in the thread...) will read the discussion and realize that adapting to the table is how you get invited to more tables.

Because people prefer to game with people who don't make gaming hard or cause conflict.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:

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.

See? Things like "grow out of". "Forces his players" "deign to allow", "dictate player backgrounds" ...

Gee, not even a little bit loaded, right?

Yeah, some of that might have been a little loaded but it fits 100% the vibe I am getting off of certain people in this thread. I stand by the fact that I became a better DM when I became more willing to thread other people's ideas that I had not necessarily thought of into my games.


Saint Caleth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

I think that there are a lot of people who don't have the endless player base you seem to have in order to be able to toss players out until you have the perfect group that will go along with whatever your plan-du-jour is. My experience has always been with a far narrower player base where we had to make thematic compromises like normal people.

But you are absolutely right that every table is not for everyone.

I get your point, but your comment is pretty snarky, like "normal people."

I've been fortunate to game among a fairly large network of friends, and at the height of our gaming, we could pick and choose who played what. The hack-and-slash combat fans could have their game, while the RP-heavy, combat-light crowd could have theirs at a different table, and all was well.

The group has dwindled over the years, so my ideas for DM'ing have become much more broad and accommodating. But, if I were to run another story-heavy horror campaign, I can think of several players in my current PF group who would not get invited, simply because it's not their kind of game, and I know their play style would clash with the game I would want to run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.
I think that there are a lot of people who don't have the endless player base you seem to have in order to be able to toss players out until you have the perfect group that will go along with whatever your plan-du-jour is. My experience has always been with a far narrower player base where we had to make compromises like normal people.

And I think many of these people don't have said endless player base because they keep burning bridges at the tables they are at because no one has pulled them aside to explain basic courtesies like "Try and make a character everyone enjoys, not just you."

This is why I keep coming back to these threads. So maybe the people reading the thread (I'm not even going to try and convert the posters in the thread...) will read the discussion and realize that adapting to the table is how you get invited to more tables.

Because people prefer to game with people who don't make gaming hard or cause conflict.

In my experience the limited player base has always been from literally having only a handful of people who play and also have the time to regularly devote to playing.

So while I agree with you about the importance of communication and not causing conflict there are absolutely circumstances where compromises need to be made and are the right thing to so.

Obviously your scenario where there are enough games going off regularly that players can vote with their feet and shop around for the most fun game is optimal but if I ever tried to do that I would potentially go without any gaming (except maybe PFS which has its own host of problems) for years on end.


Saint Caleth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.
I think that there are a lot of people who don't have the endless player base you seem to have in order to be able to toss players out until you have the perfect group that will go along with whatever your plan-du-jour is. My experience has always been with a far narrower player base where we had to make compromises like normal people.

And I think many of these people don't have said endless player base because they keep burning bridges at the tables they are at because no one has pulled them aside to explain basic courtesies like "Try and make a character everyone enjoys, not just you."

This is why I keep coming back to these threads. So maybe the people reading the thread (I'm not even going to try and convert the posters in the thread...) will read the discussion and realize that adapting to the table is how you get invited to more tables.

Because people prefer to game with people who don't make gaming hard or cause conflict.

In my experience the limited player base has always been from literally having only a handful of people who play and also have the time to regularly devote to playing.

So while I agree with you about the importance of communication and not causing conflict there are absolutely circumstances where compromises need to be made and are the right thing to so.

Obviously your scenario where there are enough games going off regularly that players can vote with their feet and shop around for the most fun game is optimal if I ever tried to do that I would go without any gaming (except maybe PFS which has its own host of problems) for years on end.

"There are situations where compromises should be made". Is quite different from "there are no hard lines, period". And "players should always get their first choice of concept, even if it doesn't fit".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:


In my experience the limited player base has always been from literally having only a handful of people who play and also have the time to regularly devote to playing.

So while I agree with you about the importance of communication and not causing conflict there are absolutely circumstances where compromises need to be made and are the right thing to so.

Obviously your scenario where there are enough games going off regularly that players can vote with their feet and shop around for the most fun game is optimal if I ever tried to do that I would go without any gaming (except maybe PFS which has its own host of problems) for years on end.

