|
@Icy - You've said "walking away without resolving an incident usually just lets whatever the offender (whether it was a player or a GM) to continue without the person who had pointed it out in the first place."
Meaning that person is doing it wrong and if you walk away with out "resolving" the incident that "lets whatever the offender (whether it was a player or a GM) to continue"
And at the same time you are arguing that if I tell you to not play something, I am restricting you and accusing you of wrong bad fun.
Do you really and truly not see the hypocrisy of that stance?
Fine, I take back what I said there so you can sleep peacefully tonight. Happy? :D
We're all human, after all. Even if I support my stance and my words, neither are fully infallible, and that piece of hypocrisy there is an example of words I'm actually taking back right now. Better that than being a stubborn jerk who refuses to see any flaws in himself. However, I'd hope that you understand that this also applies to you as well, Ciretose.
Which part do you take back?
The part about walking away. I should have made it clear that not all people who find their players walking out on them ignore said event, and might actually learn that not everyone is going to put up with behaviour that has been deemed inappropriate. The real problem is that everything is subjective in the end, which in turn might just be making this entire thread pointless. There is no one true way, so there can be no objective claim of what works and what doesn't when it comes to what is restricted and what is banned.
I can objectively say that my way has worked at every game I've ever gmed. I've never had a campaign collapse due to the restrictions put in place.
And I can objectively say that my way has worked at every game I've ever GMed. I've never had a campaign collapse due to a lack of restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also ... I've never said you are wrong in your own game ... Just that I am not wrong in mine which seems to be your thrust. You seem to be saying that a gm having restrictions of any sort that don't move in their campaign is doing something wrong. And that I won't agree to. If both you and your players are having fun then yeah you are doing something right ......You ever consider that this hypothetical influx of DM and Player availability that yours and Ciretose's arguments rely on is not universal? I only have two groups I can play with, either as player or as DM. The problem is, that they always allow the same options, which makes their games and their themes stagnate. We all need a change of pace sometimes, and I'd love to have a character I've wanted to play for a while actually be in a setting where they'd be fun to play. Apparently it's a crime to want anything as a player, but fair game as DM, even though both people are part of the group.
It just smells like a double standard justified by a flimsy authority, that some of us have turned infallible when it shouldn't be. DM dictatorship can ruin friendships where proper conversation, compromise and some empathy can actually keep them as they are or even improve them. Then again, why do I even bother telling you all this? I've told you my point over and over, yet you and those in your stance seem to not take any of it into account. You just want to be right, which would mean I have to be wrong. But hey, at least you were fair enough to answer my question instead of relying on the trite ad hominem tactic Ciretose is using.
So go ahead. Claim that I'm advocating the allowing of everything from flumphs to freaking awakend pony wizards and accusing everyone who doesn't do so of badwrongfun. It doesn't change the fact that my group is having fun with me as their DM, while it was the more restrictive DM that got replaced after he tried to pull off the kind of behaviour you have been so fervently supporting on these threads.
Ars, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but you seem to exaggerate other people's (my) point of view into "no restrictions whatsoever." Personally, I think that a GM should (social contract) make an effort to run campaigns that the players at his table will enjoy. Hand in hand with that is a willingness to recognize that people's tastes change, and if someone's character dies and needs to be replaced six months into a campaign, I'm not sure it's fair to hold a player to something they agreed to, played for long enough to give a chance, and decided they didn't like.
I've also gotta admit that my campaign world has been through various incarnations including B/X D&D, AD&D, Classic Traveler, GURPS and D20 systems, and we haven't even gotten to the OSR. That is, given the campaigns I've run in the past, playing a Wookie Jedi Knight who's allied with a cabal of Paladins and arcane spell casters funded by the Zhodani thought police to fight against the Third Imperium's anti-psionic pogroms is not quite as ludicrous as it looks on paper.
Respectfully, your backups all seem to be the same character.
What if I'm tired of playing with the concept you play? Can I say "Umbriere, if you can't come up with something new I'm letting someone else take the slot, because I'm bored with the concept you keep playing over and over again and I'd like to have something new in the world?"
Can someone just not like your idea and not want to invest time and effort into making it work?
Because that happened to GM setting ideas all the time, and there aren't dozens of threads about that floating around.
with a seemingly young female, all the same concepts are available to them that are available to adults
Noble Scion? age has little impact on status, title has little impact on class
Squire? good concept for paladin, melee oracle or other weapon using armor wearing martial characters. all you need is someone to play the knight you are squired to. Squires are gender neutral and often young
Apprentice? could be flavored a lot of ways, a Federation Cadet, a Wizard in Training, a thieve's guild initiate, an academy student, or a variety of others
Street Urchin? there are a lot of talents one could learn on the streets, those of the thief aren't the only variety, the character could just as easily be a self taught ruffian, a slum performer, a beggar, or whatever
Wilds Savage? could be anything from the ranger raised by wolves, to tarzan, a barbarian huntress sent to gather her first trophy or whatever
Deceptive? maybe the character is older than they look, but is otherwise very similar to other members of their class. their youth is simply a disguise
PC's relative? maybe you are the daughter or niece of another, older PC
Ward? maybe you were placed under the protective custody of the PCs for plot reasons
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part about walking away. I should have made it clear that not all people who find their players walking out on them ignore said event, and might actually learn that not everyone is going to put up with behaviour that has been deemed inappropriate. The real problem is that everything is subjective in the end, which in turn might just be making this entire thread pointless. There is no one true way, so there can be no objective claim of what works and what doesn't when it comes to what is restricted and what is banned.
