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


Gamer Life General Discussion

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

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

Indeed. And while the creativity might be good, it might not necessarily lead to the character concept they had in mind, but has in the past for me led to all sorts of interesting ideas and plots for the characters down the road.

Anything and everything can spur some good ideas. I've gotten ideas for dungeon layouts from wandering the mall and character ideas from romantic comedies. All I ask of the player with the interesting concept is that they are willing to work with me. They may not always get 100% of what they want, but they may find that they got something a little more interesting than what they asked for.

Liberty's Edge

Saint Caleth wrote:
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.

Oh absolutely. You shouldn't say "No" without asking "Why" first.

At the same time, the answer can still be "no" regardless of the "why" if the "why" doesn't make the game better for everyone.

Because that is the goal. Making things that make the game better for everyone, not just one person.

Silver Crusade

Thing is, when you have been given the go ahead by the majority or all of the group, then it is assumed that trust the DM's judgement and if that judgement is saying no then it should be honoured.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Thing is, when you have been given the go ahead by the majority or all of the group, then it is assumed that trust the DM's judgement and if that judgement is saying no then it should be honoured.

See also local and regional politics, religion, business and so on for the answer to this (Hint: being given trust and the go ahead doesn't always mean that you are right.)

If this is the case and your group is happy with your leadership, which in your posts seems to indicate that your way is right, why are you starting threads asking these questions? It appears you have the answer you were seeking from your own group.

Project Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a bunch of personal sniping. If you want to have an argument with one particular person about how they post or how they read your posts, take it to PM, email or some other private channel.


ciretose wrote:

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.

Arssanguinus wrote:


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?

Some try to rationalize it, some try to ridicule it, some try to label it. It matters not before the wrath of rainbowponythulhu.

I am not a rock in the river.
I am the river itself
Like every rock in the river
Or every fire in time
Both will fall asunder
I flow through every crack
I withstand any pressure
And if I seem to be contained
In a stagnant lake
I will flow through the air itself.
I weather every storm
For I am the storm.
And like time and light I will flow freely
Long after all else is gone.

Rationalization, ridicule and labeling are simply more lamentations before the coming of rainbowponythulhu.
It feeds on your despair and delights in your futile bravery against the coming tide.
The rainbowponythulhu cometh.

Liberty's Edge

knightnday wrote:


If this is the case and your group is happy with your leadership, which in your posts seems to indicate that your way is right, why are you starting threads asking these questions? It appears you have the answer you were seeking from your own group.

The same reason too many posters start threads. To get validation and a echo chamber or both. Im not even sure why Shallowsoul is still continuing the topic. I get he does things his way at his table. Which he has brought one too many times already. So what is the point of just rehashing the topic. To get the last word. Good luck on that.

Silver Crusade

knightnday wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Thing is, when you have been given the go ahead by the majority or all of the group, then it is assumed that trust the DM's judgement and if that judgement is saying no then it should be honoured.

See also local and regional politics, religion, business and so on for the answer to this (Hint: being given trust and the go ahead doesn't always mean that you are right.)

If this is the case and your group is happy with your leadership, which in your posts seems to indicate that your way is right, why are you starting threads asking these questions? It appears you have the answer you were seeking from your own group.

Because my ability to DM was called into question by a few posters because I didn't adhere to what they wanted.

Also, it's not about who's right. There was no rule that's being argued. I mean if you want to be technical about it, DM is always right according to the book. Your alternative is to not play under that DM. Some people here think they don't have to walk away and instead, the DM cater to them.


Rainbowponythulhu does not question your abilities as a gm.

Your abilities have been weighed and measured.

And by your own admission cannot survive the tide of rainbowponythulhu.

It is not a weakness or a shame. The most regal and noble world, hand crafted over decades finally meets rainbowponythulhu, it can do else but cry out as Darth Vader did.... 'Noooooooooooooo'

As a deer in the headlights, it can appear beautiful and majestic for another second or two at best... Then it better get out of the way because rainbowponythulhu flows like the river F650 with a ram prow and the highest towing capacity in its class. And it ain't here to shake hands and tell you how pretty you are. That moment has passed. Rainbowponythulhu's F650's milage does not varry.