"There are situations where compromises should be made". Is quite different from "there are no hard lines, period". And "players should always get their first choice of concept, even if it doesn't fit".

Yes, but when a player's concept does not fit the correct reaction should be "lets see how close we can get an make this work" and not "stay the hell away from my table" like some people seem to be advocating.

So those situations where compromises should be made are most of the time, not just some situations.


ciretose wrote:

@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.

Yeah, you totally ignored, the (now bolded),

me wrote:
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.

You also ignored the non-single player examples that I put in there. (The Paladin example and the Shade example - one from each side of the Screen!)

I mean, if you want me to go into my older non-recent play experiences just to be more "mainstream" rather than my most recent ones (which are the more Pathfinder examples), I can try and conjure up dustier memories for you.

What I mean to say is, by being accommodating, I've been happier. When I've not been accommodating, I've been less happy. Even when, temporarily, I've been "happy", it usually fades when I realize I could have made something better.

Semi-shelving my Kingmaker character, altering the decisions my 4E Invoker otherwise would have made for the sake of the group, changing my planned Epic Plot because it would make the one guy uncomfortable, ret-conning a few rounds of actions on the villain's part for the one girl, altering the nature of the campaign world for those two guys to play non-existent races, dropping my original idea for a half-orc paladin to better fit in with the campaign, and erasing a couple of major NPCs (and rewriting history) so that the PCs could feel better about themselves are just a few examples of in-group play.

The principle doesn't change.

I've never disagreed with you that a group activity means what's best for the group.

I've only disagreed - in a personal way, not in a "you should change" way - on the degree of the need of that proposed change and who should change and why. But that's all personal. You're not wrong and have never been that the majority should be "in the right" in a group game (presupposing that majority aren't doing something wrong, but I find that unlikely in terms of playing a game).

Liberty's Edge

Saint Caleth wrote:


Yes, but when a player's concept does not fit the correct reaction should be "lets see how close we can get an make this work" and not "stay the hell away from my table" like some people seem to be advocating.

So those situations where compromises should be made are most of the time, not just some situations.

Well to clarify for my position:

- If you are going to ask to play something you know other players dislike, and don't understand why the GM is going to say "No" when you do this, stay away from my table.

- If you think it is "racist" or "closeminded" to not allow you to play a race in a fantasy role playing game, stay away from my table.

- If the answer to "what else you got" is "nothing" when discussing character options, stay away from my table.

On the other hand, if you come in with the goal of making the game fun for everyone, being part of a party and a group, trying to figure out how best to make the game enjoyable for everyone...Welcome!


Saint Caleth wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:


In my experience the limited player base has always been from literally having only a handful of people who play and also have the time to regularly devote to playing.

So while I agree with you about the importance of communication and not causing conflict there are absolutely circumstances where compromises need to be made and are the right thing to so.

Obviously your scenario where there are enough games going off regularly that players can vote with their feet and shop around for the most fun game is optimal if I ever tried to do that I would go without any gaming (except maybe PFS which has its own host of problems) for years on end.

"There are situations where compromises should be made". Is quite different from "there are no hard lines, period". And "players should always get their first choice of concept, even if it doesn't fit".

Yes, but when a player's concept does not fit the correct reaction should be "lets see how close we can get an make this work" and not "stay the hell away from my table" like some people seem to be advocating.

So those situations where compromises should be made are most of the time, not just some situations.

Yes. But in a world with no elves existing, that coming close will take the form of SIMILAR themes, concepts, alternate races or cultures, etcetera ... Not of being an elf in a world where they don't exist, for example.

Liberty's Edge

Tacticslion wrote:

Yeah, you totally ignored, the (now bolded),

me wrote:
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.

But they aren't the same and don't hold true. The principles do in fact, very much change If there is only one person, you have to accommodate that one person. If there are 5 players, you really only need to accommodate 4.

Frankly, your descriptions of GM planning were a bit controlling for my tastes (pick a disease you all share, not let a player take an action because something bad might happen...), but whatever works at your table, works...

