| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was happily humming along, reading a thread, when suddenly the Player Entitlement argument rose its ugly head out of the murky depths of the Internet.
If you've been reading the Paizo Forums for very long, you've seen this argument said in one form or another. The GM shouldn't be the dictator of the rules, because the players are just as valuable to the game as the GM is. A game couldn't exist without the players, so the players should have some say over what happens in the game. This is just a general summary, and is my personal interpretation of the argument. For those of you who disagree with my definition, please understand that I'm not trying to "straw man" the other side- this is honestly how the logic is summarized in my mind.
And I agree with it- as far as I've laid the argument out so far. Players do participate in the game, and the story changes according to the choices and actions of the characters. The GM doesn't control everything, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Moreover, a GM who fails to take the desires and opinions of their players into consideration isn't being the best GM they could be.
What I occassionally see, and what this post is about, is that this logic is being used (again- an honest summary and not intended to be a straw man) to say that the GM should change a rule because the players are a participant in the game too. Usually, this line of idea is soon followed up by its cousin: the players put just as much effort into the game as the GM does, and so they have the right to have their voices heard.
They have the Right to have their voices heard.
The first time I saw someone on the boards giving this argument, I was amused. I laughed, shook my head, and moved on. But every time I see someone saying this... it gets less and less funny. It's gotten to the point where this argument grates on me like nails on a chalkboard.
I run a weekly home game, another bi-weekly home game, and GM for PFS once or twice a month. It used to be more but I had to step down the pace to keep from burning out. PFS is PFS, but in my home games I call the shots.
I have very few (if any) houserules. I regularly solicit players opinions on how I'm doing. All my players know that if they want to try something unusual, I will work with them so their character can be awesome while not overshadowing other characters. Everyone has fun, and I try to keep the spotlight moving enough that everyone gets a share. Long story short- it's close to straight Pathfinder rules (with some added traits to reward players for good backgrounds and roleplaying) and I'd discuss any rules changes with my players ahead of time.
BUT.
If I ever decided, for whatever reason, that I wanted to make some obscure houserule and one of my players tried to pull this "I'm a player and I add just as much to this campaign as you do" argument, I would be supremely unimpressed. Tell me you're uncomfortable with the rule because of X and would like it changed. I can work with that. Tell me it inhibits or encroaches on your character somehow. I can work with that. Heck, tell me it didn't work like that in 1st/2nd edition. I can at least have a friendly discussion with you about how things were and how they've changed over the years. Maybe at the end of it I'll be inspired to modify it into something else or reintroduce something from an older edition. Whatever. I'm flexible.
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.
I put a great deal of effort into prepping. Honestly, I put more effort into it than I should, considering that I work a full time job and attend part time school in addition to running two home games and attending a third. There are some weeks that I literally do not have time to go grocery shopping because I'm prepping for a game. But I do it, because I have a passion for tabletop RPG's and I really really really want my players to have the deepest and most entertaining adventures that I can muster the energy to give them.
This whole line of logic (I call it the Player Entitlement Argument) says that players should have just as much (if not more) say overwhat happens in a game than the GM. Players get this not because they are friends coming together to play a game, but because they spend just as much time and effort into their characters as a GM does running the game.
More time and effort? Okie dokie. Let's put this to the test, shall we?
All of this takes about a day, during which I do other stuff like eat and clean and sleep in on Saturday, my biggest day off in a week. It usually takes 8+ hours. Let's say I'm particularly ultra obsessive and I've spent 14 hours. That's 14 hours of outside-game-time that I've devoted to being a player in one month. For all the characters I play. They're mostly PFS games, so lets count them as one single campaign. 14 hours per month as a player. Fantastic.
