| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"We ran a positive campaign. We campaigned on the issues. The issue is leadership. Leadership for the future. Ask not what you can do for your country. The people have spoken. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Live Free or Die. And in conclusion...read my lips!"
-Eddie Murphy in the Distinguished Gentleman
Vince's dream campaign :p
... your link doesn't work for me.
EDIT... unless it's in my quote box, here? I really don't know, man. I really don't know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if this is wrong then I don't want to be right.
"Only take what you can handle and always know your dealer"
Sounds like solid gaming advice to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if this is wrong then I don't want to be right.
"Only take what you can handle and always know your dealer"
Sounds like solid gaming advice to me.
I love Mr. Show.
As I said, if it works for you great. And occasionally that is a game I want to play in.
But I don't want all games to be that game.
And if you argue that you always have to allow all options, you basically are saying all games must be the same game.
And I disagree with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only shame is the falling of beautiful but specific and restrictive worlds or campaigns is not as a result of our doing, as then it would be a simple matter of stopping us to save them... Instead their fall comes at our *being*.... Our very existance alone being enough to sunder whole worlds or campaigns having done not one single thing within them.
Takeda, Ruiner of Worlds and Rainbowponythulhu welcome Judge Awakened Sentient Mud Geyser to the fold. Forth and fear no darkness. Ride to ruin and the world's ending. Go now and die in what way seems best to you. Let us ease thier suffering. Let us be rid of it once and for all. Come Mr. Frodo. And many other quotes.
Rainbowponythulhu cometh. And he rides not alone.
Now see, this and the posts that preceded it sort of hit on the points we've been making. The first was .. cute, I suppose. After that, for me, it was just beating the joke into the ground.
Now for some I imagine it was as funny as could be. For others, it was like having nails pulled.
And that's how some concepts are, and how you deal with them. Here, you can scroll past the arguing over who said what to who or ramblings. In a game, you are there for the duration if you want to play, or you have to decide that you're done for the time being.
Everyone has their limits on what they're willing to deal with. When you are working with a concept, from either side of the screen, it is important to try to hit a middle ground where everyone is happy or at least can tolerate what is going on. Otherwise, people tune out, scroll past, or leave.
Thats sort of my point. In the real world you work with the people who are willing to work with you. None of the folks I've gamed with would tell you that I've ever made an outlandish demand, and a few of them would say that i've never even made an outlandish request. I've never forced a character on a table that didn't want it and I've never forced a world on a table that didn't want it either. Because I live in the world of grays.
But I'm happy to go black and white on a guy who wants to be black and white about it. It's painful. Its funny. It's painfully funny. It's ludicrous. I can't take this conversation seriously.
I'm not even suggesting that anyone has to always have to allow all options. But I draw hard lines in the sand when people start drawing hard lines in the sand. If collaboration stops then I stop collaborating and I walk away from tables where collaboration stops no matter which side of the screen stopped it.
I will resort to rainbowponythulhu because it's impossible to take such abject unilateral views on gaming seriously. When a gm starts telling me that the length of my characters ears or beard is enough to 'destroy a world or a campaign' then there's no wiggle room and therefore no limit for how much havok the rest of my playstyle will wreak on that world. So sayeth the creator of that world. And their only defense is to keep my longbeard or longears out of it. To both our benefits. By the time they're ready to boot me I've already walked. And thats me doing them a favor as much as me doing it on my own behalf for me. They don't want me breaking the fine china and I'm not gonna enjoy their chinashop.
Instead I walk. And if i'm already in your world and you start trying to run my character, you're gonna get the pony. Better you get your nice pretty chinashop and I get to keep being a bull elsewhere. . Even if being a bull means 'wanting to play an elf in a world with no elves.' Arbitrary or not.. If thats what it takes to ruin a world or setting then I'm what it takes. I ruin worlds and settings. I am Takeda, ruiner of worlds. At least I'm honest about it. At least I own it. I'm flexible with people who are flexible and I'm not for people who are not.
Why do examples always go to extremes? Because when someone takes it there I'll go there. Why can't you make a restrictive world your own? Because you don't want me to. Because what I want to do with your world is to do exactly that. Make it mine. In ways you don't agree with. The question of can or can't is moot. The question is will or won't. And when you WON'T?... Then neither will I. Ponytime. Lets get ludicrous.
|
stuff...
That all sounds so... Vindictive...
If I’ve misunderstood your point, I apologize in advance.