Once the player and I agree to let a concept in, that concept can do what it will. I don't control that. Our most famous and fun campaign as a group came when someone did something really, really, dumb that caused wars (plural) to break out. The campaign became dealing with that. I thought that GM did a brilliant job.

And that GM could do that, because the groundwork was laid out at character creation.

Project Manager

Removed posts with accusations of stalking, religious baiting, personal sniping, and responses. Most of which were from people who've been posting here long enough to know better.

Liberty's Edge

Jessica Price wrote:
Removed posts with accusations of stalking, religious baiting, personal sniping, and responses. Most of which were from people who've been posting here long enough to know better.

Walk away for a half hour and I miss all the good stuff...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Which people?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.
Which people?

Those people. Them. The others...


knightnday wrote:
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.

We had a Trekkie who, no matter the game or the genre, insisted his character be allowed as a refugee from the enterprise.

Liberty's Edge

Real world example was when a friend tried to bring his girlfriend into the game. She proceeded to create Booshzilla the Barbarian, who killed everything then wanted to have sex with the corpses.

She wasn't welcomed back and he was nearly evicted from the group.


ciretose wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Yeah, you totally ignored, the (now bolded),

me wrote:
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.

But they aren't the same and don't hold true. The principles do in fact, very much change If there is only one person, you have to accommodate that one person. If there are 5 players, you really only need to accommodate 4.

Frankly, your descriptions of GM planning were a bit controlling for my tastes (pick a disease you all share, not let a player take an action because something bad might happen...), but whatever works at your table, works...

Once the player and I agree to let a concept in, that concept can do what it will. I don't control that. Our most famous and fun campaign as a group came when someone did something really, really, dumb that caused wars (plural) to break out. The campaign became dealing with that. I thought that GM did a brilliant job.

And that GM could do that, because the groundwork was laid out at character creation.

Personally, dude. Personally.

I think you're missing that.

Also,

1) It wasn't a "disease" (something that harms you), it was a "consistent distinguishing feature", which is, you know, quite different. (They were also running numerous characters.) Beyond that distinguishing feature, whatever it was, they were free to choose. I hardly see how that's more restrictive than many suggestions here. (And, though you weren't in on this, and couldn't know, I prepared to run the game without it, for her sake. Compromise succeeded, but I was prepared in case it wouldn't.)

If you want to know,

Spoiler:
They're all supposed to be distant descendants of Tar-Baphon, and the physical feature marks them as such.

2) I didn't "not let" them take said action: I said plainly that if they took said action I, as GM, couldn't figure how to progress the Adventure Path as-written. I simply couldn't think of how to do that. I asked them to reconsider and preferably change because of that, but I told them that they could... it'd just be derailed. That's a failure on my part, admitted, but I'd like it to be noted which failure. :)

(I gotta say, my own wording was a bit wrong at the end, there, but I was prepared to go with the derail, so long as they were aware there was a derail and end to the AP as-written.)

3) "Whatever works at your table, works." is something we've both agreed on the entire time. :)

Oh, I agree with the responsive world thing, too. Something similar happened in one of our games I was running (hint: never give <certain> players access to a semi-random teleportation device and expect them to wait until they learned how to control it to use it) which really altered the course of the campaign.

In that same game, a country that was a major plot-point was effectively destroyed (so much for that), no less than four major pre-planned areas ignored altogether (whoops), and, when they finally managed to perform the epic ritual they'd been (supposedly) trying to work on the entire time to create a new god, they all blacked out on the astral (terrible fortitude saves all around), woke up back in the material (terrible will saves all around) and went, "Huh, that was weird." and proceeded to never try to find out what happened. (The really surprising thing about that was that these guys had been super-invested in the plot - if rather poor at picking up plot-hooks - up until that point, and they were told directly they could investigate if they wanted.)

The only time I've requested otherwise was when a player was going to do something to derail an AP that they wanted to play as the AP.


ciretose wrote:

Real world example was when a friend tried to bring his girlfriend into the game. She proceeded to create Booshzilla the Barbarian, who killed everything then wanted to have sex with the corpses.