And so why can't a GM feel like a players behavior or choice isn't one they like?
This is my issue. You can't blame the GM for not liking your idea any more than you can blame a player for not wanting to play an idea a GM proposes.
So why is it ok for a player to say "I don't want to play that campaign" and not for a GM to say "I don't want to run for that character"
You are literally having this problem with your old GM and a problem concept he had, but because you've been arguing with him about not allowing things, now you feel like you have to allow whatever he wants.
I don't feel like I have to allow anything, and further I don't feel like players have to agree to play anything I want to run. We throw things out there and whatever we all like, we do. Whatever we don't all like...we don't do. At least not then.
The Kitsune campaign we had came from a lot of people wanting to try an asian themed campaign and so we did. But part of that was that our group thinks "fish out of water" is done to death, so we try to play to setting and move around when we want to try different things.
That isn't good or bad, but it is table norm. You adapt to table norm or you move on, or as you did you create a new table.
But you don't ever get to tell anyone they have to like your idea and must play/run it.
Respectfully, your backups all seem to be the same character.
What if I'm tired of playing with the concept you play? Can I say "Umbriere, if you can't come up with something new I'm letting someone else take the slot, because I'm bored with the concept you keep playing over and over again and I'd like to have something new in the world?"
Can someone just not like your idea and not want to invest time and effort into making it work?
Because that happened to GM setting ideas all the time, and there aren't dozens of threads about that floating around.
with a seemingly young female, all the same concepts are available to them that are available to adults
Noble Scion? age has little impact on status, title has little impact on class
Squire? good concept for paladin, melee oracle or other weapon using armor wearing martial characters. all you need is someone to play the knight you are squired to. Squires are gender neutral and often young
Apprentice? could be flavored a lot of ways, a Federation Cadet, a Wizard in Training, a thieve's guild initiate, an academy student, or a variety of others
Street Urchin? there are a lot of talents one could learn on the streets, those of the thief aren't the only variety, the character could just as easily be a self taught ruffian, a slum performer, a beggar, or whatever
Wilds Savage? could be anything from the ranger raised by wolves, to tarzan, a barbarian huntress sent to gather her first trophy or whatever
Deceptive? maybe the character is older than they look, but is otherwise very similar to other members of their class. their youth is simply a disguise
PC's relative? maybe you are the daughter or niece of another, older PC
Ward? maybe you were placed under the protective custody of the PCs for plot reasons
Yeah, I don't see how a DM would want to ban young female (race is irrelevant) as an option unless he had a vehement hatred of kids mixed in with misogyny of some sort.
...Also ... I've never said you are wrong in your own game ... Just that I am not wrong in mine which seems to be your thrust. You seem to be saying that a gm having restrictions of any sort that don't move in their campaign is doing something wrong. And that I won't agree to. If both you and your players are having fun then yeahYou ever consider that this hypothetical influx of DM and Player availability that yours and Ciretose's arguments rely on is not universal? I only have two groups I can play with, either as player or as DM. The problem is, that they always allow the same options, which makes their games and their themes stagnate. We all need a change of pace sometimes, and I'd love to have a character I've wanted to play for a while actually be in a setting where they'd be fun to play. Apparently it's a crime to want anything as a player, but fair game as DM, even though both people are part of the group.
It just smells like a double standard justified by a flimsy authority, that some of us have turned infallible when it shouldn't be. DM dictatorship can ruin friendships where proper conversation, compromise and some empathy can actually keep them as they are or even improve them. Then again, why do I even bother telling you all this? I've told you my point over and over, yet you and those in your stance seem to not take any of it into account. You just want to be right, which would mean I have to be wrong. But hey, at least you were fair enough to answer my question instead of relying on the trite ad hominem tactic Ciretose is using.
So go ahead. Claim that I'm advocating the allowing of everything from flumphs to freaking awakend pony wizards and accusing everyone who doesn't do so of badwrongfun. It doesn't change the fact that my group is having fun with me as their DM, while it was the more restrictive DM that got replaced after he tried to pull off the kind of behaviour you have been so fervently supporting on these threads.
Is that somewhat like people saying "have the same restrictions every time". And "core only". And "disallowing concepts just because you dislike them", and such. Since my argument has consistently been that there is nothing wrong with any given campaign having some hard line restrictions in place I assume when you are arguing that with me you are arguing against the position I stated. And the alternative to being allowed to have some hard line restrictions, is having no hard line restrictions.
...Also ... I've never said you are wrong in your own game ... Just that I am not wrong in mine which seems to be your thrust. You seem to be saying that a gm having restrictions of any sort that don't move in their campaign is doing something wrong. And that I won't agree to. If both you and your players are having fun then yeahYou ever consider that this hypothetical influx of DM and Player availability that yours and Ciretose's arguments rely on is not universal? I only have two groups I can play with, either as player or as DM. The problem is, that they always allow the same options, which makes their games and their themes stagnate. We all need a change of pace sometimes, and I'd love to have a character I've wanted to play for a while actually be in a setting where they'd be fun to play. Apparently it's a crime to want anything as a player, but fair game as DM, even though both people are part of the group.