But you make it sound as though you just don't like any restrictions at all (such as a campaign setting with no elves) based solely on principle alone. I find that a rather odd stance to take as that just smacks of (and please don't construe this as an attack, because it's not meant as one)... Entitlement (I am not calling you entitled, just that I think what you said sounds entitled. I hope you can see the difference).
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if you leave because you think our play styles will be incompatible, because like you said, it'd probably be for the best. But your reasoning just leaves me scratching my head...
As I've mentioned before, I mostly run 2nd edition AD&D games. And when running 2nd edition, I have two hard rules concerning player character races that are non negotiable...
The first is, if the race never saw publication in 2nd edition with stats for player characters (and I include Dragon and Polyhedron magazine sources), then that race simply cannot be played. This also, by extension, includes a good number of hybrid races as 2nd edition did not have near as many hybrid races as 3rd edition or Pathfinder (where seemingly almost every race has a "half" something or other)....
The second rule that I use that is not negotiable, is that I use level limits for non human characters (and almost every non human race in 2nd edition had a maximum level that they could attain). I will however, allow a non human race unlimited advancement at the cost of having to gain more experience points needed to advance in level (the amount depends upon the race, but the cost is usually twice the amount normally needed).
A rule I have that is negotiable is that of playing races that are specific to certain campaign settings (e.g. kender, half-giants, half-dragons, tieflings, etc.) outside of the setting that the race comes from. Whether I allow the race or not is determined on a case by case basis.
This still leaves a wide variety of races open for players to choose from, and in all my time gaming, this has yet to be a deal breaker for anyone who has sat at my table.
so you make the races that are already weaker than human, even less desirable by giving them level caps.
if any two races are overpowered, it's the humans, and the dwarves. yet you let humans slide without a level cap.
those exotic races, usually have nothing that competes with the human;s bonus feat and bonus skill points, and nothing that competes with the dwarf's ability to gain absurdly high bonuses on 95% of the possible things you can make a saving throw against. most of them have trap options prebuilt alongside what basically amounts to a chance of synergistic attribute bonuses. oh wait. if humans can't find a standard use for their bonus feat at level 1 (pretty hard) they can turn it into 3 bonus feats that are popular for opening up a lot of prerequisites
there are no feats or skill points to be bonused in 2nd edition.
i thought he was talking about using 2nd editions restrictions on 3.5 and pathfinder.
|
|
those exotic races, usually have nothing that competes with the human;s bonus feat and bonus skill points, and nothing that competes with the dwarf's ability to gain absurdly high bonuses on 95% of the possible things you can make a saving throw against. most of them have trap options prebuilt...
2nd edition AD&D does not have feats or skills (at least as they appear in Pathfinder or 3rd edition anyway), and the saving throw system was different in 2nd edition as well. So no, this level cap is used only when I run 2nd edition AD&D.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Terquem! ;-)
you make it sound as though you just don't like any restrictions at all
I live in the world of grays.
I'm not even suggesting that anyone has to always have to allow all options
I'm not sure how else to put it. Vindictive a little maybe. I do think its important to make sure that both sides of the coin are represented, and exaspirated and annoyed at feeling the need to continue to do so over the course of 80 plus pages over 5 separate threads. It's my cross to bear since I'm not obligated to continue to support my view by anyone other than myself but I won't deny the scenery never changing in this thread chews away at the gamer in me. I hope everyone's campaigns are much more imaginative than this. This groundhog day of a conversation has made me want to do the things that I do to campaign worlds that I find restrictive. The thread rules on the other hand support the merry go round. I step off from time to time and come back when I've got the energy.
Could you also not say that a character concept that can't possibly survive changing an element of it in order to fit into the milieu in which it is to be inserted is not that strong of a concept?
Isn't insisting on completely and totally having every possible option available, always ... Being rather rigid and inflexible? Just saying, you know.
Could you also not say that a character concept that can't possibly survive changing an element of it in order to fit into the milieu in which it is to be inserted is not that strong of a concept?
Depends on what your changing wouldn't it? Circumstances make a different.