She wasn't welcomed back and he was nearly evicted from the group.

Sounds reasonable to me! :)

EDIT: your response, not the player in question.

Liberty's Edge

Tacticslion wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Real world example was when a friend tried to bring his girlfriend into the game. She proceeded to create Booshzilla the Barbarian, who killed everything then wanted to have sex with the corpses.

She wasn't welcomed back and he was nearly evicted from the group.

Sounds reasonable to me! :)

EDIT: your response, not the player in question.

We let down our pre-screening process.

Silver Crusade

Not only do I have a good many players to play with, I also am of the mind that I can patiently wait for a group to come along that will play in my games. I'm not dying to run a game so I have no problem shelving it until that certain group comes along.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Not only do I have a good many players to play with, I also am of the mind that I can patiently wait for a group to come along that will play in my games. I'm not dying to run a game so I have no problem shelving it until that certain group comes along.

I wonder, then, if you have so many players who love your games so much and you don't care what anyone else thinks...

why are you using so much of your time on the internet desperately trying to defend your GMing to people who have voiced that they wouldn't enjoy your style of game? You seem like you are grasping for self-validation on an internet forum...surely if you actually had an endless supply of players who loved your games then their support would be far more meaningful to you than a hypothetical validation from a forum thread? And surely you know that getting any sort of approval from random people on the internet is harder than gaining the support of people you know and have mutual respect for in real life, and that seeking validation from a forum thread is hopeless at best? So then why are you using up so much of your time making desperate, nigh-hopeless attempts to get approval from people on the internet when you claim you already have the approval of your players and a near-endless supply of potential players?


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

No, I believe most people here have said that not every table is for them or for anyone and that people should do what makes them happy.

The point of contention seems to be the hard line that you, for instance, have laid down that you absolutely positively do not have to yield any ground, ever to "accommodate" the prospective player.

And no, you do not have to do anything. That said, you may find it beneficial both in gaming and life to be willing to give ground over unimportant matters. And yes, believe it or not, the vast majority of setting structure is ultimately unimportant. It can be changed with the wave of a pen, the stroke of a key. As long as the main framework exists, the rest is ultimately mutable.

So sure, you can be hard and not let anyone do anything you do not like. You've said that you are not dying to run a game so you have no problem shelving it -- which makes me wonder .. do you enjoy GMing? Because I crave to GM when I'm not. I think about gaming all the time; it's been part of my life for over 36 years.

It just feels like, from your posts, that you are doing the players a favor by blessing them with your GMing and they should be happy for what they receive. That might be a clue as to why you have a hard line about this -- you feel like this is your stuff and they can pound sand if they don't like it. Which, you know, they can. But eventually the prospective folk dry up, or hear bad things .. even in large cities gaming circles talk on boards like this and elsewhere. Just food for thought. Bending is not giving up.


i'm one of the most vocal but least extreme examples here. i'm not asking for anything along the lines of talking animals or anthropomorphic animals, just cute and frail young females of long lived races who dress like loligoths and turn their vulnerability into a charm all it's own. in my opinion, appearance is fluff, the physical attributes have a bit of influence on physical aspects pertaining to one's build, such as their level of muscular refinement, reflavorable in a variety of ways, but is loligoth really different from most forms of recent fantasy fashion?

Silver Crusade

137ben wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Not only do I have a good many players to play with, I also am of the mind that I can patiently wait for a group to come along that will play in my games. I'm not dying to run a game so I have no problem shelving it until that certain group comes along.

I wonder, then, if you have so many players who love your games so much and you don't care what anyone else thinks...

why are you using so much of your time on the internet desperately trying to defend your GMing to people who have voiced that they wouldn't enjoy your style of game? You seem like you are grasping for self-validation on an internet forum...surely if you actually had an endless supply of players who loved your games then their support would be far more meaningful to you than a hypothetical validation from a forum thread? And surely you know that getting any sort of approval from random people on the internet is harder than gaining the support of people you know and have mutual respect for in real life, and that seeking validation from a forum thread is hopeless at best? So then why are you using up so much of your time making desperate, nigh-hopeless attempts to get approval from people on the internet when you claim you already have the approval of your players and a near-endless supply of potential players?