Now let's look at my average GM prep time. It takes 45 to 60 minutes to read over the scenario, module, or section of AP that I'm using. During this sweep, I get an understanding of what's going on and how I want to apply it to my game. It takes 90 to 120 minutes to read them in detail, highlight and add notes, and develop any areas that the AP's and Modules skim over. Another 45 minutes to an hour is spent going through my token collection and finding the best tokens for the various creatures. I give myself another hour for maps. If I have to draw them all, this takes longer. If I can cheap out by printing full color or using flip mats, this can be shorter. Usually it's a mix of drawing and pregenerated stuff so an hour is about right. If my other committments are light and I have the time, I'll sort through my face-card collection and find approriate cards for each major NPC in the adventure. I'll make a few notes on the back (in pencil or on a separate piece of paper so I can reuse the card) about how each character speaks and any quarky personality traits. This takes 45 minutes to an hour. For my bi-weekly game, I'll stop here. For my weekly game, I'll next write up a prologue and/or mission briefing for the group and email it out to everyone. I got inspired by the PFS factions, so my weekly campaign also has 5 different custom factions that will alternate appearances, with each faction having an interest in the group for their own reason. I'll write up any faction missions that apply to the session (usually around 3) and either email them or print them out to present at the table. After the session, I'll write up an epilogue and post-event faction letters. The prologue/briefings and faction letters happening before the session takes me about 2 hours. The epiologue and after-letters takes me an hour to an hour and half.
Let's pick a month where I've been particularly obsessed in character creation, but had a 'light' GM prep load. I don't always get to do face cards, so let's assume I didn't do face cards for the whole month.
Total time as a player for 9 characters, at 4 to 6 sessions a month: 14 hours
Total time in a month as a GM for weekly game: 6 x 4 = 24 hours
Total time in a month as a GM for bi-weekly game: 3 x 2 = 6 hours
Total time in a month as a PFS GM: 3 hours per game
I GM more than I play, so let's compare 4-6 sessions of player prep to the 4 games of my main game. 14 hours maximum vs. 24 hours minimum.
Do not tell me that you spend more time and effort on this game as a player than I do as a GM.
But honestly? Even if one of my players could legitimately say this, it wouldn't matter. The time and effort you spend on the game is not what gives you the right to dictate the rules. It will always and forever be the GM's place to dictate the rules, because that's what the GM is there for. A group has come together to play the game. One of them has stepped up to be the worldbuilder and arbiter. Defining the rules is part of that.
So come to me with your concerns. Come to me with your questions. Come to me with your suggestions. Share these things with me, and I will respond with an attitude of mutual respect. I will do my best to make sure your character is awesome. I will do my best to make sure you're having fun. I will do my best to make sure that I'm telling a good story.
Come to me - after the session - with the rulebooks. Come to me - respectfully - with any corrections you feel I should make. Bring to me - for my consideration - FAQ entries and errata and forum posts. I will happily work with you as a friend and a fellow adult. I am not perfect and am willing to be corrected. Heck, most of the time I'll ask right there at the table if I'm a little unclear on how something works.
Do not come to me and tell me that you deserve to have your opinion overrule mine because you spend more effort on this game than I do. Do not threaten me by telling me that a GM is nothing without their players. Those arguments will get you nothing. Continued use of those arguments will get you disinvited.
I play this game with my friends. Treat me like your friend, and we'll have a great time. Treat me like your servant, and you can find another game.
The funny thing is that none of the people I play with would make this argument. I have only seen this sense of self entitlement on the boards. I don't know if people just talk the talk because it's the Internet, or if there are actually people like this out there. I'm just heartily thankful that they're here on the boards and not at my table.
Yeah, sorry. I get wordy when I'm passionate.
TL:DR
"What I occassionally see, and what this post is about, is that this logic is being used (again- an honest summary and not intended to be a straw man) to say that the GM should change a rule because the players are a participant in the game too. Usually, this line of idea is soon followed up by its cousin: the players put just as much effort into the game as the GM does, and so they have the right to have their voices heard."
::Snip::
"I play this game with my friends. Treat me like your friend, and we'll have a great time. Treat me like your servant, and you can find another game."
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have the Right to have their voices heard.
....
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.
Which is it? The right to have their voices heard, or the right to dictate how you run your game?
Unless I'm misreading you, it looks like you're treating them as equivalent statements. That would be... unfortunate.
|
D&D/PF is a text book of rules with a dump truck of opinion. I want to believe most groups have their own system for coming to terms with gaming issues. On the internets you are going to get extremes. The extremes are twisted up because they are not getting their way and the in-betweens dont care because they are having fun. I think you are just getting caught in the crossfire.
Here we go again! - Dead Horse
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have the Right to have their voices heard.
....
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.
Which is it? The right to have their voices heard, or the right to dictate how you run your game?
Unless I'm misreading you, it looks like you're treating them as equivalent statements. That would be... unfortunate.
