|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...
But none on Players being flexible.Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.
Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.
The ideal solution, as seen by most posters IMO, is a compromise. Which means that both the player AND the GM will need to change their stance.
Of course, if you believe that any compromise on the GM's part is in itself a defeat for the GM, then all hope is lost.
The GM has every option in making the world, seems fair.
I can't exactly play a Tengu Magus, if you won't let me play a Tengu Magus, now can I?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ideal solution, as seen by most posters IMO, is a compromise. Which means that both the player AND the GM will need to change their stance.
Of course, if you believe that any compromise on the GM's part is in itself a defeat for the GM, then all hope is lost.
Like I said, in the topic I'm talking about, the poster essentially defined compromise as "The GM gives the player absolutely everything they want, with no conditions".
If that's the definition of compromise we're using, then yeah, I don't think that "compromise" is always the best solution.
It would be like the player telling the GM there's a village of Dragons disguised as humans somewhere and I've never met that player.I'd wager he would get a lot of defenders in this type of thread.
But not me.
I assume he would get the same defenders that seem to think players shouldn't be able to play the character they want. So... you would defend them I would assume Kthulu, kind of confused why you aren't.
No, but if you are using the Pathfinder rules, it should be a Pathfinder campaign. And Pathfinder has Plane Shift... or hell just the fact that it has magic can justify a lot of stuff that (and this may surprise you) are part of the Pathfinder rules. Like Tengu Magi (That's the right plural right?)
|
|
The ideal solution, as seen by most posters IMO, is a compromise. Which means that both the player AND the GM will need to change their stance.
Of course, if you believe that any compromise on the GM's part is in itself a defeat for the GM, then all hope is lost.
Like I said, in the topic I'm talking about, the poster essentially defined compromise as "The GM gives the player absolutely everything they want, with no conditions".
If that's the definition of compromise we're using, then yeah, I don't think that "compromise" is always the best solution.
Could you give us a link to that thread ? I would be very interested in reading it
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only difference between a backstory with a 9th level cleric and an encounter with a CR 8+ outsider, and a backstory with a village full of dragons is a matter of scale and that there is no race in the ARG the requires a village full of dragons to exist.
The important bit is that starting at level one your characters aren't necessarily heroes yet at all and no one is the hero, the group is. So it gets weird when session one starts to sound like Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Conan the Barbarian, and Doctor Who sit down at a bar together and are hired by the local lord to protect a caravan from goblins. In my opinion events in backstories shouldn't dwarf everything the group could do for 8 or so levels.
The GM has every option in making the world, seems fair.
I can't exactly play a Tengu Magus, if you won't let me play a Tengu Magus, now can I?
Let me see if I get this straight...
Even though the GM has made it clear, BEFORE session zero, That Tengu is not a valid racial choice, and Magus is not a valid class choice, he still has to allow it?And you do not see that as acting entitled?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.
|
Do people really have this much trouble starting games? I mean persoanlly I am thrilled that someone has stepped up to GM. I love fitting my character to the campaign and cant wait to see how much heart a GM puts into it.
I see now many folks are all about making their character the way they want. Thats cool too. What I dont understand is why a GM cant be restrictive without being a horrible person? Why cant you simply say "yo, banning x because you dont like it is not cool with me. In fact that kills it for me. I'll catch you later". Why does that make the player entitled? Why cant people pick and choose their games?
That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.
How about Tengu don't exist because the world isn't populated by bird people?
That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.How about Tengu don't exist because the world isn't populated by bird people?
Plane Shift and Magic disagree with you.
Do people really have this much trouble starting games? I mean persoanlly I am thrilled that someone has stepped up to GM. I love fitting my character to the campaign and cant wait to see how much heart a GM puts into it.
I see now many folks are all about making their character the way they want. Thats cool too. What I dont understand is why a GM cant be restrictive without being a horrible person? Why cant you simply say "yo, banning x because you dont like it is not cool with me. In fact that kills it for me. I'll catch you later". Why does that make the player entitled? Why cant people pick and choose their games?