It just smells like a double standard justified by a flimsy authority, that some of us have turned infallible when it shouldn't be. DM dictatorship can ruin friendships where proper conversation, compromise and some empathy can actually keep them as they are or even improve them. Then again, why do I even bother telling you all this? I've told you my point over and over, yet you and those in your stance seem to not take any of it into account. You just want to be right, which would mean I have to be wrong. But hey, at least you were fair enough to answer my question instead of relying on the trite ad hominem tactic Ciretose is using.
So go ahead. Claim that I'm advocating the allowing of everything from flumphs to freaking awakend pony wizards and accusing everyone who doesn't do so of badwrongfun. It doesn't change the fact that my group is having fun with me as their DM, while it was the more restrictive DM that got replaced after he tried to pull off the kind of behaviour you have been so fervently supporting on these threads.
Also, who said anything about holding them to the same concept? They can pick any concept from a near infinite list of concepts not including the targeted list of things that don't exist in that world.
Again, if I had a player who did the same thing every campaign, I would get bored with it even if they didn't.
And that is assuming it was a concept I liked to start with.
YMMV.
it is easier for me to imagine a 1st-4th level character as someone in their youth, than it is to imagine them as this elder figure. in their youth need not neccessarily mean child, and i don't usually start my characters below 12, 10 or 11 is pushing it. such an age in most fantasy worlds, is both older than the minimum age to marry, and older than the minimum age for an apprenticeship (the answers to both, would be 8 years in a medieval themed society that people assume the game to be based upon.)
Again, if I had a player who did the same thing every campaign, I would get bored with it even if they didn't.
And that is assuming it was a concept I liked to start with.
YMMV.
Would you be insulted if your players asked you to stop running the same campaign over and over, or would you try and discuss with them the prospect of a different one?
|
|
Would you be insulted if your players asked you to stop running the same campaign over and over, or would you try and discuss with them the prospect of a different one?Again, if I had a player who did the same thing every campaign, I would get bored with it even if they didn't.
And that is assuming it was a concept I liked to start with.
YMMV.
No. That has happened, several times in our group. The group got bored with a location\ruleset so we moved it for awhile.
EDIT: Why would I be insulted? This happened from time to time. It is why AP's generally change locations from book to book...
My former DM somehow saw it as a slight when I asked him if he could put some variance to his campaign settings.
My former DM somehow saw it as a slight when I asked him if he could put some variance to his campaign settings.
For me I don't see why I wouldn't put in variance. Why do another campaign setting at all if its just going to be the same one with the numbers filed off. If it's the same one with the numbers filed off just use the same one. If I do another setting generally something is going to be significantly different about it from the others I use.
Two responses to my post, which didn't even get quoted because the conversation has outdone the reply feature; thus the edit.
Look, I don't know how you run games at your table. As I've said somewhere across the umpteen threads, your red light/yellow light/green light classification sounds perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, when I opine that examples using CRB material aren't very useful the conversation, your response is, "So the GM isn't allowed to have any restrictions at all?" and those two approaches don't line up very well. Most of the reason I'm still taking part in this conversation is that after weeks and weeks and countless threads, I still can't tell where you fall on the permissive to restrictive scale.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Umbriere Moonwhisper - I'm going to try and be careful with my wording here, but I want to get to a point.
Maybe some people don't like your idea. Not saying it is a bad or good idea, in the sense that "This is inherently bad" but more in the "I don't like Brussel Sprouts" sense.
As in, your idea isn't for everyone.
So if as a GM I don't like your idea, or I'm just tired of your idea since as you have said you play it all the time...can I just say so? Can I just be like "Ugh...Brussel sprouts. Look I know it is perfectly reasonable to have brussel sprouts as a side dish in this meal, but I really don't like them. Can you pick another dish that we both enjoy or are you really going to tell me the only thing you can enjoy is brussel sprouts?"
Some people think brussel sprouts are awesome. There are brussel sprout festivals and conventions...it is a valid thing to like.
But that doesn't mean everyone like them, and that doesn't mean you can expect everyone to likes them or want them served at every meal, even if you do.
ciretose? This? This is a great post. This is what I was hoping you would post earlier. I just wanted to say that. This is very well spoken, and gets your point across without setting off the "caution alarms" that I was trying to talk about earlier.
Yeah, I don't see how a DM would want to ban young female (race is irrelevant) as an option unless he had a vehement hatred of kids mixed in with misogyny of some sort.
Again, if I had a player who did the same thing every campaign, I would get bored with it even if they didn't.
And that is assuming it was a concept I liked to start with.
YMMV.
In addition to ciretose's response, there could be a very real set of issues said GM is going through.
- Perhaps they had some sort of trauma losing a young child- Perhaps they know someone who did
- Perhaps they just hate the idea of a young child (especially a young girl) being placed in harms way for other (equally valid) reasons
It doesn't have to be hatred of kids or misogyny.