I'm sure you could proof read his lengthy post and find errors and inconsistencies but I think you would be missing the passionate spirit of his post.
-MD
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
They have the Right to have their voices heard.
....
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.
Which is it? The right to have their voices heard, or the right to dictate how you run your game?
Unless I'm misreading you, it looks like you're treating them as equivalent statements. That would be... unfortunate.
I'm sure you could proof read his lengthy post and find errors and inconsistencies but I think you would be missing the passionate spirit of his post.
-MD
If you think seeing a difference between "have your voice heard" and "dictate how I do things" is a proofreading-level nitpick that misses the point, then I don't think I want to have a discussion with you. I'll just wait for clarification from the OP, thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D/PF is a text book of rules with a dump truck of opinion. I want to believe most groups have their own system for coming to terms with gaming issues. On the internets you are going to get extremes. The extremes are twisted up because they are not getting their way and the in-betweens dont care because they are having fun. I think you are just getting caught in the crossfire.
This, more or less, is the thrust of it. There are people on this board and elsewhere that will go off in a heartbeat about how you MUST do something or ELSE. (emphasis theirs)
Many of these are the sort that tell you about their right to free speech (wrongly) and so on. They don't want to have you (the generic you) dictate to them how they should play, but have no trouble dictating to you how you should act.
The commentary that players put in as much effort as a GM is, well, for lack of a better word hogwash. Even the people making the comment know it isn't true but it keeps getting repeated as if repetition will make it true. Now, that isn't to say that there aren't many players who put in a good deal of work with their fellow players or GMs to help build the world. But "I totally worked on my character and found a sick build, brah" isn't the same. It isn't even close.
Best I can tell you is to treat a lot of the noise you get on the boards as just that: noise. Unless they are coming to your game, what they say doesn't matter. It's their opinion as much as yours is theirs. I'll agree it is both bothersome and tiresome -- I tend to have to take a break every once in a while to restore my faith in humankind some days.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I occassionally see, and what this post is about, is that this logic is being used (again- an honest summary and not intended to be a straw man) to say that the GM should change a rule because the players are a participant in the game too. Usually, this line of idea is soon followed up by its cousin: the players put just as much effort into the game as the GM does, and so they have the right to have their voices heard.
They have the Right to have their voices heard.
Actually, people do just wish to have their voices heard (as you stated), which does NOT equate with "the GM should change a rule" (as in the players can dictate to the GM what rules he uses).
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.
Quite in agreement. It is not the same as having a right to be heard though. Just as an accused person or a plaintiff having a right to be heard by the judge does not automatically mean that the judge will follow what he hears ;-)
Do not tell me that you spend more time and effort on this game as a player than I do as a GM.
That I would not as you seem to spend a lot of time on preparation, which likely makes you a better GM by the way. BUT SUCH IS NOT THE CASE FOR ALL GMs.
Some GMs that I know and love just do not have the time to prep adequately and I am pretty sure that I spend more times on my characters, even between sessions, than they do preparing the game :-(
Also, though your figures do show that you spend more time than a single player, even 2 players put together will have spent more time than you on the game ;-)
It is the principle of democracy really. When you have a role of authority (which being a GM is), you only get it by the consent of the players. Which is why it is wise to listen to them, even if in the end you are the one making the many decisions. And several players asking for the same thing gives their wish even more weight.
What you say in the latter part of your post is quite true too. As in all social endeavours, diplomacy goes a VERY long way. I think what you describe is mostly the internet effect of misunderstandings and rapidly rising tempers, rather than a subspecies of entitled players ;-)
For example, I think that I would quite enjoy playing with you and being able to find a compromise suitable for everyone should a conflict ever raise it head. On the boards, though, you will mostly find me on the "entitled player" side. It is just that my first reaction to these kind of debates (and their pitfalls I described above) goes in the other direction from yours ;-)
Keep up the good GMing !!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The commentary that players put in as much effort as a GM is, well, for lack of a better word hogwash.
Statements like these don't help.
The commentary that players put in as much effort as a GM is, well, for lack of a better word hogwash.Statements like these don't help.
And this does?
Here we go again! - Dead Horse
I've not seen many players putting up posts illustrating the sort of time that Mystically Inclined has put in. I've seen dozens of posts with nothing backing them up that state that a player puts in this massive amount of time -- not on the campaign, but just on their own PC. Hogwash is the least critical term I could come up with.