And again, I think the threshold isn't "This will destroy my world" rather "This will make the game less enjoyable"
just because a few players aren't getting their optimum pleasure over a snowflake doesn't mean the snowflake can't provide a different form of pleasure all it's own. making some players a little less excited to make a few players enjoy the game more, so they can all enjoy their characters, is more important than making sure a handful of players get optimum joy and the guy who has the restrictions turned against him, doesn't get too upset.
you too, will be upset about the restrictions when every race you enjoy is banned and the only playable races, are those you intensely dislike, for example, i strongly dislike the Tolkien races. i however, strongly love lolita fashion style and cute small framed female members of long lived sufficiently humanoid races. mostly, because i like the idea of certain colorations or bodyparts that require accessories to mimic in the real world being actually real appendages that add to the appeal.
thing is, most DMs use the Tolkein standard because it is easy to Accomodate, already has prewritten lore, and most people tend to accuse you of doing it wrong if you deviate from the Tolkein norm because it has been standard for so long. it's why i love Tera online. yeah, there's elves, but they aren't Tolkein Tree Hugger Elves, but instead of halflings and gnomes, we have Popori and Elins, which are adorable and have great fluff, instead of Half-Orcs and Dwarves, we have Amani and Barakas, instead of Half-Elves, we have Castanics, and Humans are there for familiarity. i like Tera's races. Especially Elins, Castanics and Amani
Isn't insisting on completely and totally having every possible option available, always ... Being rather rigid and inflexible? Just saying, you know.
Yep. I don't have any problem being inflexible with people who are inflexible. Doesn't even make me bat an eye.
Could you also not say that a character concept that can't possibly survive changing an element of it in order to fit into the milieu in which it is to be inserted is not that strong of a concept?
I'd never say such a thing. That sounds like flagging someone as wanting to have wrongbadfun to me. Rainbowponythulhu is no more wrongbadfun than any other concept. Some worlds are lucky enough to allow him to safely graze and dance his rainbowponythulhu dance... Others invite a rainbowponythulhu dance of a much more destructive variety.
Rainbowponythulhu happens. His mileage does not vary. He is available by appointment only. Some exceptions may apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ DigitalElf that's what the funny party is. For the most part I like to avoid conflict and penalties that I feel are arbitrary so if I were interested in your 2e campaign where demihumans had leveling penalties I'd probably happily play a human and I'd feel bad if anyone else at the table wanted to play a dwarf or an elf with leveling penalties. If stated up front they knew what they were getting into ahead of time...
I'm cool with all that. In large part I'm not a troublemaker at my tables. On the other hand, If someone wanted to play a warforged in that campaign I think i'd have more respect for a gm that figured out a way to make it happen even though I myself hate warforged... As much as I haaaaaate warforged even I would try my best to make it happen if my player wanted it bad enough and even moreso if his concept was cool. And I wouldn't spend the campaign punishing him for his choice or for the extra effort. I'd try my level best to make a campaign appropriate and interesting and challenging for him as well in a way that specificallly played on his unique race choice. He may not have it easy but the 'not easy' he'd be having would be the kind of 'fun' no easy he would probably be looking forward to by asking for such a thing.
And I'd be very veeeery interested in a GM's reasoning for wanting to not bother with it... I simply have a very sensitive zanshin circle when it comes to people who say no and why. I don't think a warforged in 2e forgotten realms is gonna 'crash the system' so when I hear 'no because I don't like it' or 'no because it's too challenging' or "I don't have time' my alarm goes off.
No to something you don't like indicates a lack of openness that may turn against me at some point. That's not a good precedent to set. Thats essentially saying no to a cool concept because you disagree with its level of coolness. Thats an incompatible table if ever I saw one.
No to something you think is challenging suggests that cool concepts will get flushed simply because they're not easy to deal with...
If you don't have time to deal with wierd things that surprisingly come up in your campaign... What other wierd surprises are gonna give you trouble?
I'd rather be at a table where that kinda thing doesn't happen. If I accidentally find myself in a campaign with a gm who discourages things he doesn't like or things that give him difficulty or he can't handle because it takes him a long time to adapt to wierdness his schedule doesn't allow for, then I have to either make trouble or cut loose. They're very specifically stating that there are some things they *can't* handle. I tend to cut loose because i'd rather walk than be a troublemaker. It's not that they're bad gms for not being able to handle it. I just look for tables than are more capable of coping...
On the other hand, some gm's are just askin for trouble simply by their tone and I give them trouble 100% of the time for my own amusement. When I hear pathfinder games that don't allow elves specifically at a table with someone who loves to play elves, It doesn't even matter if I like or hate elves... What matters is he's not writing for his audience and clearly not interested in doing so... These guys argue that they 'can' handle it but that they *won't* or *don't want to*... I can see it from a mile away and they don't even bother hiding it. That's a whole different ballgame and the gloves come off. They know what they're doing and they do it on purpose and I will tear that pretty world apart without hesitation and have on many occasions. I will curbstomp the snowscape of the smug and they can hardly feign surprise when it happens. They get a crystal clear message that their style doesn't fly at any table I'm sitting at and they don't come back and it's for the best for both of us.