Not really.

Need I remind what role playing forums are used for?

Silver Crusade

knightnday wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

No, I believe most people here have said that not every table is for them or for anyone and that people should do what makes them happy.

The point of contention seems to be the hard line that you, for instance, have laid down that you absolutely positively do not have to yield any ground, ever to "accommodate" the prospective player.

And no, you do not have to do anything. That said, you may find it beneficial both in gaming and life to be willing to give ground over unimportant matters. And yes, believe it or not, the vast majority of setting structure is ultimately unimportant. It can be changed with the wave of a pen, the stroke of a key. As long as the main framework exists, the rest is ultimately mutable.

So sure, you can be hard and not let anyone do anything you do not like. You've said that you are not dying to run a game so you have no problem shelving it -- which makes me wonder .. do you enjoy GMing? Because I crave to GM when I'm not. I think about gaming all the time; it's been part of my life for over 36 years.

It just feels like, from your posts, that you are doing the players a favor by blessing them with your GMing and they should be happy for what they receive. That might be a clue as to why you have a hard line about this -- you feel like this is your stuff and they can pound sand if they don't like it. Which, you know, they can. But eventually the prospective folk dry up, or hear bad things .. even in large cities gaming circles talk on boards like this and elsewhere. Just food for thought. Bending is not giving up.

What "you" deem important is purely subjective and varies from group to group. What's the point in running a specific type of campaign if you don't, you know, actually run that specific campaign?


That's why freedom and versatility always trumps restrictive. Because even a person who likes restrictive campaigns still requires the players to be onboard to make the game happen.

Free to play a game with specific parameters, arbitrary or not.
Free to avoid a table with specific parameters, arbitrary or not
Free to avoid a table where specific parameters are frowned upon. arbitrary or not.
There's truly no restriction so pervasive that it holds you captive to a table that's no fun for you no matter which side of the gm screen you're sitting on.
Those that gravitate towards environments with constraints will gravitate towards environments 'tables' with environments with constraints. No matter which playstyle you have, some people should run from your table for their own benefit, even if you don't agree with their reasoning.
Sometimes the guy running from the table to find a table thats more fun is a pony loving liberal. Sometimes that person is a gm who wants to run things that are very very specific... And each one, when they run, in running, will find what they are looking for, or won't. But at least they won't have to be stuck at a table that isn't flexible to their needs.

Its the quest that happens before the quest.. The quest for a table that agrees with your style of play. I'm endlessly thankful that there are more ways to play than the ones that have the most persistant voices on these threads.

You can't argue that the set of 'everything minus rainbow ponies' is a larger and more wonderful set than 'everything including rainbow ponies' What's impossible to argue is which one is better for everyone because they're both an option. Or ideally they should be. Just because one person can drone on like Charlie Brown's teacher about their favorite style doesnt mean anyone else is held to it. Begging for a captive audience is workin out great isn't it. For my part I'm chalking these threads up to 'instigating' more than 'contributive and enlightening discussion' but I'm glad I'm free to choose my tables and GMs that are as diametrically opposite of some of the gm's here. It's good for me and good for them as well.

It's not a shame they play the way they do. Its great that they play the way they do. And its great that I can feel about them the way I feel even if it's not appropriate to post those feelings on the forums. That being said. I have not much else to say about it. They know how I feel about them and they either care or they don't. There's a box of gm's I respect and a box of gms that I don't... It doesn't make them bad gms. They simply know where they stand with me.

I am Takeda. Ruiner of worlds. My will be done. Mine is the way of the draconic dryad. Mine is the way of the elven lolita. Mine is the way of the fully automatic ranger racoon... and I am not alone... We are legion. The only way your world is safe from our rainbow pony justice is to keep us out of it. And we know it. And we feed upon the tears of your worlds and the wailing of your limited races for they have less places in your limited worlds to run, as is written by your very hands. Pray your world is interesting enough to survive our wrath or keep it out of our path that we may frolick in worlds that can cheerily contain us. Even if your world has survived for 30 years, you know deep down that if you let us in it will come crashing down for in truth we are your world's true cthullhu. The reality bending horror that turns your world on its ear. Even if we're a rainbow colored cthulhu, because where we come from anything is possible. Lock your doors and windows. Rainbow ponythulhu is coming for your world.