And this does?The commentary that players put in as much effort as a GM is, well, for lack of a better word hogwash.Statements like these don't help.
Not really. Its more like a statement without backing atm. It needs details like anecdotal logic about my experiences and other life stories and lessons, and I need to explain the logic about why its not helpful. I need more coffee for that. Suffice to say it gives the players too little credit so it actually comes off as saying that players are lazy and GM's are hard workers.
Anyways, everyone does things differently.
I've seen dozens of posts with nothing backing them up that state that a player puts in this massive amount of time -- not on the campaign, but just on their own PC.
Are you sure? Because I state that I let players play with the campaign world and add into it and encourage group storytelling over one ruled by the GM. This world is one built by us all! Not just one guy. Similarly, I've been in plenty of games where players are bringing food, giving roof, or bringing recreation and entertainment of all kinds.
I've said this before. Here we go again.
I'm going to spill a little secret over all of you.
I do f*!! all to get ready for my games when GMing.
Would never argue you didn't.
More than some GMs I've had. In home games and society I've had plenty of games run without a single idea of what they're doing. Results have varied. Admittedly spontaneousity can be a lot of fun, but that really depends on who your with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've not seen many players putting up posts illustrating the sort of time that Mystically Inclined has put in. I've seen dozens of posts with nothing backing them up that state that a player puts in this massive amount of time -- not on the campaign, but just on their own PC. Hogwash is the least critical term I could come up with.
Well, if we give only value to what benefits the shared experience of the whole gaming group (ie, GM included), I agree that not all time spent on a PC should be counted.
Note however that, by the very same criterion, all the many hours that some GMs put in their setting or campaign just for their own selfish pleasure and without caring for the players' fun are worth far less (zero value really) ;-)
Now, that isn't to say that there aren't many players who put in a good deal of work with their fellow players or GMs to help build the world.
You should get that coffee. :)
Yes, I'm sure. We only have to go back to the threads a few weeks/months ago about players versus GMs to see the arguments full of "GMs don't do nothing!" So unless you have dozens of aliases, I'm pretty sure.
As for the rest of your comment that isn't addressed by what I just said, providing snacks or even the venue isn't the same thing as putting in hours on the game. They are very helpful, don't get me wrong. They are not the same thing, however.
Note however that, by the very same criterion, all the many hours that some GMs put in their setting or campaign just for their own selfish pleasure and without caring for the players' fun are worth far less (zero value really) ;-)
Now this is very true. The thirty hours a week the GM puts in on shoe styles of the Northeastern Barbarian tribes for his own jollies is on him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.
If I were to judge you based upon what I have seen on these forums, this one sentence would have me pointing out the irony of complaining about players acting self-entitled while you sit there and act self-entitled too. I could also point out hypocritical parts, but I do not see what point that will serve; it just goes into territory that does not actually matter for what the real issue at discussion is.
But I am also letting you know it is there, and that it does not make you look good to those who do not know you and are not as reasonable.
You are speaking from frustration, and making statements that invite judgement upon you that you do not deserve. They give hints as to your style of GMing that, frankly, do not match what I think your style actually is. And it all stems from the fact you are letting the internet get to you.
This is the internet. The people who honestly believe the statements they are making are people who probably don't have groups to play in. They are here raising a big fuss because it's all they can do. So do what I do: Roll your eyes and ignore them. I'm certain you have better things you could be doing than letting their words get to you. Like organizing your sock drawer. Or planning for a game.
I'm going to tell you to do the same thing I am doing: When you get that frustrated, get up and walk away.
I have snapped on here a couple times. I am proud of neither, but I have noticed the pattern. Thus the bit about walking away. I have only seen this rant from you, but I see the frustration in it matched some of mine. So, take yourself away from the conversation that frustrates you. If you have to, get up and literally walk away from the computer. Come back when the frustration is gone, or simply avoid it from then on. Then you won't be as bothered by what people are saying.
|
|
Would never argue you didn't.
Actually, you should, since that was what I said.
I don't do any f&!~ing thing when getting ready for a game.
Now, that isn't to say that there aren't many players who put in a good deal of work with their fellow players or GMs to help build the world.You should get that coffee. :)
Have a cup in my hand as I was reading that if you'd believe it.