Different motivations create different results. Like I say. I'm flexible.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, some gm's are just askin for trouble simply by their tone and I give them trouble 100% of the time for my own amusement. When I hear pathfinder games that don't allow elves specifically at a table with someone who loves to play elves, It doesn't even matter if I like or hate elves... What matters is he's not writing for his audience and clearly not interested in doing so... These guys argue that they 'can' handle it but that they *won't* or *don't want to*... I can see it from a mile away and they don't even bother hiding it. That's a whole different ballgame and the gloves come off. They know what they're doing and they do it on purpose and I will tear that pretty world apart without hesitation and have on many occasions. I will curbstomp the snowscape of the smug and they can hardly feign surprise when it happens. They get a crystal clear message that their style doesn't fly at any table I'm sitting at and they don't come back and it's for the best for both of us.
I would have no respect for someone who would be so vindictive just for S&G's, simply because that person does not like it when the GM says "no" and they do not agree with the reason(s) given... It is an equally if not more childish response to the problem; and all because you just can't accept "no, because I don't like that!" as a viable answer or they happen to appear "too smug" for your liking.
It's okay to not agree with the reasons someone gives you, but to be antagonistic about it? And for what?? Your "own amusement" no less...
What happened to just walking away for the mutual benefit of yourself and that particular group?
I'm always up for knocking arrogant people off their high horse, so I'd actually support Vincent's stance.
|
On the other hand, some gm's are just askin for trouble simply by their tone and I give them trouble 100% of the time for my own amusement. When I hear pathfinder games that don't allow elves specifically at a table with someone who loves to play elves, It doesn't even matter if I like or hate elves... What matters is he's not writing for his audience and clearly not interested in doing so... These guys argue that they 'can' handle it but that they *won't* or *don't want to*... I can see it from a mile away and they don't even bother hiding it. That's a whole different ballgame and the gloves come off. They know what they're doing and they do it on purpose and I will tear that pretty world apart without hesitation and have on many occasions. I will curbstomp the snowscape of the smug and they can hardly feign surprise when it happens. They get a crystal clear message that their style doesn't fly at any table I'm sitting at and they don't come back and it's for the best for both of us.I would have no respect for someone who would be so vindictive just for S&G's, simply because that person does not like it when the GM says "no" and they do not agree with the reason(s) given... It is an equally if not more childish response to the problem; and all because you just can't accept "no, because I don't like that!" as a viable answer or they happen to appear "too smug" for your liking.
It's okay to not agree with the reasons someone gives you, but to be antagonistic about it? And for what?? Your "own amusement" no less...
What happened to just walking away for the mutual benefit of yourself and that particular group?
People who often do that are raging on the inside because they didn't get their way. Kind of like what most people did when they were children.
|
|
@ DigitalElf that's what the funny party is. For the most part I like to avoid conflict and penalties that I feel are arbitrary so if I were interested in your 2e campaign where demihumans had leveling penalties I'd probably happily play a human and I'd feel bad if anyone else at the table wanted to play a dwarf or an elf with leveling penalties. If stated up front they knew what they were getting into ahead of time...
I'm cool with all that. In large part I'm not a troublemaker at my tables. On the other hand, If someone wanted to play a warforged in that campaign I think i'd have more respect for a gm that figured out a way to make it happen even though I myself hate warforged... As much as I haaaaaate warforged even I would try my best to make it happen if my player wanted it bad enough and even moreso if his concept was cool. And I wouldn't spend the campaign punishing him for his choice or for the extra effort. I'd try my level best to make a campaign appropriate and interesting and challenging for him as well in a way that specificallly played on his unique race choice. He may not have it easy but the 'not easy' he'd be having would be the kind of 'fun' no easy he would probably be looking forward to by asking for such a thing.
And I'd be very veeeery interested in a GM's reasoning for wanting to not bother with it... I simply have a very sensitive zanshin circle when it comes to people who say no and why. I don't think a warforged in 2e forgotten realms is gonna 'crash the system' so when I hear 'no because I don't like it' or 'no because it's too challenging' or "I don't have time' my alarm goes off.