Because their reason is almost always "I don't like it." and that's a terrible reason to remove an option that other people like from a group game. How does one of your player's playing a Tengu Magus ruin the game for you? But ya, if the GM won't budge on that the player should find another game, because that GM is probably entitled.
World is not connected to that sort of plane. Not every world shares the same multiverse. Sorry, sometimes no is indeed no.
Oh your world doesn't have Plane shift or magic? Are you sure you aren't playing Conan and not Pathfinder?
@ kyrt-ryder: That is just a passive aggressive way of banning it. So... same problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because their reason is almost always "I don't like it." and that's a terrible reason to remove an option that other people like from a group game. How does one of your player's playing a Tengu Magus ruin the game for you? But ya, if the GM won't budge on that the player should find another game, because that GM is probably entitled.Do people really have this much trouble starting games? I mean persoanlly I am thrilled that someone has stepped up to GM. I love fitting my character to the campaign and cant wait to see how much heart a GM puts into it.
I see now many folks are all about making their character the way they want. Thats cool too. What I dont understand is why a GM cant be restrictive without being a horrible person? Why cant you simply say "yo, banning x because you dont like it is not cool with me. In fact that kills it for me. I'll catch you later". Why does that make the player entitled? Why cant people pick and choose their games?
Ok lets go at this from another point of view. You ask a GM why he doesnt have Tengu in his game and he says, "I dont like them." Do you really want to play a Tengu in that persons game? The GM is not going make the game fun for you. At best he completely ignores the fact you are a Tengu. I would rather play to the strengths of the GM or if this is a symptom of other things, not play in their games at all. Who cares about entitlement?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because their reason is almost always "I don't like it." and that's a terrible reason to remove an option that other people like from a group game. How does one of your player's playing a Tengu Magus ruin the game for you? But ya, if the GM won't budge on that the player should find another game, because that GM is probably entitled.Do people really have this much trouble starting games? I mean persoanlly I am thrilled that someone has stepped up to GM. I love fitting my character to the campaign and cant wait to see how much heart a GM puts into it.
I see now many folks are all about making their character the way they want. Thats cool too. What I dont understand is why a GM cant be restrictive without being a horrible person? Why cant you simply say "yo, banning x because you dont like it is not cool with me. In fact that kills it for me. I'll catch you later". Why does that make the player entitled? Why cant people pick and choose their games?
I just want to be clear on this so I understand your position. Are you really saying that a GM saying "I don't like it" is GM entitlement but a player saying "I want it anyway" isn't player entitlement?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes! Player entitlement would be telling the GM he can't an evil chancellor in his campaign, because functionally those are equivalent. And I've never heard a player suggest that. I'll break down to make it simple.
GM controlling a player's choice in character = GM entitlement.
Player controlling GM's choice in world elements = Player entitlement.
It's pretty simple to understand this way. And I never hear players try and dictate what the GM can't have in their campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes! Player entitlement would be telling the GM he can't an evil chancellor in his campaign, because functionally those are equivalent. And I've never heard a player suggest that. I'll break down to make it simple.
GM controlling a player's choice in character = GM entitlement.
Player controlling GM's choice in world elements = Player entitlement.
It's pretty simple to understand this way. And I never hear players try and dictate what the GM can't have in their campaigns.
Thanks, I just wanted to be sure I could ignore anything else you have to say on the matter.
Do people really have this much trouble starting games? I mean persoanlly I am thrilled that someone has stepped up to GM. I love fitting my character to the campaign and cant wait to see how much heart a GM puts into it.
No but I'm considering imposing the type of restrictions that could lead to this so I can stop saying the NPCs just glance uneasily at the goblin, half-demon, tengu, and man you just explained you found in the crypt that has been sealed for 100 years.