Silver Crusade

Some posters think that everything is up for discussion but it's not. Nobody ever has a right to play just like nobody has a right to DM. The only rights we have is refusal of a game we don't want to play in or one we don't want to DM.

Silver Crusade

Vincent Takeda wrote:

Rainbowponythulhu does not question your abilities as a gm.

Your abilities have been weighed and measured.

And by your own admission cannot survive the tide of rainbowponythulhu.

It is not a weakness or a shame. The most regal and noble world, hand crafted over decades finally meets rainbowponythulhu, it can do but else but cry out as Darth Vader did.... 'Noooooooooooooo'

As a deer in the headlights, it can appear beautiful and majestic for another second or two at best... Then it better get out of the way because rainbowponythulhu flows like the river F650 with a ram prow and the highest towing capacity in its class. And it ain't here to shake hands and tell you how pretty you are. That moment has passed.

You are confusing choice and lack of ability.

I handle any character or concept out there but there comes a time when I just don't want to. Just because I run an all elven campaign doesn't mean I can't handle a dwarf being added. I just don't want the dwarf there.


takeda wrote:
By your own admission


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Also, it's not about who's right. There was no rule that's being argued. I mean if you want to be technical about it, DM is always right according to the book. Your alternative is to not play under that DM. Some people here think they don't have to walk away and instead, the DM cater to them.

There are actually a number of ways to play outside of "DM is always right". Your still always free to leave a group of course, and no one should have to cater to your every need, but its sort of expected that your all doing it to have fun together(I hope anyway).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think mentioning the "ability" of a GM in relation to this helps. In fact, that's what sparked the whole pony mess half a dozen threads ago.

I could say I feel the GM who blocks the silly character is exhibiting more ability than the permissive GM, as they care enough for the rest of the table to keep it out of their game, but then we would just be getting down to opinions vs opinions again ;)

It's not ability, it's just interest. Some people just aren't interested in playing certain types of game, be it games that are RP heavy, games that are combat heavy, games set in a fantasy world with sci-fi elements, superhero games, or serious fantasy games with what feels to them to be cartoon characters popping up in them.

If you're not interested in any given game, there's no reason to play it, either as a player or as a GM.


shallowsoul wrote:

You are confusing choice and lack of ability.

I handle any character or concept out there but there comes a time when I just don't want to. Just because I run an all elven campaign doesn't mean I can't handle a dwarf being added. I just don't want the dwarf there.

Rainbowponythulhu is not confused. You a free to choose not to endure rainbowponythulhu's inevitable wrath and are wise for doing so for the sake of all that worlds inhabitants. They thank you for your decisiveness.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Some posters think...

...that you are arguing in bad faith by speaking passive aggressively rather than responding directly.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Also, it's not about who's right. There was no rule that's being argued. I mean if you want to be technical about it, DM is always right according to the book. Your alternative is to not play under that DM. Some people here think they don't have to walk away and instead, the DM cater to them.
There are actually a number of ways to play outside of "DM is always right". Your still always free to leave a group of course, and no one should have to cater to your every need, but its sort of expected that your all doing it to have fun together(I hope anyway).

That. Also "my way or the highway" is not always the best solution to everything. There is a lot of room for agreement between these two extremes. Some GMs are actually quite willing to work with their players to try and enhance everybody's fun. Which does not necessarily mean that they accept everything ;-)

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:


There are actually a number of ways to play outside of "DM is always right".

Are you implying that someone is saying there isn't?

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:


There are actually a number of ways to play outside of "DM is always right".
Are you implying that someone is saying there isn't?

Actually, not really implying IMO since it was written almost verbatim in the quote from shallowsoul you left out ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Also, it's not about who's right. There was no rule that's being argued. I mean if you want to be technical about it, DM is always right according to the book. Your alternative is to not play under that DM. Some people here think they don't have to walk away and instead, the DM cater to them.
MrSin wrote:
There are actually a number of ways to play outside of "DM is always right".
ciretose wrote:
Are you implying that someone is saying there isn't?

I... think people aren't actually talking to each other in these posts, but past each other.

Or maybe I'm not reading them correctly or something.

Quasi-but-not-really edit, 'cause I left this for an hour to go on a walk with my son: sort of ninja'd by Raven.