One thing I've pointed out before is that people have different limits, different tolerances, and different capabilities. This isn't a bad thing.
NOTE: Failure is not a bad thing. We got that? Failure isn't bad. Okay, please note that before we go on.
Building on ciretose's point above, if a GM has fatigue, he's not going to be able to run the game. I would cite that it's a failing on the part of the GM as a GM (not as a player, or as a person), but it's a very real and valid reason. Similarly, if someone couldn't "get into" playing any character concept but one, that's a failing on their part as a player (again, not as a GM, or as a person).
On the other hand, if a GM can't at all broaden the scope of what they can conceive of in their game's setting, that's a failure on their part, as a GM.
On the other other hand, if a player can't create a reasonable concept within the defined scope of a campaign setting, that's a failure on their part as a player.
But you know what? All those points of failure are entirely reasonable. No one has to be "in the wrong" in any of those cases. They could be "in the wrong" in any or even all of them. But they could equally be entirely justified in any or all of them.
Pathfinder is a game of imagination. That takes a lot more effort than people give it credit for. It means you have to work, you have to think, and you have to focus. Unlike reading a book, watching a movie, or even playing a video game, you have to create.
(Both video games and table tops - at least if done well - give you a sense of agency, that means you must do as well.)
This doesn't make Pathfinder superior to those other forms of entertainment, but it does mean that it takes more work.
And some people just can't. Mental inability (including mental unwillingness) is, in fact, a thing. And it's a valid thing. On all parties' cases.
As ciretose has said before, Pathfinder is a group game. Game with your group. If a majority don't want something... don't go for it! If a majority don't particularly like something, but are willing to go for it, if you can change, do so, but if not, well, at least everyone's gaming!
If a GM doesn't like a concept? If they can make it work (morally, ethically, or whatever), and they can muster the mental energy to do it, let the player go for it anyway.
If a player doesn't like a campaign conceit? If they can make it work (morally, ethically, or whatever), and they can muster the mental energy to do it, go for it anyway.
You may just be surprised by how much fun you end up having.
And if you aren't having fun? Well... stop playing that game! Viola! Easy to do!
(Both of those suggestions are presuming that said player and GM have already talked about things first, like reasonable adults. Before grinning and bearing with it, talk, first, and figure out if the other person can bend or change on the disliked part, first.)
Peoples' personal joy and satisfaction isn't a zero-sum game (if you'll pardon the unintentional pun). Satisfaction isn't like gold where there's a certain amount and you have to distribute them equally, or else someone's being left out.
Instead, it's more like, say, stacking and overlapping bonuses and penalties from various sources and of various kinds*. Some things add more, some don't; some apply only to certain people, while some apply to all (present) people. Some work only for certain periods of time, while some are permanent, and others are entirely surmountable with effort.
I think umbriere, ciretose, and Icyshadow are all dancing around that same point while saying slightly different things, and occasionally diverging from it. (I could be wrong, though.)
The point I'm trying to make is, I suspect that here on the forum we're all being a bit more "hardline" our position than we are in real life.
The other point I'm trying to make is, where you have the ability** to do so, I, personally, have found it the best thing in most cases (though not all, I've got my own quirks, too) to be the one to "compromise" my "vision" (as GM or player) as quickly and fully as possible.
Be the first one to give a little. You might find how much traction you gain surprising. Or you might not. And perhaps you can't give, even a little. That's not inherently wrong. It's also just not inherently right.
* Yes, I know that in game-terms they would all technically be "morale" bonuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I would say ... Why should CRB material be treated any different than any other material? That is the basic point of that. CRB material doesn't have some sort of sacred status that prevents it from being one of the red light options.
And neither does supplemental material have some sort of pariah status that prevents it from being a green light option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't see how a DM would want to ban young female (race is irrelevant) as an option unless he had a vehement hatred of kids mixed in with misogyny of some sort.
<raises hand> I would. I'd totally not allow a child (10-14 year old human equivalent, as mentioned above) without some serious conversation with the players at the table.
Tacticslion gave several reasons above that are good; as for our table, we would not want that. While that may be of interest to some players, it isn't what we are interested in. We might allow it once, if someone just had to play a page or apprentice and couldn't be satisfied with anything else. That said, it'd be a one time thing. Multiple iterations of it would result in the table as a whole having a conversation and a likely parting of the way.
As for modifiers .. kids aren't adults. Expect that there would be modifiers to starting off as a kid.
Anyway, I've had several folks wanting to play kids and adolescents in a handful of games, mostly online ones, and it hasn't worked out well. Either the child player wants to be treated like an adult player (what? You are a super member of your race and they trained you as the ultimate assassin from birth. Ok) or the other players got upset for any number of reasons. It was a bad time for all involved in the end.
So no hatred or misogyny or whatnot. Just experience and a group desire not to go that route.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I would say ... Why should CRB material be treated any different than any other material? That is the basic point of that. CRB material doesn't have some sort of sacred status that prevents it from being one of the red light options.
And neither does supplemental material have some sort of pariah status that prevents it from being a green light option.
(I'm assuming that this was a reply to my post.)
We've already had this part of the "discussion." It ended with the two of us screaming past each other about how no one can tell either of us how to run our campaigns.