Anzyr, I think you're going overboard here. As much as I'm all for the players having free reign with their creativity, the fact remains that it's the GM that's building the story and is doing quite a bit more in the downtime than any of the players. If they're in a custom setting then they have every right to say that this or that does not jive with what they've come up with.
The one thing that the players are absolutely entitled to is knowledge before the game starts that the GM doesn't want their character in the game. That gives you the choice of building a new character (which is not a big deal at all at this point) or leaving the table.
Personally, I'd be absolutely willing to build another character; for me, constructing concepts is actually even more fun than the game itself. But if you absolutely cannot tolerate a GM saying no to anything then you can find a another table where the GM will bend over backwards for you.
What is completely intolerable for a GM to do is allowing the character at first but then intentionally making life horrible for the character in a passive-aggressive attempt to make the player switch. That's incredibly rude and you should probably get all the other players to walk away because that guy is going to continue to cause problems.
That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.
Tengu are not a PC viable race because in this setting they are Yama/Kame spirits. do try to use a believable "excuse" beyond "magic, ta da!"
That doesn't really change my main point that the GM is in their right to determine if a choice is acceptable in the setting given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.Tengu are not a PC viable race because in this setting they are Yama/Kame spirits. do try to use a believable "excuse" beyond "magic, ta da!"
See, this is a GOOD reason for banning something. Or, well, restricting it. IMO if your player can come up with a good, well thought out justification, you should at least consider it ("I'm an Oracle, chosen by the Kami to spread their word on this earth" or some such. A Tengu player in one of the games I'm playing is the mortal incarnation of Raven, the Native American spirit, but to be fair that's kind of a theme in this game).
But "Yeah it's banned just because" ticks me off a bit.
They kind of have a point Anzyr. I myself like giving players that influence on world elements, but many GMs do not. Defining Player Entitlement the way you have defines demanding X race as Player Entitlement. No way around that.
The key is what you can't have not what you can. The GM can have any world element desires. If the players tell him he "can't" have a world element that is player entitlement.
The same is true of player characters. It's the "can't" that matters. Once the GM starts telling the players what character elements they "can't" have that is GM entitlement.
The GM is entitled to have a kingdom run by the Cult of Ythyx. He is not entitled to say that there are no "X, Y, Z." In doing so he treads just as much on what a player is entitled to (the character they want) as much as a player telling a GM what he can't have in his world.
Perhaps my explanation above didn't explain this very well.
That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.Tengu are not a PC viable race because in this setting they are Yama/Kame spirits. do try to use a believable "excuse" beyond "magic, ta da!"
Magic is a believable excuse in Pathfinder. How did you raise the dead? Magic. How did you turn into a Dragon? Magic. How come everything breaks down into 6 second intervals? Magic. If you can't come up with a reason for that Tengu to be playable, I think the problem is lack of imagination.
@ Arachnofiend - It's entirely possible I am, but imagine the reverse scenario.
GM: I have this great campaign. Its a magical city run by a cabal of wizards that has mandatory education.
Players: No, you can't.
It doesn't hurt that most GMs use "I don't like it." to justify their exclusion. Because a skilled enough GM can make anything work and should do so, even if they don't like it.
SO then you are absolutely fine with the GM adding things to the players character, whether he wants them or not, right?They kind of have a point Anzyr. I myself like giving players that influence on world elements, but many GMs do not. Defining Player Entitlement the way you have defines demanding X race as Player Entitlement. No way around that.The key is what you can't have not what you can. The GM can have any world element desires. If the players tell him he "can't" have a world element that is player entitlement.
The same is true of player characters. It's the "can't" that matters. Once the GM starts telling the players what character elements they "can't" have that is GM entitlement.
The GM is entitled to have a kingdom run by the Cult of Ythyx. He is not entitled to say that there are no "X, Y, Z." In doing so he treads just as much on what a player is entitled to (the character they want) as much as a player telling a GM what he can't have in his world.