Actually most of the time it has been the GM doing the bulk of the work in the games I've been in. Really depends on who I'm with. One guy I was with always halted the game to figure out what to do next and only called lunch breaks then. I'd always bring him back a pizza.
If you think seeing a difference between "have your voice heard" and "dictate how I do things" is a proofreading-level nitpick that misses the point, then I don't think I want to have a discussion with you. I'll just wait for clarification from the OP, thanks.Which is it? The right to have their voices heard, or the right to dictate how you run your game?
Unless I'm misreading you, it looks like you're treating them as equivalent statements. That would be... unfortunate.
I'm sure you could proof read his lengthy post and find errors and inconsistencies but I think you would be missing the passionate spirit of his post.
-MD
Jiggy's got a point- that's a pretty drastic difference.
The beginning of my post was misworded. I was rushing through the explanation so I could get to the rant, which was where my energy was.
I do believe that players have a right to be heard. I believe that a GM who is not taking the opinions and desires of their players into consideration is not being the best GM they could be. I will try to work with my players whenever I can. I've told my players in the past that I will happily work with them if they'd like to do something, or if they think a rule wasn't followed, or if they think the game could be improved somehow.
While I don't want to be treated as a servant, I do see my position as GM as serving the group in some ways. I am striving to make their gaming experience better. I get plenty of enjoyment out of it - I'd stop if I didn't - but part of what drives through the "this is just sheer work" periods is the desire to make their game better.
What I have seen, or at least how posts come across to me, are people equating "I have a right to have my opinion considered" with "I have a right to determine the rules." If someone has a problem with my ruling, I'll be happy to listen. It a solution that makes everyone happy is possible, I'll go with that. I play with friends and want my friends to be happy.
If someone has a problem with my ruling and they are ordering me to change it, then I have a problem with it. If they're arguing that they should have just as much a say in how the rules are interpretted as the GM because of the value they bring to the game, then I have a problem with it.
Black Raven was spot on when he said it's a matter of diplomacy. Don't demand from me what I would otherwise give freely.
Now, that isn't to say that there aren't many players who put in a good deal of work with their fellow players or GMs to help build the world.You should get that coffee. :)Have a cup in my hand as I was reading that if you'd believe it.
Actually most of the time it has been the GM doing the bulk of the work in the games I've been in. Really depends on who I'm with. One guy I was with always halted the game to figure out what to do next and only called lunch breaks then. I'd always bring him back a pizza.
Ah, yeah, I know that sort of guy. I've had a few GMs where I asked a question and they looked blank faced and scared before declaring a bio break that lasted for half an hour or so. It made for some long nights.
I'm going to tell you to do the same thing I am doing: When you get that frustrated, get up and walk away.
Very practical advice. By the time I'd finished my post, I looked at the time and winced. I could definitely have used it doing something else.
I will try to follow this advice in the future. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.
(Emphasis yours)
This sentence seems to summarize the whole disagreement, to my mind. When I design, prep, and DM a game for 4+ players, I still prefer to see it as "our" game, not as "my" game.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a Good DM is a lot like diplomacy in action, it is the art of allowing other people to have your way.
Here we go again! - Dead Horse
Man this hurts
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again! - Dead HorseMan this hurts
Well, I'm having fun!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.(Emphasis yours)
This sentence seems to summarize the whole disagreement, to my mind. When I design, prep, and DM a game for 4+ players, I still prefer to see it as "our" game, not as "my" game.
An excellent point.
Just like many folks who always play but never GM could often have their viewpoints improved by getting behind the screen themselves, so too I've observed that folks who spend most/all of their game time GMing forget what it's like to not be behind the screen, and I think their GMing suffers for it.
Nobody makes demands their first time playing. It's a learned behavior, and a defensive one: if their formative experiences as a player taught them that just going with what the GM says will lead to a fun time, they wouldn't be demanding things. So if a player is demanding things, that means they don't honestly believe that letting you do it your way will be fun. They're afraid of what will happen if they don't make sure X is upheld.
Give them a reason not to be afraid anymore.
Do NOT tell me that you have the right to dictate to me how I run my game.(Emphasis yours)
This sentence seems to summarize the whole disagreement, to my mind. When I design, prep, and DM a game for 4+ players, I still prefer to see it as "our" game, not as "my" game.