At this point, I'm more curious about whether you red/yellow/green list something before or after one of your players expresses an interest in it. I'd also love some real life examples from each. I'm not arguing over what's reasonable material for any of those lists, I'm trying to get a feeling for your criteria for including or excluding things.
Pretty much that list is part of the campaign blurb before its even selected. Sometimes, in play something is moved from one to another - either direction. For example in ine, dwarves were red to start with. Later when the reason the dwarves had retreat and locked themselves up w found they became yellow; if you are going to have one its going to involve an extensive one on one session with me to make sure certain things are right. Later still it moved into complete green territory. Open season. Sometimes I will red list something after it's brought up ... but not without having a discussion first and seeing if it can fit. Admittedly that is pretty rare rarely will one persons concept make me ban all future attempts at that race/class/whatever. Its more likely to be 'that specific manifestation of that choice doesn't work at this time in this campaign". Of course sometimes something will be moved from yellow to green after that discussion - say in that one example paladins in that world. With the caveat that they come from that location but still green.
|
Yeah, I don't see how a DM would want to ban young female (race is irrelevant) as an option unless he had a vehement hatred of kids mixed in with misogyny of...Respectfully, your backups all seem to be the same character.
What if I'm tired of playing with the concept you play? Can I say "Umbriere, if you can't come up with something new I'm letting someone else take the slot, because I'm bored with the concept you keep playing over and over again and I'd like to have something new in the world?"
Can someone just not like your idea and not want to invest time and effort into making it work?
Because that happened to GM setting ideas all the time, and there aren't dozens of threads about that floating around.
with a seemingly young female, all the same concepts are available to them that are available to adults
Noble Scion? age has little impact on status, title has little impact on class
Squire? good concept for paladin, melee oracle or other weapon using armor wearing martial characters. all you need is someone to play the knight you are squired to. Squires are gender neutral and often young
Apprentice? could be flavored a lot of ways, a Federation Cadet, a Wizard in Training, a thieve's guild initiate, an academy student, or a variety of others
Street Urchin? there are a lot of talents one could learn on the streets, those of the thief aren't the only variety, the character could just as easily be a self taught ruffian, a slum performer, a beggar, or whatever
Wilds Savage? could be anything from the ranger raised by wolves, to tarzan, a barbarian huntress sent to gather her first trophy or whatever
Deceptive? maybe the character is older than they look, but is otherwise very similar to other members of their class. their youth is simply a disguise
PC's relative? maybe you are the daughter or niece of another, older PC
Ward? maybe you were placed under the protective custody of the PCs for plot reasons
This here is what I find insulting.
Just because I don't want to allow something, I must be some kind of hater on a racial or sexual level.
Let me give you a real life example. I have a friend who always made all of his characters jedi qnd they always had the same name. I'm not talking about a Star Wars game by the way. Anyway, it was easentially the same character for every game. Well the other players began to get tired of interacting with this character after the 3rd or 4th campaign. Eventually I started banning the concept all together because it was effecting everyone. Now I happen to like jedi so this idea of banning something always because of a hatred is false.
I'm Takeda and I'm restrictive at my table by not allowing restrictive people at my table. When someone at my table starts behaving in a way that I feel is snarky and smug, I sometimes react in a less mature way because I can't always be some disconnected analytical sterile therapist figure... Sometimes I have to be a human being and tell them to go the heck away because they won't choose to do it on their own and prefer forcing their views upon me which I thought after thousands of posts we all agreed was a bad idea that we shouldn't have to put up with. By the time I've gotten to that point I've already tried being calm and rational and if the response is snark and smug then it's time to try something different to get the job done. If they stilck around and continue to force their playstyle on our table then I will resort to further measures. I don't like to go there and it's a shame I have to go there but I will. And everyone else is free to do the same thing... Every... Single... Time.
One time a horrible gm sat at our table with his beautiful 30 year persistant world and I let it roll even though I knew immediately from my experience that it was gonna be bad... I opened myself up to the possibility that this guy had found a way to resolve the troubles I have with his playstyle... I kept an open mind. My table really wanted to try something different and give the new guy a shot. So I played amicably within that system and sure enough it didn't take any time at all before the whole table caught on that fun was not what they were having.
I tried explaining to the gm what the table was experiencing and he didn't agree, didn't change and didn't leave. Even after 30 years it wasn't hard to rationally display to the table that the reason they weren't having fun was because despite 30 years at the gm screen this guy still felt free to make rookie mistakes, and when presented to him his answer wasn't 'I'll find another way to do that' or 'lets explore that idea' or 'I guess I'll be on my way'. So we opened up the kind of carnage on his world that he didn't want to see and used his wierd rules against him until he got the hint. why what he's doing doesn't work. He's still a great guy. But at my table if you can't play and you're not willing to learn or discuss, and your players are not happy and you refuse to change... we're a table that will make sure you regret that you didn't.