No to something you don't like indicates a lack of openness that may turn against me at some point. That's not a good precedent to set. Thats essentially saying no to a cool concept because you disagree with its level of coolness. Thats an incompatible table if ever I saw one.
No to something you think is challenging suggests that cool concepts will get flushed simply because they're...
Remember this.
You have to be there to give trouble.
Actually, 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. I tried talking sense to my former DM, and I only walked away after realizing that he's reduced the game from a fun activity into a constant argument over which rule is and which rule isn't valid anymore. It was not really a surprise that the other players left when I did.
Remember this.
You have to be there to give trouble.
There's always two or more people in an argument, never just one.
It is naive to think we are all able to get along, as history has shown otherwise.
It is arrogant to claim that you are somehow infallible and incapable of causing trouble yourself.
People who often do that are raging on the inside because they didn't get their way. Kind of like what most people did when they were children.
If you're being smug you're past the point where you deserve to be treated in an adult fashion. I like to send a message that I can resonate with childishness because I know they'll recognize it when they see it. Pots and kettles and all. It's not rage. It's learning to speak their language. Some learn from the conversation, change their ways or move on.. Others pout endlessly. I can't raise every child but it's proven that a tantrum returned helps a child see how foolish they look. At least it works on *some* children. And for the one's that don't? I'm sure it won't be the last time they get some schoolin.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're being smug you're past the point where you deserve to be treated in an adult fashion. I like to send a message that I can resonate with childishness because I know they'll recognize it when they see it. Pots and kettles and all. It's not rage. It's learning to speak their language. Some learn from the conversation, change their ways or move on.. Others pout endlessly. I can't raise every child but it's proven that a tantrum returned helps a child see how foolish they look. At least it works on *some* children. And for the one's that don't? I'm sure it won't be the last time they get some schoolin.
Because that is so the adult way to handle one's problems...
I admit, I can act rather childish at times. But there is a huge difference between forgetting one's self on occasion, and actually reveling in childish school-yard behavior to the point of boasting about it.
If you're being smug you're past the point where you deserve to be treated in an adult fashion. I like to send a message that I can resonate with childishness because I know they'll recognize it when they see it. Pots and kettles and all. It's not rage. It's learning to speak their language. Some learn from the conversation, change their ways or move on.. Others pout endlessly. I can't raise every child but it's proven that a tantrum returned helps a child see how foolish they look. At least it works on *some* children. And for the one's that don't? I'm sure it won't be the last time they get some schoolin.Because that is so the adult way to handle one's problems...
I admit, I can act rather childish at times. But there is a huge difference between forgetting one's self on occasion, and actually reveling in childish school-yard behavior to the point of boasting about it.
I don't forget myself and I don't boast. I inform. I don't revel. I act. You infer and you label and you judge... Just like I do so don't pretend you're on higher moral ground. We are men of action. Ad hominems do not become us. I don't limit myself to the techniques only an adult uses because then some folks won't get the memo. I speak in language they're familiar with so they'll be sure to understand. Adults get the adult treatment. Snarky smug gets what they're askin for. Some folks gravitate towards acting like children and I'm not above sending them to their rooms without any dinner or putting their xbox in the trash to send them a well overdue wakeup call. By the time they get treated like children it means the adult conversation was over long ago. It didn't work. So I dial it down and find their frequency. I agree with you that its a shame mature conversation doesn't work 100 percent of the time because it should. I'm wise enough to know that it doesn't and resourceful enough to use every option at my disposal. The forum rules don't always happen out in the real world. If I got a jerk at my table... I'm not just gonna send him packin or he'll never learn... I'm gonna jerk his chain right back and then send him packin. Maybe he'll learn something from it. I hope we're above that here in these threads but if we're not.... Probably lockin time so these guys can get to work on their next version of this thread and we're back to square 1. Maximum fun for all involved eh?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, I think the threshold isn't "This will destroy my world" rather "This will make the game less enjoyable"just because a few players aren't getting their optimum pleasure over a snowflake doesn't mean the snowflake can't provide a different form of pleasure all it's own. making some players a little less excited to make a few players enjoy the game more, so they can all enjoy their characters, is more important than making sure a handful of players get optimum joy and the guy who has the restrictions turned against him, doesn't get too upset.
An as I've said, if you can only find one concept that brings you joy, and that concept bring other people less joy, who is the source of the problem?
You are saying "I want my optimum pleasure, regardless." for you and "Why should you get your optimum pleasure?" for everyone else.
Do you not see the problem with that logic?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, 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.