It Really, Really is. Now that I've calmed down a bit, I can see how that one frustration laiden sentence can look very ugly.
Pathfinder isn't mine. We've all invested money and we all want to play it.
The Story isn't mine. I've set the outline, and I introduce initial events, but it's the player's decisions and responses to those events that drive the story. Plot can and does change as a result of character actions.
The group isn't mine. These are my friends. We are all coming together to enjoy a game and share each other's company.
When I said "My Game," I really mean "My Campaign." For this campaign, I have been elected (or stepped up by mutual agreement- same difference) to be the world builder and arbiter. I decide the general plot, and you bring the characters to the table. I describe the world, you describe your actions in the world, I describe the response, etc. When it comes to how things work, that's my role. Just as much as running your character is your role. It would be awkward if someone started to run your character for you, right?
Someone has be the final say, or it doesn't work. That's why many games have referees. If someone at the table wants to be both a player and the person who decides what happens, then why am I here?
That doesn't mean I don't listen to the players. It doesn't mean I don't change the ruling if I was wrong. But GM's have final say, and for this campaign I'm the GM.
Again, this has never come up in real life. The OP was a response to a series of comments that bug me. Now that I've calmed down, I can see it as the over-reaction that it was.
It's an overreaction that I'm grateful for, though. People have chipped in with some awesome posts, and it's helped me clarify what a GM's role in the game should be, and made for some good self-examination.
Good...CAUSE IT'S WRONG!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't mean I don't listen to the players. It doesn't mean I don't change the ruling if I was wrong.
These are exactly the things that set you apart from the people I endlessly argue against -- they're the ones who have stated point-blank, "I'm not there to listen or discuss! If some lousy player doesn't like any detail, they know where the door is!" Actually listening to the players, and being capable of admitting when you're wrong, are invaluable assets to a DM (again IMHO). So keep on rockin' and don't let people get you down.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not even a drink or two?
Dude sits there and drinks root beer. I swear -- I've seen him do it. Totally weirds me out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm having fun!Here we go again! - Dead HorseMan this hurts
Man! How is it I keep getting involved with these two?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody makes demands their first time playing. It's a learned behavior, and a defensive one: if their formative experiences as a player taught them that just going with what the GM says will lead to a fun time, they wouldn't be demanding things. So if a player is demanding things, that means they don't honestly believe that letting you do it your way will be fun. They're afraid of what will happen if they don't make sure X is upheld.
To be honest, sometimes you also have to deal with defensive players not through any fault of yours as a GM, but because they have been TRAUMATIZED by previous GMs.
Give them a reason not to be afraid anymore.
This still holds true though, even if rebuilding the trust in the GM is more complicated when you are not the one who traumatized them.
Really, the lesson here for players is to GET OUT of a game with a bad GM as soon as possible and whatever the cost. It will make your life happier AND it will make the job of your next GM easier.
I'm going to tell you to do the same thing I am doing: When you get that frustrated, get up and walk away.
Very practical advice. By the time I'd finished my post, I looked at the time and winced. I could definitely have used it doing something else.
I will try to follow this advice in the future. :)
Actually, I feel that it is a VERY good thing that you created this thread. The quality of most of the posts in it are head and shoulders (and kneecaps really) above what is usually posted in other threads on the same theme.
I feel like I am having a civil discussion with sensible and respectful fellow human beings, which is a rare and precious event on the net. For this, I want to deeply and humbly thank you MI.
Mystic, man, I like you and all, but why would you do this?
Once you cooled down and made your position known in a more calm manner it was all cool but this thread still exists.
And this type of thread attracts certain people.
Next thing you know shallowsoul will show up, and then someone who vehemently disagrees with HIM will pop up and this whole thread will explode into a steaming pile of nuclear powered feces that none of us will feel good about being covered in.
As a GM and a player I would say I probably do spend more time on characters than prepping for games, however my prep time is more productive.
Overall, I think a lot of this frustration comes from the different roles that the GM takes on. In past editions, the GM was the campaign creator, rules arbiter, game-time referee, and various other minor roles. Pathfinder (and using APs in particular) has shifted some of these roles away from the GM to a 3rd party.
In a situation where a GM simply purchases an AP and runs it, other players who have also run it, or been a player in it before, are going to feel they have a certain level of expertise on the AP from their experience.