Perhaps my explanation above didn't explain this very well.
He "can" make any option available sure. Remember it's about "can't" not can. Just as the player "can" tell the GM to have a village populated by dragons posing as humans. The GM doesn't have to add that.
Hrm... this is so obvious to me that I am not explaining it as well as I'd like. The wordier version:
The GM controls the encounters the players will face, the scenarios they will face and the background they will journey through. The Player's have no right to tell the GM he can't have any of those things.
The player controls the character they make, the actions their character takes and way their character interacts in the world. The GM has no right to tell the player he can't have those things.
You see the player being able to make a Tengu Magus as controlling the GM, but this is not the case. It falls within his sphere of control to have a Tengu Magus.
Likewise the theoretical "player entitled" person would argue that a GM having an encounter that puts his character in a positions he doesn't like as being controlling of the player, but this is not the case. The situations players encounter are within the sphere of control of the GM.
The wordier version is better, but I'll try to refine it. It really is just so obvious to me that makes explaining it difficult.
That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.Tengu are not a PC viable race because in this setting they are Yama/Kame spirits. do try to use a believable "excuse" beyond "magic, ta da!"Magic is a believable excuse in Pathfinder. How did you raise the dead? Magic. How did you turn into a Dragon? Magic. How come everything breaks down into 6 second intervals? Magic. If you can't come up with a reason for that Tengu to be playable, I think the problem is lack of imagination.
@ Arachnofiend - It's entirely possible I am, but imagine the reverse scenario.
GM: I have this great campaign. Its a magical city run by a cabal of wizards that has mandatory education.
Players: No, you can't.
It doesn't hurt that most GMs use "I don't like it." to justify their exclusion. Because a skilled enough GM can make anything work and should do so, even if they don't like it.
The players can say "no, you can't" by leaving. If too many people walk out for the GM to have their game, well, they have the choice of modifying the scenario or just not GM'ing. Everyone has the choice of weighing how much they want to play vs. how much they want to play this thing in particular.
I'd be unhappy if I keep getting shot down "because reasons" but I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the DM isn't a jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just use your head for something besides a hat-rack ... don't be sullenly, obdurately obtuse and you should be fine.
That is entitlement as person not wanting me to be obtuse.
...SO then you are absolutely fine with the GM adding things to the players character, whether he wants them or not, right?They kind of have a point Anzyr. I myself like giving players that influence on world elements, but many GMs do not. Defining Player Entitlement the way you have defines demanding X race as Player Entitlement. No way around that.The key is what you can't have not what you can. The GM can have any world element desires. If the players tell him he "can't" have a world element that is player entitlement.
The same is true of player characters. It's the "can't" that matters. Once the GM starts telling the players what character elements they "can't" have that is GM entitlement.
The GM is entitled to have a kingdom run by the Cult of Ythyx. He is not entitled to say that there are no "X, Y, Z." In doing so he treads just as much on what a player is entitled to (the character they want) as much as a player telling a GM what he can't have in his world.
Perhaps my explanation above didn't explain this very well.
He "can" make any option available sure. Remember it's about "can't" not can. Just as the player "can" tell the GM to have a village populated by dragons posing as humans. The GM doesn't have to add that.
Hrm... this is so obvious to me that I am not explaining it as well as I'd like. The wordier version:
The GM controls the encounters the players will face, the scenarios they will face and the background they will journey through. The Player's have no right to tell the GM he can't have any of those things.
The player controls the character they make, the actions their character takes and way their character interacts in the world. The GM has no right to tell the player he can't have those things.
You see the player being able to make a Tengu Magus as controlling the GM, but this is not the case. It falls within his sphere of control to have a Tengu Magus.
If your playing Pathfinder, yes I expect you to have a Pathfinder campaign. Which is Pathfinder in potenia.
@ Jaelithe - Your problem is you believe that the GM has more say then any other player. One might call such a few "Entitled" even.