They keep having wrongbadfun, and Icyshadow can't abide that.
But don't ever say Icyshadow is having wrongbadfun, because those people are on a high horse he needs to knock them off of for saying some fun is wrongbadfun...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this attitude Vincent, aside from the standard internet braggadocio/armchair warrior bit, is that it reinforces the special snowflake syndrome that so many have claimed are mostly a message board fabrication.
There are things people don't like or don't want to deal with, and that's just life. There are things YOU do not like -- we've seen such in your posts. What makes your likes and dislikes better?
I'm hoping this is the usual internet bragging and boasting rather than a real attitude. Because this doesn't teach adults, nor does it teach children. All it does is make you look bad if you say you'd do it online, and makes you look bad and disruptive if you do it in person.
And again, I think the threshold isn't "This will destroy my world" rather "This will make the game less enjoyable"just because a few players aren't getting their optimum pleasure over a snowflake doesn't mean the snowflake can't provide a different form of pleasure all it's own. making some players a little less excited to make a few players enjoy the game more, so they can all enjoy their characters, is more important than making sure a handful of players get optimum joy and the guy who has the restrictions turned against him, doesn't get too upset.An as I've said, if you can only find one concept that brings you joy, and that concept bring other people less joy, who is the source of the problem?
You are saying "I want my optimum pleasure, regardless." for you and "Why should you get your optimum pleasure?" for everyone else.
Do you not see the problem with that logic?
my problem isn't when one race gets banned, it's when you bring a binder of characters 15 PCs thick, each with 3 pages of backstory, 2 pages of questions answered, 3 pages of description, and 3 months worth of adapting your characters to the setting you were informed of for 3 months straight that you researched extensively, only for the DM to change his mind at the last minute and undo an entire binder's worth of characters that took 3 months to make, as a variety of roles, concepts, races and classes for the group to choose their preferences for, some of which, were noncore, and some of which, were homebrewed conversions with a conversion guide ready for examinations.
imagine being told "this campaign takes place in the Tera online universe.", rolling up an Elin berserker PC whom serves the Valkyion Federation and the DM telling you "i can't take Elins seriously." despite the fact it took months of research to build that Elin for the setting Tera online was based upon and hearing the campaign will involve PCs being recruits of the Valkion federation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm always up for knocking arrogant people off their high horse, so I'd actually support Vincent's stance.
Then it would seem with the attitude evidenced in the posts, someone who took that tact would need to start by knocking themselves from their own horse.
So because they don't like having any limits they think its perfectly find to kick over the walls, upend the table, and jump up and down on everyone else's game?
Especially if it has been decided ahead of time that adult conversation can't lead to "no, because I really don't want to. I just don't like broccoli and I can't give you a scientific treatise on why."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how Ciretose is twisting my words into a cute little strawman. Dislike for broccoli gives a biological reaction stronger than opinions like "I don't like elves" and some such. Also, did I actually do something wrong by allowing gnomes despite really wanting to ban them forever? Answer that question, please. I'd love to hear what's so wrong with me for allowing something for the sake of my friends whom I enjoy playing with, even if they happen to like something I don't. Actually, going by the food examples, you apparently refuse to eat with your friends because one of them is eating broccoli. They're not giving YOU the broccoli, just one friend happens to like it and will gladly let you eat your cheese sandwich in peace, but you're the one going off in a fit of rage about how wrong broccoli is and how they should throw it away or leave the table for their heresy.
You know, because that's totally reasonable and mature behaviour, right? It's totally not something the others at the table might call you out on, right?
I love how Ciretose is twisting my words into a cute little strawman. Dislike for broccoli gives a biological reaction stronger than opinions like "I don't like elves" and some such. Also, did I actually do something wrong by allowing gnomes despite really wanting to ban them forever? Answer that question, please. I'd love to hear what's so wrong with me for allowing something for the sake of my friends whom I enjoy playing with, even if they happen to like something I don't. Actually, going by the food examples, you apparently refuse to eat with your friends because one of them is eating broccoli. They're not giving YOU the broccoli, just one friend happens to like it and will gladly let you eat your cheese sandwich in peace, but you're the one going off in a fit of rage about how wrong broccoli is and how they should throw it away or leave the table for their heresy.
You know, because that's totally reasonable and mature behaviour, right? It's totally not something the others at the table might call you out on, right?
There is nothing wrong with you allowing it. There is something wrong with insisting it MUST be allowed, and again ... You can't compare a role playing game to eating separate meals separately as its an interactive activity.