Liberty's Edge

The black raven wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:


There are actually a number of ways to play outside of "DM is always right".
Are you implying that someone is saying there isn't?
Actually, not really implying IMO since it was written almost verbatim in the quote from shallowsoul you left out ;-)

Wait, it is possible to read what other people say and infer meaning from it?

I thought that was forbidden?!?!?!

Liberty's Edge

Vincent Takeda wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

You are confusing choice and lack of ability.

I handle any character or concept out there but there comes a time when I just don't want to. Just because I run an all elven campaign doesn't mean I can't handle a dwarf being added. I just don't want the dwarf there.

Rainbowponythulhu is not confused. You a free to choose not to endure rainbowponythulhu's inevitable wrath and are wise for doing so for the sake of all that worlds inhabitants. They thank you for your decisiveness.

I for one welcome our new rainbowponythulhu overlords.

Liberty's Edge

Tacticslion wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Also, it's not about who's right. There was no rule that's being argued. I mean if you want to be technical about it, DM is always right according to the book. Your alternative is to not play under that DM. Some people here think they don't have to walk away and instead, the DM cater to them.
MrSin wrote:
There are actually a number of ways to play outside of "DM is always right".
ciretose wrote:
Are you implying that someone is saying there isn't?

I... think people aren't actually talking to each other in these posts, but past each other.

Or maybe I'm not reading them correctly or something.

Quasi-but-not-really edit, 'cause I left this for an hour to go on a walk with my son: sort of ninja'd by Raven.

Oh I agree.

And I also think it is very clear that if you are saying that if you are aware someone does not want to include a concept you are proposing, and you say that they should do it anyway, you are saying "I know you don't want to do this, but do it any way because I want you to do it."

But that was an "unfair" implication earlier, so I wanted to check and see what the difference was.

I'm but a simple internet reader, who lacks wisdom in these things and can't see the distinction...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I'm but a simple internet reader, who lacks wisdom in these things and can't see the distinction...

YOU LIE!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I'm but a simple internet reader, who lacks wisdom in these things and can't see the distinction...
YOU LIE!

FLAG!!!

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Flag it, don't brag it!


TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I'm but a simple internet reader, who lacks wisdom in these things and can't see the distinction...
YOU LIE!

No, I'm pretty sure that the correct word is sim... oh, you probably weren't talking about that.

Silver Crusade

Do people not understand why the CRB gives the DM the final say so?

A compromise cannot always be met. If you believe it so then you live in a fantasy world instead of play in one.

There comes a time when a player will not like a DM's restrictions and a DM will not like the concept the player is proposing so who get's to have what? Well if there was no judgement call then it would just be a stalemate.

When I have more people wanting to play in my game than not then I am going to give those people who are okay with the game what I have proposed. They voted yes because they want to play what I propose. Why should four people not get what they want because that one person insists on being different?


shallowsoul wrote:

Do people not understand why the CRB gives the DM the final say so?

A compromise cannot always be met. If you believe it so then you live in a fantasy world instead of play in one.

There comes a time when a player will not like a DM's restrictions and a DM will not like the concept the player is proposing so who get's to have what? Well if there was no judgement call then it would just be a stalemate.

When I have more people wanting to play in my game than not then I am going to give those people who are okay with the game what I have proposed. They voted yes because they want to play what I propose. Why should four people not get what they want because that one person insists on being different?

The book does not grant any final say, no final powers, no binding contracts. The people at the table, player and GM -- people -- are the ones who decide what can be done. If you believe that you have some final dictatorial power that you can use and people will just nod and say "Ok, you are the GodKing, we bow to your will" then you may dwell in that fantasy world with the rest of us. You have players that have, to date, allowed you to run things (perhaps because you are just that good, or more likely because it is easier than running things themselves). Don't, for one minute, believe that if you make a ruling that they don't like or that upsets enough of them they won't let you know and pressure you to change it and/or find someone less controlling.


shallowsoul wrote:

Do people not understand why the CRB gives the DM the final say so?

A compromise cannot always be met. If you believe it so then you live in a fantasy world instead of play in one.

There comes a time when a player will not like a DM's restrictions and a DM will not like the concept the player is proposing so who get's to have what? Well if there was no judgement call then it would just be a stalemate.

When I have more people wanting to play in my game than not then I am going to give those people who are okay with the game what I have proposed. They voted yes because they want to play what I propose. Why should four people not get what they want because that one person insists on being different?