In the real world when your players aren't having fun, that is wrongbadfun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much that list is part of the campaign blurb before its even selected. Sometimes, in play something is moved from one to another - either direction. For example in ine, dwarves were red to start with. Later when the reason the dwarves had retreat and locked themselves up w found they became yellow; if you are going to have one its going to involve an extensive one on one session with me to make sure certain things are right. Later still it moved into complete green territory. Open season. Sometimes I will red list something after it's brought up ... but not without having a discussion first and seeing if it can fit. Admittedly that is pretty rare rarely will one persons concept make me ban all future attempts at that race/class/whatever. Its more likely to be 'that specific manifestation of that choice doesn't work at this time in this campaign". Of course sometimes something will be moved from yellow to green after that discussion - say in that one example paladins in that world. With the caveat that they come from that location but still green.
See, nothing you've described here sounds restricted enough to deserve the name. Can I ask if you play with any people you trust enough to let them have input into the next campaign's blurb, before creating that campaign?
Pretty much that list is part of the campaign blurb before its even selected. Sometimes, in play something is moved from one to another - either direction. For example in ine, dwarves were red to start with. Later when the reason the dwarves had retreat and locked themselves up w found they became yellow; if you are going to have one its going to involve an extensive one on one session with me to make sure certain things are right. Later still it moved into complete green territory. Open season. Sometimes I will red list something after it's brought up ... but not without having a discussion first and seeing if it can fit. Admittedly that is pretty rare rarely will one persons concept make me ban all future attempts at that race/class/whatever. Its more likely to be 'that specific manifestation of that choice doesn't work at this time in this campaign". Of course sometimes something will be moved from yellow to green after that discussion - say in that one example paladins in that world. With the caveat that they come from that location but still green.See, nothing you've described here sounds restricted enough to deserve the name. Can I ask if you play with any people you trust enough to let them have input into the next campaign's blurb, before creating that campaign?
The oldest one was almost an amalgam creation, a combination of an older core supplemented by online chat gaming and a joining of minds between me and the guy sitting next to
Me in high school band. And my iphone ate the rest of my long post.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they usually never get to play the character otherwise.Who doesn't?
Me, just to name an example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they usually never get to play the character otherwise.Who doesn't?
The person being denied, I'd imagine. Though they may find another game maybe, it can definitely feel like you'll never get to play that characters sometimes. Made worse if it feels arbitrary and like your idea really could work and/or there's no discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might suggest to GMs, and to players to talk to their GMs about .. have a default generic world outside of your standard home brews or whatever you use most of the time. Set aside a game night or three to just let people blow off steam using whatever builds they've been sitting on and wishing they could play.
It's good for them to get to play what they like now and again, and good for you to see that the grippli ranger isn't a bad idea or allowing guns can make the game fun or whatever other ideas you wouldn't normally let loose in your home games.
If you are just unwilling to do that, ask if one of the other GMs or aspiring GMs in your group is willing to do this. It gives you a break and lets you play all those ideas YOU have bottled up without bringing them into your game as a GMPC.
Just a thought on how to make this fun for everyone without having to allow squirrel PCs into your 30 year campaign or not getting to play your drow beetle mage or whatever.
|
|
I might suggest to GMs, and to players to talk to their GMs about .. have a default generic world outside of your standard home brews or whatever you use most of the time. Set aside a game night or three to just let people blow off steam using whatever builds they've been sitting on and wishing they could play.
It's good for them to get to play what they like now and again, and good for you to see that the grippli ranger isn't a bad idea or allowing guns can make the game fun or whatever other ideas you wouldn't normally let loose in your home games.
If you are just unwilling to do that, ask if one of the other GMs or aspiring GMs in your group is willing to do this. It gives you a break and lets you play all those ideas YOU have bottled up without bringing them into your game as a GMPC.
Just a thought on how to make this fun for everyone without having to allow squirrel PCs into your 30 year campaign or not getting to play your drow beetle mage or whatever.
This is what I already have going. I have a sandbox campaign set aside that allows more options and I have another game that is highly restrictive and theme based. The theme based game is completely off limits to anything outside of what is allowed.
I don't believe there is anyone who can only come up with a single concept their whole entire life. I know people who try and play that single concept every game they can but they aren't incapable of creating a different one.
I don't believe there is anyone who can only come up with a single concept their whole entire life.
Who said there are?
|
|
The person being denied, I'd imagine. Though they may find another game maybe, it can definitely feel like you'll never get to play that characters sometimes. Made worse if it feels arbitrary and like your idea really could work and/or there's no discussion.Because they usually never get to play the character otherwise.Who doesn't?
Well it's not all about making it work. Just because you can make it work, doesn't mean you have to.
Sometimes I want to protect the theme of the game.
The person being denied, I'd imagine. Though they may find another game maybe, it can definitely feel like you'll never get to play that characters sometimes. Made worse if it feels arbitrary and like your idea really could work and/or there's no discussion.Because they usually never get to play the character otherwise.Who doesn't?Well it's not all about making it work. Just because you can make it work, doesn't mean you have to.
Sometimes I want to protect the theme of the game.
I didn't say you weren't protecting or that it had to work, was describing a situation and the feelings you have. Sometimes people disagree about what fits with a theme, and that can be when it seems the most arbitrary. That's usually when its come up in the past in my experience, one person thinks something is totally sane, another doesn't. It usually helps to discuss things, but when you don't things tend to fester.
There are a few posters who act like that one concept is the only one they are ever going to have so it must be played at all cost.I don't believe there is anyone who can only come up with a single concept their whole entire life.Who said there are?