And no, sometimes you just don't like something for a non biological reason. But fine, let's drop food. If I, say, don't like romantic comedies and one person in the group does when it comes time for movie night we are probably going with something everyone else enjoys and that person enjoys rather than just letting the others even one of them not enjoy it.
Why is that person not capable of going to number two in their list still having fun and moving on?
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.
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.
And player intransigence can also cause problems. Are you telling me that you can only find new themes and interesting things to play among the restricted material in a given campaign? Disallowing a few options out of many ally tramples you THAT much?
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.
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 ... FOR YOUR TABLE. But it seems like its you(and admittedly shallowsoul). Who seem to be advocating that theirs is the One True Way.
If the DM always has the same restrictions, he's holding himself (and others) back in the creativity department. I'm saying this as both a writer who's been honing his craft for five years, and as a DM. I for one have a high fantasy Multi-Race campaign world AND a Core Only campaign world, alongside a No Core campaign world in the making. I see none of those as any better or worse, despite the first of those three being a favourite option of mine. Now, what's wrong and what's right there, if I may ask?
I love how Ciretose is twisting my words into a cute little strawman. Dislike for broccoli gives a biological reaction stronger than opinions like "I don't like elves" and some such. Also, did I actually do something wrong by allowing gnomes despite really wanting to ban them forever? Answer that question, please. I'd love to hear what's so wrong with me for allowing something for the sake of my friends whom I enjoy playing with, even if they happen to like something I don't. Actually, going by the food examples, you apparently refuse to eat with your friends because one of them is eating broccoli. They're not giving YOU the broccoli, just one friend happens to like it and will gladly let you eat your cheese sandwich in peace, but you're the one going off in a fit of rage about how wrong broccoli is and how they should throw it away or leave the table for their heresy.
You know, because that's totally reasonable and mature behaviour, right? It's totally not something the others at the table might call you out on, right?
There is nothing wrong with you allowing it. There is something wrong with insisting it MUST be allowed, and again ... You can't compare a role playing game to eating separate meals separately as its an interactive activity.
And no, sometimes you just don't like something for a non biological reason. But fine, let's drop food. If I, say, don't like romantic comedies and one person in the group does when it comes time for movie night we are probably going with something everyone else enjoys and that person enjoys rather than just letting the others even one of them not enjoy it.
Why is that person not capable of going to number two in their list still having fun and moving on?
a lot of us with the noncore races, classes, age categories and/or fashion choices, might have multiple ideas in mind. i like to play with age categories and fashion choices, hoping to neither change the stats compared to the standard young adult, gain additional or less levels, or whatever.
just because i am a fairy well over 100 years with eternal youth, doesn't mean i seek a mechanical advantage over my non-fauxlita kin. doesn't mean i require special hinderances either.
i usually keep a minimum of 5 backups, and age categories aren't something to complain about, a 10-14 year old adventurer doesn't warrant any bonuses or penalties over a 16-20 year old adventurer of the same level. the 16-20 year old had a more stable progression, the 10-14 year old, simply had more challenging circumstances that caused them to level faster to the point they caught up to the party. and they started the high risk high reward lifestyle at a much younger age. this takes into account, that a character can reach 20th level in under a month.
unlike what broccoli or peanuts does, disliking a particular building block isn't going to cause an odd yet dangerous biological reaction. and movies aren't a good comparison either because it's little more than multiple people sitting before a screen.
just because one guy likes broccoli and eats it in the same room across the table, doesn't mean your grilled cheese sandwich is ruined, the key is to accomodate the tastes of the entire table as best you can, however, i do know a guy who plays one archertype over and over, my buddy dale always plays dwarven fighters with a waraxe and heavy shield
at least the concept of a deceptively seemingly youthful female pseudohuman, could be adapted to a variety of races or classes.
a lot of us with the noncore races, classes, age categories and/or fashion choices, might have multiple ideas in mind. i like to play with age categories and fashion choices, hoping to neither change the stats compared to the standard young...I love how Ciretose is twisting my words into a cute little strawman. Dislike for broccoli gives a biological reaction stronger than opinions like "I don't like elves" and some such. Also, did I actually do something wrong by allowing gnomes despite really wanting to ban them forever? Answer that question, please. I'd love to hear what's so wrong with me for allowing something for the sake of my friends whom I enjoy playing with, even if they happen to like something I don't. Actually, going by the food examples, you apparently refuse to eat with your friends because one of them is eating broccoli. They're not giving YOU the broccoli, just one friend happens to like it and will gladly let you eat your cheese sandwich in peace, but you're the one going off in a fit of rage about how wrong broccoli is and how they should throw it away or leave the table for their heresy.