So mote it be.


I'm not trying to be mean by saying it. I'm just agreeing with what these posters have said for over 80 pages across 5 separate threads... Their worlds simply cannot handle the kind of gaming that goes on in my head. By their own admission their worlds would be destroyed simply by my choosing an elf in a world with no elves... Their *fun* can be ruined by something as small as whiskers on my nose. There are just some people you cannot please.

I'm not mean or evil for ruining those worlds. Alignment being subjective, is chthulhu really evil? It simply destroys what it deems when it deems it for reasons it alone understands. If it destroys worlds, it's not out of evil or spite. It is simply truth as it experiences it... If your world cannot handle it, it's your huckleberryponythulhu.

In some worlds it's a harmless little kitten. In others it signifies the end of times. Not it's fault which world is which. Someone on the threads used a phrase I loved.... Cthulhu is like the weather. It doesn't play favorites and rains on everyone's parade. They play the way they play and they think the way they think. It's not good or bad... It's just a matter of fact.

If they think my playstyle ruins their world, who am I to argue.

I'll own it. No doubt about it. There are some worlds I don't respect and I unabashedly wreck them. If you know I want to play an elf and you say 'noe elves' I don't care what the reasoning behind it is... A named npc is going to die.... Thems the arbitrary rules that we both made up just now. I'm flexible enough to match a level of inflexibility. I'm ok with treating black and white viewpoints black and white. You don't have to tell me what kind of player that makes me. That's the kind of player I am.
The best thing they can do is keep me out of their world and they know it. End of line.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I'm not trying to be mean by saying it. I'm just agreeing with what these posters have said for over 80 pages across 5 separate threads... Their worlds simply cannot handle the kind of gaming that goes on in my head.

Or they don't care for it.

My two year old is starting to speak well enough to make up stories. They are completely incoherent. I don't expect a long line of best selling novels to come from her incoherent ramblings, regardless of how endearing I find them.

Similarly, some players come up with ideas that, while may be well received at other tables, my group finds to have about the same utility in the setting as the ramblings of my two year old.

Because you like it doesn't mean others will. And if you are only trying to amuse yourself at the table, I would rather have someone else at the table.


Except it isn't true, Vincent. No matter how many words you throw against a wall to try to make other people give in.

Perhaps some players gaming and imagination is so fragile that it can't handle having to work around limits?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Perhaps some players gaming and imagination is so fragile that it can't handle having to work around limits?

Perhaps some players' gaming and imagination is so fragile that it can't handle working without some limits?

These two are equally valid questions. Say what you will, but I find that to be a solid fact instead of an opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
What "you" deem important is purely subjective and varies from group to group. What's the point in running a specific type of campaign if you don't, you know, actually run that specific campaign?

A specific campaign encompasses a great many things. If adding a stray elven tribe is that disruptive to a world setting, then wouldn't the actions of the players once in game be even more disruptive?

You seem to be saying that nothing can be changed from your specific view of the world as it sits before the players touch it or else the entire thing falls apart. That seems awfully fragile to me. This isn't a matter of the players asking you to create an entire empire, trade routes, or culture. If someone says "Can I be from here?" and it causes such problems that you cannot even consider it, it seems more like a straitjacket than a setting.

YMMV, your table may like it. But how it comes across, in text on these boards, is that you are unyielding and unwilling to compromise even in the slightest. If that is your goal, then you have succeeded admirably.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

No not really. It's been said over and over again that if neither DMs or players can work whatever issues they have at the table that either side walk away. Only a handful of posters keep trying to blame players and therefore keep using the player entitlement card. If either side can't work things out no one is being forced to do anything. If I want to play a elf and it's a no elf world. Then I play something else or go elsewhere. If as a DM the players refuse to listen to me and don;t take me serioulsy at the table I walk away. Again only a few handful keep insisting that anyone be "forced" to do anything.