So... no one actually said they could only come up with one concept?
|
|
The person being denied, I'd imagine. Though they may find another game maybe, it can definitely feel like you'll never get to play that characters sometimes. Made worse if it feels arbitrary and like your idea really could work and/or there's no discussion.Because they usually never get to play the character otherwise.Who doesn't?Well it's not all about making it work. Just because you can make it work, doesn't mean you have to.
Sometimes I want to protect the theme of the game.
I didn't say you weren't protecting or that it had to work, was describing a situation and the feelings you have. Sometimes people disagree about what fits with a theme, and that can be when it seems the most arbitrary. That's usually when its come up in the past in my experience, one person thinks something is totally sane, another doesn't. It usually helps to discuss things, but when you don't things tend to fester.
So... no one actually said they could only come up with one concept?There are a few posters who act like that one concept is the only one they are ever going to have so it must be played at all cost.I don't believe there is anyone who can only come up with a single concept their whole entire life.Who said there are?
No, but when you get responses like "you should make it fit" or "you are a bad DM if you can't make it fit" after I have asked they play something else over and over and over. That leads one to believe that the person is trying to say they can't come up with another concept for this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but when you get responses like "you should make it fit" or "you are a bad DM if you can't make it fit" after I have asked they play something else over and over and over. That leads one to believe that the person is trying to say they can't come up with another concept for this game.
Well, sometimes it makes more sense to make it fit and sometimes not. I think a lot of it involves communication skills. I know a few younger guys who'd insist on something without ever explaining why they really want it or how it would fit, but if you just calmly ask them a few questions they give you plenty of backstory and their logic pretty clearly. You wouldn't know unless you asked nicely though. Its not that they can't come up with something else, its what they have is what they want and they really just think it should have worked. If you give them the chance to talk its also easier to move on I think, since you know more about the why and they've at least gotten their word in. Also makes it easier to work with them if you think it can work, though that's not always a thing.
Hard to know if I should use present or past tense here. I haven't seen some of those guys in years, and others I could've sworn I just saw last week.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, sometimes it makes more sense to make it fit and sometimes not. I think a lot of it involves communication skills. I know a few younger guys who'd insist on something without ever explaining why they really want it or how it would fit, but if you just calmly ask them a few questions they give you plenty of backstory and their logic pretty clearly. You wouldn't know unless you asked nicely though. Its not that they can't come up with something else, its what they have is what they want and they really just think it should have worked. If you give them the chance to talk its also easier to move on I think, since you know more about the why and they've at least gotten their word in. Also makes it easier to work with them if you think it can work, though that's not always a thing.Hard to know if I should use present or past tense here. I haven't seen some of those guys in years, and others I could've sworn I just saw last week.
And even then, some times you just don't like the idea. Sometimes you just don't want that idea in the game.
In the same way sometimes as a player you don't want to play a GM's campaign idea.
Communication as the solution only works if you assume the problem is lack of communication.
If I fully understand that the GM wants to play in a setting I don't want to play in, no amount of communication changes the fact that I don't want to play in the setting that is being proposed.
And similarly if I don't like the players concept, fully understanding it doesn't change the fact that I don't like it.
In both cases it just makes the other person irritated that you are being pushy about something I don't like, because you think "If only you understood, you would agree with me!"
Sometimes people understand perfectly fine and just disagree. And at that point someone needs to bend.
Why in the character creation process do I think it is generally the player who needs to bend?
Because in the setting creation process I believe it is the GM who generally needs to bend in order to get players.
So once the GM has bent to get you to sit down at the table, it seems to me only reasonable for the GM to expect the same in return.
And before Icy says it, if your GM won't bend at the setting phase, that his a huge red flag that you shouldn't me letting that person be the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, sometimes it makes more sense to make it fit and sometimes not. I think a lot of it involves communication skills. I know a few younger guys who'd insist on something without ever explaining why they really want it or how it would fit, but if you just calmly ask them a few questions they give you plenty of backstory and their logic pretty clearly. You wouldn't know unless you asked nicely though. Its not that they can't come up with something else, its what they have is what they want and they really just think it should have worked. If you give them the chance to talk its also easier to move on I think, since you know more about the why and they've at least gotten their word in. Also makes it easier to work with them if you think it can work, though that's not always a thing.Hard to know if I should use present or past tense here. I haven't seen some of those guys in years, and others I could've sworn I just saw last week.
And even then, some times you just don't like the idea. Sometimes you just don't want that idea in the game.
In the same way sometimes as a player you don't want to play a GM's campaign idea.
Communication as the solution only works if you assume the problem is lack of communication.
If I fully understand that the GM wants to play in a setting I don't want to play in, no amount of communication changes the fact that I don't want to play in the setting that is being proposed.
And similarly if I don't like the players concept, fully understanding it doesn't change the fact that I don't like it.
In both cases it just makes the other person irritated that you are being pushy about something I don't like, because you think "If only you understood, you would agree with me!"
Sometimes people understand perfectly fine and just disagree. And at that point someone needs to bend.
Why in the character creation process do I think it is generally the player who needs to bend?
Because in the setting creation process I believe it is the GM...