If you don't use APs, there's a lot more involved. Here's a summary (off the top of my head) of what I'm responsible for or have to do for each game session:
Pre-Session
Create content for the session, reviewing all applicable rules for terrain, monsters present, treasure available, reason the PCs are going there, etc.
Create a weakened version of each encounter in case players can't make it.
Create a map of the area/dungeon/complex/what have you.
Create index cards for all magic items that the players could find, complete with relevant data.
Create any NPCs present or related to that session. If NPC is important, write up a full back story and find a suitable image.
Determine how this session fits into the overall campaign.
Review the character sheets of any new PCs, make sure that all rules are followed.
During Session
Run the session, make judgment calls based on player decisions, listen to arguments from players that disagree with a rule interpretation, etc.
Juggle the rule book, the bestiary, the session notes, the campaign notes, and the Check Calculator.
Make sure all players get a chance to shine.
Asking probing questions of players that aren't offering much input.
Direct players back to game when they get off topic with non-related stories or TV show reviews.
Track experience totals for each character.
After Session
Help players level up their characters.
Write up recap of the session.
Post recap plus any new materials provided to the group website.
Email all players rules updates and notification that the recap is available.
Review any rules that were called into question but we sidelined to keep play moving on.
Answer any questions players may have regarding their character.
Review/purchase any products that help facilitate the game or improve the experience (purchased battle map, wet erase markers, critical hit & critical fumble deck, and other minor items for the most recent campaign alone.)
I'd love to see a player that spends more time on their character for that campaign than I do.
As far as the dislike of the term "my campaign" - I do not shy away from this. The campaign world is my creation. I've created all of the continents, the peoples, the governments, the deities, homebrew races, prestige classes, spells, equipment, artifacts, etc.
I've created the BBEG, the purpose of the campaign, the foundation of the story line, the story hooks, the NPC motivations, etc.
The players and I then jointly create a unique story for our group based on all of the previous work that was done. The story is our joint creation. The fun had at the table is created by everyone's input.
The sessions are all of ours. Players have an impact on the world, and can dramatically change various aspects of the world based on their decisions.
But the campaign world - that is mine. Much like Faerun was created by Ed Greenwood, and Faerun is his creation. Thousands of groups have played in Faerun, and modified the world to their own tastes, but they didn't create it.
Other groups may have different dynamics. GM's may create blank slate types of worlds and then players are allowed to create nations, cultures, races, magic items, etc. In this type of a dynamic, I would agree that the GM does not own the campaign world - it is a joint creation by the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think seeing a difference between "have your voice heard" and "dictate how I do things" is a proofreading-level nitpick that misses the point, then I don't think I want to have a discussion with you. I'll just wait for clarification from the OP, thanks.Which is it? The right to have their voices heard, or the right to dictate how you run your game?
Unless I'm misreading you, it looks like you're treating them as equivalent statements. That would be... unfortunate.
I'm sure you could proof read his lengthy post and find errors and inconsistencies but I think you would be missing the passionate spirit of his post.
-MD
Jiggy's got a point- that's a pretty drastic difference.
The beginning of my post was misworded. I was rushing through the explanation so I could get to the rant, which was where my energy was.
I do believe that players have a right to be heard. I believe that a GM who is not taking the opinions and desires of their players into consideration is not being the best GM they could be. I will try to work with my players whenever I can. I've told my players in the past that I will happily work with them if they'd like to do something, or if they think a rule wasn't followed, or if they think the game could be improved somehow.
While I don't want to be treated as a servant, I do see my position as GM as serving the group in some ways. I am striving to make their gaming experience better. I get plenty of enjoyment out of it - I'd stop if I didn't - but part of what drives through the "this is just sheer work" periods is the desire to make their game better.
What I have seen, or at least how posts come across to me, are people equating "I have a right to have my opinion considered" with "I have a right to determine the rules." If someone has a problem with my ruling, I'll be happy to listen. It a solution that makes everyone happy is possible, I'll go with that. I play with friends and...