You know, because that's totally reasonable and mature behaviour, right? It's totally not something the others at the table might call you out on, right?
There is nothing wrong with you allowing it. There is something wrong with insisting it MUST be allowed, and again ... You can't compare a role playing game to eating separate meals separately as its an interactive activity.
And no, sometimes you just don't like something for a non biological reason. But fine, let's drop food. If I, say, don't like romantic comedies and one person in the group does when it comes time for movie night we are probably going with something everyone else enjoys and that person enjoys rather than just letting the others even one of them not enjoy it.
Why is that person not capable of going to number two in their list still having fun and moving on?
Then if you have multiple ideas in mind its almost a dead certainty that one of them could be accommodated unless for some weird reason you just went straight down the restricted options and picked every one of them.
If the DM always has the same restrictions, he's holding himself (and others) back in the creativity department. I'm saying this as both a writer who's been honing his craft for five years, and as a DM. I for one have a high fantasy multi-race campaign world AND a Core only campaign world, alongside a No Core campaign world in the making. I see none of those as any better or worse, despite the first of those three being a favourite option of mine. Now, what's wrong and what's right there, if I may ask?
Who ever said anything about always having the same restrictions?
That specific campaign world does because if elves didn't exist there yesterday they still don't today. But it's not the only one that gets gmed and different ones have different themes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@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?
|
|
a lot of us with the noncore races, classes, age categories and/or fashion choices, might have multiple ideas in mind. i like to play with age categories and fashion choices, hoping to neither change the stats compared to the standard young adult, gain additional or less levels, or whatever.
just because i am a fairy well over 100 years with eternal youth, doesn't mean i seek a mechanical advantage over my non-fauxlita kin. doesn't mean i require special hinderances either.
i usually keep a minimum of 5 backups, and age categories aren't something to complain about, a 10-14 year old adventurer doesn't warrant any bonuses or penalties over a 16-20 year old adventurer of the same level. the 16-20 year old had a more stable progression, the 10-14 year old, simply had more challenging circumstances that caused them to level faster to the point they caught up to the party. and they started the high risk high reward lifestyle at a much younger age. this takes into account, that a character can reach 20th level in under a month.
unlike what broccoli or peanuts does, disliking a particular building block isn't going to cause an odd yet dangerous biological reaction. and movies aren't a good comparison either because it's little more than multiple people sitting before a screen.
just because one guy likes broccoli and eats it in the same room across the table, doesn't mean your grilled cheese sandwich is ruined, the key is to accomodate the tastes of the entire table as best you can, however, i do know a guy who plays one archertype over and over, my buddy dale always plays dwarven fighters with a waraxe and heavy shield
at least the concept of a deceptively seemingly youthful female pseudohuman, could be adapted to a variety of races or classes.
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.
|
|
If the DM always has the same restrictions, he's holding himself (and others) back in the creativity department. I'm saying this as both a writer who's been honing his craft for five years, and as a DM. I for one have a high fantasy Multi-Race campaign world AND a Core Only campaign world, alongside a No Core campaign world in the making. I see none of those as any better or worse, despite the first of those three being a favourite option of mine. Now, what's wrong and what's right there, if I may ask?
Five whole years! Wow.
How many publications? What publisher? Where can I get this material?
thing is, most of my ideas tend to sound legit for the setting, but they get negative opinions due to appearant age category, fashion choices, or being nontraditional members of a race. such as an angelkin katana wielding strength based ninja whom ran around in a maid uniform and worked at a teahouse when she wasn't doing bounty hunter duty for a specific good aligned federation. she was a celestial bounty hunter from a tea house that worked as a guild of federation sweepers, not a traditional japanese ninja. the setting had all the components, curved hand and a half sabres that resembled katana, maid uniforms, tea, teahouses, cake, a good aligned federation, bounty hunter's guilds, it sounded legit enough to the rest of the group, DM didn't like it because it was a ninja who didn't come from Japan, because it has an odd stat distribution for a ninja, and because he wasn't fond of maid assassins for being "too anime." there is a lot of historical precedents for assassins disguising themselves as commoners and domestic servants, i'm sure maid counts as a form of domestic servant.
@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.
|
|
@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.