Well, your post got truncated halfway through the sentence I actually want to talk about, but here goes. (And, Cire, these are real questions I'm curious about, not me being snarky or trying to score wiseass points.)
If the GM has bent in the setting design process in order get players, why would the players need to bend in the character design? Aren't character concept and setting design part of the same process? Am I missing some player/GM dynamic where you you tell your players about the next campaign and they decide it's the perfect moment to play everything you can't stand?
And, this is a more general question, but how many people here (well, virtually present, I guess) create a new world for each campaign, and how many set their new campaigns in the same world time after time? (I myself do the latter.)
HD, I have a combo. There are generally about four different worlds I rotate between, with the occasional new entry. I don't generally invoke a new world unless the concept is significantly different enough that one of those four persistent worlds can't contain it. It also makes it easier on the players, as they know generally what the world is like and can fit in quickly their concept ... Or help a newcomer do the same in lieu of me having to personally walk them through.
...
Well, sometimes it makes more sense to make it fit and sometimes not. I think a lot of it involves communication skills. I know a few younger guys who'd insist on something without ever explaining why they really want it or how it would fit, but if you just calmly ask them a few questions they give you plenty of backstory and their logic pretty clearly. You wouldn't know unless you asked nicely though. Its not that they can't come up with something else, its what they have is what they want and they really just think it should have worked. If you give them the chance to talk its also easier to move on I think, since you know more about the why and they've at least gotten their word in. Also makes it easier to work with them if you think it can work, though that's not always a thing.Hard to know if I should use present or past tense here. I haven't seen some of those guys in years, and others I could've sworn I just saw last week.
And even then, some times you just don't like the idea. Sometimes you just don't want that idea in the game.
In the same way sometimes as a player you don't want to play a GM's campaign idea.
Communication as the solution only works if you assume the problem is lack of communication.
If I fully understand that the GM wants to play in a setting I don't want to play in, no amount of communication changes the fact that I don't want to play in the setting that is being proposed.
And similarly if I don't like the players concept, fully understanding it doesn't change the fact that I don't like it.
In both cases it just makes the other person irritated that you are being pushy about something I don't like, because you think "If only you understood, you would agree with me!"
Sometimes people understand perfectly fine and just disagree. And at that point someone needs to bend.
Why in the character creation process do I think it is generally the player who needs to bend?
Because in the setting creation
HD - I have in fact met players who think the way to be creative is to look at the list of what is restricted and try to force in one of those, yes. The same that in white wolf want to be the 'last of the white howlers' etcetera.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, I get that. Like I said earlier, my setting went through a Traveller period, so the entire solar system existed on a Flash Gordon/John Carter level decades before Paizo published Distant Worlds.
It dates from the twilight of TSR's ownership of D&D rather than this conversation, but at some point I looked at the myriad boxed sets that were being published and started wondering why it always had to be another planet. Dark Sun? Completely different planet, cause y'know, there was never a highly developed desert dwelling culture on this planet along with all the knights and princesses. :P
(Of course, this was while I'd gotten away from the D&D brand, and when I finally ran across Spelljammer, it explained a lot.)
Edit: as for your second post, sure, we've all had problem players at our tables. I think that's another one, like unique characters/snowflakes, where questioning campaign restrictions is a early warning sign, but every problem player I've dealt with has been perfect capable of derailing every single encounter with something as bare bones as a human cleric.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And even then, some times you just don't like the idea. Sometimes you just don't want that idea in the game.In the same way sometimes as a player you don't want to play a GM's campaign idea.
Communication as the solution only works if you assume the problem is lack of communication.
If I fully understand that the GM wants to play in a setting I don't want to play in, no amount of communication changes the fact that I don't want to play in the setting that is being proposed.
And similarly if I don't like the players concept, fully understanding it doesn't change the fact that I don't like it.
This is kind of my point actually.
For example, let us say the GM says, I want to run a pirate game the player can say "Can I be a ninja?"
The GM then says, "Not this setting. I really want to just do a pirate game with pirate themes."
In my way of seeing thing, the player is then either in or out for making something for this setting. The GM can't make the player participate, and if the GM doesn't sell it well enough the game doesn't happen.
In our group, if I really want a ninja game, I will try and run one and get people excited about being ninjas. Maybe half of the group will split to the pirate game and half to the ninja game. And if I can't sell my ninja game as being fun, I don't get my ninja game.
So it is frustrating if I really want a pirate game, I say "Let's have a pirate game" and enough other people want to play the pirate game that we don't really need you if you say "No, I'm a ninja, and you are a close minded if you don't find a way to fit my ninja into the pirate theme."
Because from my point of view, it is selfish of you to try and tell me what I have to run for you rather than you just saying "I don't want to be a pirate." and letting everyone else have fun being pirates with a bunch of other pirates.
This is what bothers me in these threads. The onus is on someone else to make your idea work, rather than on you not being someone who doesn't make things difficult so people have to find a way to make your idea work.
How about people just all try to avoid causing other people to have to do more work or make more changes to fit you in? How about not being difficult?
If I want to run a pirate theme, make a pirate or don't play. Don't tell me to find a way to make your character fit because you can't show the same courtesy of finding a character I don't need to make fit, or just saying you don't want to play in the pirate game.