How many times does this need to be said. It's like I can't help but notice that unless you get validation of your position that you keep restarting a discussion that ended. And yes I know it's a forum to discuss topics. Except why keep bringing up the same topic when it's been asnwered already.

Liberty's Edge

@memorax - Actually it hasn't. Many posters have been saying it is the GM's job to find a way to work the concept in, regardless of what the GM wants to do.

The words "closeminded", "uncreative" and even "racist" have been thrown around through various threads.

It comes down to asking yourself "If the other person doesn't want this in the game, why do I want to make them have to have it in the game?"

Liberty's Edge

Actually, while we all keep on theorycrafting here, the GM and the player will talk about it like reasonable adults and find a solution that suits them both.

Granted that is much less interesting ;-)


ciretose wrote:

@memorax - Actually it hasn't. Many posters have been saying it is the GM's job to find a way to work the concept in, regardless of what the GM wants to do.

The words "closeminded", "uncreative" and even "racist" have been thrown around through various threads.

It comes down to asking yourself "If the other person doesn't want this in the game, why do I want to make them have to have it in the game?"

Adding to this, I see different sides pushing their anecdotal experience as gospel, when they're actually both right, for their own table and groups.

One side is saying: "yes, compromise to a point, but some players/DM's will push too much and just need to play elsewhere."

Another side is saying "compromise at all costs, because the participants in our group are literally the only ones available, so middle ground must be met or we don't game at all."

I've been on both sides, but I've come to the point in gaming where, if the game doesn't sound fun, I'd rather stay home and do something else. I'm well, far past the point of "...well, at least I'm gaming..." Heck with that. I love gaming, but bad gaming is worse than no gaming.

I have several ex-players, whom outside of gaming we are great friends. However, I will not share a table with them again, any time soon. Our "fun" is just too different, and every game I've attempted with them has crashed and burned in a flurry of awkwardness, profanity, and sometimes, almost assault charges. No thanks.


The black raven wrote:

Actually, while we all keep on theorycrafting here, the GM and the player will talk about it like reasonable adults and find a solution that suits them both.

Granted that is much less interesting ;-)

That didn't happen with my former DM, hence why I'm currently at the DM seat instead.


Well, when things are going great, it's assumed to be "working properly" and less interesting to have conversations about.

When things go badly, we're more apt to seek conversation with others who share the hobby and get input/vent/seek validation/etc.

YMMV

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:

@memorax - Actually it hasn't. Many posters have been saying it is the GM's job to find a way to work the concept in, regardless of what the GM wants to do.

The words "closeminded", "uncreative" and even "racist" have been thrown around through various threads.

It comes down to asking yourself "If the other person doesn't want this in the game, why do I want to make them have to have it in the game?"

Not denying that. I'm just wondering why even after we came to a consensus . Or close to it that the thread seems to be going in circles. How many times can a topic be disucussed before imo it becomes redundant. Imo this thread is. If posters want to keep rehashing go for it. It just seems like a waste of time to me anyway.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@memorax - Actually it hasn't. Many posters have been saying it is the GM's job to find a way to work the concept in, regardless of what the GM wants to do.

The words "closeminded", "uncreative" and even "racist" have been thrown around through various threads.

It comes down to asking yourself "If the other person doesn't want this in the game, why do I want to make them have to have it in the game?"

Not denying that. I'm just wondering why even after we came to a consensus . Or close to it that the thread seems to be going in circles. How many times can a topic be disucussed before imo it becomes redundant. Imo this thread is. If posters want to keep rehashing go for it. It just seems like a waste of time to me anyway.

Praise the GM vs Player threads.

Lock one and two will rise to take its place.

All hail the GM vs Player threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
It comes down to asking yourself "If the other person doesn't want this in the game, why do I want to make them have to have it in the game?"

The way that I see it it is not nearly so zero-sum. I find that if I challenge a player to justify a concept that I had not necessarily thought to include in a world they can surprise me with their creativity and it is a win-win.

251 to 300 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.