Thing is, its really NOT a democracy. Its a representative republic. You select the person who is in charge, you don't directly vote on every issue. Yes you should listen, consider ... but in the end you still make a decision. And it doesn't need to be the one requested. And if that is unacceptable to the player or there isn't any mutual ground, its entirely ok for the player to walk - and maybe in that case it might have been wise for the GM to consider the request harder, depending on how much that player is valued. But it IS still a request.
|
|
Thing is, its really NOT a democracy. Its a representative republic. You select the person who is in charge, you don't directly vote on every issue.
Actually, I believe that democracy is often misused as the definition of a specific political system, while I see it as merely a description of how human groups function.
In other words, any political system that does not respect the needs and wants of its members will meet its end soon enough. That IMO is the real basis/definition for democracy.
Yes you should listen, consider ... but in the end you still make a decision. And it doesn't need to be the one requested. And if that is unacceptable to the player or there isn't any mutual ground, its entirely ok for the player to walk - and maybe in that case it might have been wise for the GM to consider the request harder, depending on how much that player is valued. But it IS still a request.
Quite in agreement with this. In France, we call the latter situation "voting with your feet" ;-)
Thing is, its really NOT a democracy. Its a representative republic. You select the person who is in charge, you don't directly vote on every issue.Actually, I believe that democracy is often misused as the definition of a specific political system, while I see it as merely a description of how human groups function.
In other words, any political system that does not respect the needs and wants of its members will meet its end soon enough. That IMO is the real basis/definition for democracy.
This is the problem when your personal definition does not match the definition most people use for a word. You mean one thing, everyone else assumes (logically and reasonably) you mean another, and miscommunication results.
Kind of defeats the purpose of having a shared language.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, its really NOT a democracy. Its a representative republic. You select the person who is in charge, you don't directly vote on every issue.Actually, I believe that democracy is often misused as the definition of a specific political system, while I see it as merely a description of how human groups function.
In other words, any political system that does not respect the needs and wants of its members will meet its end soon enough. That IMO is the real basis/definition for democracy.
Yes you should listen, consider ... but in the end you still make a decision. And it doesn't need to be the one requested. And if that is unacceptable to the player or there isn't any mutual ground, its entirely ok for the player to walk - and maybe in that case it might have been wise for the GM to consider the request harder, depending on how much that player is valued. But it IS still a request.Quite in agreement with this. In France, we call the latter situation "voting with your feet" ;-)
Thing is, democracy DOES have a specific meaning. A Democratic republic might be more accurate: A representative chosen to govern by popular consent. But a democracy is "Majority rules" Since we are using these to argue about how deciding on rules works, it seems to political systems argument is, perhaps, more apt. And enlightened dictatorship could meet the expectations and wants of its citizens - but that would not make it a democracy.
I'm also a fair fan of, "If you are going to use a different definition than the common understood meaning, either use a different word, or explain the different meaning you are using in the post."
Despite the name, no, most aren't democracies. A democracy is, simply put, majority rule - nothing more, nothing less. In a pure democracy, every governmental action, policy, or law would require a majority vote of approval from the entire population.
The representative system most "democracies" use is what makes them a republic instead.
I am a bit confused here. From A's description, representative republic is NOT a democracy. And yet it is the system in place in most western democracies, is it not ?
Or do I misunderstand things completely ?
BTW, to the OP : sorry for the thread derail :-/
A direct democracy is simply majority wins. If 51% of the people vote for something, and 49% against, the 51% win. There are no representatives. Everything is put to a vote.
A representative republic is where the citizens vote for their leaders, but beyond that, the citizens have no real power. Their votes are delegated to their representative.
There are no true direct democracies in the world to my knowledge, but "Majority Rules" is often used for settling group disputes.
So, for this thread's purpose, the GM serves as the representative, the players are citizens, and the form of "government" for the game is representative republic. Players don't make decisions, the GM does. The players can ask, suggest, question, etc. But at the end of the day, the GM makes the final call.
If the table was run like a direct democracy, then each time there is a dispute, there would be a vote, and majority would win. You can probably see why this would not work well in the typical gaming situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, I have a pretty good group. Our philosophy can be summed as;
"The GM has absolute authority in the game. But the GM only has a game if he has players, otherwise he has the basic plot for a novel." So whoever is GMing will make decisions, and listen to any players who have concerns. Usually it's removing clunky campaign rules like the ship-to-ship action is Skulls and Shackles.
But yeah, a wise player knows the GM's word is law. The wise GM knows to use that privilege fairly if they want to keep running games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