I won't come near your table since clearly I'm not ok with how you run things but I'm ok with you running things your way for people who volunteer for it willingly. I just wonder if you share the opinion of us in this regard. I'm not confident you do.

If you have enough people willing to play what you propose, then I just think you should be ok with the fact that there are also people who are not ok with playing with what you propose. If you're flexible enough to agree to that then we're good to go.
If you're not ok with that then Lord help all of us in these threads. Woe betides us the 20 more threads about it. I can't promise i'll 'hide them' and let them go unchallenged. Mayhaps you're a libra and just like agruing for arguings sake. I won't say its an unhealthy pursuit... You don't win the argument just because we all get bored of it though.
Can't fault me for finding this brick wall particularly samey from week to week. As a gamer I can't help hungering for something a little different for a change.

Liberty's Edge

Again I'm not seeing what shallowsoul is still arguing about. While some of us disagree with how he runs things at his table. To a certain extent we can imo at least respect it. Which we have yet it seems unless he can get enough us to say "we we wrong Shallowsoul and you were right all along " theis thread will keep going until the mods get feedup and close it. Now what is the point. Arguing for the sake of arguing. A misguided attempt at validation of a certain position which knowing these forums is not going to happen. And please don't tell me "others have said otherwise in this thread" either. At this point it' the op continuing it for the sake of it imo. Can;t wait fir the next reworded thread on the exact sam topic.


Anyways, the answer to the question in the thread topic is "because shallowsoul declared that you can't help make a campaign world, restrictive or not, as it would infringe on his dictatorial GM-rights."
So the OP answered his own question...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Do people not understand why the CRB gives the DM the final say so?

Arthur: "Rule 0 of the Lake, her arm clad in purest shimmering samite, held the DMG aloft from the bosom of the waters to signify that by Divine Providence....I, Arthur, was to carry the DMG...that is why I am your DM."

Player 2: "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing over DMGs...that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the players not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
Arthur: "Be quiet!"
Player 2: "You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a DMG at you."
Arthur: "Shut up!"
Player 2: "I mean, if I went round saying I was a BBEG because some moistened bint had lobbed a Monstrous Manual at me, people would put me away.
Arthur (grabbing him by the collar): "Shut up, will you. Shut up!"
Player 2: "Ah! Now...we see the violence inherent in the d20 system."
Arthur: "Shut up!"
Player 2: "Come and see the violence inherent in the d20 system. Help, help, I'm being repressed."

*Note: This is not my original content*


To Paraphrase and mangle Season 3 Game of Thrones

"When will this thread stop?"
"When Paizo shuts it down"
But everytime Paizo shuts down a thread, we get two more discussion threads"
"Then it will never end..."

Liberty's Edge

I wish there would be a option in the flagging menu that would include something along the lines of "too many duplicate threads". Or something along those lines. It's one thing to discuss a topic. It's another to repeatdley discuss the same topic imo.


memorax wrote:
I wish there would be a option in the flagging menu that would include something along the lines of "too many duplicate threads". Or something along those lines. It's one thing to discuss a topic. It's another to repeatdley discuss the same topic imo.

Another one that's needed is "argument has gone around in circles five times in this thread and is now on it's sixth lap of the exact same points" ;)


What I find fascinating is that the amount of grar at any given time seems to be more or less constant. It's the same people fighting it out, but the subject changes every so often. Why wasn't "DMs/players suck" a big fight topic until the first of all these threads, if the grar on the subject runs so deep?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It gets run into the ground, festers awhile, and then re-erupts some time later. These same discussions have been going on since at least AD&D, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It gets run into the ground, festers awhile, and then re-erupts some time later. These same discussions have been going on since at least AD&D, though.

Probably before. I imagine cave men argued that one of them didn't tell the stories of the great hunt right, and they could do it better.

Also, forgive my ignorance but what is 'grar', Sissyl? I've not run across that word before and Google was unhelpful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Grar is angry quarreling, sniping, fightiness done on a messageboard. I got it from the mods.

Shadow Lodge

A combination of 'grr' and 'rar' if I recall correctly.


See also: RAWR.


Ah, I see. Thanks for the information!

301 to 347 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.
Recent threads in General Discussion